Results of Spiritual Research

GA 62 — 7 November 1912, Berlin

2. How Can Spiritual Research Be Justified?

In the preceding remarks, I allowed myself to cite a number of objections and refutations of spiritual research or anthroposophy. It would be a misunderstanding if anyone were to believe that today's lecture was intended to refute these refutations, for it should be stated from the outset that this is not a game of thought, nor a dialectical game with reasons and counter-reasons. The spiritual research that is to be discussed here and has always been discussed is intended to work in full harmony with the science and education of the present day. Therefore, the latterly mentioned replies have not been cited in the sense that one could easily dismiss them out of hand, but they have been cited in the sense that they do, to a certain extent, legitimately arise in the soul of today, in the soul that takes into account the achievements of our spiritual science, the progress of our spiritual culture up to the present day. They have been put forward, not as unjustified objections, but as objections that are justified within certain limits. The feeling should be awakened of the seriousness with which spiritual research would like to work and of the awareness that it can take full responsibility for itself from its sources, itself, although this spiritual research fully understands — that should be said mainly with these objections — that it is, so to speak, dependent only on itself in what one might call the main opposition of three, which it faces.

One opposition arises from contemporary science, or at least from that science which often believes that it is built without contradiction on this contemporary science. The second opposition arises from various religious denominations, and the third arises from the ordinary consciousness of the day, which instinctively rebels in many respects against what spiritual science and spiritual research has to say.

It could easily appear as if the question were justified: How does spiritual research prove its assertions against the objections raised? How does it prove what it has to say? — In the course of these winter lectures, we will hear a great deal about the content of this spiritual research, about the actual results of research into the supersensible world. In these first two lectures, I must be allowed to speak in a way that some people may find difficult to understand or uninteresting, even though it is meant to be abstract. For even if it is not possible to follow all of my remarks in the first and second lectures, it is still possible to gain the feeling that a truly good foundation is being sought for this spiritual research. Therefore, some questions may be raised today that may be found uninteresting by those who would be more interested in immediately receiving this or that story from the supersensible world. The question may be raised: Is it at all possible to apply to the foundation of a world view what is usually called proof in the sense in which it is often believed? Can proof be regarded as something that, when it is present, includes the compulsion for every person to be convinced?

Anyone who seriously professes any worldview usually believes that he can prove it, and he will certainly cite his proofs for this worldview if he wants to be taken seriously. In the face of this widespread belief, I would first like to quote a word from a vigorous, energetic German philosopher, the word of Johann Gottlieb Fichte, who says: What kind of philosophy one has depends on what kind of person one is.

If we want to get to the bottom of a saying like Fichte's here, if we want to ask in other words what he meant, we have to say to ourselves: it is not just a matter of evidence, but of which evidence one considers decisive, which evidence has the weight for a person according to the development of his soul, if he wants to gain insight into this or that. Thus, even a philosopher like Fichte points us to the human soul when it comes to evaluating evidence. It is, as it were, demanded that man, through his soul development, has acquired the ability to understand the weight of evidence. To put it trivially, I would like to say: What use is all this evidence in the end to someone who cannot believe in it? And we can see how it is with so-called proofs in many cases by studying the methods of some world-views that appear to be built entirely on the firm foundation of scientific facts.

When I say something like I am about to say now, I must, however, always add at the outset: I do not believe that anyone can have more respect and recognition for the progress of natural science in our time than the genuine spiritual researcher. And today I would like to add in particular that all the objections that were raised eight days ago are meant in such a way that they are justified, in that the spiritual researcher's immediate objections to what was said eight days ago would be unjustified. For the spiritual researcher does not deny what the natural scientist asserts, and rightly so. He fully recognizes it. This fact must also be taken into account.

Spiritual research is constantly being opposed by natural science; on the other hand, spiritual research itself does not oppose natural science at all, if one is able to appreciate the true state of affairs. But there are many scientific facts that are used by certain schools of thought today in such a way, and seemingly put in such a light, that one can fully agree with the facts, but not with the way in which certain world views sometimes want to prove something on the basis of these facts. The facts that arise from natural science are mostly confirmed by spiritual research, and it may be said that the time will come when that which is justified in Darwinism and in the modern theory of evolution will find the right appreciation precisely through spiritual research.

Thus it can also be clear, in particular through spiritual research, that the soul of man, in order to prove itself effective in the external physical world, must make use of certain spiritual functions of certain parts, certain sections of the brain, just as one must make use of other hand movements. Just as the hand is assigned to certain human activities, so certain parts of the brain are assigned as tools to the soul's experience. Spiritual research will enable us to see the true meaning and significance of this relationship, and there is no contradiction between spiritual research and the views of natural science in this respect. On the other hand, the so-called proofs that are adduced often appear very fragile to anyone who understands the value of evidence. For example, when it is repeatedly stated that certain parts of the brain are involved in mental life, and that the disease of these parts of the brain switches off the mental activity in question, and it is therefore not possible to perceive that the soul accomplishes certain tasks, such as speech, so that the speech center is switched off.

For those who understand the value of evidence, such evidence truly meets the objection of the famous, if non-existent, Professor Schlaucherl, who, as some of you may know, wanted to prove how a frog feels. To do this, he put a frog on the experimental table and knocked on the table, and lo and behold, the frog jumped away – so it had heard it. Now he pulled out the frog's legs and tapped on the table again. Now the frog did not jump away because its legs had been pulled out. But from the fact that it could no longer jump away, Professor Schlaucherl concluded that the frog hears with its legs, because if it has no legs, it cannot be shown that it can hear.

