Results of Spiritual Research

GA 62 — 31 October 1912, Berlin

1. How to Refute Spiritual Research?

As in the past winters, I will take the liberty of giving a series of lectures on spiritual science here in this place during the course of this winter semester. The program will show that these lectures will first cover what spiritual science has to say about the questions of life from its point of view, that then the transition will be made to the illumination of some important cultural phenomena, outstanding cultural facts and outstanding personalities of the past, such as Raphael and Leonardo da Vinci, and that finally the relationship between spiritual science and various phenomena in the immediate present spiritual life will be illuminated. Today, these lectures are to be begun in a peculiar way. At the outset, we shall not present what can be said in support and confirmation of this spiritual research, but, on the contrary, what can be said in the way of possible, more significant objections to this spiritual science.

It is in the nature of things that this spiritual research attracts much opposition in our time, owing to the state of our present-day culture and owing to many other facts. But nothing would be more inappropriate to this spiritual science than for it to lapse into fanaticism and, so to speak, only to want to see what can be adduced in support of it from the standpoint of its representatives. Fanaticism must — and we shall see for what reasons this is completely foreign to spiritual research. Therefore, more than is perhaps necessary from any other point of view, it must be anxious to understand the objections of its opponents; indeed, in a certain sense it must almost tolerate them, and it must appear understandable to it that a good number of honest truth-seekers of the present time cannot go with it. It has been my custom – and those who have honored me with their attendance at my earlier lectures will be aware of this, and I shall continue to follow this practice – to take possible objections into consideration at the same time as I present my arguments. Today, so to speak, more significant and weighty objections are to be anticipated. For objections to what can be said from the point of view of spiritual research do not arise merely from the opponents, but in the conscientious pursuit of spiritual research, the soul that is devoted to such an undertaking is confronted with these possible objections at every turn. Since the truths of spiritual research have to be won and fought for in the soul, the soul must in a certain sense be equal to the opponent with regard to such objections as are raised in the soul itself. And much better progress will be made in this field if one is clear from the outset about what can be objected.

Now it is not my intention to deal with those objections or alleged refutations which can be found on the street, so to speak, or conjured up out of thin air. Instead, I shall consider the objections that an honest seeker of truth in our time, based on our education and the spiritual foundations of our present age, can and to a certain extent must raise. Nor will the objections of those be dealt with who often call themselves spiritual researchers or Theosophists; for it must be admitted at the outset that much of what passes today under the name of “Theosophy” is not to be taken seriously. But what has been and is advocated here is to be taken into account in my objections today. But if we want to engage with such objections, then much of what has already been said in the course of the previous cycles and what will be discussed in the next lectures must be brought to mind, as it were in outline. So, let us briefly agree on what is meant by spiritual research in terms of its content and sources here.

First of all, one can characterize spiritual science in very general terms by saying that spiritual science takes the view that it must go beyond everything that man perceives through his senses, everything that he is able to fathom with a science that is based primarily on the senses and on the intellect, which draws its conclusions from the senses. that it must go beyond all this to the spiritual causes of the sensual facts that can be investigated by the mind, so that it not only assumes but attempts to prove a spiritual world behind these sensual facts, a spiritual world in which lie the causes of all that the senses can see and the mind can investigate.

This spiritual science differs from many other schools of thought in the present and the past in that it does not merely assert in general, hypothetically, that there is a spiritual world beyond the mind and the senses, but that it assumes that the human being is capable of training and developing his powers of knowledge and soul to such an extent that they are able to see into a spiritual world — something they are incapable of doing without this development. So it is not just the possibility of a spiritual world, but the recognizability of a spiritual world that is the peculiar feature of this spiritual research or anthroposophy, if we want to call it that. It is admitted from the start that the soul forces and the qualities of the cognitive powers as they are in man in his ordinary daily use, if we may so express it, are not such as to enable him to penetrate into the spiritual world. But spiritual science denies that these powers of knowledge are undevelopable, that they cannot unfold to look into a spiritual world after their externalization to this higher point of view, just as the eyes look into the sensory world. But with that we are already at the sources of this spiritual research.

These sources reveal themselves to the soul when, through inner work, through inner development — and the methods of this inner development have often been mentioned here — this soul works its way up to a higher point of view. Then, as spiritual science shows, there is another world, a spiritual world, alongside the sense world that surrounds us, and it is from this spiritual world that the true causes of all phenomena in the sense world emanate.

Through the study of the spiritual world, however, we come to see man as a much more complicated being than he is for ordinary sensory or intellectual perception. We come to see man as a four-part being. That which is called the physical body is regarded by spiritual research only as part of the entire human being. This physical body can be observed by the ordinary sense life and can be grasped by the intellect. This sense body is the subject of ordinary science. For a large part of our present-day view of the world, this physical body is the totality of the human being. For spiritual scientific research, it is only one part among four members of this human being.

