---
ga: 69
title: "How to Justify Theosophy?"
date: 1912-01-10
location: Munich
words: 5085
---
# Spiritual Science and the Future of Humanity

## GA 69e — 10 January 1912, Munich

### V. How to Justify Theosophy?

If, the day before yesterday, we tried to put ourselves in the position of our opponents of the theosophical or spiritual scientific worldview, and if today the latter worldview is to be presented to you in its main forms, , I would ask you not to interpret my task as an attempt to dismantle piece by piece what was built up the day before yesterday, that is, to play a kind of game with concepts; for that would seem frivolous to me. It has already been emphasized that it was not a matter of randomly listing what is said in lightly-worded objections to Theosophy by people who have no good will to familiarize themselves with the content and essence of these worldviews , but it has been emphasized that only those reasons should be put forward that must be regarded as serious, weighty objections and that make it difficult for today's cultured people to approach Theosophy with their innermost convictions, despite their goodwill.

But since those who have heard me give lectures of a theosophical nature before can assume that I am not trying to refute Theosophy, today everything presented should be seen as a kind of refutation of the day before yesterday, and I ask that you bear in mind that I have to strike a different tone than I would for other lectures explaining the theosophical truths. Otherwise, factual evidence was presented to support the Theosophical truths; what will be said today is to be countered more in a logically judgmental way to that of the day before yesterday, from a more abstract point of view, which will appear quite understandable in view of the objections that have been raised, within certain limits, as justified.

In itself, it seems strange to try to present arguments for and against a matter that is claimed to be and must be part of our cultural heritage; strange because it could easily lead to the judgment that a conviction established for one person cannot be assumed for others. The decision is often quite difficult, so that first of all attention must be drawn to the question of the conclusiveness of human reason for or against a matter. Only then is it possible to ask whether so much really depends on the conclusiveness of human reason alone, whether this alone can decide for or against a matter with its reasons, or whether this does not happen in such an immediate way.

Everyone knows that something can be put forward with great acumen until one realizes that the evidence that initially seems so convincing is no longer sufficient when the scope of vision is broadened. Therefore, the question arises as to whether it is the evidence alone that leads people to decide whether to accept or reject something. It might seem easy to judge that a thing is right when the evidence speaks for it and wrong when it speaks against it, but we recognize from cultural history that, over the course of time, people have by no means been decisive in the evidence that could be presented for or against a thing, but it came and still comes down to things that are more decisive than evidence of human reason when it comes to believing that something is true.

This may be illustrated by the following example: This year, for the first time, a so-called freethinker's calendar appeared, in which there is also an argument from an author whose love of truth should be unconditionally recognized; this author says that one should not teach one's children anything that is based on ideas of divine or other transcendental things. The writer of the article in question takes a monistic-materialistic point of view and believes he must speak out against beliefs of a supernatural kind, such as the existence of the soul, God and so on. In doing so, he refers to something that can be said to carry great weight for many thinking people, namely, that children should be taught nothing but what could be developed from their natural human nature; on the other hand, to bring something from supersensible worlds into their development is something alien, because left to themselves, they would come to the sensual world. This makes sense to modern pedagogical people who do not see the child as a sack that can be randomly filled with ideas and so on.

Such views may seem quite natural and appropriate to anyone, and such a presentation will also appear to the reader of the calendar as absolutely flawless evidence. But as difficult as it is to refute the author with all the means of his point of view, the judgment changes when one broadens one's horizons. If, for example, a child were raised on a desert island where one could prevent it from learning the language of people, the question seems quite natural: Should one maintain the principle established earlier and offer the child nothing but what his nature already provides by itself, it would be almost impossible for such a child to learn to speak. It follows that when thinking, all relevant factors must be taken into account.