When such a thing is stated, one must, of course, apologize. But it is logically and methodically quite in line with what is often cited today for evidential purposes, which are not to be doubted in the slightest by spiritual science, which are even true. But the evidence cited will never be able to truly convince those who are able to judge conclusive human statements.

Thus it is with much of what has just been stated in the previous lecture, as it is a weighty objection that can be made in the scientific sense by serious and worthy researchers of contemporary natural science, that people in the past came up with the life force and tried to explain everything that happens in the living body on the basis of this life force. But the nineteenth century has shown that this life force cannot be used for anything and that, if one only assumes the usual forces in certain substances, one can show, as soon as one proceeds in a laboratory, how certain composite substances, which were previously believed to be produced only in the living organism by the life force, can be produced in the laboratory without this life force. So that the ideal of science must be to assume that one day it will be possible to actually produce more complicated substances of the living in this way. Now the spiritual researchers come along and claim that there is a special life body or ether body in the living organism that is necessary for the living phenomena to come about. But this is nothing more than a rehash of the old life force. It could only have come from dilettantish souls who, out of convenience, seek an explanatory principle where they do not know how to take into account the advances of true science due to their lack of knowledge.

I would first like to explain, by means of a kind of historical testimony, how this whole conclusion affects a soul that is not prejudiced by the, let it be said, justified progress of science, and which does not readily surrender to its conclusions. I would like to show it first through something historical. It is believed that the assumption of an etheric body or life body has been refuted by the argument that it must be regarded as an ideal of science to assemble the living substance from its individual substances in a laboratory ; therefore, one could no longer believe in a basis for life through something supernatural, but one must see it as an effect in the purely material when working in the laboratory and combining the composite substances from the simple ones.

There was a time when people truly believed more than today's serious scientists dare to believe, that not only a single living substance but also the lowest living creatures, even a small human being, the well-known homunculus, could be put together in a laboratory. The time when people firmly believed that the homunculus could be created in the laboratory did not take this belief at all as if it meant that the supernatural nature of life phenomena had been eliminated; on the contrary, it was precisely then that people really believed in the supernatural nature of life phenomena. This is a historical objection to the claim that it is incompatible for human thinking to believe in the supersensible origin of life and at the same time to fully support the natural scientist's view that life could be reproduced in the laboratory. The two things are compatible, and to prove that they are compatible, one must perhaps again bring forward a rather trivial train of thought, but this is no less significant for those who not only do not allow themselves to be hypnotized or influenced by a scientific world view, but who are able to respond to the whole structure of the human soul.

We see certain substances before us. We put them together. We see – we hypothesize – how living substance arises from them. Are we therefore justified in concluding that from what we have seen of the individual substances before us, the life of that substance has actually formed? No, we are not! And we are no longer justified in doing so from the moment we admit that the flies that appear after a certain time have not developed from the food remains in a room. If we see a room full of flies, we can say that these flies are there because the room is in disarray and food remains have been left behind. These food remains were the condition, but they did not make the flies. But the flies will always appear when the conditions are there, and when the conditions are there, life will appear. But no-one can claim that it emerged from this, but only that they were the cause that life appeared.

A supernatural process can also be assumed when things fit together in a laboratory-like manner. Therefore, it would be quite wrong on the part of spiritual research if it wanted to base itself on the fact that it wanted to rise in a more or less ironic or ingenious way above what science strives for as its ideal. It fully agrees with this. But that does not get out of the way what spiritual research contributes to the real, complete understanding of things.

Let us take as another example the objection raised in the first lecture against spiritual research, in so far as it explains the phenomena of sleeping and waking by saying that there is something supersensory in man that rises out of the physical body and etheric body when a person falls asleep, goes into a special spiritual world and submerges again into it when he wakes up. We have mentioned the important objection, which is absolutely convincing, that natural science attempts to explain the phenomenon of sleep by demonstrating a kind of self-regulation of the organism, by showing how the stimuli exerted by the impressions of daytime life destroy, so to speak, consume the organic substance, so that a point is reached where this organic substance, the substance of life, must be restored. While it is being restored, dullness covers the consciousness, and when the restoration is complete, the external stimuli can take effect again. So we would be dealing with a self-regulation of the organism and could say: What need is there of a special spiritual research that indulges in a special description of what is supposed to go out of a person during sleep in order to be in another world - when the phenomenon of sleep can be explained from the human body itself?

The following consideration shows the weight to be attached to the scientific description, which is true within certain limits. Even if the individual facts that I present can only be outlined, they are in harmony, if not in all details, then at least with the general spirit of present-day scientific research.

So what happens when the organism is at rest during sleep, even according to the scientific view? We have to say, according to the scientific view, that the organic substances used up by the impressions of the senses and by the other external impressions are repaired. So there is an inner process, a process that is entirely determined by the nature and the essence of the human body, of the human organism, and we can explain what happens so internally, of course, only from what lies in the laws of the human body, in the laws of the organism. But these laws of the organism can never, in the present or in the future, give us anything other than what the lungs, for example, give us for the respiratory process. Anyone who studies the human respiratory process will be able to understand it completely from the laws of lung life. But what the human being will not be able to understand is the nature and the effect of oxygen. This will have to be researched outside the lungs, it must first enter the lungs from the outside, and anyone who thought that by researching the lungs they would get to know the nature of oxygen would be greatly mistaken.