Beyond this physical body, spiritual research distinguishes the so-called etheric body or life body, which is incorporated into the physical body. But spiritual research does not speak of this etheric body or life body in the same way as if it were only accessible to the mind, but in such a way that the developed soul powers are able to see it, just as the developed eye can see the colors blue or red, while the color-blind eye cannot see these colors. And then she says that the necessary conclusion arises that the physical body, through the powers inherent in it, naturally disintegrates at death, because the powers belonging to the physical body cause its disintegration, its decay, and only held together by the etheric body, which is a continuous fighter against the disintegration of the physical body, being incorporated into the physical body during the time of life between birth and death. Only when the separation from the etheric body occurs at the moment of death does the physical body follow its own forces, which, however, then, because they work in their own way, cause its decomposition. The human being has the physical body in common with the whole mineral, inanimate world. The etheric body is shared with all living things, with the whole plant world.

But spiritual science cannot stop there. It recognizes a third link in the human being that is as independent as the physical body. There is no need to be offended by expressions; they will be explained and have already been partly explained. The third link is the astral body. It is the actual vehicle of the passions, desires, instincts, affects, in other words, of everything that we call our soul life, that takes place within. And in spiritual research, we then distinguish the actual carrier of the ego from this astral body. While the human being shares the astral body with everything that, for example, has affects and passions in the animal world and can develop an inner life of imagination, the human being has the ego as the fourth link of his being for himself as the crown of his individuality. Man's being initially lies in the physical body, in the etheric or life body, in the astral body and in the I-bearer for spiritual research.

Furthermore, for those who are able to penetrate into the spiritual world, there is the realization of how a large part of our life conditions, to which we are subject, differs from ordinary life, namely the life of sleep. For the spiritual researcher, sleep differs from waking life in that in sleeping humans, the I-vehicle and the astral body of the person are separated from his etheric body and physical body. The latter two remain in bed during sleep like a vegetative form, whereas the I-bearer with the astral body and with the affects, drives, imagination and so on move out of the physical body and ether body during sleep and then unfold their own life in a spiritual world that exists for itself. But for the average person today, when the I and the astral body are alone during sleep, ordinary life is impossible because this astral body and the I have no organs for perceiving the environment, do not have eyes and ears like the physical body. So it is impossible for the astral body and I to perceive the world in which they then are.

The higher development of the soul consists precisely in the astral body and I becoming able to develop organs to perceive their surroundings, and that through this a state can arise for the spiritual researcher in which he perceives the spiritual world ; so that in addition to the waking state and the sleeping state, he has a waking sleep state, if we may call it that, which is precisely the state in which the spiritual researcher can perceive the spiritual world to which man belongs according to his actual origin. Thus spiritual science tries to explain the transition of man between waking and sleeping in twenty-four hours on the basis of spiritual facts.

What is more, spiritual science approaches the great riddle of life and death, that is, in other words, the question that moves the human heart so: the question of the immortality of man. Spiritual science comes to the conclusion that the actual spiritual essence of man is not just a result of his physical organization, but an independent unit and entity belonging to a spiritual world, which builds up the physical body, which exists before birth, even before conception, and from the first moment when man enters into existence as a germ cell, has the effect of building up his organism. In other words, it is the spiritual soul that is actually active and constructive, that organizes the human being throughout his life, that carries only the fruits of his life experiences through the gate of death and that passes with death into a spiritual world to then have further experiences, and that then organizes a new physical body for a further life, to undergo a new life and repeat the cycle.

Spiritual science speaks in other words of repeated lives on earth, speaks of repeated lives on earth in such a way that we look back from our present embodiment within the sensual existence to other embodiments in the past, but also look into the future to later incarnations of our being. So that we divide the total life of a person into one life between birth and death and into another one, which runs purely spiritually for the senses and for the mind between death and the next birth. But spiritual science does not see this in an eternally recurring way, but rather in such a way that it recognizes only intermediate states in these repetitions, but traces the total life of man back to an original spiritual state that preceded all life, especially on our planet; so that the lives on earth once had a beginning when man emerged from a purely spiritual existence, and that, after the conditions have once been fulfilled, man will again enter into purely spiritual states, which will contain within them the fruits of all that man has gone through through the various earthly lives.

This is, of course, only an outline, which will be filled in with individual colors in the coming lectures, but which can show the results that spiritual scientific research comes to. If we picture this whole tableau before our mind's eye, then it must be said that for a large part of thinking humanity today, this picture will not only have something incomprehensible, unprovable, but perhaps even something offensive, something that may even provoke irony, scorn and derision. Even when speaking of the nature of spiritual science, a person who wants to relate everything important to him on the right ground of science must raise serious objections. A person who stands on this ground of science must ask himself: What do all the great, not just individual, achievements of science mean in the face of such an argument? What do scientific methods mean, what do seriousness, dignity, exactness mean in the face of spiritual research, what do all the efforts that science has made in recent centuries and decades to achieve certainty, to achieve objective certainty, mean? Spiritual research does not want to work against science, as has often been emphasized, but to be in full agreement with science. Therefore, it must be aware of what science has to object to, not only in terms of its content, but especially in terms of its seriousness and its achievements in recent centuries.

