# 18. Life questions of the Theosophical Movement

*Theosophy and Contemporary Intellectual Currents*

Anyone who knows the essence of the theosophical school of thought and the reasons why it has become, in the present day, a subject of public lectures, magazines, literary works and so on, rather than a matter of concern for the souls of a few individuals, also knows to what extent it must prove itself in the spiritual life of humanity. What underlies it is necessary as an active force in this spiritual life; and it will not only be accepted by it, but even demanded. In this, however, it will not depend on names and designations, but on the matter itself. Whether the name “Theosophy” as a designation for this spiritual current will recede into the background for justified reasons or out of prejudice is of no importance for the way of thinking in question and for its work in life.

What is important, however, is that those who profess this way of thinking should not be under any illusions as to the difficulties that stand in the way of the acceptance of their ideas and feelings, especially in the spiritual life of the present day. And there is much in our time that makes it difficult for a wider circle to understand the real nature of the theosophical way of thinking. It is in the nature of things that someone who does not delve deeper into this nature will judge the peculiarity of theosophy by what appears to him to be the characteristic of such spiritual activities, which he throws together with it. No matter how often it is pointed out that the theosophical way of thinking would be completely unfaithful to its foundations if it were to lapse into “sectarianism”, those who do not have the will to engage with it will not stop calling its adherents a “sect”. Who, for example, would think of calling a number of people who have acquired a certain amount of knowledge of nature a sect? And who would want to accuse a society that has set itself the task of cultivating a certain branch of natural knowledge of “sectarianism”? But those people who are striving to acquire certain truths about the soul and spirit in the same way will be dismissed by many as a “sect”. And those who do so will not want to recognize that people who join together to cultivate certain insights into the life of the soul and spirit need to do so with no different attitude than that which leads to the formation of a group of people who have the cultivation of scientific truths as their goal.

A discussion will not be of much use against prejudices that arise from such foundations. However, it will be useful to become clear about the reasons for such prejudices.

There are three main reasons why people today may be led to accept the theosophical way of thinking. The first is a certain healthy sense of the truth of this way of thinking. The second arises from entering the path that is outlined in these books as the path to “acquiring knowledge of the higher worlds”. The third is a thorough philosophy that goes to the very last consequences. The first path can be the way of many. Such people will not engage in much philosophy or speculation; they will not want to delve deeply into scientific explanations of the pros and cons. They will let their immediate feelings work on what is presented in Theosophy, and this *healthy* feeling, untainted by philosophy and scientific criticism, tells them that what is presented is correct. Many of those who have had no opportunity or reason to become acquainted with philosophical or scientific teachings in their lives will belong to this type of theosophical adherents, but who, due to their entire mental state, cannot possibly be satisfied with what the world has to offer in terms of satisfying the great riddles of existence. Those who become theosophists in this way are, in a certain sense, the most important and valuable. When the word “blind” is often used to describe such believers, who accept certain insights without thorough examination, it is precisely because they do not realize that this human “feeling” is not based on error, but on truth. A person whose sense of feeling has not been taken away by a clever intellect really does feel the truth. And if the theosophist is also a judge of character, he will have every reason to be deeply satisfied with such followers of his school of thought. For he will recognize in them persons of a genuine, healthy and original sense of truth. He will never fall into the error of speaking of lack of judgment where the feeling judges so correctly. And it must be said that it will be to the great benefit of the present and the near future if many of those who, for one reason or another, cannot enter the higher path of knowledge and are also unable to engage in deeper philosophical thought, will, out of their healthy sense of truth, profess the Theosophical truths.