The lung process, everything that happens in the organism, can be experienced from within the life of the lungs. To understand the whole process of breathing, it is necessary that we go out of the life of the lungs and understand the nature of oxygen outside of it, and we gain nothing in knowledge about the nature of oxygen from the process of lung life. Nor do we gain any knowledge of everything that takes place in the waking consciousness from morning to evening, in which drives, passions, affects, ideals, and so on, rise and fall, by examining what happens in the organism during sleep. Just as the life of the lungs is not the same as the nature of oxygen, just as oxygen must enter the lungs from the outside, it is just as certain that everything contained in the phenomena of consciousness must unite with what comes into it from the outside, which we can study and observe internally during the sleep process as internal bodily processes.

However, it will not be possible to see through such a train of thought immediately. But if you follow it, it is not a mere analogy; it is more than that: it is a kind of educational tool for really looking at the things that we encounter in the characterized phenomenon in life together. And anyone who really enlightens themselves about the relationship between oxygen, which is outside and enters the lungs, and what happens in the lungs, will learn from such a concept, from such an idea, how to about what is outside the physical organism during sleep and about the processes that take place in the physical organism during sleep, just as oxygen must be added to the internal organic processes of the lungs if a breathing process is to occur in a truly vital way, so must consciousness be added if it is to be experienced.

The things that can be called a “founding of spiritual science” are not at all as simple as one often believes. Because they are not, it often seems as if they can be easily refuted. In the Fichtean sense, the recognition of reasons and counter-reasons in this field is really a matter of what kind of person one is, that is, what state of soul one brings with one in order to see things in their true light. How often do we hear people say: Oh, there come these spiritual researchers or anthroposophists and say that the human being, who is perceived as a unified being and for whom we have gained the insight that he is a unified being, is divided into different members or parts, into a physical body, an etheric body or life body, an astral body and an ego. Yes, everything can be categorized. But the point is not to divide at all, but to carry out such research methods according to the justified demands of a thinking that really penetrates into things. If someone has water in front of him, he will not be wrong in agreeing with the chemist who tells him: As long as you let this be “water”, you will never be able to determine what the chemical components of this water are; to do that, you have to break it down into hydrogen and oxygen.

As long as one remains in such a specific area, one will perhaps not hear the objection: You are committing a mortal sin against monism, because water is a monon. You must not divide it into hydrogen and oxygen, otherwise you become a superstitious dualist. In such a specific area, you may not hear such an objection because here the necessity for such a division is too obvious. What is the main characteristic that justifies such a division, considering not only water but the entire field of being under consideration here? The essential thing is that oxygen cannot be only in water, but, as the chemist thinks, also in other substances, with which it can combine completely, and that hydrogen can also combine with other substances, so that water can be divided, and the individual parts can enter into completely different combinations and have their special destinies in these combinations.

If the aim of spiritual research were only to distinguish between what presents itself as a human being, let us say the etheric body and the physical body, without mentioning the other, then one could say: You are just making a division. But follow spiritual research - not everything can be mentioned today - it is just the same as in chemistry, for example. We do not dissect the human being into a physical body and an etheric body because it is so convenient for us to separate the types of manifestation in this way in relation to this human being, but because we actually have to show: just as hydrogen and oxygen, when separated from their watery state, undergo different fates in different substances, so the physical body undergoes its own particular fate at death, as does the etheric body, and the astral body also enters into other connections. Just as the chemist follows water, not regarding it as a monad but understanding it as the duality of hydrogen and oxygen, and showing that hydrogen can take completely different paths from oxygen, so the spiritual researcher follows the paths of the physical body, the ether body or life body, the astral body and the ego in the most diverse areas of life. This entitles him to speak of a real division. An objection that he would thus violate monism would be equivalent to saying that anyone who separates water into hydrogen and oxygen violates monism.

It is therefore a matter of man's understanding, through real insight into the facts, the value, the justification of the objections and also the limits of the objections. One will recognize that one is dealing with true, genuine, serious spiritual science when one engages with it, that it does not lightly dismiss the objections, but that it tries to find the concepts for its results precisely by carefully considering the pros and cons. But if it has already been repeatedly pointed out today that Fichte said, “One has a philosophy that arises depending on one's nature as a human being,” then one could also say what was said eight days ago : there everything is traced back to an inner subjective source, and the power of conviction is sought, not in what is given externally, but in the way in which man could relate to the phenomena of the world. Then we come to the discussion of what was pointed out in the first lecture: the sources of spiritual-scientific knowledge. It was said that these sources arise through an evolution of the human soul. We shall speak again about how this evolution takes place, which paths the soul has to travel in order to truly ascend to knowledge and insights into the supersensible world. Today, we shall only say that the soul has to undergo inner processes that are referred to, for example, as meditation, as concentration of the inner life. What is achieved through such processes?

