# Where and How Does One Find the Spirit?

## GA 57 — 14 January 1909, Berlin

### Questions Regarding Health in Light of Spiritual Science

The topic we will be discussing today encompasses a number of questions that are rightly of profound interest to human beings. Questions about health are related to everything that makes people fit for life, to everything that helps them fulfill their destiny in the world without hindrance. Seen in the right light, health is therefore something that most people strive for, just as they strive for external goods. But health is also to be regarded as an inner good, just as external goods are not sought by the healthy-minded person for their own sake, but as a means of work, as a means of his activity and creativity. We can therefore well explain why the urge, the longing to obtain enlightenment about the mysteries and questions of healthy and sick life are so profound, especially in our present time. However, the attitude that is likely to make people receptive to the answers they need in order to solve such questions, which are so intimately connected with the whole being of man, is not very widespread in general thinking.

Today, as on a similar occasion in the past, we should recall an old saying that comes to mind for many when talking about health and illness: There are so many illnesses and only one health! — To some, this saying seems as self-evident as possible, and yet it is a mistake, a mistake in the eminent sense of the word, because there is not just one health, but as many healths as there are people. This is precisely what we must take into account if we want to see the questions of health and illness in the right light. We must accept that human beings are individual beings, that each person is different from the next, and that what may be beneficial to one person and harmful and sickening to another depends entirely on their individual constitution.

The fact that these points of view are not so widespread is demonstrated by an experience that each of us can have on a daily basis. You are missing this or that. Your mother finds out or notices it; she remembers that in similar cases, this or that once helped her, so she starts treating you in this way. Then your father comes along and remembers that something else once helped him. Then your aunt comes, then your uncle; they might say: fresh air, light, or water will help. These prescriptions are often so contradictory that they cannot be fulfilled. Everyone has their own remedy that they swear by, and that must then be unleashed on the poor patient. Who has not experienced that this rush of good advice coming from all sides is actually quite a predicament when a person is lacking this or that! All these things stem from an unrealistic way of thinking, from an abstract way of thinking, from a dogmatism that completely ignores the fact that human beings are individual beings, unique beings. Every human being is a being in their own right, and that is what matters above all else: to take this reality of the human being into account when dealing with the phenomena of health and illness.

Now, the need for help that people have when they are ill certainly arises from a characteristic of their inner being that must evoke the sympathy and compassion of those around them. We can understand that everyone would like to rush to their aid, for this is only an expression of the deepest interest that these questions arouse in connection with the whole of human nature. However, if we consider this deep interest on the one hand, but on the other hand take only a brief look at the various views on health and illness that prevail in our time, we may become quite saddened. One might say that illness is such an important thing in human life, so why is it that learned and unlearned people, doctors and laymen, argue not only about the remedies for individual illnesses, not only about the right ways to health, but even about the nature of illness in the most diverse theories? It sometimes seems that in our age of intellectual and scientific activity, sick and perhaps even healthy people are more than ever exposed to the partisan views that are asserted from all sides on important questions of human development and human nature.

May we now — let us ask ourselves this question today — cherish the hope that Spiritual Science, which has been characterized from various sides in these lecture cycles and will be characterized further, can in a certain respect also shed light on the theories and partisan nuances that we see around us today when we allow ourselves to approach the views on health and illness? It has often been emphasized here that Spiritual Science strives for a higher point of view, which makes it possible to bridge what divides people into parties, because they only have certain narrow circles of perception and observation, to show how one thing contradicts another because it is one-sided. We have often shown that spiritual science is there precisely to seek the good in one-sidedness and to create harmony among the various one-sidednesses. One-sidedness — so must say those who do not merely view the matter superficially — is surely what we encounter when this or that dogma is preached with demanding authority by this or that school of medical science. You have all experienced the sum of partisan shades of opinion that oppose each other in relation to these questions. Everyone knows that on the one hand there is what is often referred to today, unfortunately even in a derogatory sense, as conventional medicine with its allopathic approach, and on the other hand there is the approach known as homeopathy. But then there are also broad circles that have found confidence in what is called naturopathy, which often has a different view of illness and health and recommends not only what is relevant to the sick person, but also what is considered right for the healthy person in order to keep them strong and vigorous. Everything is colored by one side or the other, by conventional medicine or by the more naturopathic approach.

