Afterword to Max Seiling's Theosophy and Christianity

The way in which the author of this work speaks approvingly of my own attempts, both in the field of the theosophical world view and in my other scientific work, makes it difficult for me to express my agreement with his comments in the appropriate words. And since these comments in particular inevitably urge me to say something in response, I find myself in a somewhat difficult position. The assurance that I do not wish to face opposing views with less understanding than those that, like Max Seiling's, are so strongly affirmative, will certainly not be taken from me without further ado. At the same time, this is what suggests to me that there is something to be said in an epilogue. I would like to tie in with the passage on page 23 of this writing, where it is said that objections to Theosophy, which are raised again and again, are “anticipated” by Theosophy itself. It is, in fact, extraordinarily simple and easy to “refute” Theosophy. Take, for example, the view of reincarnation and karma. The adherents of this view speak of an individual human core of being. This remains as a supersensible being when the bodily organization, which serves it as an instrument in the physical world between birth and death, falls away from it at death. After a period of purely spiritual existence, this core of being reunites with a bodily organization in order to be born again for a physical life. In the building up of the bodily organization, not only are the forces at work that call man into existence as a being of his species, but these forces are joined by those that have been appropriated by the human core of being in previous lives. Now many an adherent of Theosophy, in support of the idea of re-embodiment, will point out how the children of one and the same family differ individually from each other. He will say that these individual differences cannot have been transmitted by inheritance alone, for the children have the same ancestors after all. The individuality must therefore be due to the entry of various individual nuclei of being into the same hereditary conditions. But now the thought easily arises that refutes such an explanation of the facts mentioned. The child carries within itself qualities that are inherited from the father and mother. What is transmitted from the father and mother produces a result in the child. And depending on whether one or the other element is predominant, depending on how it affects the other in either case, the predispositions of each child of the same parents can be quite individually different. One can then add: the diversity of human characters is based on the conditions in the chemical structure of the germ. And how should this not be different for different children, who descend from the same parents at different ages, etc.? Even the diversity of twins proves nothing, considering that, despite their simultaneous development, the conditions of development before birth cannot possibly be completely the same. Those who see the mental and spiritual characteristics, the character, etc., of a person as the result of variously nuanced hereditary conditions, and who thus believe themselves to be standing on the firm ground of natural science, will find the objections only hinted at here - which can be multiplied at will - quite compelling.

Those followers of Theosophy who appeal to such facts of human life as lie, for example, in the sense of one's own responsibility, in conscience, etc., seem to have more weight to bring forward. They will say: If a person feels responsible, he cannot ascribe this feeling to an inclination that organizes him from the outside, but only to his own core being, which comes into existence through birth. For how could one consider oneself responsible for something that one has not caused oneself? But all that can be said in this respect does not prove anything against the theory of reincarnation. There are many ways to explain the sense of responsibility, conscience, etc., even if one sees in man nothing more than the result of the inherited predispositions and what has been acquired in the course of physical development by the individual or the human community. Among the many possible explanations, only one shall be given here. Let us assume that human psychological development is simply a more perfect stage of animal development; that, for example, his moral feelings are only an intensification of what is found in the animal world as moral impulses. Then this higher stage will be able to bring about a situation in which human society demands certain things from the individual. If he does not do so, he comes into conflict with the outside world. He must develop the need to make himself the starting point for thoughts, feelings and actions that bring him into harmony with the life around him. Through experiencing such a need, the need must then develop to make oneself the starting point for actions that are appropriately shaped. From such thoughts then arises the development of the sense of responsibility, of conscience, of the sense for perfection, etc. Indeed, perceptive attempts have been made to explain the stated facts of the soul's life in such ways. (Among many, Paul Ree's interesting book “The Origin of Conscience” is worth mentioning.)

Furthermore, how obvious it must appear when it is shown that the corresponding expressions of the soul also cease with the loss of certain parts of the brain. Admittedly, the most diverse refutations have been put forward in this regard by thinkers who do not profess Theosophy. However, these do not seem at all suitable to convince. One can say, for example, that if a piano player has his piano strings cut one by one, he can no longer produce a sound. But that does not prove that when the sounds cease, the piano player has also disappeared. In the same way, a person's spiritual soul essence cannot reveal itself if the tools, the brain areas, etc., are destroyed. But the fact that the spiritual-soul core of the person cannot reveal itself does not prove that the disappearance of the instrument means the end of the spiritual-soul core. Expressed in this way, this thought is not convincing. After all, the pianist can still follow how the instrument is destroyed; he is not destroyed along with it. But the latter cannot be applied to the spiritual-soul core of the person. It seems quite impossible to prove the independence of the spiritual and mental core of a person's being to someone who, from his point of view, does not believe he can admit it. Nor has the idea put forward, which has been put forward countless times, been able to convince any opponent of the independence of the human soul individuality. Such thoughts will always have a value as explanations for those who, for deeper reasons, are believers in the supersensible; they have no conclusiveness for non-believers. This applies to all the “proofs” already given here for the supersensible in man. They can be adduced in connection with the decisive arguments for the supersensible; but nothing will be “proved” by them.

The opponents of Theosophy have an even easier time of it with what is said about the development of higher cognitive abilities for the supersensible. It is as obvious as can be to point out that someone who has visions, hallucinations, etc., considers them to be no less real than someone who claims facts about the supersensible world on the basis of his supposedly methodically developed cognitive abilities. One can also claim that even if something in the world of facts can be explained on the basis of such abilities, this proves nothing. Because even such an explanation could be an imagined one. One has examples of how some things that could only be explained by extrasensory powers for a certain time later found their explanation through the sensually observable conditions. These are certainly only hints; but it is easy to see how, by developing them in the simplest possible way, the assertions of the advocates of Theosophy can be 'refuted'.

It can be said that there is absolutely nothing in Theosophy that could not easily be shown to be unproven assertions, flights of fancy, etc., in the manner described. Therefore, not much can be done with anything that is put forward by theosophists in the popular form of proof. It was therefore a good idea of Max Seiling to tune his remarks to a completely different tone. One will only notice what is meant here if one is willing to respond to this tone. The author of the work makes it clear throughout that what matters is not man's position on this or that theosophical assertion, but the grasping of the basis of this world view, which, in terms of its persuasive power, points beyond the boundaries within which ordinary proof lies. I myself have therefore had to lay the foundations of this world view in a purely scientific way, and then, by building up Theosophy accordingly, show how the individual truths arise from the fundamental premises. Thus, for example, in my little pamphlet 'Reincarnation and Karma', I cannot admit that someone says the same thing as me, who puts what is presented there into a different context. In this essay I show how the consistent development of modern scientific thought must lead to the idea of reincarnation and karma. If one does not see the essential in this continuation and in the whole “how” of the presentation, one does not agree with the opinion of the small writing. Dr. Unger has continued to work in the field of the epistemological foundation of the theosophical world view. And from his expositions, too, it will be seen how futile any attempt must be to demand a method of proof for Theosophy, or to apply one against it, which the Theosophist should not doubt for a moment, that it speaks just as little for him when he uses it as it speaks against him when his opponents use it as a method of refutation. 1For example, no scientifically observed fact contradicts Theosophy. However, countless facts can be used to “refute” Theosophy. To the more discerning observer, the above will not appear to contradict the fact that the statements of Theosophy are in themselves absolutely logically provable. Logical proofs are something different in the epistemological sense than the characterized “proofs”! - What is indicated here will be further explained by me in the near future; I just had to add it here with a few words to Max Seiling's remarks, because the overall tone of his writing seemed to impose the necessity on me.