It can rightly be said that spiritual science points out that these sources of spiritual research lie in a certain development of the soul, in that the soul undergoes certain inner processes of perception, feeling and will, undergoes that what is called meditation, so that it has inner experiences, which are of course purely limited to one's own soul, which no one can control but the person experiencing it, and then something like this is presented as a scientific result about the spiritual worlds that cannot be verified. Where does science come in, can it say, on what is precisely the most beautiful achievement of this science, that through the research of the last centuries it only accepts that which can be verified by every person, objectively and everywhere and at all times? External experiments and observations have the peculiarity that everyone can approach them. Not so with that which is achieved and fought for within. When we look at people who experience things in this way within themselves, does the great variety of the contradictory things they constantly express not show how uncertain the experiences are that are given through a mystically absorbed consciousness? By contrast, how the research conducted by individual researchers in the clinic, in the laboratory and so on must agree! It will be pointed out that this could not be otherwise, so that what a person experiences subjectively is thus shown to be unscientific, and this especially because it cannot be checked by anyone else, since the other person cannot look into the soul of the spiritual researcher in question.

Do not these experiences of the soul bear a complete similarity to everything that can be proven to come from some kind of pathological state, from exaggerations of the soul, in ecstasy and so on? If the spiritual researcher objects that he is not willing to accept every vision that occurs in the soul as a research result, but that he proceeds according to certain methods, then one can still object, and this objection seems entirely justified: Yes, but does it not appear in everything that people experience through visions, hallucinations and so on that such people, when exposed to such states of mind, develop a much greater belief in their fixed ideas, in their hallucinations and visions than in what their senses give them externally or what their minds impose on them? When one beholds the rigid and unbending faith of the illusionists, one must become dubious about what the spiritual researcher wants to bring up from the depths of his soul, as something that is not an illusion, that is supposed to have objective existence in the spiritual world. One could say that there could be something that has an objective existence in the spiritual world, but with regard to the validity of such a soul experiment, it must be said that the illusionist has just as much confidence in his delusions as the spiritual researcher has in his research results, which he owes to what comes up from the depths of the soul.

Only someone who has not followed the development of objective research, which one might say is the sound science of the last centuries and decades, can smile at such an objection. It is more weighty than one usually thinks, and is usually thought by those who come to their spiritual-scientific results from a one-sided direction. It must be said, for example, with reference to what is communicated in my book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, where certain indications are given for the individual soul, that the soul, if it abandons itself entirely to such an experience, has no point of reference to control it. All this shows that one must deal with such an objection, which may even appear trivial to a superficial spiritual researcher, in the most serious way. So much has been said about the nature of, as one might say, untrue ideas that what is said against it can also be applied to spiritual science by saying: everything you present as methods to educate the soul need not be anything other than just a more sophisticated ability to create illusions and hallucinations.

But then, especially spiritual science appears out of place compared to serious, verifiable science when it points out the individual results. The conscientious seeker of truth of the present day, who has become familiar with the developments of recent years, might say: Do you know nothing of all that has happened? You speak of an etheric body or life body that is supposed to have an independent existence from the physical body. Do you know nothing of the fact that until the nineteenth century people believed in something called life force, and that serious scientific efforts have finally dispelled the belief in this life force? Do you know nothing of the following fact: In earlier centuries, it was said that a chemical process takes place in inanimate nature between the individual chemical substances out there. But when the same combination of substances enters the human organism, the so-called life force takes hold of it; then, under the influence of the life force, the individual substances do not interact as we learn in chemistry and physics, but the individual substances interact under the influence of the life force. It was a great advance when this vital force was thrown overboard, when people tried to say that this vital force does not help at all, but that one must proceed in such a way that what can be investigated in the inanimate world can be investigated must be pursued further in the living organism, that one must only take into account the more complicated way in which the substances interact there, and that one does not have to throw oneself onto the quagmire of the life force.

The vital force was dismissed as just such a “scientific redoubt” when it was shown how the effectiveness of certain substances, which in the past could only be thought of as influenced by the vital force, could also be achieved in the laboratory. And because it is not yet the end of the day, science must still set itself the lofty ideal of also considering the composition of substances as they are present in the cell of the plant, and must not lie on the foul bed of a life force when it comes to investigating how the substances and forces work in the organism.

As long as it was not possible to produce certain compositions of matter in the laboratory, it was justified to say that they only came about when the individual substances were captured by the life force. But since we have succeeded – particularly through Liebig and Wöhler – in producing certain substances without the aid of a special life force, since we no longer believe in the life force, it must be said that even the more complicated combinations in the human organism no longer require the help of a special life force. Thus, in the course of the nineteenth century, science was confronted with the lofty ideal that most researchers hold, even if there are also “neo-vitalists.” This ideal will be fulfilled: to recognize the material connections as they assemble in the living organism and to produce them without the aid of a nebulous, mystical life force, which, as the serious scientific research of the nineteenth century has always maintained, is of no use at all because it contributes nothing at all to the objective knowledge of nature.

