The Rudolf Steiner Archive

For anyone who has followed the course of scientific development in recent decades, there can be no doubt that a mighty turnaround is taking place within it. Today, when a natural scientist speaks about the so-called riddles of existence, it sounds quite different than it did just a short time ago. It was around the middle of the nineteenth century when some of the boldest minds saw scientific materialism as the only possible creed for someone familiar with the more recent results of research. The rough saying that was made at the time has become famous: “Thoughts are to the brain as bile is to the liver.” Karl Vogt said it, who in his “Köhlerglauben und Wissenschaft” (The Belief of the Coal Burner and Science) and in other writings declared that everything had been overcome that did not allow the mental activity, the life of the soul, to emerge from the mechanism of the nervous system and the brain in the same way that a physicist explains that the hands of a clock move forward from the mechanism of the clock. It was the time when Ludwig Büchner's “Kraft und Stoff” (Power and Matter) had become a kind of gospel for large sections of the educated classes. It is fair to say that excellent, independent minds have come to such convictions due to the tremendous impact that the successes of natural science have had in recent times. Shortly before, the microscope had taught the composition of living things from their smallest parts, the cells. Geology, the study of the formation of the earth, had come to explain the development of our planet according to the same laws that are still at work today. Darwinism promised to explain the origin of man in a purely natural way and began its triumphal march through the educated world so auspiciously that for many, all “old beliefs” seemed to have been dispelled by it.

Recently, however, this has changed completely. There are still holdouts of these views who, like Ladenburg at the 1903 meeting of natural scientists, proclaim the materialistic gospel; but they are opposed by others who, through more mature reflection on scientific questions, have come to a completely different conclusion. A paper has just been published entitled “Natural Science and Worldview”. It was written by Max Verworn, a physiologist who was a student of Haeckel. In this writing, we read: “In fact, even if we had the most complete knowledge of the physiological events in the cells and fibers of the cerebral cortex, with which the psychic event is linked, even if we could look into the mechanics of the brain gear like into the gear of the wheels of a clockwork, we would still never find anything but moving atoms. No human being could see or otherwise perceive with the senses how sensations and ideas arise in this way. The results that the materialistic view has had in its attempt to reduce spiritual processes to atomic movements also vividly illustrate its limitations: as long as the materialistic view exists, it has not explained the simplest sensation in terms of atomic movements. That is how it was and how it will be in the future. How could it ever be conceivable that things that are not perceptible to the senses, such as psychic processes, could ever be explained by merely breaking down large bodies into their smallest parts! After all, the atom is still a body, and no movement of atoms is ever capable of bridging the gap between the physical world and the psyche. The materialistic view, however fruitful it has been as a scientific working hypothesis, however fruitful it will undoubtedly remain in this sense in the future – I need only refer to the successes of structural chemistry – is nevertheless unsuitable as a basis for a world view. Here it proves to be too narrow. Philosophical materialism has played out its historical role. This attempt at a scientific worldview has failed forever.” So speaks a naturalist at the beginning of the twentieth century about the worldview that was proclaimed around the middle of the nineteenth like a new gospel demanded by scientific progress.

In particular, it is the 1850s, 1860s and 1870s that may be described as the years of the materialist high tide. At that time, the explanation of mental and spiritual phenomena in purely mechanical terms had a truly fascinating influence. And the materialists were able to claim that they had won a victory over the adherents of the spiritual world view. Even those who had not started out from natural science studies joined their ranks. Büchner, Vogt, Moleschott and others had still relied on purely natural scientific presuppositions, but in 1872 David Friedrich Strauß, in his book 'Old and New Belief', tried to gain the supporting points for the new creed from his theological and philosophical knowledge. Decades before, he had already made a sensational impact on intellectual life with his Life of Jesus. He seemed to be equipped with the full theological and philosophical education of his time. He now boldly stated that the materialistic explanation of world phenomena, including man, must form the basis for a new gospel, for a new moral understanding and shaping of existence. The descent of man from purely animal ancestors seemed to want to become a new dogma, and in the eyes of the naturalistic philosophers, any adherence to a spiritual and soul origin of our race was regarded as a superstition from the childhood of mankind that had not been overcome and with which one no longer had to deal.

And to those who relied on modern natural science, the cultural historians came to the rescue. The customs and beliefs of wild tribes were studied. The remains of primitive cultures, dug out of the earth, like the bones of prehistoric animals and the imprints of extinct plant life: they were supposed to bear witness to the fact that man, when he first appeared on the globe, differed only in degree from the higher animals, but that in terms of spirit and soul he had developed from mere animality to his present height. A point had been reached when everything in this materialistic structure seemed to be in tune. And under a certain compulsion, which the ideas of the time exerted on them, people thought as a believing materialist writes. “The diligent study of science has led me to take everything calmly, to bear the inevitable patiently and, incidentally, to help ensure that humanity's misery is gradually reduced. I can do without the fantastic consolations that a believing mind seeks in wonderful formulas, all the more so because my imagination finds the most beautiful inspiration in literature and art. When I follow the course of a great drama or, at the hand of scholars, undertake a journey to other stars, a journey through pre-worldly landscapes, when I admire the sublimity of nature on mountain peaks or worship the art of man in tones and colors, do I not have enough of the uplifting? Do I still need something that contradicts my reason? The fear of death, which torments so many pious people, is completely alien to me. I know that when my body decays, I will live no more than I lived before I was born. The torments of purgatory and hell do not exist for me. I return to the boundless realm of nature, which lovingly embraces all children. My life was not in vain. I have used the strength I possessed well. I leave the earth in the firm belief that everything will become better and more beautiful!” (From Faith to Knowledge. An instructive developmental process, faithfully described by Kuno Freidank.) Today, many people think this way, who are still dominated by the obsessions that affected the representatives of the materialistic worldview during the period mentioned.

But those who tried to keep up with the latest scientific thinking have come to different conclusions. The first response from an outstanding natural scientist at the Natural Scientists' Assembly in Leipzig (1876) to natural scientific materialism has become famous. At the time, Du Bois-Reymond gave his “Ignorabimus Speech”. He tried to show that this natural scientific materialism is in fact capable of nothing more than determining the movements of the smallest particles of matter, and he demanded that it must be content with doing just that. But at the same time, he emphasized that not even the slightest thing has been achieved in explaining the processes of the mind and soul. One may have whatever opinion of these statements by Du Bois-Reymond, but one thing is clear: they represented a rejection of the materialistic explanation of the world. They showed how a natural scientist could go mad as a result of it.