If we consider the points of view that give rise to such a dispute about illness and health, for example, between the supporters of conventional medicine and the supporters of naturopathy, we hear the supporters of naturopathy say that conventional medicine seeks a specific remedy for every illness and is of the opinion that illness is something that affects people as something external, as if caused by an external factor, and that there is also this or that external remedy for the illness. With such characterizations, we should not forget that what is said by one side or the other often overshoots the mark, and we should not forget that in many things both parties do each other an injustice. But let us highlight individual accusations that can serve to clarify the issue. Advocates of naturopathy will emphasize that conventional doctors alleviate inflammation in certain cases with ice packs, that they try to help with rheumatoid arthritis using salicylic acid, and so on. Particularly extreme supporters of naturopathy will make strong accusations. They will say: if the stomach secretes too much stomach acid, then conventional doctors will try to neutralize this stomach acid. Naturopaths say that this misses the deeper essence of the disease and, above all, the deeper essence of the human being. None of this hits the nail on the head. Let us assume that the stomach really does secrete too much stomach acid. This is proof that something is not right in the organism. In a properly functioning organism, too much stomach acid is not secreted. Therefore, neutralizing the stomach acid that is secreted does not eliminate the tendency to produce too much stomach acid. So you shouldn't focus your attention on simply eliminating the stomach acid. — That's what those who polemicize against conventional medicine say. If you eliminate the stomach acid, you would actually stimulate the organism to produce a lot of stomach acid. One must therefore go deeper and seek out the actual cause. In particular, naturopaths, when they become fanatics, will rail against giving sleeping pills to someone suffering from insomnia. Sleeping pills eliminate insomnia for a certain period of time, but they do not eliminate the cause. The cause must be eliminated if one really wants to help the patient.

Among those who are more inclined toward the medicinal point of view, there are two parties: the allopaths, who prescribe and use a specific remedy for certain diseases, a remedy that has the task of eliminating the disease, so to speak. They proceed from the view that the disease is a disturbance in the organism and that this disturbance must be eliminated by a remedy. Homeopaths, on the other hand, argue that this is not the true nature of the disease, but that the true nature of the disease is a kind of reaction of the whole organism against damage to itself. Damage has occurred in the organism, and now the whole organism is defending itself against this damage. One must recognize and take into account the symptoms that occur in the sick person, that what causes fever and so on is a kind of call to the forces in the organism that can drive out the enemy that has crept in. — Therefore, proponents of this type of healing will say that one must resort to those remedies in nature which, when taken by a healthy organism, cause the disease in question. Of course, these remedies, which cause certain symptoms of disease in a healthy organism, should not be administered to the sick organism in large doses, but only in such small doses that the remedy in question is just enough to elicit a reaction from the organism against the damage that has occurred. This is the principle of homeopathy: that which can cause a certain disease in a healthy organism also has the potential to restore the sick organism to health. The remedy used is that which the organism itself reveals through its symptoms. The idea is that the organism in a diseased state shows through its symptoms that it is trying to overcome the disease. Therefore, we must support it with precisely this remedy.

This is why, in many cases, the homeopathic doctor will use the exact opposite of what the allopathic doctor would use. Naturopaths often—though not always—take the view that the most important thing is not whether a specific remedy can cure the disease, but rather to support the organism and its activity so that it can activate its internal healing powers to combat the disease process. Thus, the naturopath will be primarily concerned with advising even healthy people to support the activity of the organism. For example, he will emphasize that even for healthy people, it is less important whether a food gives them the opportunity to, say, stuff themselves with this or that, but rather whether a food gives them the opportunity to call upon their inner powers so that they become active. The naturopath will emphasize the function of the organs, especially in healthy people. He will say: You will not strengthen your heart by constantly trying to stimulate it with stimulants, but you will strengthen your weak heart by activating it, for example, by going on mountain hikes and so on. — Thus, those who focus on the activity of human organs will also advise healthy people to activate their organs in an appropriate manner.