Anyone who recognizes these facts and, above all, who sees the seriousness and dignity underlying this development of science, may well object: Is it credible that a number of people are now appearing as so-called spiritual researchers who, in the form of their etheric body or life body, are reviving the old life force? Is it not a sign of scientific dilettantism? They may “believe” who know nothing of the ideals of science; but the scientific researcher himself cannot be taken in by what can only appear as a rehash of the life force. Thus spiritual science, one might say, dabbles in a dilettantish way, disregarding everything that belongs to the most beautiful ideals of modern science. It only uses the fact that science has not yet succeeded in producing certain substances found in the living organism in the laboratory, in order to be able to claim for the time being that a special etheric body or life body is necessary for the production of life. It can be said that advancing science will eventually expel this etheric body or life body from the human being. As long as science, in its triumphal march, has not yet succeeded in showing that there is no etheric body and that the combination of the substances of the living organism can also be produced in the retort, as long as the theosophists or spiritual researchers make a fuss about the etheric body, which is just a rehash of the old life force! This reproach could be raised, initially, as a fact of dilettantism.

If spiritual science now says of the sleeping life: affects, drives and desires of the human being are bound to a special astral body, and this emerges from the etheric body and physical body when sleep overcomes the human being and leads an existence of its own, then one can say that it is very easy to speak of an inner soul life if one simplifies matters by not accepting this inner soul life with all the difficulties and riddles that present themselves to science, but by saying: There is an astral body, and what takes place within is bound to it. One can also refer to the progress of science and ask: What about the great progress that has been made, especially in recent decades, to explain the phenomena of sleep life and dream life in purely scientific terms? It would take a long time if I wanted to present to you all the efforts of science – which are to be taken very seriously and with great dignity – to explain the life of sleep and the life of dreams. It would take a long time especially because a large number of research projects have emerged recently that are very much open to discussion.

It suffices to consider one point of view that can show how difficult it is for the serious truth-seeker of the present day to profess what may initially seem like an assertion: the I and the astral body of the human being withdraw from the physical body and etheric body when falling asleep.

If we take a blanket explanation of sleep life, summarizing a large number of different hypotheses and statements about sleep life, it is the following: It is said that to explain sleep life, all that is needed is an unbiased look at the phenomena of the human or animal organism. It shows that waking life consists of the phenomena of the environment making an impression on the sense organs, of them exerting stimuli on the brain. Throughout the whole day they exert such stimuli. How do they affect the brain and nervous system of the human being? They have the effect of destroying the substance of which the nervous system consists. All day long, says modern natural science, we are confronted with the fact that external colors, sounds and so on penetrate our soul, that is, our brain life. This causes dissimilation processes, that is, destruction processes. Certain products are deposited.

As long as these processes are taking place, the human being is unable to bring about the reverse process, that of rebuilding his organism. Therefore, every time we wake up, our inner soul life is destroyed to a certain extent, so that by the time we have become tired, we have destroyed our organism and it can no longer develop an inner soul life; it ceases. We need assume nothing else except that fatigue substances are deposited in our organism through the day's life. We need only assume the attrition of the organic substance, that the organic substance is no longer able to develop its internal processes for a certain time. But then the external stimuli no longer work, and the result is that the inner organism now begins to develop its nutritional processes, the opposite of the dissimilation processes, the assimilation processes, that it now restores the destroyed organic substance, and this is how night sleep is effected. Once the organic substance has been restored, the inner soul life is also restored, and so the waking life can again exercise new stimuli until fatigue sets in again. Thus, we are dealing with what is called the self-regulation of the organism.

Can we not admit that the conscientious truth researcher, who is familiar with the results of today's science, must say: If the alternation of waking and sleeping can be well explained by the self-regulation of the organism, then it is not only superfluous but also directly harmful to impede the progress of such human science by saying that there is no self-regulation, but that something comes from outside the organism because the human being is independent. Since it can be explained entirely by the organism that the alternation of sleep and waking occurs, it is unnecessary and harmful to assume that consciousness is something special and steps out of the organism to develop a special life during the night. Again, one can point out that on the part of spiritual science there is a terrible dilettantism in which only those who do not know the path of science itself believe in order to explain the organism from within.

When people speak of the independence of spiritual life, when they speak of the fact that spiritual life is independent, that we have the human organism as a physical one through our senses and explore through the methods of science how physical occur, while the spiritual is still there, this is something that has often been emphasized, for example by Du Bois-Reymond and also by others who do not readily profess materialism. For example, take any cerebral representation: if you magnify the human brain to such an extent – Leibniz already said this – that you could walk around in it, you would only see material processes in it. But the spiritual life is still something special, and that testifies that one is dealing with a spiritual life that is separate from the processes of physical life. If that is justified, then what Benedict says, for example, shows this: the fact of consciousness is basically no different from the fact of the effect of gravity in connection with matter. Because we see, for example, the physical matter of a celestial body. According to the assumptions of physical science, this exerts the force of gravity, and there is something that is attracted, for example, by the sun. In the past, such effects between the sun and the earth or moon were thought to be something supernatural. But it is just the same as if we have a piece of soft iron and, in addition to it, the power of electricity or magnetism. And when we have the brain before us, with its crowded ideas, passions, affects and so on, it is just the same as the fact that gravity and other forces prevail around the material earth. So why should it be different from another effect, when processes are at work around the brain that occur in the same way as the gravitational processes around the material earth? The earth in connection with gravity and the other invisible forces at work around it is no different from what is at work around the brain in the form of affects, ideas and other processes. How can one have the right, one might ask, to speak of the independence of the spiritual life when one does not ascribe to oneself the right to speak of the fact that gravity is also exerted when there is no attracting body? And one can go on to say: Just as one has no right to speak in such a case in the free space of the universe of a world body developing gravity, so one has no right to speak of a special soul that is not bound to a material existence in a brain.