The materialistic explanation of the world had thus entered the stage at which it modestly explained the life of the soul. It established its “not knowing” (agnosticism). Although it stated that it wanted to remain “scientific” and not resort to other sources of knowledge, it also did not want to ascend to a higher world view with its means. (In a comprehensive way, Raoul Francé, a naturalist, has shown in recent times the inadequacy of scientific results for a higher world view. This is an undertaking to which we would like to return another time.

And now the facts steadily increased that showed the impossibility of the undertaking to base an psychology on the study of material phenomena. Science was forced to study certain “abnormal” phenomena of the soul life, hypnotism, suggestion, somnambulism. It was shown that for the truly thinking person, a materialistic view is quite inadequate for these phenomena. The facts that were discovered were not new. Rather, they were phenomena that had been studied in ancient times and up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, but which had simply been set aside as inconvenient during the period of the materialist flood.

In addition, there was something else. It became more and more apparent on what a weak foundation the naturalists themselves had built their explanations of the origin of the 'animal forms and consequently also of man. For some time, the ideas of 'adaptation' and the 'struggle for existence' had a great attraction in explaining the origin of species! It was realized that one had been pursuing illusions with them. A school formed under Weismann's leadership that refused to accept that characteristics that a living being had acquired through adaptation to its environment could be inherited, and that a reorganization of living beings could thus occur. Therefore, everything was attributed to the “struggle for existence,” and there was talk of the “omnipotence of natural breeding.” In sharp contrast to this, based on indisputable facts, some declared that one had spoken of a “struggle for existence” in cases where it did not exist at all. They wanted to show that nothing could be explained by it. They spoke of a “powerlessness of natural breeding”. Furthermore, de Vries was able to show in recent years through experiments that there are sudden changes from one life form to another (mutation). This also shattered what Darwinians had regarded as a firm article of faith, namely that animal and plant forms only changed gradually. More and more, the ground simply disappeared underfoot, on which one had built for decades. In any case, thinking researchers had already believed that they would have to leave this ground sooner or later, such as the early deceased W.F. Rolph, who in his book “Biological Problems, also an Attempt to Develop a Rational Ethics” stated as early as 1884: “It is only through the introduction of this insatiability that the Darwinian principle of perfection in the struggle for life becomes acceptable. For only now do we have an explanation for the fact that the creature, wherever it can, acquires more than it needs to maintain its status quo: that it grows in excess where the opportunity presents itself. ... While for the Darwinist there is no struggle for existence wherever the creature's existence is not threatened, for me the struggle for existence is an ever-present one. It is primarily a struggle for life, a struggle for the increase of life, but not a struggle for existence."

It is only natural that in such a situation the discerning admit: the materialistic world of thought is not suitable for building a worldview. We cannot say anything about mental and spiritual phenomena on the basis of it. And there are already numerous natural scientists today who are trying to build a world structure on completely different ideas. We need only recall the work of the botanist Reincke: “The World as Deed”. It is certainly apparent that such naturalists have not been educated with impunity in purely materialistic ideas. What they put forward from their new idealistic point of view is poor, it may satisfy them for the time being, but not those who look deeper into the riddles of the world. Such natural scientists cannot bring themselves to approach methods that start from a genuine contemplation of the spirit and the soul. They have the greatest fear of “mysticism”, of “gnosis” or “theosophy”. This can be clearly seen, for example, from the writings of Verworn cited above. He says: “There is unrest in natural science. Things that seemed clear and transparent to everyone have become cloudy today. Long-proven symbols and ideas, which until recently everyone used and worked with without hesitation at every turn, have been shaken and are viewed with suspicion. Basic concepts, such as that of matter, appear shaken, and the firmest ground begins to sway under the steps of the natural scientist. Certain problems alone stand firm as rock, against which all attempts and efforts of natural science have so far failed. In the face of this realization, the disheartened throws himself resignedly into the arms of mysticism, which has always been the last resort where the tormented mind saw no way out. The level-headed person looks around for new symbols and tries to create new foundations on which he can continue to build.” It is clear that the nature-researching thinker of today, through his habits of imagination, is not in a position to conceive of ‘mysticism’ other than as something that includes the confusion and ambiguity of the intellect.

And what ideas about the life of the soul does such a thinker arrive at? We read at the end of the cited writing: “Prehistoric man had formed the idea of a separation of body and soul at the sight of death. The soul separated from the body and led an independent existence. It found no rest and came back as a ghost if it was not banished by sepulchral ceremonies. Fear and superstition frightened people. The remnants of these beliefs have survived to this day. The fear of death, that is, of what will come afterwards, is still widespread today. How different it all looks from the point of view of psychomonism! Since the psychic experiences of the individual only come about when certain lawful connections exist, they cease as soon as these connections are somehow disturbed, as they are incessantly disturbed during the day. With the physical changes at death, these connections cease altogether. Thus, no sensation and idea, no thought and no feeling of the individual can exist anymore. The individual soul is dead. Nevertheless, the sensations and thoughts and feelings live on. They live on beyond the perishable individual in other individuals, wherever the same complexes of conditions exist. They are passed on from individual to individual, from generation to generation, from nation to nation. They work and weave on the eternal loom of the soul. They work on the history of the human spirit. — Thus we all live on after death as links in the great, continuous chain of spiritual development.” But is this any different from the survival of the water wave in others that it has raised, while it itself passes away? Do you truly live on if you only continue to exist in your effects? Do you not have such a survival in common with all phenomena of physical nature? It is evident that the materialistic conception of the world must undermine its own foundations. It is not yet able to build new ones. Only a true understanding of mysticism, theosophy, gnosis will make this possible. At the natural scientists' conference at Lübeck several years ago, the chemist Ostwald spoke about “Overcoming Materialism” and founded a new natural philosophy journal for the purpose of achieving the goal he had suggested. Natural science is ripe to receive the fruits of a higher worldview. And all its resistance will be in vain; it will have to take account of the needs of the yearning human soul.