If you have looked into such questions, because they are so much of concern in today's world, you may have seen the vehemence and dogmatism with which one side or the other often fights, how each side emphasizes what it has to say in support of its view. For example, conventional medicine can point to the great progress it has made over the last few decades, particularly over the last three to four decades, precisely because it has focused on how external pathogens affect people and destroy their health, so to speak. Conventional medicine can point to how it has been concerned with improving external living conditions and circumstances to such an extent that there has indeed been an upturn in recent times. It is precisely that branch of medicine which focuses primarily on external pathogens — let us say, the world of bacteria and germs that is so feared today — which, by intervening in the field of hygiene and sanitary facilities in a way that is not at all transparent to the layman, has done an enormous amount to improve health conditions.

It is certainly emphasized by some—again not entirely without justification, but also only with one-sided justification—how this conventional medicine has actually caused a fear of bacteria and germs. But on the other hand, research has led to an improvement in health conditions over the last few decades. Proponents of this approach proudly point out the percentage by which mortality has actually decreased in various areas over the last few decades. However, those who say that it is not so much external causes that are important when considering illness, but rather the causes that lie within the individual, so to speak their predisposition to illness, their sensible or unreasonable lifestyle, will again emphasize that, although mortality rates have undeniably decreased in recent times, the incidence of disease has increased alarmingly. They emphasize how certain forms of disease have increased: heart disease, cancer, forms of disease that are not even recorded in the writings of earlier times, diseases of the digestive organs, and so on. The reasons put forward by one side or the other are certainly noteworthy. From a superficial point of view, it cannot be argued that germs or bacteria are not pathogens of the most terrible kind. On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that, in a certain respect, human beings are either strengthened and protected against the influence of such pathogens or they are not. They are not if they have deprived themselves of their resistance through an unreasonable lifestyle.

In many respects, the achievements of conventional medicine in recent times are admirable. Let us consider how subtle and detailed the research on yellow fever is in relation to the way it is transmitted from person to person by certain insects. How excellent are the studies on malaria and similar diseases! But on the other hand, we can see that the justified demands of conventional medicine can very easily interfere with our entire lives, which in a certain sense can lead to tyranny. Let us consider the claim — which is made with a certain degree of justification — that in a disease that has been occurring frequently in recent times, namely stiff neck, the pathogen is by no means transmitted from one sick person to another, but that people who are completely healthy, who are completely unaffected by what is known as stiff neck, could, in a certain sense, carry the germs within themselves and transmit them to other people, so that people walking among us are carriers of germs, from which those who are susceptible can then contract the disease, while the others who carry the germs do not necessarily have to be affected by the disease. — This could lead to demands to isolate carriers of germs, because if someone has contracted stiff neck, they are not as dangerous as those who care for them, who may be the actual carriers of the disease. The consequences of making it difficult for these people to interact with others can be seen from the following example: It can be argued, and has already been argued, that at some school a large number of children suddenly fell ill with this or that disease. No one knew where the disease came from. It turned out that the teachers were the actual carriers of the disease. They themselves did not contract the disease, but the entire school was infected by them. The term “germ carrier” or “germ catcher” is a term that can even be used with some justification by a certain side. It is almost self-evident from the little we have been able to cite that those who are laymen in this field have very little knowledge of everything that may confront them from one side or the other.