It should be clear to every serious spiritual researcher that such matters must not be dismissed with an unscientific fanaticism.

If there are already serious objections to the spiritual-scientific assumption about the life of sleep and wakefulness, about the independence of consciousness in general, how can anyone who takes the scientific methods of the present seriously somehow reconcile himself with what spiritual science about repeated earthly lives, about the existence of the human core of our being, which continues to exist after death, which undergoes experiences in the time between death and a new birth, and then reappears in a new, next physical earthly life! This is not only objected to by those who rely on scientific facts, but also by those who today want to be spiritual scientists themselves in many respects: by psychologists, by the soul researchers of the present day. The question is asked: What is the necessary characteristic for the continued existence of the human being? The psychologist of the present can find this in nothing other than in the fact that the human consciousness remembers the conditions it has gone through during life. Continuity of consciousness is what the psychologist of the present particularly focuses on. He cannot concern himself with that which does not fall within the consciousness of the human personality, and he will always have to rely on the fact that although man has a memory of his particular states in his life between birth and death, nothing analogous can be shown for the existence of the human being that comes over from previous earthly lives. Many a serious seeker after truth today will be able to object to many other things that have been presented in the course of this series of lectures. It can be said: You can indeed put forward the idea that certain things in human life appear in such a way that they cannot be explained by the events of the individual life, but that one must assume that a person brings certain abilities, talents and so on with them through birth, so that one can assume that the soul already exists before entering into physical life. But all of this remains a mere daring hypothesis. All this remains insufficient in the face of modern soul research, in that the latter again takes a path that seems to be steering quite conscientiously towards an ideal.

What is presented here can be characterized in the following way: anyone who looks impartially at human life, at how it unfolds with these or those passions, with this or that shade of feeling, with an inclination towards these or those ideas, will, if they place themselves without much hesitation the standpoint of spiritual science, will say: Our education has indeed achieved many things for us; but it cannot explain everything, for we bring with us from birth something that comes from earlier stages of our existence on earth. But, the serious scientist may reply, have we not started to investigate the first childhood life, the childhood life that is not remembered later?

The modern natural scientist or the philosopher might then say: Here the spiritual researcher wants to explain an ingenious person, such as Fexzerbach, for example, by saying that he has brought certain powers with him from his previous life and that this has enabled him to work artistically. But now the following discovery has been made: Such a painter paints with a very special color mood, prefers a certain facial expression and so on, in a very specific direction. If one follows this up, one finds that, for example, in his first years as a child he saw a bust in his room and that a particular way in which the light always fell on it engraved itself on the child's soul. This then reappears later, and it then becomes apparent, one might say, that such impressions are deeply effective and significant. It is possible to explain a lot through this. Spiritual science wants to trace everything back to earlier lives on earth, while perhaps everything can be explained by careful observation and research into early childhood.

One can then point further to modern natural science, which shows through the biogenetic law how man really does go through the animal forms, which are assumed to have passed through the human race in earlier states on earth, in the prenatal state, so that there is justification for showing this. Following on from this, one can say: Where does spiritual science point to something similar, that something is repeated in the individual life that a person has gone through in previous lives on earth? One would have to be able to demand this if, as a legitimate seeker of truth in the present, one is to believe that in this respect spiritual science applies the same seriousness and dignity that is present in a similar claim on the basis of natural science. And so it has come about — and with a certain justification one can say — that once man has acquired a little scientific knowledge about human life, animal life and also planetary life, which is accessible to us through astronomy, he can then give free rein to his imagination, draw conclusions and devise all kinds of other worlds that give a very strong impression of reality. Of course, someone who has no knowledge of natural science will very soon become entangled in contradictions, and his ignorance will soon become apparent as he projects all kinds of things that do not correspond to the results of natural science. But anyone who is familiar with natural science will show that his ideas fit very nicely into what natural science shows. Then he will not be refuted. But who in spiritual science stands up for the fact, one can ask again now, that something like this has not been projected out of such assertions without justification and then developed fantastically? Who guarantees that we take the standpoint that only that which can be investigated by everyone should be valid? Therefore, we would have to embrace this for the simple reason that we see how something emerged in the nineteenth century that is also asserting itself in modern spiritual science.

We have seen that in the nineteenth century in German and French intellectual life, the things that spiritual science asserts have asserted themselves. In 1854, Reynaud published a work, “Terre et ciel”, and Figuier published a work about what happens to man after death. There have been numerous opponents with a scientific education who have said: Yes, what is better, that you invent facts based on natural science about a multitude of human lives on earth, about life after death, and so on, or is it better to accept some other equally fictitious hypothesis about these things?

When such objections are raised, and when they are not raised in a frivolous way, but entirely on the basis of a serious search for truth, then it must be said that they are not objections that arise only from a spirit of contradiction, but that the human soul must raise itself, all the more so because on the other hand one sees again how little conscientiousness on the part of those who want to cultivate spiritual science when “proofs” are presented that human life is an individual one and it is said that one cannot find an explanation for phenomena such as human conscience and the sense of responsibility unless one wants to assume certain tendencies and inclinations from previous lives on earth. Some people say: If I feel responsible, then I must have acquired the disposition for it. Since I have not acquired it in this life, it must have been in a previous one.