Great people have always recognized as a fundamental principle the endeavor to keep their thinking free and independent in this direction, to grasp their ideas on the broadest possible horizon. An example of the way such people think, which should apply to thinkers and personalities who are undoubtedly regarded by most as very impartial thinkers, and whom the most enlightened minds of the present are accustomed to recognize as theirs, easy to cite a multitude of examples from experience that demonstrate that human superstition clings to many things that actually exist but are only conceived erroneously; for example, many people believe in spirits that are independent of the physical body. By contrast, it seems obvious to some that one must be bereft of all enlightenment if one does not doubt the existence of such disembodied spirits. Many of those who accuse such believers of crass superstition invoke Lessing as the pioneer of modern thought; we can fully endorse this assessment in the sense that he derived the nature of his thinking from a broad horizon. He says:

> We no longer believe in ghosts? Who says so? Or rather, what does that mean? Does it mean something like this: We have finally come so far in our insights that we can prove the impossibility of it; certain irrefutable truths that contradict belief in ghosts have become so common knowledge, are so constantly present even to the meanest man, that anything that argues with them must necessarily appear ridiculous and absurd to him? That cannot be what it means. We do not believe in ghosts now, so it can only mean: in this matter, about which almost as much can be said for as against it, which is not decided and cannot be decided, the currently prevailing way of thinking has given the reasons against it the upper hand; a few have this way , and many seem to want it; these make the noise and set the tone; the majority is silent and indifferent and thinks one way today and another tomorrow, hearing with delight in broad daylight mocking of ghosts and telling of them with horror in the dark of night. What are we to say about a legend of modern thought presented in this way? Does he have a crass superstition if he wants to accept other views and fields of knowledge as logically reasoned arguments, if he expresses his opinion to the effect that these gain or lose weight depending on whether one broadens or narrows one's horizons? In the former case, completely new possibilities immediately arise. It is not the weight of the evidence that has decided the question in favor of the existence of spirits, but the habit of thinking, which is directed to facts that take away the evidence of their existence. So you have to try to convey what leads people to give their views a probative force, a weight.

What matters are our thought habits, and here we will be able to see that there would and actually are apparently weighty reasons against rejecting the etheric body as taught by Theosophy.

Spiritual science tells us that this etheric body permeates the physical body and treats its own and absorbed substances in such a way that the organism can live. The objection was raised that chemical science is capable of producing certain chemical compounds outside of a living organism in the laboratory, and that it is therefore concluded that all of these processes and compounds that can be observed in a living organism are now also caused by the same external forces, and that it is expected that at least the simplest living organisms can be produced in the laboratory at some point. On the basis of these facts and considerations, the concept of the etheric body is therefore considered unscientific; for no one has the right to doubt that science will not be able to produce life phenomena and living things in the future.

All this is not based on reasons and proofs, but on habits of thought. This can be proved historically. In the past, no one doubted the supernatural origin of life, because the alchemists, for example, and all the other scholars of earlier centuries believed that they could produce a whole “homunculus” from the necessary substances in the laboratory; a strange phenomenon! What was necessary for such thinkers – who we should not simply dismiss out of hand as fools, considering that in the future we will not be seen as greater fools for having been short-sighted enough to consider them as such – what was necessary for them to assume so that we would no longer see an insoluble contradiction? We must embrace the idea that life is everywhere, not only limited to living organisms and their possibilities of inheritance, but that it can occur in all suitably combined substances, where one need only assume that life is present - if only given the opportunity to unfold in one way or another. If anything alive comes into being, it cannot be assumed that only what is present in a particular place comes into being, just as flies do not simply arise out of the dirt, which they soon appear on. If we bring together the necessary substances under the appropriate conditions in the laboratory, we can do nothing but provide the opportunity for life to come to them. In doing so, however, we must not limit the concept of life to the living organisms that have crystallized out of the available substances, since life is omnipresent and takes every opportunity to express itself, for example, as a germ in properly arranged substances.

Such a view is unusual for our time, but it cannot be logically dismissed. In a way, it is difficult to arrive at a comprehensive idea of life through the methods of Theosophy; to help you, I would like to start with a point made the day before yesterday to lead you to the concept and acceptance of the etheric body.

It has been said that there is a way to explain waking and sleeping differently than Theosophy does, by stating that the astral body with the ego slips out of the physical body, which remains united with the ether body, and that these latter two parts of the being are then united in the spiritual world during sleep. In contrast to this, it seems perfectly logical when the phenomenon of sleep is presented in such a way that during waking hours in the sensory world, through his intellectual and muscular activity, man accumulates so-called fatigue substances in his organs, which no longer enable him to develop the strength to continue to live while awake. The countervailing forces of the organism then assert themselves, the consciousness of being awake extinguishes, and those forces then restore the organism during sleep, so that it is able to work again with full vigor with all its organs and so on. Many naturalists think that the alternating state of sleeping and waking is based on a self-regulation of the healthy organism, so that it is not necessary to assume that, to explain sleep, a spiritual part separates from the physical-etheric body, removes from it, and both parts unfold a restorative activity - without any actual self-awareness.