Precisely what we explained at the beginning of our discussion today should serve as a guide for what can actually lead to salvation from all the good reasons put forward by one side or the other. The most fundamental and significant principle must be that, above all else, we must recognize the individuality of human beings as a unique reality, as something that is different from every other human being. We can best illustrate this with a concrete example. Let us take a person – I am recounting things that actually happened – who from childhood had an insurmountable aversion to anything to do with meat. He could not stand meat, could not eat it. Nor could he eat anything that was in any way connected with meat. He developed quite healthily on his plant-based diet. This continued until he found some kind, good friends who devoted all their energy to dissuading him from his paradoxical aversion. They were the ones who first advised him, or rather pressured him, to try a little meat broth. They pushed him further and further, until he was eating ham. He felt sicker and sicker as a result. After some time, he developed a condition that resembled a particular excess of blood. He developed a peculiar sleepiness, and the good man perished from encephalitis. If this man had not been reminded every day what he should actually eat, if he had been left to his healthy instincts, if people had not believed that “one size fits all,” if they had not sworn to dogmatism but had respected the individual nature of human beings, then he would have remained healthy.

However, we should not learn more from such a case than to respect the individual nature of human beings. We should not derive a new dogma from it; that would lead us into one-sidedness. If we consider what caused death in this case, we can answer the question in the following way. If you remember what was said last time in the lecture on nutrition, you can conclude the following: What we call life processes lead the plant to a certain point; it processes lifeless matter into a living organism. This process is continued in the human organism. In a certain sense, what the human and animal organisms do is a breakdown of what the plant has built up. In a certain sense, the human and animal bodies are based on the breakdown and destruction of what the plant has built up.

Now, an organism can be designed in such a way that it demands, so to speak, to begin at the point where the plant has ceased its activity. Then it can be eminently harmful for it if it allows the part of the process that the animal has already taken care of with the plant products to be taken away. The animal carries the plant process to a certain point, and man can then only continue it. When he enjoys animal food, this is taken away from him. And if his nature has the powers to take in plant food fresh and strong and then carry it on, he will have powers within himself that are now unused for any food intake and food processing. These powers are there. We do not eliminate these powers by giving them nothing to do, because then they throw themselves into something else. They work within the human organism. The result is that, as excess activity, they destroy the organism from within.

If one has even a slightly sharpened view through Spiritual Science, one can see how this excess activity has taken over the whole person, throwing itself onto their blood and nervous system. One can see how it has looked inside the organism, like a house that has been built with unsuitable materials, so that one has to make an effort to sort and arrange the unsuitable materials. One does not direct the forces for the processing of nutrients to the inner being with impunity. When we realize this, we will become tolerant and will not oppose nature. Then we must not go in the opposite direction and become fanatics of vegetarianism for everyone. Just as the man I have now cited as a radical example had an excessive inward-directed activity, so it may be that there are people who do not have this power at all, who cannot, so to speak, continue the plant process immediately where it has stopped. If such people were expected to become vegetarians without further ado, they would find that they would have to draw the energy they need for this from their own organism. In doing so, they would in a sense consume it and in a sense starve it. So this can certainly be the case on the other side. The point is that we must turn away from this or that dogma when we talk about healthy and unhealthy conditions, turn away from eating only this or only that. What matters is the individual human being and the need to get to know his or her needs. Above all, it is important that this individual has the opportunity to feel and recognize their own needs in a certain way.

If a materialistic view focuses too much on the merely material, then it would be necessary for this materialistic view to move in the direction that has just been indicated. It would actually be impossible for them to stereotype and standardize. And how we stereotype in our time! For example, it is readily said that this or that food or this or that medicine is harmful. A veritable epidemic of stereotyping has broken out, and this is inevitable unless all one-sidedness is excluded in the fight against the various methods of healing. An epidemic has broken out under the keyword “power,” so that, for example, at gatherings of naturopaths, it is said that this or that is “power.” With this, people believe they have done enough to denigrate this or that and say that they are based solely on the material. Those who claim to regard human beings as individuals should also take this into consideration. But even when looking at other living beings, for example, the word “power” basically loses all meaning. Our views on such matters need to be modified. Who would not think of assuming a special power for humans when they hear, for example, that rabbits eat hemlock without harm, while Socrates died from it? Goats can also eat hemlock without harm, as can aconite, monkshood, and even horses. In all these cases, we must therefore always consider the individual organism. When we consider the individual organism, we come to the conclusion that something may be right for one person in a particular case, but “one size does not fit all”!