It is also said that human conscience is a phenomenon that proves that an inner voice speaks to us that we cannot derive from this life, and therefore we must derive it from a previous one. Then it is also said: You look at the different children of the same parents, they have very different spiritual characteristics. But if everything is supposed to be passed down from parents to children by inheritance, how can such differences be explained, as they occur even in twins? Therefore, one may conclude - so people say - that the children of the same parents have different individualities, which cannot be inherited, but must have been drawn from a previous life into the present one.

The conscientious truth-seeker will object: Do you not take into account the fact that the individuality of a person, as he appears to us, arises from the mixture of the paternal and maternal elements, and that therefore the mixture must be different for each individual child? Should not even twins, because they have different mixtures, have different individualities if they are explained only by inheritance?

This objection is not far-fetched, but one that arises from the matter itself. If you consider everything, you find it perfectly understandable that those who always demand a “controllable” science do not include spiritual science because it is not controllable; and if you consider that such opponents have something significant for themselves, you understand them. They have this for themselves, that there is something else besides the critical spirit in our time. This critical spirit is certainly present, and when spiritual science says something, it immediately calls upon its opponents, who are not only logically irritated but also morally outraged that such theories are put forward. Such opponents are called upon, and criticism is something we see springing up everywhere. And because spiritual science and its ideas are a shock to our time, such criticism is quite understandable.

But alongside the critical spirit, credulity also lives in our time, running after anyone who claims something from spiritual science. The longing to get things in such a way that one can also understand them is not very present in people, it is just as little present as the critical spirit and credulity are strongly present. Thus we see that through credulity, through the acceptance of authority by a gullible public, which accepts all kinds of things from spiritual science, the way is paved for precisely that which has always asserted itself against real, serious spiritual research, namely, charlatanry. It is a challenge to charlatanry when people gullibly run after everything. And it is a great temptation for people when all sorts of things are believed, when they are relieved of the difficulty of really justifying these things before the forum of science, before the forum of the spirit of the age. Even in our time, what is mentioned here is only too widespread. We see how credulity and the most blatant superstition are running rampant. There are hardly two other things in the world that are as closely related as spiritual science and charlatanry. If one cannot distinguish between the two paths, if one accepts everything only on the basis of blind faith in authority, just as by nature some things must be accepted on authority, which is often the case in the present time, then one invites what is rightly criticized by serious truth seekers: the charlatanry that is so closely linked to spiritual science. It is understandable that someone who is unable to distinguish the charlatan from the spiritual researcher might object that it must all be charlatanry.

It is easy to make the transition to the moral and religious spheres. We can characterize the objections that arise in these areas more quickly because they are easier to understand.

One can say: Just look how what must be the most intimate matter of the human soul, what a person can find for themselves as faith, as their subjective belief, is blown up into an apparent science! And one can object to the spiritual scientist: If you present that as your faith, we will leave you alone. But if you want to impose on others what you present as a teaching from the higher worlds, then that is contrary to the nature and character of how the inner life of man should relate to the spiritual worlds, to religious life in general. If one then also wants to show the fruits in this respect, one can say: One looks at people who, in spiritual-scientific circles, for example, have made the idea of repeated earthly lives their conviction; one can see in them how what is the moral world view is introduced into the most blatant egotism precisely through a spiritual-scientific world view. And one can compare the results of spiritual science with the materialism of the nineteenth century by saying: There were numerous people who were able to go beyond mere material processes with their minds, and who said: I do not see my higher morality in claiming a spiritual world after my death in order to be accepted by it and to continue to live there, but when I do something moral, I do it without hope of a spiritual world, because duty commands me to do so, because I gladly give what is my own egoity.

There have been many for whom the morality of immortality was only a selfish morality. This morality seemed to them to be much less good than the one that lets everything that is done pass into general world life at the death of man. In contrast to this is the morality of those who say that it would make no sense if what they do did not find its compensation in the following life on earth. This law of karma, the opponents of spiritual science can now say, only favors human selfishness; quite apart from such people, who may even say: I recognize many lives in the future. So why should I become a decent person now? I have many lives ahead of me, and even if I remain stupid in the present, I can still become wise and clever in the lives to come. “So one could say that repeated lives on earth are an invitation to lead a comfortable and carefree life. All this shows that the idea of repeated lives on earth is that selfishness, which wants to preserve one's self, is very far removed from selfless morality.

And an objection can be raised to Friedrich Schlegel's view of repeated earthly lives, as they are assumed by the Indians: The view of the human being's life, which rushes from embodiment to embodiment, leads to man being alienated from active, direct intervention in reality, so that he loses interest in everything in which he is to develop. It is easy to notice a certain unworldly eccentricity in those who immerse themselves in spiritual science. A certain spiritual egoism, a certain unworldly doctrine is cultivated as a result. Indeed, it can be seen that such people say: After studying spiritual science for a certain period of time, I lose interest in what I used to love. This is a common occurrence, but it shows that the objection is taken seriously, that the person should work in the world to which he is assigned! It is a serious objection that spiritual science should not alienate people from the direct and strong life of reality, should not turn them into eccentrics who let everything go haywire.