It has often been emphasized at this point how present-day science, through its own experiences, is confronted with questions that knock on the door of theosophy and gnosis, and only from these will we be able to find their answers. In this context, there is less and less need to think of the facts through which natural science and occultism seem to come together. For in this area, all sorts of opportunities for prejudice, false conclusions and overestimation of external sensory perceptions (N-rays, organic radiations, etc.) lurk. It is much more important when thinkers who are grounded in natural scientific facts, actually without wanting to, through observation of the in a certain sense normal course of nature, are led to conclusions and deductions which confront the theosophist as ancient knowledge in a new form. Here two sentences are to be put together, the agreement of which speaks clearly enough for everyone who can judge impartially:

H. P. Blavatsky says in The Secret Doctrine (Vol. I, p. 163): “Fohat (that is the fundamental power by which the Universe is constructed) has, as already shown, various meanings. He is called the ‘Builder of Builders’, because the power which he personifies has formed our sevenfold chain. He is one and seven, and on the cosmic plane is behind all such manifestations as light, heat, sound, adhesion, etc., etc., and is the 'spirit' of electricity, which is the life of the universe."

The great thinker who is presently the Prime Minister of England, A. J. Balfour, delivered a speech on August 17, 1904 at the British Association on our “Weltanschauung”. In it, we find the following: “We are on the eve of a most extraordinary revolution. Two hundred years ago, electricity seemed to be nothing more than a scientific toy. And today it is already considered by many to be the essence of things, the sensually perceptible expression of which is matter. Scarcely a century has passed since even the ether was assigned a place in the universe by serious thinkers. And at present, the possibility is already being discussed that it is the very primary substance from which the whole world is composed. The further conclusions that arise from this view of the universe are no less astonishing. For example, mass was previously thought to be a fundamental property of matter that could neither be explained nor needed explaining; that was immutable in nature, experienced neither gain nor loss, no matter what force acted on it; and that was inseparably attached to every, even the smallest, part of matter, regardless of its shape, volume, chemical or physical nature.

But if we accept the new theory, then these doctrines must also be corrected. Not only is mass capable of being explained, but the explanation is readily available. Mass is not a fundamental property of matter. Rather, as already mentioned, it arises from the interactions that exist between the electric monads that make up matter and the ether, in which the former are immersed as if in a bath. It is by no means immutable. On the contrary, if it is moved extremely quickly, it is subject to changes with every change in its speed. – The electrical theory that we have discussed leads us... into a completely new area. .... It dissolves... matter, whether it has a molar or molecular form, into something that is no longer matter at all. The atom is now nothing more than relatively wide space in which tiny monads carry out their orderly cycle; the monads themselves are no longer considered units of substance, but as electrical units, so that this theory not only explains matter, but immediately explains away it.” (Balfour: “Unsere heutige Weltanschauung”, Leipzig, Verlag Johann Ambrosius: Barth. Page ısf. and 27.)

Anyone who follows the spiritual life of the present day has ample opportunity to see how official science is being driven by its own ideas in the direction of secret science and serious mystical endeavors. Out of prejudice, it does not even want to allow itself to make even a superficial examination of these endeavors and unconsciously and continually provides the building blocks for them with its own methods.

For some time now, essays by Dr. Carl Camillo Schneider on individual questions of the doctrine of the soul have been appearing in various magazines. Only details from two magazines will be cited here. For the purposes of this essay, it is not necessary to go into a detailed discussion of the essays. It is sufficient to say that Schneider feels compelled by his scientific considerations to resort to the assumption of a “four-dimensional space”. However, esoteric science regards three-dimensional space only as something that belongs to the world of the external physical senses, whereas it speaks of multi-dimensional spaces when discussing objects of the soul (astral) and spirit (mental) world. To show the assertions that Schneider comes to, individual passages from his essays will be cited. In one essay on “The Essence of Time” (No. 12 of 1905 of the “Wiener klinischen Rundschau”), we read: “I distinguished... between the sensual world, which can also be described as a momentary world of space, and the spiritual world, which extends over the entire time and is composed of countless worlds of space. This spiritual world is only successively given to us and, furthermore, only in an extremely small section that spans our lives. If, however, succession were abolished and all moments of time were given to us simultaneously, the world would change its appearance completely. Time would freeze into a dimension that would join the three dimensions of space as a fourth. The spiritual world, when time is fully comprehended, is four-dimensional.” — Now, what is asserted here as a result of intellectual reasoning is known to the true mystic through spiritual insight. It is only that, in the face of his more stringent requirements, Schneider's explanations seem somewhat amateurish, more like a fancifully inaccurate picture than like reality. Mysticism is decried as enthusiasm. Its strictness is simply not known.

In an article on “Psychophysical Parallelism” (No. 29 of the “Wiener klinischen Rundschau”, 1905), Schneider comes to the idea that the whole world is based on a soul and that it cannot be said that our body's brain produces something spiritual: “Our body is a reflection of our psychic world. It must be so because we utilize the sensations from the stimulus event that make up this psychic world. The plant is also only a reflection of its psychic world, as are a molecule and an atom, only these worlds are more or less insignificant compared to ours: they are smaller, or almost tiny, sections of the general psyche, of which ours is already a relatively large section. Besides being a reflection, we are now also an active link in this world that is reflected in us. In order to be able to act, our psyche is coupled to one of its contents and operates through its mediation in itself.

How fantastic this remarkable attempt to understand the world in its spiritual character is! This concept of a vague, general psyche, of a coupling, etc., is related to the explanations of the true mystic, as the following description would be related to the scientific description of a plant by a strict botanist: “The plant consists of firm plant parts and juices.” In an article on “Space Perception” (“Zukunft” of August 5, 1905), Schneider explains: “Things in themselves do not exist, only psychics. Every thing is psychic; therefore, one cannot speak of a proper sensation, since our sense organs do not feel anything; the psychic things only enter into a complex of things that we call our consciousness, but which one should better call our psychic organization. Within each individual psychic organization, which appears as a unity in self-consciousness (feeling), things present themselves somewhat differently than in another; the differences can even be very considerable (psychic defects).” What clarity would come to all these attempts to understand something if the ideas of genuine mysticism about the different aspects of the human being were applied! But even such attempts are significant. Schneider is a private lecturer at the University of Vienna.