If someone who really wants to become a spiritual researcher wants to make his soul, so to speak, an apparatus for spiritual research, he must artificially create a similar state in himself to that which otherwise occurs in a state of sleep. That is to say, he must artificially be able to induce, through sharp concentration of will, what otherwise only occurs as a state of sleep through fatigue. He must be able to exclude all external sense impressions, must also be able to suppress all thinking bound to the brain, and yet he must avoid that state which otherwise occurs during sleep: the complete emptiness of consciousness. He avoids this by devoting himself to very specific ideas - we will characterize them later - that are suitable for concentrating his soul powers, contracting them so that they become stronger than they otherwise are. During sleep, when they leave the physical body, they are otherwise, as it were, thin and therefore unable to perceive anything of themselves or the world, their inner power of perception is too weak. Through meditation and concentration, however, they become stronger and denser. The person then withdraws from ordinary thinking not so much that he knows nothing of himself, as is the case in ordinary sleep, but so that he is able to consciously hold himself and, through the nature of this state, experiences: Now you hear nothing through the ears, see nothing more through the eyes, think no longer through the brain-bound thinking, but now you experience yourself in the pure spiritual and have a reality in the pure spiritual.

It is said that an ordinary and again justified objection to such an assertion of spiritual research is: Through such a development of the soul, for example, one can come to inner worlds of imagination, which are seen as an expression of a supersensible world. One can also have the opinion, based on the way these types of ideas arise, that they point to something real. But it can be said that it is known that the person who has hallucinations, delusions, visions also believes in these hallucinations and so on with all his might, and that it is therefore quite impossible to find a distinction in truth between hallucinations, delusions and so on and what arises in the spiritual researcher. Why should not what the spiritual researcher comes to in this way also be seen as a more refined, but still a mere hallucination? Apart from the fact that one can say that what is experienced inwardly is only subjective and cannot be checked by another at any time, as is the case, for example, in a physical experiment.

But now it must be pointed out that it is not at all in the nature of all truths that they can be found or even confirmed by external events. It may be said that the concepts of mathematics could be convincing in the extreme sense for anyone who just wants to think, because they are gained inwardly. To understand this, we need only refer to the ordinary mental image of three threes being nine. To understand this, all that is needed is an inner mental image of the soul, and it is nothing more than a sensualization when someone, for example, visualizes through three times three peas that three times three is nine. It depends on the inner development of the soul when someone has the realization that three times three is nine, and he does not need to confirm it first through an external process. He knows what he has experienced, he knows it without any external control. There is therefore an inner soul-searching for which external control is nothing more than an illustration that is exhausted in what is illustrated, and it can be seen that this inner experience is true.

In a very similar way, only at a higher level, is the difference experienced between error and truth in the supersensible world. The spiritual researcher must want to go through all the things that can lead him to knowledge: where do hallucinations, visions and illusions end, and where does supersensible reality begin? Where one ends and the other begins can only be understood in a similar way to how mathematical truths can be understood. But it can be understood. Anyone who is a genuine spiritual researcher and who knows the nature that really leads to spiritual research will not entertain the world with his visions, and if you find someone who entertains people about the supernatural world by sharing his visions, you can always assume that he is very far from being a true spiritual researcher. For the true spiritual researcher knows that all imaginary, visionary life known in the outer world is nothing but a representation of one's own soul life, that it represents nothing other than a projection of one's own soul into one's own space. And it is not in this space, not in what one actually means when one speaks of the imagination of the spiritual researcher as a non-knower, that what his science is based on lies, but in that which lies only behind this supposed space, after he has gone through the process of objectifying his soul life and breaking through the wall that first arises as a reflection of our inner soul processes.

It is precisely this that is important for the spiritual researcher: to have recognized the nature of hallucinations, visions and illusions in their connection with the inner soul life and to be able to say to oneself for a long time: what appears in this way is not to be understood as the objective determining factor, but purely as inner soul processes. And it is not so much a requirement of a true spiritual science training to use certain exercises, which can be read about in the book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, to get the soul to have experiences free from the body, to step out of the body; but it is more important that the soul gains a correct judgment about these experiences outside of the physical body, in the purely spiritual.

From a certain point onwards, the soul knows from what it experiences that it is no longer experiencing subjective processes, but that it has shed its subjectivity and is entering into an objective reality that is objective for everyone, just as mathematics is objective even though its validity can only be experienced internally. The mistake that people make who believe in their illusions is that they cannot maintain their resistance to the illusory world long enough, that they believe too soon in what they experience, that they do not say to their experiences not say to themselves long enough: This initially only appears to be a reflection of yourself, and only when you have stripped away everything subjective, as you do in mathematics, do you enter the sphere of objective reality.

This also eliminates the objection that one is dealing with something subjective in spiritual research experiences. One is dealing with something subjective just as little as one is dealing with something subjective when dealing with mathematical truths. When spiritual science is imparted, it is not actually a matter of providing evidence. If it is a matter of that, then one must understand the nature of proof above all. If it had never happened in the world that someone had seen a whale, no one would be able to prove that a whale exists. He could never prove the existence of a whale from all the knowledge he has, because a whale is a fact, and facts cannot be proved, but only experienced. This says something extraordinarily weighty about logic, but one must first be convinced of this weightiness.

From this point of view, the messages of spiritual research are not about providing evidence for the supersensible world or, for example, for the immortality of the soul, but about something completely different. Those who participate in the true work of spiritual research for a longer period of time will be convinced of this. It is not a matter of logical speculation, but of getting to know and communicating supersensible facts. When the spiritual researcher, through the already described development of the soul, has come to understand the life between death and the next birth, it is then a matter of him communicating the facts that he has to adduce for the life of the soul in the time between death and the next birth, of him communicating what he experiences in the supersensible world. In the case of the former, it is a matter of communicating experiences and facts that he encounters in his soul.