And now religious life! One can say: What is the most beautiful flower, the most glorious flower of this religious life? It lies in devotion, in the selfless devotion of the human individuality, one can say, to a divine beyond the human. The self-loss of the mind, the self-sacrificing devotion of the mind to the divine beyond the human, produces the actual religious mood. But now spiritual science comes and explains to man that there is a divine spark in him, which first expresses itself in a small way in one earth life, but then is developed and becomes more and more perfect, so that the God in man becomes stronger and stronger. That is self-deification instead of selfless devotion to the extra-human divinity.

Yes, one can object with some justification, if one takes the religious view seriously, that by living in one's own divine nature, if it is realized through the various incarnations, the true religious sentiment can be destroyed, as can the life of love. If a person does not feel impelled to live in direct loving devotion, but thinks that he will make up for it in a later life on earth, then he is only loving with a view to making up the balance. And the religious man can say: In the world view of spiritual science, religious life is based on the egoism that man does not have God outside himself, but within himself. And the objection is justified: what a sum of arrogance, pride and self-deification can be established in the human soul as a result!

Those who have such objections do not need to imagine them. But it can be seen from this how dream-like followers of spiritual science can come to such pride and repeatedly to such self-deification. This is why we find such a rebellion against the existence of the divine spark in man in the Occident, against the existence of the human essence before birth. One should not take it lightly, which one can find in a serious truth researcher as such an objection to repeated earthly lives in contrast to the conditions of inheritance.

One objection, which I will read out – and I will not talk about it further so as not to weaken it – is found in Jacob Frohschammer, who can be taken as a type of person who can object to the assumption of a pre-existence of the soul in many ways:

”... The human soul cannot possibly regard itself as a divine essence or as a part of God, not so much because of the Thomistic concern for the unity of God, since they could still be moments in him without damaging his unity, but rather because of the human soul's own consciousness and testimony, which can neither regard itself nor the world as a direct expression of divine perfection or as the realization of the idea of God himself. As coming from God, it can only be considered a product or work of divine imagination; for the human soul, like the world itself, must in this case come from divine power and activity (since nothing can come from mere nothing), but this power and activity of God must, as in the creation of a model, also be effective in the realization and preservation; thus as formative power (not only formally, but also in a real way), therefore as imagination, i.e. as a power or potency that continues to act and create within the world, thus as world imagination, - as this has already been discussed earlier. As for the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls (of souls that are either considered eternal or created temporally, but already at the beginning and all at once), which, as noted, has been rediscovered in more recent times and is considered suitable for solving all kinds of psychological problems, it is connected with the doctrine of the transmigration of souls and the incarceration of souls in earthly bodies. According to this, when the parents are conceived, neither a direct divine creation of the souls nor a creative production of new human natures by body and soul takes place, but only a new connection of the soul with the body, thus a kind of incarnation or immersion of the soul in the body, at least partially, so that it is partly embraced and bound by the body, partly it extends beyond it and maintains a certain independence as a spirit, but still cannot escape from it until death breaks the connection and brings liberation and salvation for the soul (at least from this connection). In this state, the human spirit was said to resemble the poor souls in purgatory in its relationship to the body, as they are usually depicted by bungling painters on votive tablets, as bodies half immersed in the blazing flames, but with the upper part (as souls) protruding and gesticulating! Just think what position and significance this view would give to the sexual contrast, the nature of the human race, marriage and the relationship between parents and children! The sexual antagonism only a means of incarceration, marriage an institution for the execution of this fine task, the parents the minions for the detention and incarceration of the children's souls, the children themselves owing this miserable, laborious imprisonment to the parents, while they have nothing else in common with them! All that is tied to this relationship is based on miserable deception!"

If you are a fanatical spiritual scientist, you may smile at such a thing, but fanaticism should be alien to spiritual science. It should understand and truly tolerate that which the soul rebels against. For this reason, this introductory lecture was not given as a “justification” but as a “refutation” of spiritual scientific research. But what will be presented in the next lecture, “How to Justify Spiritual Research?”, will be all the more solid if we can make the objections to be justified ourselves. You may well believe that I do not want to refute spiritual research in truth!

I could only list a very small number of objections here. Many such objections could be made. Some of this can be done in the near future, and the refutation will follow on immediately. But from all that is stated, one can see how man, by undertaking spiritual research, is inwardly summoned to a battlefield, how not only the things that speak for repeated earth lives, for man's passage through a spiritual world, and so on, arise, but how all the counter-arguments can also arise from the dark depths of the soul. It is good when someone who is quietly engaged in spiritual research is also familiar with these counterarguments. Then he will also be able to show the right tolerance towards his opponents. Simply occupying oneself with spiritual science or turning a blind eye or laughing at the objections of one's opponents can never be the way of the spiritual researcher. That this does not have a beneficial effect was already shown in a particular case in the nineteenth century, which I would like to relate here.