The question is therefore: How can people gain a yardstick for their own health? Children could serve as a kind of beacon for us. We must therefore bear in mind that children express their sympathy or antipathy for certain foods in very specific ways. Careful observation of these things would be extremely important for each of us. It is sometimes quite wrong for those who are responsible for guiding and educating children to try to suppress the instincts that arise in children and express themselves as certain desires, if they are considered to be bad behavior. Rather, what the child expresses as a drive or instinct is an indication of the nature of the child's inner being. What the child feels and what it likes, what it desires, is nothing more than an expression of the fact that the organism demands precisely this or that. Indeed, this guiding instinct of the child can be a pointer, or, to put it more radically, a beacon for knowledge. We can go through life and find everywhere the necessity that human beings must develop this inner certainty within themselves in a certain way for what their organism needs. This is more uncomfortable than having this or that party dictate the direction and tell us what is good for all people. People do not have it as easy as those who come up with a specific general recipe that you only need to put in your pocket to know what can make people healthy and what can make them sick. Precisely when you look at health with such a guide, you will also have to realize with regard to illness that different people have very different conditions for health and healing.

Let's assume that someone has migraines. Anyone who dogmatically holds the view—even if conventional medicine no longer wants to admit it—that there are specific remedies for this or that illness will say: The patient needs certain remedies for migraines. The patient will feel better and the migraines will disappear. — Those who take the naturopathic view and have put it into practice will say: This only combats the symptom and has done more harm than good to many people; it is important to address the deeper causes; then one will come across all sorts of things that go more to the heart of the matter, which may not bring about well-being so quickly in individual cases, but which really address the core of the illness more deeply. — If you take a dogmatic stance on one point of view or the other, you will fight one or the other or consider one or the other useful. But, strange as it may sound, it is again a question of the human being. There could be a person who says to themselves: When I have a severe migraine, it would be nice to wait until naturopathy gets to the core of the illness, recognizes its deeper roots, and then does what is necessary to eliminate it. But I don't have time for that. It is much more important for me to get rid of the migraine as soon as possible and get back to my work." Let us now assume that this person has a health-promoting occupation that is such that he would have been able to get rid of the ailment even without medication. In that case, the migraine medication would do him little harm, because he would be little distracted from his work, which is beneficial to him. They would then be treated according to a prescription that compares humans to machines that need to be repaired. However, this comparison must be taken to its logical conclusion. We must not forget that there must be someone who works like the driver of a locomotive. Let us assume that a crank on a locomotive is particularly difficult to turn. Someone might say: I see that the locomotive driver cannot turn the crank because he is too weak; I will take another locomotive driver who can use more force to turn the crank. Another might say: “Perhaps we can file down whatever is making the crank difficult to turn so that it turns more easily; then the train driver can stay. — So you improve the machine. Of course, this cannot be applied as a general rule, because if you were to say: ”If something is wrong with the locomotive, you have to file it down," that would not always be correct. Perhaps something needs to be added to the relevant part rather than removed.

In the case of the person who had migraines, the migraine medication simply repaired the damage, and if the person in question has the inner strength to do so, the problem will resolve itself if they are not disturbed. Of course, it would be bad under certain circumstances if one thought in the same way about someone who wants to get rid of their migraine but does not subsequently engage in an activity related to their health. They would have been better off if they had removed the inner causes.

So we must thoroughly understand and realize that there are specific remedies for what we call illness, and that the use of specific remedies is related in a certain way to the fact that our organism is an independent entity and can be improved in many ways. If we can rely on the fact that after the improvement there is a real, effective force that drives people, then there is no need to emphasize that we are only treating the symptoms, because that is just materialistic thinking again. The naturopath will know many things that would be quite correct for the elimination of this or that disease, but it is equally true that this or that person does not have the time or the strength to carry it out, and that the most important thing for them is to quickly repair the damage.