In the case of the latter, we may say that it arises from these communications. When it is shown how the soul remains enclosed in itself when the parts of the body disintegrate, how the soul then undergoes certain processes, how it experiences something in a purely supersensible world and gathers the forces for a new life in order to enter into physical existence again in a body when that is stated in all its details, then it is indeed shown how the soul lives when it has passed through the gate of death. Then reference is made to facts. It is a matter of such reference to facts, of such communication of facts, and not of abstract proof.

Now one could say: But then such a becoming acquainted with the corresponding facts would only have a meaning for someone who can see into the spiritual world, who has an evolved soul. Oh, such an objection looks extremely convincing, and this should not be denied. But anyone who knows the real life of the soul will also have a completely different relationship to this objection than many believe. Here we must ask the question: Are we at all convinced in our souls in ordinary life by someone's providing abstract proofs? Let us take an example. Let us take a picture, for example, the Sistine Madonna. Someone who has no idea of what lies in such a picture stands before it. Another person stands beside him and begins to prove to him what is in it. Yes, the listener does not understand at all what the other person is talking about. He can “prove” at length that there is something special about this picture; the listener cannot believe in his proofs. Because the fact that one provides proofs is not yet the essential, but the essential is that the listener has the possibility to believe in these proofs. Another stands before this picture; a second person comes up to him and speaks to him, and the listener now has the opportunity to perceive something that is to be expressed by the picture. Then, through what he has recognized, the other person stimulates in him what he believes is in the picture. He may not speak in a demonstrative way. He only describes what is working in him, only describes what is speaking in him, and once the listener has grasped in his soul what the other person is talking about, and then looks at the picture, he sees the other person in the picture, and it works in such a way that he knows: it is inside the picture. It does not depend on an abstract proof, but on the fact that someone approached us who knows what is in the picture, and that we can really absorb what is in the picture if we want to gain an insight into what is in it.

This is how it is when a person encounters the world and human phenomena, and the spiritual researcher approaches him. If the spiritual researcher were to want to use abstract arguments, then someone who is incapable of reliving in his soul what the spiritual researcher says could never be convinced by any argument. The spiritual researcher, however, proceeds as did the interpreter of the picture, of whom I spoke last. He explains what has arisen in his soul, which he first made an instrument for spiritual truths, as standing in the background of spiritual and human life. He gives the facts that he has experienced. And if the other person is able to absorb these concepts and facts into his entire soul life, he will now see the world in such a way that what the spiritual researcher has to say emerges as his own soul content through what the researcher has to say.

Of course, this cannot always be the case. If the spiritual researcher or student comes to the listener with very distant assertions, which may be truths of experience for himself, if he tells him - and no matter how much he has experienced in the spiritual world - what kinds of beings there are and what they do, then of course the listener, when he hears it for the first time, does not have the slightest inner obligation to believe what he hears. He will not and cannot believe it. Why can he not believe it? Because the distance between what is experienced in the soul and what such a spiritual seer has experienced in the soul is too great.

It would be equally unjustified for someone to believe that they could say that in thirty years a new world savior or a new world messiah would come, who could be waited for and who would impart very special great truths. Such a claim could only be made by someone who had no respect for the human soul and the achievements of human culture, and would only be made to someone who was not prepared for it. But there is a way to do everything differently, by taking up what really everyone with an unbiased soul can follow in a certain way. Therefore, it must be said again and again that the objection is unjustified that spiritual research only applies to those who, through their developed soul, can enter the spiritual world themselves. That is not true. One can only research the spiritual world if one transforms this soul into an instrument of perception in the spiritual world. But what one experiences there, one is, as it were, obliged to cast into such concepts that can be understood by any unbiased soul, according to the relevant period of time, if one just devotes oneself to them impartially and does not resist them through anything, for example, through a supposed or false erudition. Therefore it matters much more how the facts of the clairvoyant consciousness are communicated to some age than that such facts are communicated at all.

For example, anyone who has only read a book can be seen to believe that through spiritual research he has gained a judgment and is justified in saying: these spiritual researchers always begin to use the word “esoteric” when they run out of terms. But perhaps it could also be that when someone says something like this, the word esoteric always results in a kind of emptiness in his concepts, so that the word esoteric has a concept-erasing effect on him. So when someone resists in this way and does not call upon what is in his soul in order to let the results of spiritual research take effect on him, then, as we saw eight days ago, it is natural for the most fundamental objections to spiritual research to be raised. But when the soul devotes itself to spiritual research with an open mind, then common sense, healthy unprejudiced thinking, is enough to experience — not what is lost on the untrained soul, but what can be understood by it. For how does every human soul relate to the soul of the spiritual researcher, who has formed an opinion on certain concrete facts of the supersensible world because he has entered into them? Every soul relates to the soul of the spiritual researcher as a germ of life does to a fully developed life. And just as the germ of life, for example an egg, already contains the complete living creature, so every soul contains within it what only the spiritual researcher of that soul can ever say. Just as it can be shown in the undeveloped germ of life how the individual emerges from it, so the individual soul, when it receives the results of spiritual research, can gain insight into the spiritual worlds in a germinal way, but with complete conviction and insight.