Recently a journal has begun to appear in Leipzig called “Der Buddhist. Unabhängige deutsche Monatsschrift für das Gesamtgebiet des Buddhismus und die buddhistische Welt. Deutsche Monatsblätter zur Orientierung über die buddhistische Mission im Morgen- und Abendlande.” Its editor is Karl B. Seidenstücker, who is known for publishing writings from the field of Buddhist worldviews. The journal announces the founding of a “Buddhist Mission Association in Germany,” which has the purpose of “promoting and spreading Buddhism in German-speaking countries.”

The magazine presents itself as a thorough presentation of the Buddhist world view. For example, in a sharp and appropriate way, an article by Bhikkhu Ananda Maitriya characterizes the concept of “Nibbana,” whereby the Buddhist understanding of this term is clearly elaborated. In general, the magazine places a great deal of emphasis on clearly presenting the Buddhist point of view, which does not start from the “higher self” (Atma), but rather looks at this self from the perspective of the non-self. Such precise characterizations alone can promote an understanding of a worldview. Von Seidenstücker's articles are mentioned: “God and Gods, or is Buddhism atheistic?” and “Mahäbodhi”.

Insofar as the magazine serves to educate about the Buddhist worldview, it must be considered a highly commendable undertaking. However, insofar as it pursues a missionary purpose in German-speaking countries, it should be noted that propagandistically disseminating the worldview of one people within another contradicts the higher laws of intellectual life. Truth is one and the same, but it must take on different forms depending on the time and the cultural area. Buddhism is the truth in the guise that is appropriate for its people. In particular, its starting point of non-self would contradict the tasks of the present Western world, which must find the way to truth precisely through the higher development of self. Theosophy differs from all similar missionary attempts of a particular form of world view in that it focuses on the one life of truth and, with regard to the forms in which it presents this life, takes into account the character of certain cultures. The Occident is in a phase of development in which Christianity, by recognizing its true essence, must bring about a new epoch. Theosophy recognizes this as a requirement of the laws of evolution. — But the “Buddhist Mission Association in Germany” has the following words in its statutes: “The B.M.V. stands on the ground of tolerance and refrains from any attack on any religious or ecclesiastical communities. It declares its sympathy for all endeavors that serve spiritual progress and true humanity and that benefit living beings for the sake of their well-being and salvation.” If it really works in this spirit, then its practical result cannot contradict that of Theosophy. And the magazine will undoubtedly contribute to the goal of making the Buddhist religion known to Europeans through its serious character. And that is also one of the tasks of Theosophy.

“Contributions to the Further Development of the Christian Religion” is the title of a book (published in Munich in 1904 by J.F. Lehmann's publishing house) for which “a large number of scholars from various professions and sciences joined forces for a common task”. This task is characterized as follows: “to explain and promote the state of religion in contemporary life; each contributor reports on the subject with which he is familiar, but together they address not their fellow specialists, but all those who care about the highest questions and who share in the movement and striving, the doubt and restlessness. ... Only those who stand on the ground of Christianity, who are convinced that an eternal truth has broken through in Christianity, that a way of life has been developed to which lasting spiritual domination is due, can contribute to the further development of the Christian religion. But only those who are also convinced that the present state of the Christian religion does not correspond to the demands of the world-historical situation, that in that eternal truth is combined with many things that today many, exceedingly many, perceive as temporal and human, to which they therefore cannot possibly pay the reverence that is due only to the eternal and divine, can work for a further development.

In the book, the teachings of Christianity, insofar as the individual authors have penetrated them, are now themselves measured against a truth that, from a higher point of view, is felt to be no less temporal and human. In almost all the essays, it can be seen that the authors are rooted in the present-day cultural-historical way of looking at things, which tends towards materialistic ideas. It is understandable that it is not stated everywhere that such a standard is applied. The authors are also hardly aware of the “temporal and human” in their judgment. And they may have many objections to the term “materialistic.” But it is not the dogmas that someone represents that are important, but the habits of thought that are peculiar to him. He who can accept only what the modern world view calls “natural” lives in materialistic habits of thought, even if he defends a doctrine that comes from the spiritual world in the highest sense. — When considering Christianity, it is possible, through true immersion in its core, to draw the newer world view up to it, instead of drawing it down into the realm of modern thought. And only the former can have a truly educational effect. That is why the sober coldness of current ideas emanates from the book everywhere, not the warmth that one feels emanating from Christianity when one penetrates into its deep secrets.

Books of this kind show, precisely through what they cannot achieve, the necessity of the theosophical perspective for a revival of Christian truths. The approach from which these “contributions” arose devotes all critical energy to ruffling the garment of Christianity because this garment does not match the modern costume; the theosophical method, on the other hand, attempts to penetrate the essence of that which wears this garment. The latter then shows itself in the character of another time, but it itself still contributes to the understanding of its wearer. In this way, theosophy does justice to the modern scientific way of thinking in that it naturally replaces the garment of a bygone age with one of the present. After the garment has been torn to shreds, nothing remains of the essence in the description in the “Beiträge”, which it has not really approached at all, but rather an arbitrary construct of what the observer perceives as Christianity. And that is in most cases a profession of faith without psychic and spiritual power. There is not the slightest necessity for this profession to be traced back to a Christ who has been completely “temporally and humanly” made, and the fact that this Christ is still presented as the same one of whom the Gospels tell appears to be the height of arbitrary conceptual constructions. The only contribution that is somewhat noteworthy is R. Eucken's on “Science and Religion,” in which an attempt is made to understand the independence of intellectual life and to break it down into three stages: 1. the spirit that seeks to understand nature is placed as something peculiar above placed above nature itself, 2. the spiritual life in the history of mere succession of human-personal effects is regarded as something special, and 3. the creative power of the individual personality is understood as an emanation of his divine power. But this attempt also gets stuck in bare abstractions and does not penetrate to a true conception of a spiritual world. The other contributions deal with: The Nature and Origin of Religion, its Roots and their Development (Prof. Dr. L. v. Schroeder, Vienna), entirely in line with modern rationalist cultural history; the Old “Testament in the Light of Modern Research (Prof. D. H. Gunkel, Berlin), only a protective writing for modern biblical criticism; Gospel and Early Christianity (the New Testament in the light of historical research by Prof. D. A. Deißmann, Heidelberg), no vigorous advocacy of clear ideas; Faith of Salvation and Dogma (Prof. D. Dr. A. Dorner, Königsberg); Religion and Morality (Prof. D. Dr. W. Herrmann, Marburg); Christianity and Teutons (Sup. D.F. Meyer , Zwickau), a very subjective picture of Christian life in Germany in the centuries before Luther; Religion and School (Prof. Litt. D. Dr. W. Rein, Jena); the community-building power of religion (Lic. G. Traub, Dortmund); The Essence of Christianity (Lic. Dr. G. Wobbermin, Berlin). It should be emphasized that the book is written in the spirit of modern university theology, based on the “latest scientific findings”.