In 1869, Eduard von Hartmann's “Philosophy of the Unconscious” was published. Even if one does not agree with it, one can still say that it was a good attempt to go beyond the sensory view. Therefore, Eduard von Hartmann had to oppose much of what had emerged as an ideal of science at the time, especially what came from the newly emerging Darwinism. Thus we find much in The Philosophy of the Unconscious that should not have become fashionable in the face of Darwinism. But the one thing that all those who, on the side of Darwinism, could not declare themselves in agreement with this book had in common was that they rose up against Eduard von Hartmann as one who had not familiarized himself with what followed from contemporary natural science. A flood of refutations appeared. It would be a mistake to think that these replies contained nothing but nonsense; some of them were written by people who are outstanding in their own fields, for example, by Ernst Haeckel, the zoologist Oskar Schmidt and others. Among these writings was also one whose author did not name himself, with the title “The Unconscious from the Point of View of Physiology and the Theory of Descent”. In it, a number of cogent arguments were put forward to show how many things in the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” could not be sustained and how its author had thereby demonstrated that he was nothing more than an amateur in the field of natural science. Many people were positively amazed at the ready wit with which this anonymous writer attacked his subject, and Oskar Schmidt, then at the University of Jena, thought that from the standpoint of natural science this was the best that could be said against The Philosophy of Unconscious. Some said: He calls himself us, because he is one of us; and Ernst Haeckel said that he himself could not write anything better against the “Philosophy of the Unconscious”.

So it was no wonder that the first edition of this work, “The Unconscious from the Point of View of Physiology and the Theory of Descent,” was soon out of print. A second edition appeared, and now the author called himself : it was—Eduard von Hartmann! Now some voices ceased that had previously said: he calls himself us, he is one of us. But the significant thing had been accomplished: a man had shown that he knew everything that the most serious opponents could bring against him. Once and for all, it has been proved that one should not believe that, if something can be said against a Weltanschhauung, the author of that Weltanschhauung could not have said it himself.

For spiritual science, this is a vital question. Today, I could not say everything that could be said. But spiritual science must know what objections can be raised against it, and it would only be desirable if some of those who believe they can summon up profound knowledge in order to refute spiritual science with this or that good scientific, exact reason could sometimes consider how much better the person against whom the objection is raised knows the matter than the person who raises it. This is the case with a conscientious spiritual researcher. Of course, he cannot bore his audience by always mentioning all possible counter-arguments. But when something is said in favor of spiritual science, and when many opponents arise, then the latter should first ask themselves whether what they are saying cannot be said by those who represent spiritual science.

The task of the next lecture will be to raise the question: How should the soul correctly relate to the counterarguments that arise from its depths? Is it really true that, because so much can be objected to spiritual science, man really has to position himself as - to put it in a somewhat figurative way - Goethe ultimately has his Faust say: “Could I remove magic from my path”? Are the counter-arguments of spiritual research the same as Faust's attitude towards the counter-arguments of magic? Are they such that a philosopher like Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire is right when he says: In the face of world observation, there is really only the following. We see that man is weak in many respects. Why should we not admit this weakness to ourselves, and why should it not be a strength precisely when one comes to terms with one's weakness? How man must admit to himself that he is weak against wind and weather, against volcanic forces and natural disasters! How man must admit to himself that he is weak in the face of what nature inflicts on him when he plants the seed in the earth and the unfavorable weather does not allow it to ripen, which only allows a famine to arise from his diligence! If man must often remind himself of his weakness, why should he not say it, out of honesty: although the mind can rise above itself in many ways, it is also weak and limited and can do nothing about what nature imposes on it; so it can recognize nothing about what our nature is – we must resign ourselves!

If the reasons that have now been put forward were so weighty that the next lecture could not be given, there would be nothing left but such resignation, which not only Geoffroy de Saint-Hilaire, but many others feel from an honest, truth-loving soul, and who believe that they have to defend the idea that man cannot penetrate into a spiritual world. Because the counter-arguments arise not from a spirit of contradiction but from the nature of things themselves, the dispute about the nature and value of the counter-arguments of spiritual science is not merely a theoretical fact, but something that must arise out of the battlefield of the soul, where opinions wage a seemingly more or less justified war against opinions, and where only through hard struggles can one recognize which of these reasons can remain victorious there. If one faces the inner struggle of the soul openly and unreservedly and can say what speaks for and against a knowledge of the spiritual world, then one does not become a fanatical representative of this or that invented or contrived principle, but one adherer to that principle, and builds up a calm conviction on a foundation of reasons which are only then, and never before, asserted for themselves when they have driven out all opposing arguments from the field of their own soul.

When the seeker of truth seeks his conviction in this way, he may confidently go forward into the future development of spiritual life, for what the earnest seeker of truth has said is true: Whatever is untrue, however often it may be repeated, will be cast out by the ever-developing striving for truth in humanity. But that which is true and has to fight for its existence against opposing arguments, as we can see in the events of world history, finds its way in the development of humanity in such a special way that one can stand before this development of truth into the centuries and millennia and say: And no matter how many covering impressions, that is prejudices and contradictions, are piled up, the truth will always find crevices and cracks to assert itself, to assert itself for the benefit, progress and use of humanity.