Therefore, it is never justified to reproach the person who does not rely merely on his intellectual power of logical reasoning, but on his entire soul strength, for having to be a gullible person when he embraces what the spiritual researcher has to say. The intellect alone will not be able to comprehend it; but the whole soul will be able to accept it. Therefore, a real examination of spiritual research is possible, has always been possible and always will be. It is not a matter of accepting authority.

It should be noted that I did not call today's lecture “How to Prove Spiritual Research?” but “How to Justify Spiritual Research?”, that is, where to get it from and how can the human soul gain a relationship to it? This relationship will indeed be difficult for many people to find, for the reason that many objections to this spiritual research seem to carry weight. How could it not carry weight – and here I come back to a point where I have to speak in more abstract and uninteresting terms – when someone says: The spiritual researcher claims that in his supersensible consciousness he can follow the soul back to the time after birth or conception, how it lives between death and the next birth, and how it then lives into the present life. Now, it can be shown, so it could be objected, how certain peculiarities that the soul develops during life are prefigured in childhood or prefigured in the mother's womb before birth! Perhaps among the objections to spiritual research, there is nothing of such weight for many as such an objection. Those who have often heard such lectures will know that I myself also make such objections, for example, that so and so many great and minor musicians have lived in the Bach family, so that one could point out with a certain justification how the human being receives purely in the physical line of inheritance what makes him a musician. Thus one can point out how, through inheritance or through appropriation during one's lifetime, that which a person later displays as his special characteristics and as his individuality comes to him. Oh, such an objection is very significant when one occupies oneself with it, when one surrenders to its suggestive power, and every spiritual researcher will understand that there are people who cannot get away from such objections, who are extremely strongly affected by the force of the facts that can be adduced.

But there is something else involved in surrendering to such a force of evidence, namely, to recognize that causes, right causes, can be present and yet not really be the cause, not really the occasion for something to actually come into being. I am saying something seemingly very paradoxical, and for anyone who lets the weight of the spiritual-scientific facts work on his soul, it is not at all necessary to go into it. But here it is a matter of entering into it in relation to the age, in order to point out what can show from the philosophical point of view that causes can be there and yet cause nothing.

Why does a chicken, when it comes into being, have feathers, a beak or this or that bodily characteristic? Someone can certainly say: it has inherited these from its parent chicken, and for the particular shape of the beak and so on, the inherited characteristics are the causes that we find in the chicken from which the one in question descended. But now one must recognize that something special is needed if the properties of having feathers, of having a certain beak, and so on, which are present in the mother chicken, are also to appear in the daughter chicken: something can be a completely correct cause, but it is necessary for a certain germ to arise under certain things in order for the causes to become “causes”. What is important is not that we point from the following to the definite causes, but that we show how the causes can also become causes.

We have now reached the point where spiritual science can use its own facts to develop a relationship with, for example, Darwinism. No one who is not a curious but serious spiritual researcher will dispute the facts and serious arguments of Darwin and the Darwinians. He will even agree when Darwin asks: Why does the kitten snuggle up so when a person comes near it? The scientist points out that it is already snuggling up to its mother on her bed, and from this one can see how the later is connected to the earlier. One can point out the causes of how a person has this or that characteristic, which he may have received from his mother before he was born. One can point this out, but nothing has been said about how the causes have now become causes. Everything that can be said of a world view that appears to be firmly based on science, that can be explained by inherited traits and so on, is readily admitted by spiritual research, and those who raise objections from that point of view usually live under the assumption that they will not be admitted. They are admitted, but the other does not go into the fact that causes must first become causes, so that it is therefore something much deeper than he has in mind. This is generally the case today, that what spiritual research seeks to draw from the depths of existence is always judged only according to the surface that one is able to survey oneself. If this did not always happen, then, for example, a feature article such as the one that appeared in the “Berliner Tageblatt” last Sunday could not be written. I would just like to ask what will be said to a person who has formed a final opinion about chemistry, for example, based only on a single book? But that is what our contemporaries do. It may be said that spiritual research still has weighty reasons to feel vindicated in the present.

For those who have listened to these lectures for a long time, I may well say that much has been said here from the philosophical development. Those who are familiar with this may perhaps come to the conclusion that many philosophers have provided evidence for the immortality of the human soul. I myself must confess that I have never felt entirely comfortable with the proofs of the immortality of the soul or of a supersensible world that have been brought forward by philosophers, for what philosophers usually have in mind are only the concepts of things. Thus, even of the human ego, philosophers have only the concept of the ego. But it should be as clear to everyone that nothing real can be inferred from the concept of the ego as it is clear that a mere painter cannot paint a picture. Likewise, it should be clear that the image of the ego says nothing to the ego itself. Anyone who engages with spiritual science will see that conviction of the reality of the ego is gained through something entirely different, namely through the whole way in which the ego lives on after death.

Thus, one cannot feel comfortable with what well-meaning philosophers bring forward in this direction. But from what those who, as opponents, often really rail against, the one who sees things more deeply gains quite good proof of the nature of the ego. For there are indeed philosophers who say that they can only grasp the ego as a summary of all possible physiological, etc. activities. Then we see that these investigators adduce all kinds of evidence, but what they adduce cannot be related to the I. In this they are in the same sense, only in reverse, as the school of thought that seeks to explain the phenomena of life by the life-force. For just as the vital force is the fifth wheel on the wagon, so the explanations that are provided for the soul life not only explain nothing, but are even quite superfluous when it comes to truly exploring the soul. It is then seen that such explanations really leave the soul untouched and do not approach it at all, so that the soul remains on its own and proves to be something that external explanations cannot approach. Only when the feeling arises in the consciousness of the times that spiritual research cannot be judged superficially, but only by going deeply into it, only then will no judgment that comes from outside of spiritual research be able to be decisive.