The second path consists in acquiring the higher faculties of knowledge. Much is said about this in the articles of this journal that deal with it. The situation at present is such that more and more possibilities will open up to lead the honest seeker at least to the first steps of this path. How far someone gets depends on many things. The first condition is that the source from which he draws his instructions for higher knowledge is a right and pure one. The seeker has hardly any other means at his disposal than the trust he can have in the one from whom such instructions proceed. Many may regard this trust as a questionable thing. One can only reply to them: if this trust is based on calm and serene feelings in the seeker, if nothing passionate in a certain sense, if no selfishness is at play, then the questionable disappears. *Caution* is certainly something that cannot be recommended strongly enough in this area. Anyone who is seized by wild desire and passion for higher knowledge can certainly be easily deceived. Anyone who seriously examines whether his striving arises from the *duty* that every person has to increase his abilities as much as possible will hardly need to be deceived. And in all such instructions, which rightly exist, the seeker will soon be able to acquire the feeling that there is something true and good in his instructions. And although *this* feeling is a much more intimate one than the direct one for the theosophical truths described above, it can nevertheless also be an infallible guide.

A second factor to be taken into account is the spiritual level of development of the seeker. Because of this, one will progress faster and another slower. Some may soon see the first signs, which they can interpret as evidence of their penetration into the higher worlds; others may struggle for years without seeing anything of the kind. It would not be quite correct to say that the corresponding progress depends on the degree of development of the seeker. It also depends on whether the source from which the instructions come finds the right thing for the personality in question, and on what speed of progress a teacher can and will take responsibility for with the seeker. The latter depends on many circumstances. And in our present time there are many things that force the teacher not to go too far in some cases. For he, for his part, is subject to the strict law that he must not harm anyone. The outsider can only have a slight idea of the severity of this law. But it must be emphasized again and again: no one is harmed by a real teacher in this field.

The more people from the circles of those who profess to be Theosophists who enter this path, the better it will be for many things in the present and the near future. But no one should be led to it by anything other than his own untroubled *free will*. For that which Theosophy must by its very nature desire can only be meaningful to those seekers whose search progresses in such a way that an ever-increasing, unwavering loyalty to spiritual knowledge and an increasing understanding of the nature of the spiritual worlds develops within them. If, on the other hand, impatience and a sense of disappointment arise because one believes that one is not making sufficient progress on the path one has chosen, this is harmful to the seeker and to humanity. And it is easy to understand why such a sense of disappointment arises in someone who finds that certain ideas he has formed about his progress are not at all applicable. And yet this progress need not be really lacking. It may be present in a certain way and remain unnoticed by the seeker for a long time. Without, therefore, certain elementary, disordered higher experiences being held in low esteem - this is certainly not done by the true teacher - it is nevertheless true that in many cases the secret teacher must prefer progress in other areas to progress in the elementary higher experiences. Development can often proceed all the *more surely* if such experiences are initially, and for a long time, completely absent. They will surely come at some point. And the seeker will then also realize that it was good that he had to wait so long for them.

The third of the indicated paths is that through a thorough philosophy and scientific knowledge, a person is led to the theosophical way of thinking. Admittedly, discoveries cannot be made in this way in the higher worlds. To investigate what goes on in these worlds and what beings are there, the supersensible faculties of perception developed by the path of knowledge are needed. But when things have been investigated and communicated by an investigator, those who have been thoroughly trained in philosophy can see their possibility and correctness. He can find all that which one might call rational reasons for the truth of what has been researched in the higher worlds. However, this requires a truly thorough philosophy, not one that stops halfway. For just as a perfect philosophy and a thorough science lead to the recognition of the theosophical way of thinking, so do superficial science and incomplete philosophy offer the greatest obstacles to its understanding. It is precisely these that *must* declare the teachings of Theosophy to be fantasies, dreams, wild “mysticism,” etc. etc. It would be so beneficial if a great many people were to engage in such thorough training in philosophy, but this is not the case at present. A thorough philosophy requires a strong devotion to many things that can only arouse the slightest interest in many people. Even that such a thing is beneficial, few will readily understand. And many will soon drop the matter after the first steps in a corresponding study. Either he will find that he is not sufficiently trained, or he will not be able to muster the energy of renunciation. It may seem more tempting to arrive at direct insight on the path of knowledge; but it should not be forgotten that for the researcher in the higher realms of existence, serious thought work is by no means a superfluous addition, but rather the best conceivable support.

If we now ask ourselves how, under present conditions, wider circles relate to these three paths, which lead to theosophy, we will soon become aware of many obstacles that stand in the way of unprejudiced understanding.