A work entitled The Origin of Christianity, by the Berlin university professor D. Otto Pfleiderer, is causing quite a stir in a wide variety of circles (Munich, J. F. Lehmanns Verlag, 1905). Pfleiderer wants to strip the origin of Christianity of the miracle that “the second person of the Godhead descended from heaven to earth, became human in the womb of a Jewish virgin, resurrected bodily after dying on the cross, and ascended to heaven”. He believes that in doing so he is making Christianity accessible to historical explanation. “For to understand an historical phenomenon is to understand it in terms of its causal connection with the conditions of human life at a particular place and time. The entry of a superhuman being into the earthly world would be an absolute new beginning, which would have no causal connection with what had gone before, and thus could not be understood in terms of any analogy to other human experience; in short, it would defy all historical explanation.” It must be said that we can never apply the standard of what we understand at a particular point in time to everything in the world and describe as “superhuman” and “causeless” what cannot be measured by that standard. On the contrary, we must ourselves extend our standard in the face of certain phenomena. It is indeed comprehensible that someone should say: This I understand, therefore I hold it to be real; another I do not understand, therefore it is unreal to me. But this is no different from someone who understands nothing of the power of electricity and considers the telephone impossible. What Pfleiderer retains of Christianity after deducting what he considers “supernatural” is a mere rationalistic construct; within such a construct one can no longer speak of a “divinity of Christ”. But the task is precisely to understand what divinity is, what secrets are hidden behind the “virgin birth”, “resurrection” and so on.

This is where the theosophical point of view comes in; and all those who do not want to go along with it fall back on rationalizing Christianity, which is the same as de-Christianizing it. For those who penetrate into the deep secrets of Christian truths, “Pfleiderer's Christianity” is no longer Christianity, but a completely arbitrary construct created by modern thinking. And from this point of view, the explanation of the origin of this religion from the myths and mysteries of the preceding period becomes quite worthless. For only when one penetrates into the true life of the Adonis resurrection celebration, the initiation of the priests of the great mystery cult, and so on, and does not rationalistically reduce them to mere fantastic cultic actions, only then does one you penetrate into the prophetic significance of these ancient forerunners of Christianity and recognize how they have found their fulfillment in the great mystery of the crucified and risen Son of God. — Pfleiderer says: “Therefore, we would do well to become more and more familiar with the idea that the real object of our pious belief is not the past, but the eternal! 'What has never happened anywhere will never become obsolete.'” But this ‘eternal’ is interpreted by each according to his understanding. There is nothing to be said against this; and if someone wants to establish as religious content what ‘has never happened anywhere’, that is everyone's business. But Christianity can never be based on what never was, but on the “living Christ,” who worked in Palestine 1900 years ago and is proclaimed by the Gospels. Those who want to base it on something else can just as well call white black.

Of course, none of this is directed against Pfleiderer personally, who has done what he believes to be right in a perfectly scholarly manner, according to the precepts of his science. But it should be pointed out where this science must lead. And how a renewal of spiritual science in the theosophical sense is necessary. I know that it must seem an outrage when it is said that the official representative of theological-Christian science at a university teaches something unchristian. But the confusion is great today, and not to call such things by their right name would mean a breach of duty at the present time. In Pfleiderer's circles, however, a theosophical attempt to fathom Christian truths is considered complete dilettantism. It cannot be otherwise. Because all the preconditions are lacking to understand such an attempt. The theosophist understands Pfleiderer; but Pfleiderer will not want to understand the theosophist.

A few months ago, the Kosmos, Gesellschaft der Naturfreunde (Cosmos, Society of Nature Lovers), Stuttgart, published a collection of popular scientific writings that included a booklet on The Sensory Life of Plants (Franckhsche Verlagshandlung in Stuttgart). It was written by the brilliant Raoul H. Francé, who is also the author of the important work in installments “The Life of Plants” (Franckh'sche Buchhandlung, Stuttgart), and who, two years ago, in an excellent orientation tool for those who want to learn about the current state of research regarding the development of living beings. A work such as The Mental Life of Plants must fill occultists with satisfaction. They are bound to be pleased when as many people as possible take note of the facts presented here. For all those who have any sense at all for the “mysterious” sources of life, such a presentation can be a good preparation for understanding the points of view of occultism and theosophy. And when the narrator of these facts solves his task in such a subtle and at the same time generally understandable way, this must be particularly welcomed. A noble sense of nature, a delicate way of approaching the phenomena of life, prevails in the booklet. It is evident everywhere that the author approaches these phenomena not only with intellectual cleverness, but with the participation of the whole soul. He discusses the “wonderful” facts in the life of plants. They are only “wonderful”, however, for those who are inclined to see something lifeless and automatically functioning in plants. For such people, the facts listed can indeed arouse astonishment. For those who know something about occultism and see the expressions not only of life but also of the “spirit” in all natural kingdoms, “admiration” does not cease, it can even increase to “exaltation”, but the “wonder” does cease when they hear from the mouth of the natural scientist how the plant “perceives” light, smell, water, etc. From the story of R. France & s, something feels like a shy admiration for the strange things he has to tell. “... the plant moves... its whole body as freely and lightly and gracefully as the most skillful animal - only much slower. The roots search the soil, the buds and shoots move in measured circles, the leaves and flowers nod and shudder at changes, the tendrils circle in search and reach out with ghostly arms to their surroundings – but the superficial person walks by and mistakes the plant for rigid and lifeless because he does not take the time to spend an hour with it. But the plant has time. Therefore it does not hurry; for the giants in Flora's realm live through the centuries and see countless generations of people come to life and pass away at their feet.” Those who describe in this way are not only concerned with taking note of what they are depicting, but also with empathizing with how they depict it. Therefore, some characteristic passages from the booklet will be reproduced here. “One of the most vital organs of the plant body is the root, or more correctly, the fine, worm-like root ends, the tip of which Darwin compared to a brain for a reason. It is hard to believe what this white thread can do. Above all, it slowly but constantly turns its tip in a circle, literally screwing itself into the ground. Anyone who has observed this compares it to a search for food. The roots feel their way through every crumb of earth in their surroundings. And how strange; from where the soil is dry, the root turns to wetter places. It always grows towards the area with more moisture. In physiology, this is called hygrotropism, a sense of proximity to water. But the root also turns downwards. It also has a sense of gravity (geotropism). As if with tiny ropes, every plant is pulled deeper into the earth. If you examine a perennial meadow clover or a carrot, where it is particularly easy to see, you will find that every year it sinks about 5 cm deeper from the point where it originally germinated. It can only compensate for this descent into the depths by constantly growing the underground stem, but it is precisely this that ensures its firm footing. Living beings know how to turn everything to their advantage.