The same applies to the objections raised in the first lecture from a moral or religious point of view as to the scientific objections raised against spiritual research. If, for example, it is said that it is infinitely more valuable when someone, out of pure unselfishness, does good even at the prospect of being destroyed in death, only out of the insight and the will that it passes into the general good – as if he did it with a view to making up for it in a future life, then such a judgment is absolutely true and should not be denied. It is true when it is said that a person only does a good deed out of selfishness, if he believes that karma will then reward him with a good deed in his new life as some kind of retribution, or if he refrains from evil because it could manifest itself as a kind of punishment in his new life. It is certain that such an assertion can be seen as justifying selfishness, and therefore it may be said with full justification: So it is precisely through what spiritual research has to say about man that selfishness among men is fostered.

Schopenhauer once said, and you know that I do not agree with him on everything: “It is easy to preach morality, but to found morality is difficult.” What does it mean to found morality? It means to bring about a state of mind in which a person can act morally. Anyone who is familiar with the life of nations knows that preaching morals is not only easy, but mostly very useless; because one can very well know quite good moral principles – and act quite badly. If it were just a matter of listening to sermons, there would certainly be many more moral people than there are.

Someone might say, for example, that a couple would do everything they could to ensure that their children become decent and hardworking people. Because, as the parents say, if we make them into proper, hardworking people, they will be able to support us in our old age and we will be able to get everything we need from them. If the parents educate their children from this point of view, it is undoubtedly a highly selfish point of view. But let us now assume that the children turn out well, so that they are hardworking people when they grow up. Then the parents have indeed done something selfish, but they have not preached morality themselves, but they have justified morality, and it could turn out that if they make the children into good people and the latter then later show something quite different from what they had imagined, they may still come to a quite different ethical view. Then morality would also be justified for the parents, not preached.

Let us assume that a person has no opportunity to calculate the compensation for bad actions for his next life on earth. But by committing acts under the influence of such a view of karma, a moral world view will gradually develop. It will be based on human nature. Someone who is still at a lower moral level will certainly act from a more selfish view of karma. But he who has attained a higher point of view and therefore also has a higher conception of karma will fulfill within himself a selfless moral demand.

Thus, the point is not to point to something abstractly by calling a karma idea selfish, but to show how it leads man upwards to a higher development. This could be further explained and shown how spiritual research goes to the real, the actual, of human nature. If someone were to raise the other objection that many could say to themselves: I have later lives ahead of me, so I only need to become a proper person in later lives; now I still have time, now I can still be an improper person - that would be an objection that can also be refuted theoretically. But to take the right attitude towards it, you need to know the practical circumstances. You have to know that someone who thinks he does not need to be an orderly person in his present life, that he wants to become one only in the next life, has worked this into his next life through such an intention. If he does not decide now to become an orderly person, then he will not have the necessary foundations for this in the next life either. So he is already depriving himself of the ability to be a decent person later on; he is robbing himself of the strength to do so. In this way, the justified moral objections could be discussed piece by piece.

The religious objection has also been taken into account. It is said: Here spiritual research must explain that there is a spark of the divine in every soul and that from life to life the human being develops this divine spark more and more. So the spark of the divine is placed in the human breast.

How one feels about this matter, when one knows how to put it in the right perspective, I tried to show in the first scene of my mystery drama 'The Trial of the Soul'. Of course, one could say that in such a view, what can be called the religious principle is lost, the feeling of dependence on the divine, outside of which man stands, the childlike looking up to this divine that is outside of him. But now take what is to be said from the other point of view, that man fully realizes that the Divine has placed a spark in him, which he must experience and bring to fruition; that he is actually able to realize: You carry a divine spark within you, and if you leave it undeveloped, you allow it to wither away! This being-together with the divine, and yet again the necessity of having to develop this spark first, that is an impulse of an infinitely greater strength than any other religious impulse.

Anyone who engages with spiritual science will see that it is not opposed to any religious belief. Because religious beliefs are so quick to turn against anthroposophical spiritual science, people believe that spiritual science will now turn against religious beliefs. But just as with the scientific objections characterized earlier, it is precisely with this religious objection: spiritual science does not come into the way of any religious confession, because it has to do with the relationship of the human soul to the supersensible worlds, while religion has to do with the relationship to the individual soul.

Those who are truly able to see will see how it is quite possible for a person to pursue spiritual research while remaining fully within a religious belief that is natural to him. But the true foundation of spiritual research, when it is accepted by the world, will be able to give man what can be called a deeper understanding of the life of the soul, both of the individual life of the soul and of the life of the souls together. Anyone who can be even a little convinced that all external human coexistence can only be an external image of how the souls relate to one another will understand the enormity of what arises for the soul when it comes to the realization of how the individual soul relates to the other, how the individual soul can relate to the other when it has correctly grasped what the destinies of the individual soul are in relation to the other soul in the life between death and the next birth, what the destinies are for the individual soul, what it means to be separated from another soul, what it means to gain a new relationship with the departed soul, if the soul that remained here can know something of the supersensible world. New light will be shed on all human knowledge and on all other aspects of human life if what can be brought from the depths of the supersensible world for each individual soul can be sunk into the soul. A living into, not just a thinking into, belongs to the recognition, to the beholding, to the understanding of spiritual truths.