Such an objection can be a stumbling block for someone who wants to turn to theosophy, and such an objection should therefore not be underestimated by a conscientious person. But even if we assume that the organism is a self-regulating system in terms of sleeping and waking, that the disturbances caused in the organs by fatigue are compensated for by the restoration of the vital forces, the question must still be raised, and as a matter of principle and fundamental: What can the organism do for its organs during sleep? It must be the result of a special life activity when the eyes, ears, brain, nervous system and other internal organs are endowed with new life force during sleep. But what is the nature of this restoration of organic activity? Is it something like that which is otherwise in the organism, for example, that of the constantly active human lungs, which take care of breathing, since they must also be imbued with the inner organic life with nourishment and organic forces? This inner organic activity, which nourishes the lungs, cannot alone be the cause of the movement; and the absorption of oxygen from the air by the lungs themselves cannot be replaced by this inner nutrition, for it has nothing to do with it. The same applies to the brain and nervous system, which are also supplied and nourished internally. But the internal restoration of the brain and nervous system that occurs during sleep has just as little in common with the sensations and perceptions that flow through our senses and the thoughts that flow through our brain.

Thus, the inner organic activity cannot give anything that makes the senses and brain thinking, feeling organs, otherwise something could be provided by the sleeping person in relation to his soul, just as if one wanted to determine something about the inner nature of oxygen through the inner organic nutrition of the lungs. Therefore, we can rightly say: by supplying its organs with inner organic power, our organism has given nothing that is capable of filling them with their own ideas, and so it has given the lungs nothing at all to supply them with oxygen again and again. Thus, what is felt, what is the content of the soul, comes to man from a completely different source.

Accordingly, it is indisputable to speak of the fact that something absolutely different is present in the waking person than in the sleeping person, just as water (H> O) is present in the form of the separate parts hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O); water cannot be represented if only hydrogen (H) is present without oxygen (O). So we must also supply the sleeping person, who is present without spiritual content, that is, from the outside, which complements him to wakefulness.

Now we must be clear about the fact that even the positivist thinkers such as [Hume] do not claim that what we call “I” can be found in any kind of organic activity. In itself, it always finds only warmth, cold, pleasure, pain, joy, pain, affection, aversion, and so on. The ego thus lives and is bound to such activities; it must draw these into the organism when it wakes up, as oxygen must be brought to hydrogen (O + 2H = H, O) to form water.

With such considerations one remains in agreement with the natural scientific views and methods; other world views, which do not act in this way, are thereby in contradiction with their own facts, with the correctly observed facts of natural science and the methods of the same, which they literally sin against. Theosophy does not pay homage to dualism, just as one will not call a person a dualist who sees in water not an absolute unity but a substance that has formed from hydrogen and oxygen or can be broken down into these two. There is no contradiction between theosophy and natural science; both stand on the firm ground of facts, but it depends on their interpretation.

From this point of view, we are justified in saying that everything that has direct existence in itself must be examined in isolation from the organism, so that we must therefore approach the human spiritual content separately from its physical organism.

This brings us to the justification of what asserts itself as the esoteric method of Theosophy, but which, in accordance with its peculiar nature, must break with the demand of natural science to a certain extent, namely, that spiritual life should be able to be observed at any time and by any person. One can only look at it in its own inherent laws. The spiritual researcher must bring about a process in his own spiritual life that is uninfluenced from the outside, by bringing certain ideas into his observation through meditation, concentration and his will, which alone appear to be suitable for esoteric research. He detaches the soul from its connection with the body, as it were, dissecting the soul and thereby making a process from the inner life of the soul that can be clearly seen and need only be symbolic. [Otherwise, the person is stimulated by external processes, but in order to free the soul from the physical, one uses one's own will to place an idea, preferably symbolic ideas, at the center of one's mental activity in meditation.] The only difference from external knowledge is that the relationships of the mental activity to something else are not taken into account in terms of content. For example, in meditation the thoughts need not depict something that really exists, as the so-called Rosicrucian cross, a black cross framed by seven red roses, does not need to be, but we only ask: What does such an idea do in the soul, what does it contribute to our development? What the thoughts accomplish in our soul is what matters.