You see that we must speak here not in a one-sided way, but in an all-round way, and that we must accept the inconvenience of not being mere theorists, but of dealing with the facts and looking at the whole human being. That is what matters. When we speak in this way, we must be clear that if we want to regard the human being as a reality, we must consider the whole human being. For Spiritual Science, the whole human being is not merely the outer physical body, especially when our health is destroyed not only by external causes but also by internal ones. What is much more important is the health of the etheric body, which fights against disease until death; the health of the astral body, which is the bearer of passions, drives, desires, and mental images; and finally, the health of the ego bearer, which makes the human being a self-conscious being. Anyone who wants to take the whole human being into account must take the four members of the human being into account, and when the question of health arises, it is not only a matter of eliminating disturbances affecting the physical body, but also of considering what is going on in the higher members, in the more soul-spiritual members. We must realize that it is not just this or that political party that is sinning, but our entire contemporary mindset.

You can see this from the fact that the question is very rarely asked: How is the question of health related to spiritual matters? Today, you will find a lot of agreement when you talk about how much nutritional value this or that food has, how this or that food affects the organism. You will also find complete agreement when you discuss what the air is like in this or that area, where this or that sanatorium is located, how the air and light affect people there. But you will not find approval when you point to spiritual qualities as possible causes of certain illnesses.

Let us take the instincts of the child, as expressed in sympathy and antipathy towards this or that food. Let us take the feeling of disgust with which it rejects this or that as a sign that what underlies the health of the physical body, the astral body — which consists of feelings and sensations, impulses and desires — must also be healthy, and that when a deviation from health is observed in a person, attention must also be paid to the healing of the astral body. When these questions arise, do we really still ask today what the human soul experiences in relation to the outside world? The spiritual scientist must point out that, basically, it matters little whether a person who is ill with this or that is sent here or there because it is believed that the air or the light will have a healing effect on them for external mechanical or chemical reasons. Another, much greater question is whether I can bring him into an environment where he can experience joy, elation, and, in a certain sense, an illumination of his entire emotional life in a specific direction.

If we consider this on a larger scale, we will also understand that it is part of being healthy that a person enjoys food, that a person has, so to speak, in their taste, in their immediate taste sensation, in the pleasure and joy that food gives them, a yardstick for what they should eat, and that, on the other hand, the feeling of hunger that arises at the right time is a yardstick for when his organism should eat.

It is not only influences from the material world that destroy this inner security in human beings; in the vast majority of cases, it is also influences from spiritual life that undermine the security of the hunger instinct. Instead of teaching people to feel healthy hunger at the right moment, spiritual influences can affect human nature in such a way that hunger is not present, but rather a lack of appetite. A person who has developed the needs of their organism in the right way, so that they enjoy and appreciate what is right and can also serve their organism, will also have the right feeling to find the right environment that serves their health in terms of light and air, so that they feel hungry for it at the right time.

These are requirements that are closely related to a healthy life and that lead to what the astral body and the ego have to contribute to this health. It is easy to object that when someone is hungry, they cannot live on feelings and sensations. It is true that when someone is presented with a delicious meal, their mouth may water, but they cannot be satisfied if the real taste of the food remains hidden from them. This objection is easy to make. We cannot satisfy or heal someone through what we can give them in terms of influencing their soul in such a way that it allows sensations and mental images to flow in the right way; that goes without saying. But what is overlooked here is something else. We cannot regulate food by explaining the nutrients, but we can regulate taste, right down to the correct feeling of hunger. This is where what is fragmented today, because it is handled only from the point of view of external material considerations, flows into the spiritual-soul realm.

It is not all the same whether a person eats this or that food with pleasure or displeasure, whether he lives in this or that environment, whether he does the work he does with pleasure or displeasure. More than anything else, what is called one's inner disposition toward health is mysteriously connected with this. Just as we see in children that they develop the right instincts and — if we have the opportunity to observe their instincts — have a yardstick for their inner needs, so it is also necessary for adults to experience the spiritual-soul realm in such a way that the right needs come before the soul at the right time, that they feel and sense what kind of relationship they should establish between themselves and the outside world. Life is, to the greatest extent, capable of leading people into error after error about their relationship to the outside world. And it is precisely our current intellectual orientation that, in more ways than one, gives rise to such errors.