The healthy sense of truth described above is lacking in many people because they are under the *influence* of what is so often presented as the result of “strictly scientific facts”. The way in which such facts are presented by leading personalities and circles is also a factor. And this cannot be easily seen through. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, it is quite understandable when people who allow the scientific results to sink in come to the conclusion that, in the face of the certain facts of science, the “claims” of Theosophy are nothing but fantasies, wild 'dreams. And it is true that, from their point of view, such people are right. But it is no less true that theosophists would be madmen if they asserted things that contradict the established facts of science. No theosophical truth can seriously contradict the findings of sensual and rational science. But in the presentation of scientific results, it is not just the established facts that are communicated; rather, a very specific way of thinking is transferred to the reader or listener along with the facts. This is most strongly the case in the so-called “popular” presentations of scientific results; but the learned and “strictly scientific” achievements are by no means free from it. The presenters are usually not even aware of the extent to which this is the case. And the learners and readers are even less aware of it. Many people believe that they are only communicating facts, but their presentation is completely dominated by a world view that is transferred to the learner and reader. The latter receives an inspiration; and this fact is so far removed from his consciousness that he thinks he has formed a judgment purely from facts. What he has received *with* the facts through *inspiration* – suggestion is an unsuitable word, but one that is used a great deal today – is capable of depriving him of all possibility of recognizing anything real in the facts of the soul and spirit. If one were to think fully about what is said with these things, one would indeed look at the current teaching and literature with different eyes than is often the case. One would know that not only Haeckel's “Welträtsel” (World Riddle), but also many seemingly quite harmless representations of zoological, botanical, geological, astronomical facts, in truth inoculate a world view. And many would not be credulous “monists” etc. if they were not inoculated in such a way with the facts, at the same time in a way imperceptible to them.

In addition, there are the feelings and emotions of the age. These also tend to recognize only that as real which is palpable and evident to the senses. If someone is even an “expert” in a particular field, then he must look down on the “amateur fantasist” and “enthusiast” as the theosophy devotee can only appear to him. (The following article, “Prejudices from Supposed Science,” illustrates the above truths with a few specific examples. This latter article is also included because it is intended to provide as complete a picture as possible of the obstacles that the theosophical worldview currently faces. ) Now, “expert” judgments are reaching the widest circles in a thousand and one ways. And when something goes under the flag of “science” today, then this catchword alone overwhelms all one's own ability to judge. Theosophy must clearly face this situation. It must understand the reasons for the objections against it. Those who have been inoculated with their world view in the manner described above will often criticize the “lack of judgment” of those who profess Theosophy simply because of their sense of truth, and say that they have no idea how ridiculous their “belief” is in the face of the established facts of science. It should certainly not be denied that there are those who profess Theosophy and who, when confronted with objections from the side of “science”, behave quite clumsily, even childishly. This is then a gift for those who want to ridicule the blind “superstition” of the Theosophists. But it remains true that, in the face of the healthy sense of truth of many people, the judgments of those who refer to their “scientifically based” world view are of no significance. Once we learn to present only the facts that can be perceived by the senses and their rational consequences, we will also recognize that true knowledge of nature can provide the perfect foundation for theosophy.

For the time being, however, things are at their worst for the really learned circles and their followers. It is not the facts that they research and whose discovery is a blessing for humanity that envelop them in prejudice, but rather the way of thinking and world view that is customary in these circles. This is so to such an extent that it is not only compromising for a member of such circles to approach theosophy, but it is actually an absolute impossibility. One need not apply a harsh critical standard to such facts. It is better to try to understand them as a necessary phenomenon of the times. One will then know that many, because of the spiritual context in which they find themselves, cannot but strictly reject Theosophy. This is not at all said with reference to those who come to such a rejection out of external considerations. Rather, it is meant of those numerous, fundamentally honest souls who, with *their judgments*, are prisoners of their spiritual context.