When we allow such things to take effect on us, we get to know the activity of the soul in the spiritual world. A state similar to that of sleep occurs for the soul, without, however, consciousness ceasing; the content of this is given to it as a supersensible one, whereby the researcher recognizes the supersensible world in its reality. It could be objected that this is only a subjective process of the soul, but for the real connoisseur of such processes this objection does not apply: for him, these are just as the insights of mathematical truths, such as for example that the sum of the three angles of a plane triangle is always equal to 2 R = 180°, a truth that one recognizes purely within the soul; the fact that others also consider it to be true or not contributes nothing to the knowledge of this mathematical truth; it proves itself in itself. It is just as foolish to say that when someone comes to mental processes through certain exercises, it is only a subjective certainty of their own soul.

When someone begins with exercises of a mental nature, they initially encounter all sorts of pitfalls, errors, and self-deceptions; only these are subjective. Beyond that, after sufficient progress, the certainty arises that one has something objective before one, or rather experiences it within oneself. These are no longer subjective convictions. This would be an objection as if one wanted to say that one should not do mathematics, because it causes difficulties of a subjective nature; nevertheless, something objective can be demonstrated at the end of the path.

But someone might raise yet another objection, namely, that the path to supersensible knowledge cannot be compared to that of mathematical knowledge, because the latter only has a formal value. The realization that 3 x 3 = 9 does not prove that there are 3 x 3 things = 9 things in the world, or that the sum of the three angles in a plane triangle is equal to 180°, would not exist in reality in this way, so there must be no supersensible facts corresponding to the inner-soul processes. Are such facts present or not?

It would have to be shown that not only do we humans think mathematics, but that mathematics itself also works outside of us, as Plato says, for example: “God does geometry!” If we acknowledge this, then the mathematical laws are real and present in the world. So, too, the correctly perceived soul processes must be present outside as real things. Thus, for example, we find only within us what we call an “I” in its inner development and what coincides with our soul content of thoughts, feelings, will and so on. Is it not just something subjective? What guarantees its objectivity? Does it also work and weave in the outside world? Between birth and death, human beings develop in such a way that they remember back to a certain point in their youth. Their memory does not reach back to before this point, although no one would claim that it did not arise until the fourth or fifth year of life; after all, they had already been alive for several years before that. Human consciousness must develop in such a way from that point on that it first had to arise.

But what was in the human being before as ego content? We can answer this: In the first years of childhood, the human being develops the convolutions of his brain, and only when this work is done, when the tool of the intellect has been chiseled out by the individuality, only then does the ego consciousness arise for the human being himself; it corresponds to the tool that is now available and this to the developing ego. Thus, Theosophy shows that everything that is later experienced purely internally was previously worked out by our brain. The child's first life shows that its brain is “I-ized”; what later becomes the content of the soul was previously creatively present in the human being, in the first years as an external aura and later as an internal one.

These processes fulfill what we need to prove, namely externally, what was previously there internally. The following experiment may clarify this: When the spiritual researcher applies all his exercises to himself and places his soul under the influence of the same, he will eventually notice that he awakens with his soul slipping out of the physical-etheric body sheaths - a process that was otherwise only possible by falling asleep. In the first stage, the spiritual researcher experiences independence from his physical body. He then knows that he experiences the following within himself: I perceive a content independently of the organs of my body, but I cannot conceptualize this content because these are bound to the brain, and it is a tormenting inner state for me, which is also taken over into the ordinary bodily consciousness. In terms of the expression of his higher spiritual experiences, man then has something idiotic.

If the required exercises are continued with iron energy, then what has been released in the increasingly independent soul in terms of supersensible experiences goes as a force effect into the physical body and expressed in concepts what was previously experienced only spiritually without the involvement of the brain, just as the child gradually develops its brain to express what it later wants to express as an experience. - So one proceeds in stages. The spiritual and soul essence must have been present from the very first formation of the body, since it is supposed to work from the spiritual world on its further development. And so it works into the physical organization with its forces, which it draws from the stored and processed resources of previous earthly lives.

Thus we see: anyone who wants to arrive at an understanding of the self must necessarily deal with the objections of the doubters in order to recognize their true significance, and he is forced to seek out broader points of view. But no one should lightly condemn those who cannot approach theosophy.