The story continues with the beautiful description of the tendrils of certain plants, which “search and grope” like the arms of a polyp, in order to embrace a support, thus enabling the plants to climb up trees and walls. The phenomenon of “plant sleep” is explained. “The leaflets press closely together and stand diagonally upwards; they have completed their night turn after sunset.” It is shown how leaves and other parts of certain plants join together in strange ways when they are touched. The reader also learns how other plants have devices that help them to catch small animals in an almost insidious way, which they then consume as food. “In the moors around Hamburg and Hannover, the sundew grows just as it does in the swamps of the Oderbruch and the Spreewald, the high moors of the German low mountain ranges and the mosses of the Bavarian-Swabian plateau. On the upper side of each of its small, key-shaped leaves, a sundew plant has red lashes, at the tip of which a dewdrop really does glisten in the sunshine. Rigid and immobile, they spread out like antennae. It is, of course, only our imagination, but we believe we can see that the plant is lurking. And truly, woe to the unsuspecting mosquito, the eager fly, that wants to nibble on the temptingly sparkling dewdrop. Its little head gets stuck in the viscous mucus; where its little feet come into contact with one of the deceptive glue spindles, it gets more and more smeared and sticks all the more firmly. Meanwhile, the feelers are seized with excitement. After just a few minutes, they reach for the victim, one after the other, slowly but with unerring certainty; within one to three hours, almost all of them have descended on the unfortunate mosquito, whose fate is thus decided.” The prey is now devoured. “On the outside, of course, nothing betrays it, but when the tentacles let go after a few days and the little frying pan straightens, only a scrawny skeleton remains, which the wind blows away. Flesh and blood have been sucked out – the tentacles are not only tongues, but also stomachs at the same time. .... They are creatures that stretch their stomachs on stems into the air."

Thus, in a thoroughly sympathetic way, France presents a long series of plant life phenomena. He then comes to the following consideration: “From this infinite wealth of experiences, however, new convictions necessarily emerged. Beings that react so surely, so diversely, so promptly to the outside world must, of necessity, also possess those connecting paths between their ego and the outside world that we call ‘sense’ and ‘sense organ’ in the case of ourselves.” And it is out of this conviction that researchers have sought the special “sense organs” of plants. France also gives a good overview of what more recent naturalists have discovered in this regard. There are simple organs in plants that can be compared to the sense organs of animals and humans. In certain leaves, for example, the uppermost layer of cells acts like a collecting lens, whereby the light is collected in the center of the cells and prepared for the corresponding effect on the plant nature. This can be compared to the compound eye of certain animals. Furthermore, there are cells at the so-called root hood and at other points on the plant in which freely moving starch grains are deposited. These move around when the plant makes certain turns, and the direction of the plant in line with the line of gravity can come about. Again, this organ can be compared to a sensory organ for gravity. It is not possible here to point out in detail all the “ingenious” devices of this kind that can be found in the plant body. In this connection, special mention should be made of the beautiful little work by Haberlandt entitled “The Sensory Organs of Plants” (Leipzig 1904). Haberlandt, together with Nĕmec, Noll and others, is among the most deserving researchers of recent times in this field. Certain organs that can be compared to nerves have even been identified in plants. It is easy to understand why Francé came to the conclusion: “What more magnificent doctrine can the dumb plant still grant us than the one it has already revealed to us: that its sensory life is a primitive form, the beginning of the human spirit.” Or: “That in its sensory life, the animal is nothing but a more highly developed plant.”

The occultist, however, may point out that his “science” leads to the knowledge of this field, admittedly in a different form, but all the more surely for that. Anyone who has heard lectures on “occultism” that touch on this field will know how absolutely clearly it is spoken of there as of the “root as the head of the plant,” of the plant's relationship to light and gravity and all the other things that Franc& touches on. For those who see through the circumstances, the present attempts of natural scientists appear as unclear groping ventures into a field that can receive clarity and certainty from occultism. Indeed, in many ways the modern natural scientist appears to the occultist as a fantasist. Even the talk of the “meaning” and “mental life” of plants seems fanciful compared to the clear ideas of occultism, which shed light on the relationship between the above-mentioned life phenomena and organs of the plant and those of animals and humans that can be compared with them. And so, in particular, one of Frances's statements would like to be corrected by occultism. France says: “I am not afraid to say it again: that we have hardly tackled the main task, which we have left unsolved, barely grasped in its essence, and must leave it to our children to solve.” This main task can be “grasped in its essence” if natural science does not proudly reject occultism, but instead allies itself with it and allows itself to be fertilized by it. One should not “wander into the distance” to “our children”; one should seek the “good” that “lies so close,” namely in occult wisdom. But for the time being, natural science does not want to learn about occultism. The word “learn” is used here consciously, because occultism is not condemned because it is known, but because it is not known. Essays that will appear in this journal in the future will shed light on the research that underlies the writing of Francés from the point of view of occultism. But the occultist can only repeat: delve into such works as those of the spirited France: you will find in them the best, the surest preparation for occult training. Our ancestors did not need this preparation; it is useful to the present-day mind, which is more directed towards the material. And the “children” will no doubt find the reconciliation between occultism and natural science. Until then, the occultist can wait patiently. With his sincere love for the natural scientist, he stands on the Goethean point of view: whether you are loved in return, what does it matter to you?