To help us understand each other better, I would like to point out the small beginnings we have made with a particular method of healing. In Munich, one of our Spiritual Science colleagues is trying out a kind of cure or healing method that is based on the views of Spiritual Science. Anyone who believes today that only ‘material, physical-chemical, and physiological influences’ can have a healing effect on human beings will perhaps laugh at the idea that people are led into specially colored chambers and that the human soul can be influenced there by the forces of a certain color and by other things that will not be discussed here, though certainly not on the surface. But you have to see the difference between this mode of action in the chambers, a kind of chromotherapy, a kind of color therapy, and what is called light therapy. When a person is irradiated with light, the underlying idea is to allow the physical light to have a direct effect, so that one says to oneself that when this or that ray of light is allowed to act on the person, the person is being influenced from outside. This is not taken into account at all in the color therapy mentioned above.

In this method of healing, which is based on Spiritual Science and was established by our friend Dr. Peipers, no account is taken of what the rays of light as such, independently of the human soul, but takes into account what effect, say, the color blue, not the light, has on the soul via the mental image and thereby has a reciprocal effect on the entire physical organism.

This enormous difference between what is otherwise called light therapy and what can be called color therapy here must be taken into account. In addition, certain patients are filled with the content of a very specific color perception. It is important to know that colors contain forces that manifest themselves when they not only irradiate us, but also act on our soul. It is important to know that one color has a challenging effect, another color triggers feelings of longing, a third color elevates the soul above itself, and yet another color presses the soul down below itself.

When we look at this physical-spiritual effect, we will see what the source of the physical and etheric is: that our astral body is the actual creator of the physical and etheric. The physical is only a condensation of the spiritual, and the spiritual can in turn have an effect on the physical, so that it is worked through and lived through in the right way. Then, when we consider the basic idea of such a thing, we can also hope to understand — through having a science that points out how the spiritual-soul lives in human beings — that what lives in the spiritual-soul is expressed in health and illness in the physical.

Anyone who realizes this can place their hope in Spiritual Science when it comes to questions of health. As easy as it is to say that you cannot cure a person with a worldview, it is also true that human health depends on worldview. For humanity today, this is a paradox; for the future, it will be a matter of course! I would like to discuss this a little further. One could say that human beings must arrive at purely objective truth; they must make their concepts into accurate representations of external physical facts. As a theorist, one can make such a demand. One can present as an ideal a person who strives to think only what the eyes can see, the ears can hear, and the hands can touch. Now Spiritual Science comes along and says: You can never comprehend what is real if you only look at what is externally perceptible, what the eyes see, the ears hear, and the hands can grasp. What is real contains the spiritual as its foundation. The spiritual cannot be perceived; it must be experienced through cooperation, through the production of the spiritual-soul. Productive powers are needed for the spiritual. When speaking of the individual parts of his science, the spiritual scientist is not always in a position to demonstrate tangibly what leads to his concepts. He describes that which cannot be seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, or grasped with the hands, because it must be followed with the eyes of the spirit. One might then say: This is a description of something that does not exist in the sensory world. For us, truth is that which gives an inner image of external reality. One may put forward such a theory, but we do not want to talk about its truth and cognitive value today; we want to talk about its healing value. The fact is that all those mental images that we merely abstract from external sensory reality, which are, so to speak, only images of what one sees with the eyes, hears with the ears, and touches with the hands, which are not based on the inner activity of the soul in creating images, all these abstractions, all mental images that cling faithfully to the reality of the outer senses have no inner image-forming powers; they leave the soul dead; they do not call upon the soul to activate its inner dormant powers.