For the path that is called the path of knowledge, many people's understanding must necessarily be limited. For everything that is said in the present day about the “necessary limits” of human knowledge is directed against it. There is much talk of development: but when someone says that the powers of knowledge which man has at his present level are not a conclusion, but that they can be consciously *developed* to a higher degree, then such a statement meets either with complete doubt or with indifference. People will always try to determine what man is able to recognize according to the measure of his abilities; that he can penetrate into new worlds by increasing these abilities, many do not want to admit. The theosophist will certainly never claim that the faculties referred to by many of his opponents can penetrate into higher worlds; but he knows that it is possible for man to awaken such faculties in himself, which lead to these worlds. Many of our contemporaries consider it to be arrogance and self-conceit when someone speaks of the ability to penetrate into supersensible worlds. But is it arrogance to speak of what can be perceived under certain conditions; or should it not rather be called arrogance when someone considers it a matter of course that everything he does not know or does not want to know must be nonsense and fantasy? Theosophy can only take the standpoint that one should not decide about what one *does not* know.

The third of the paths to theosophy also presents great difficulties in our time. These difficulties are the most difficult to speak about, because what needs to be said can all too easily be interpreted as presumption. One would prefer to remain silent about this point, if it were not useful, even necessary, to occasionally point out the facts in this direction. The philosophical education of our time is by no means a high or thorough one. There are many reasons why this is so. Our philosophy is barren in terms of free thinking, which could confront the facts of sensory experience with sovereign judgment. It is burdened by an anxiety, of which the philosophers are unaware, to lose the secure ground under their feet. It looks everywhere for supports and foundations for its statements, but not where they are to be found, in certain inner facts of self-producing thought that gives itself its certainty. It should not be denied that here and there one can find some pleasing beginnings. But the spirit of the times weighs most heavily on philosophical thinking. And this contemporary attitude has the weakness of not opening up the sources of certainty within the human being, but of allowing certainty to be given by something outside of the human being. In natural science this can be a blessing in many respects, because undisciplined philosophizing can easily lead to enthusiasm; but for philosophy this attitude is paralyzing. The matter is downright bad in the case of epistemological investigations. They are currently being pursued quite eagerly, and were even more so in the last few decades. But a healthy state of mind cannot arise in them as long as one does not get beyond the prejudice that man only lives in his *representations*, and that these do not absorb objective reality. It is something monstrous for many epistemologists, but it must be said: the judgment that nothing of reality enters into the idea is like that: nothing of the metal of the seal enters into the impression in the sealing wax. Certainly nothing of the matter of the seal enters into the seal impression; but that which matters can be seen completely in the impression. It is the same with the world of human ideas. The whole world, with all its secrets, can be found through them, if one does not allow oneself to be deceived from the outset by the fact, which is doubtless true but of no significance, that the “table in itself” does not enter into the “idea” of the table. (In my “Philosophy of Freedom” one can read exhaustive accounts of these things.) It is unfortunately only too true that the philosophy currently in vogue is not very suitable for leading to theosophy. And anyone who is under the authority of this philosophy has only an obstacle to understanding the higher worlds.

The latter fact in particular is bad for Theosophy. For it is thereby placed in the position of appearing to want to rebel against all legitimate scientific phenomena of the time. But there could be nothing better for the Theosophists than to be able to point out everywhere where there is something for their full recognition and approval. Theosophy has no vocation at all for opposition; and it should avoid such as long as it possibly can. Those who look more closely will also easily recognize that genuine Theosophy only gives positive things and does not want to play the role of opponent anywhere. But it cannot close its eyes to the fact that *its* very nature means that certain opponents will arise from the moods of the times. And it must calmly characterize these opponents in their own way. If it did not do so, a large part of its work would remain fruitless. For the natural opponents would rightly come to believe that the Theosophists were unworldly people who understood nothing of the certain refutations of their “assertions”. Theosophy would not need to concern itself with this belief as such if it were only a matter of theoretical refutation. This could be left entirely to one's own devices. What matters, however, is to work with open eyes and to organize one's work in such a way that it does not rebound ineffectually from the resistance erected by the sensibilities and prejudices of the present day.