At this point, we would like to give the floor to one of the best German thinkers of the second half of the nineteenth century. In 1872, at the age of only thirty, he was snatched from a promising life. Two of his writings have been printed: “The Ego and the Thing in Itself” and “The Indo-European Religions”. These are treasures of German intellectual life. If we can see the development of this intellectual life in its true light since 1870, it is only too understandable that Paul Asmus, who died so young, could find only a few readers. This period was devoted to the development of knowledge directed towards the sensual and factual. People wanted to process the results of experiments, of the microscope and the telescope, etc., as the basis of their world view. And Paul Asmus was one of those who wanted to explore the secrets of existence in the ethereal heights of pure thought. He is a true and noble disciple of the great philosophical idealists of the first half of the nineteenth century. Today, only a few are trained in the field of pure thought to ascend to these luminous heights. Few know the significance of these regions themselves and know that it is here, and not where mere sensory observation and experimentation is carried out, that the riddles of life are revealed. — In this magazine, which serves a worldview that is supposed to lead to the spirit, some of the estate of the prematurely deceased is certainly in place. The sister of the thinker, Martha Asmus, who has herself emerged in recent years with three small volumes of stories, has provided me with her brother's manuscript “Die Willkür”. From this, what can be published is that which can give an idea of the way in which Paul Asmus approached one of the most important human problems.

In the next issue, I will give a brief description of the direction of Paul Asmus' ideas. I know that the flight of thought that this researcher has taken is one that few today are inclined to follow. Today, thinking demands convenience, and understanding Paul Asmus' ideas requires full working dedication. Yet the Theosophist knows that it is not research that must be adapted to man, but man to research; and that only complete devotion to its demands can lead to realization.

Few works have been written about Kant that match the quality of what Paul Asmus has written about him in his essay “The Ego and the Thing in Itself”. He does full justice to Kant; but at the same time he shows how impossible it is to stop at Kant, and how the great impetus given by the Königsberg philosopher to German thought must necessarily have led to the conceptions of Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Schopenhauer and others. Kant had shown, and this fact is one of the most significant in the history of modern thought, that the ordinary scientific methods of thinking never lead to a knowledge of the “thing in itself,” but always only to a knowledgeably dominating the world of the appearances given to man. But Kant pointed to the “thing in itself” in a very peculiar way. He assumed that in the categorical imperative, which speaks to man in the imperative of duty, a call sounds from the world of the “thing in itself.” But this call does not provide any knowledge of the Supreme, but only a belief in it, which gives man direction in the moral life. If man wants to consider himself a moral being and develop further and further in the direction of morality, he must believe in the reality of what the categorical imperative sends to him. But he cannot recognize what carries him so morally.

Now Fichte has tried to examine this call that sounds within man, and so he came to his “I-philosophy”. In the “I”, according to Fichte, a higher world opens up to man, which is just as real, indeed much more real, than the outer world of appearances. For this outer world of appearances only acquires meaning and significance when the human ego allows its own light to shine on it. Paul Asmus presents this process of Fichte's thinking emerging from Kant's in a very astute way. And in the same way that Hegel and Schelling then seek answers to the great riddles of existence from the “I”, from the human spirit, which no external sensory perception can solve.

And from here, Paul Asmus then found access to an understanding of religions, these manifold attempts by humanity to grasp the active spiritual forces of the universe from the depths of the human soul. It is not easy for many to follow Paul Asmus's significant discussions of “Indo-European Religions” because he is operating at the pinnacle of human thought. But anyone who learns to read the book by training their thinking will receive the purest possible enlightenment about the forms of human striving for truth. Our philosopher sees through to the spiritual core of religious thought everywhere through the imagery of religions and shows the connection and relationship between these cores. His book is therefore an interpretation of a great primal thought of the Indo-European peoples. No one will study it without being deeply impressed and realizing what the development of religious life is. But this puts Paul Asmus among those who, in the sense of Theosophy, pursue the essence of religions and philosophies of humanity.

The following is the conclusion of Paul Asmus' introductory discussions of “arbitrariness”. His manuscript then continues with further discussions of the subject. We will also present the essentials of these in the following issues. What we have printed so far shows the path that the strong, sharp-sighted thinker has sought to take to the important problem of human freedom. Those who cannot move freely in the element of thought will call these discussions “abstract” and shadowy, and may even think that they are far removed from “real life” and that they contribute nothing to an understanding of the facts. But such a person has only not yet struggled through to life in the pure element of thought; he has not yet learned to dwell far from all sensuality, from all sensual imagining, in the ether region, where true life pulsates in the depths of man, which is a spark from the sea of light of eternal being. But anyone who has struggled to do so feels united with the divine world spirit in such a thought life; he lives in God at the same time as he lives in himself. Communion takes place with him in the spiritual realm. Thinkers like Asmus, who have developed out of the stream that German philosophical idealism gave from the first half of the nineteenth century: such thinkers understood to live in thought. In German intellectual life, historically speaking, what the theosophical mystic knows as a very specific inner life fact has taken place. The Kamic-Manasic thinking, in which the man of everyday life is caught, and in which, in particular, the European man of culture lives: this thinking throws off the Kamic veils and becomes pure Manasic thinking.