Furthermore, the day before yesterday, important objections were raised in the ethical, moral and religious sense; it was argued that belief in karma, with its rewards and punishments, could make people selfish, and it must be admitted that such narrow views can in some way lead to selfishness. But here I would like to refer to Schopenhauer, when he says:

> It is easy to preach morals, but to establish morals is difficult!

The latter means to present those things that lead to moral behavior. If this is possible for Theosophy, then outsiders may say that karma produces egoists, considering that this need only be a transitional state, with the awareness of a sense of poetic justice through different lives on earth. For example, parents want to educate their children properly so that they can support and care for them in their old age. This is selfish, but it does have the effect that such children become proper people, that parents see their hopes fulfilled and experience joy in the children's hard work; thus their selfishness is transformed into an inclination for the unselfish joy of their children's good progress and personal development.

Thus, for example, in a somewhat crude illustration of karma, it is said that a person's good deeds bring reward, while evil deeds result in pain and suffering. If a person acts accordingly, even if he is also influenced by selfishness, the good will have a reciprocal effect on him, and he will gradually become a non-selfish person.

Morality can only be justified by starting from true, egoistic human nature and taking karma into account; this then gradually transforms the egoistic person into a moral, selfless one.

If someone were to raise a different moral objection, namely, that some parents love their children as part of themselves, as heirs to their own qualities, and that it would be unreasonable or even impossible for them to accept or even imagine that a spiritual-soul core that is foreign to them would come down from spiritual worlds to oppose, as it were, their physical parents, we can reply that a deep inner affinity existed which led the child to this particular couple as a consequence of loving relationships of a higher kind that existed even before birth and developed the powers that enabled the spiritual-soul part of the being to reach its parents in particular – powers that developed from earlier earthly lives and also enable further favorable further development only with the body inherited from its parents.

If someone says that by reincarnation man ascribes a kind of self-righteousness to himself, without emphasizing his childship to God, and thus places himself in opposition to the just God, then with a broader horizon one can say: If man feels that the divine power is at work in him, it would be would be downright incomprehensible not to ascribe to oneself a divine essence that must and can be developed ever higher from life to life, because otherwise one commits a sin as soon as one thinks one should deny the spark of God within oneself, when, instead of developing it, one distorts it into a caricature. So the most possible approach to the divine ideal is a sacred religious duty of the theosophist.

We want to take into account all the objections of our opponents, but we also want to note in the pros and cons that this is not easily overcome by proofs and contradictions, but by broadening our horizons in our soul life beyond all narrowness in our culture. This is what Theosophy or spiritual science should bring to people of our culture and then lift them up beyond the mere physical-sensual world.

If someone now attempts to draw on the supersensible world in further developing and closely connecting with laboratory methods for their results and insights, they may apply some of these successfully but fail with others. This would be the same as when doubts arise about certain scientific facts and it is realizes that individual details are not correct in their interpretation and application; but in this way the view gained can, when the various facts are lined up, condense into a justified hypothesis, which is varied, gradually develops better and better and, in its entirety, supported by more frequent confirmation, ultimately becomes a theory. Then we have to say that the objection that some people make, that such hypotheses of supersensible worlds contradict all previous views, is just as weighty as that of a famous Academy of Sciences [in Paris], which wanted to reject the existence of meteorites when they were reported to have fallen, even if the stones themselves were presented.

Thus, in this case from the distant past, as in the present, it is not the facts that need to be corrected, but the perceptions; that is, the horizons of people must expand under the influence of spiritual science in their research and conviction. We are dealing here with a spiritual realm that has its own laws, which are different from those of the material realm, for the latter only show coming into being and passing away. If we emphasize the seemingly trivial fact that the soul processes in the brain work in a certain way like gravity in the material masses, then we can also admit that this gravity, if the earth could sleep, would show itself independently, and furthermore rightly assume that it will outlast matter as an independent force. We can also express those truths in this way:

> The things in the vastness of space speak to the human soul;  
> the soul can hold them in the course of time!  
> But the human soul lives in knowledge,  
> unlimited by the vastness of space  
> and unperturbed by the course of time,  
> In the realm of eternity  
> And finds in the spirit realm  
> The very deepest reason for its own being.