No matter how much the fanatics of external facts may talk about not interspersing reality with images of the supersensible world, But as paradoxical as it may sound, these images bring our spirit back into an activity that is appropriate for it. They bring it back into harmony with the physical organism. Those who cling to the purely abstract mental images of merely materialistic science do nothing for their health with their spiritual nature. Those who create only abstractions in their concepts make their souls barren and empty, and they are always dependent on making the external instrument of the body the bearer of health and the bearer of disease. Those who live in disordered and distorted mental images also do not know how they mysteriously inoculate themselves with the causes of the destruction of their organism. Therefore, Spiritual Science takes the position that through the perspectives it asserts in relation to the supersensible world, to that world which we cannot perceive with our outer senses but must evoke strongly within ourselves, we make our soul so active internally that its activity is in harmony with the spiritual world from which our entire organism has been created. Therefore, our organism is not brought to health by petty means, but Spiritual Science itself is the great remedy for healing.

Those who form their thoughts from the great perspectives of the world, who bring these thoughts to life, evoke such inner activity that their feelings and sensations also flow in a harmonious way that blesses the soul. Those who influence their thoughts in this way also influence their impulses of will, and these then have a healing effect. But they only do so when a truly healthy worldview, a healthy harmony of thoughts, fills our soul. This also regulates our feelings, and in connection with this, our likes and dislikes, our sympathies and antipathies, our desires and our aversions, so that we face the world in such a way that we know what to do in each individual case, like a child whose instincts are not yet corrupted. In this way, we will awaken within our soul those feelings, sensations, impulses of will, and desires that are a sure guide in life, instructing us what to do in order to bring about the right relationship between the outside world and ourselves.

It is no exaggeration to say that clear, bright thoughts, comprehensive thoughts, such as can only be brought about by a comprehensive worldview that encompasses the whole world, including the supernatural, are a prerequisite for health. Pure feelings and impulses of will that correspond to the objective nature of the spiritual, as they correspond to such thoughts, will give people the opportunity to feel a healthy hunger. Even if one cannot feed people with a worldview, this still offers them the opportunity to find what corresponds to their soul, to seek what is appropriate for them, and to abhor what is not appropriate for them. Thoughts, which are images of the supersensible world, are the best digestive aid — even if this seems paradoxical — not because the powers of digestion are contained in thoughts, but because energetic thoughts awaken the powers that allow digestion to proceed in a regulated manner.

As long as people do not hear this call of Spiritual Science, as long as they continue to believe that whatever they encounter in this or that form of illness in this or that way has found its cure when a corresponding remedy has been found for it, they will not have recognized the importance of Spiritual Science. Nor will they have recognized the extent to which health plays a role in the nature of development. Those who say that symptom cures should not be carried out do not go far enough either. They too fail to grasp the spiritual core. Those who approach Spiritual Science will find that it is a worldview through which inner bliss flows, a worldview of pleasure and joy, which is a prerequisite for promoting the great remedy for health. It is easier to use this or that remedy than to enter into the stream of Spiritual Science in order to find what will make people healthier and healthier. But then, when one enters into this Spiritual Science, one will realize that what an old saying says is true: “A healthy soul dwells in a healthy body,” but that it is wrong to interpret this saying in a materialistic way. Anyone who believes that they must interpret this saying in a materialistic way should just say: Here I see a house. This house is beautiful. So I conclude that because this house is beautiful, it must also have produced a beautiful owner. The beautiful house makes a beautiful owner. — Perhaps the person who says, “Here is a beautiful house; I conclude from this that it is inhabited by an owner with good taste,” is a little wiser. I see the owner of the beautiful house as a person of good taste, and the house as an outward sign that the owner is a person of good taste.

But perhaps there is also someone clever who says: Because external forces have made the body healthy, the body has formed a healthy soul again. — But that is not correct; rather, the person who says: Here I see a healthy body is right. That is a sign that it must be built up by a healthy soul. It is healthy because the soul is healthy. — Therefore, one can say: because one sees the external symptom of a healthy body, there must be a healthy soul underlying it. A materialistic age may interpret the saying, “A healthy body must be based on a healthy soul,” in a completely materialistic way. Spiritual Science, however, shows us that a healthy soul is at work in a healthy body.