This has not only been recognized through the spiritual research of modern times, but has basically always been recognized wherever one has spoken from a real knowledge of the spiritual world. I do not want to say what I have to say about the position of spiritual research in relation to those who reject it without really knowing it, but I would like to say it about Johann Gottlieb Fichte. If there is much that is serious, perhaps even hurtful to some, in this statement, one should bear in mind that it comes from a man who, full of enthusiasm for spiritual research, wanted to vent his anger at all those who, without really wanting to gain insight into spiritual research, reject it and feel they have to fight it. To them Fichte cries:

"They cannot help but furiously resent that shameful conviction of a higher self in man and all phenomena that seek to confirm this conviction; they must do everything possible to keep these phenomena away and to suppress them; they fight for their lives, for the finest and most intimate root of their lives, for the possibility of enduring themselves. From the beginning of the world until this day, all fanaticism and all furious expressions of it have originated from the principle: if the opponents were right, then I would be a miserable person. If this fanaticism can achieve fire and sword, then it attacks the hated enemy with fire and sword; if these are not accessible to it, then it has (one must also say this latter for our present time) “the tongue, which, even if it does not kill the enemy, can very often strongly paralyze its activity and effectiveness outwardly. One of the most common and favorite tricks of this tongue is to attach a generally hated name to the cause that is hated only by them, in order to defame it and make it suspicious. The store of these tricks and these names is inexhaustible and constantly growing, and it would be futile to strive for completeness here. I will mention only one of the most common and hated terms: the saying that this teaching is mysticism.

Note here, first of all, with regard to the form of this accusation, that if an unprejudiced person were to answer: Well, let us assume that it is mysticism and that mysticism is a false and dangerous doctrine. He may still present his case, and we will listen to him; if he is wrong and dangerous, this will probably come to light on that occasion, — they, who, according to the categorical decision, with which they believe to have thereby rejected us, would have to answer: there is nothing more to be heard; already a long time ago, probably since one and a half human lives, mysticism has been decreed as heresy and banned by the unanimous decisions of all our review councils.

Thus Johann Gottlieb Fichte. Fichte's words are still more or less applicable today when considering the relationship between spiritual research and, say, those who only want to trust their senses and who want the world to be organized according to what their senses tell them. Fichte compares such people — although this comparison is perhaps not entirely justified — who only want to trust their senses and do not want to admit that there is a closer knowledge of the truth, with deaf-mutes and the blind-born, who also do not want to admit sounds and colors when they are spoken to by the seeing. Now, one cannot compare those born blind and deaf with those who do not want to accept what can be given through clairvoyant research, because every soul is capable of relating to supersensible truths. But Fichte says:

"The fact that the deaf-mute and the blind are also taken care of and that a way has been devised to bring them instruction is worth all thanks – from the deaf-mute and the blind. But if this method of teaching were to be made the general method of teaching, including for the sighted, because there might always be deaf-mutes and blind-born among them, and then one would be sure to have taken care of everyone; if the hearing person, without any regard for their hearing, were to learn to speak with the same effort and to recognize the words on the lips as the deaf-mute, and the seeing, without any regard for his sight, read the letters by touching them, this would deserve very little gratitude from the healthy; regardless of this, the institution would of course be made as soon as the institution of public education was made dependent on the opinion of the deaf-mute and the blind-born."

Perhaps one could say, if one wanted to object to this statement by Fichte, that it would not even be like that for the blind and deaf-mute. But if it were up to those who rely only on their senses and reason to determine how the world should be shaped, they would not shape it in the way that the seeing perceive it. They would indeed rail against and rebel against all spiritual interpretation of the world by others, but they would declare themselves infallible with regard to what they know about the world. They would laugh in scorn if it were demanded that only those who know about a matter should speak about it, and that those who know nothing about it should say nothing about it. The main reason for all those who deny spiritual research is only that they know nothing about it. Logically, the first requirement would be that only those who know something should speak about a matter. But such reasons for denying something one knows nothing about are only used to reject a spiritual scientific world view in our time.

But anyone who can relive in their soul what was said in the first lecture, who does not need to wait for the objections that they can experience within themselves and are able to understand in their spiritual life, will always find a way to justify spiritual research, so that what I also said in the first scene of “The Test of the Soul” and can summarize in the whole constitution of consciousness what knowledge of the supersensible worlds can give us, can give for our hope in life, for our strength in life, for our security in life, for everything we need for a dignified human existence. Everything that can be said, that can be said as rising in the soul, as experienced and felt in the soul, can be summarized in the words: You are not alone with your thinking, feeling and willing. Just as you live with your body in the substances that are spread throughout the universe, so you live with your thinking, feeling and willing in something that is spread throughout the cosmos, in the vastness of space. That is, the saying that I said at the designated place in my mystery drama can become conviction:

"In your thinking live world thoughts,
In your feeling weave world forces,
In your will work world beings.
Lose yourself in world thoughts,
Experience yourself through world forces,
Create yourself from will-beings.
Do not end with what is far from the world
Through the play of thought-dreams;
Begin in the expanses of the mind
And end in the depths of your own soul:
You will find divine goals,
Recognizing yourself within yourself.