Whoever wants to go beyond a certain level in the field of knowledge must get to know this experience within themselves and let it become a fact. Those who cannot attain this stage either remain entangled in the fetters of a dim mysticism that only enables them to see the facts of the astral plane without understanding, or they have to content themselves with mere belief in the theosophical dogmas. Therefore, I consider it one of the tasks of this journal to present these samples of pure etheric thinking. Such thinking alone can provide inner, self-assured firmness and certainty for the researcher, guiding the theosophist between the Scylla of nebulous enthusiasm and the Charybdis of blind belief in dogma into the bright halls of wisdom. Those who not only think through what is given in pure thoughts, but bring it to the point of direct experience, will convince themselves of the truth of what has been said. But for the time being, only a few people in our culture can achieve what is called “living in thought”. And most people cannot even “think” the right thing when they hear the words “living in thought”. The theosophical movement, which is supposed to bring us back to spiritual life, will also have the task of understanding the spiritual thoughts of German idealism. And Paul Asmus, whose physical shell was appropriated by the earth so early, may well also make an impact with his wonderful thought-germs on the karma of the theosophical movement in Germany.

The fact that Paul Asmus sought the secrets of existence at the ethereal height of pure thought is the defining characteristic of his research. What underlies things as their essence is revealed in the thinking human being. This fundamental view of German philosophical idealism is also Paul Asmus's. The thoughts that a person has about the starry sky are also the order, the inner lawfulness itself, on which this starry sky is based. When I think, it is not just me who speaks, but the things within me express their essence, that which they actually are. Sensuous things are, as it were, only parables of their ideal essence; and human thought grasps this essence. In his essay 'The Ego and the Thing in Itself', Paul Asmus writes: 'Let us imagine a lump of sugar; it is round, sweet, impenetrable, etc. These are all qualities that we comprehend; only one thing we have a notion of something absolutely other, something that is so different from us that we cannot penetrate it without losing ourselves; from whose mere surface thought recoils in awe. This one is the unknown carrier of all those qualities; the in itself, which constitutes the innermost self of this object. Thus, Hegel correctly says that the whole content of our representation is only an accident to that dark subject, and we, without penetrating into its depths, only attach determinations to this in itself – which, after all, because we do not know it ourselves, also have no truly objective value, are subjective. Comprehending thought, on the other hand, has no such unknowable subject to which its determinations are mere accidents, but the representational subject falls within the concept. When I comprehend something, it is present in its entire fullness in my concept; I am at home in the innermost sanctuary of its essence, not because it has no essence of its own, but because the necessity of the concept, which appears subjectively in me and objectively in the thing, compels me to reflect its essence after it. Through this re-flection, as Hegel says, the true nature of the object reveals itself to us at the same time, just as this is our subjective activity. —"

Anyone who expresses his or her belief in such a sentence has placed himself and his thinking in a true relationship to the world and reality. Through observation we get to know the periphery of the world; through thinking we penetrate to its center. Contemplation within ourselves solves the riddle of existence for us. The thought that flashes up in me is not only of concern to me, but also to the things about which it enlightens me. And my soul is only the arena in which things express themselves about themselves.

To understand this, however, man must have thought as an element of life, something that is as much a reality for him as the things that he encounters and can grasp with his hands are a reality for the undeveloped man. He who can grasp nothing in his ideas but shadowy after-images of what the senses tell him does not understand what thinking is. For in order to penetrate to the essence of things, thinking must be filled with a content that no external sense can provide, but that flows from the spirit itself. Thinking must be productive, intuitive. When it then lives not in fantastic creations, but in the bright clarity of inner vision, then the world law itself lives and moves in it. One could well say of such thinking: the world thinks itself in the thoughts of man. But for this it is necessary that man experiences within himself the eternal laws that thinking gives itself. What people usually call “thinking” is, after all, only a confused imagining.

The fact that Paul Asmus has risen to the point of view of pure thinking, living within itself and giving itself its own necessity, makes him a genuine philosopher. And the fact that he handles this self-directing thinking with such clarity and naturalness makes him a significant philosopher. The philosopher knows selflessness in thought; he knows what it means to let thought arise within. He knows that in so doing he rises above mere opinion, which originates in the arbitrariness of the human will, and that he ascends to the summit of intellectual necessity, through which he becomes the interpreter of world existence. Theosophy demands strict control of thought from its disciples, so that they strip away all arbitrariness, all erroneous thinking, so that no longer they, but rather the things speak through them. Hegel's school was also a school of thought control. And because so few people really practice thought control, and because even very few of those who call themselves philosophers know what it is about, so many must misunderstand Hegel. Paul Asmus is one of the very few who have understood Hegel. What he has said about Hegel are pearls of philosophical insight. Anyone who reads and understands Paul Asmus's short essay 'The I and the Thing in It' will gain more than he could from studying the bulky philosophical works of authors who talk about the fundamental questions of knowledge and have never acquired the basic condition for such participation: a strictly controlled, intuitive, productive thinking.

The editor of this journal is grateful to the author for providing this material for publication. It will form the introduction to a three-volume edition of Swedenborg's works; and those who profess the mystical-Gnostic worldview can be satisfied with such an undertaking. The undersigned did not want to be narrow-minded and did not want to give the article a place in this magazine because he cannot agree with essential points in the remarks of Mr. Btieger-Wasservogel. One should also hear the voices that contradict the direction of our magazine. But it is probably permissible to point out this contradiction here with a few words. The views expressed in the essay about Swedenborg's visions are quite untenable before a real understanding of Swedenborg. The visions of this man are here reinterpreted in the sense of a rationalistic pantheism, which stirs the spiritual world into an unclear “Allgeist”, that is, into a nebulous thought-mush. But Swedenborg was a personality whose soul was awakened to the so-called “astral” vision; and only those who have an understanding of such worlds can give an accurate judgment about them. To say that Swedenborg conversed with Plato when he compared his thoughts with those of Plato is like the blind man speaking of colors. What is said in the essay about “Theosophy” only shows that the author never knew what 'Theosophy is. Of course, what is said about Swedenborg's complaints about theosophists is “a2v”. But so few know who “write” what Theosophy is and what Theosophists want that, despite our perhaps harsh judgment, nothing bad has been said about the essay, which nevertheless pleases us. We Theosophists want to understand others; and we can wait until they will repay us with like for like. If I had to disown my mathematically sober thinking and my veneration of Spinoza because I am a Theosophist, I would truly no longer be one in an hour. But since I became a Theosophist because I once really learned to think mathematically between lectures on “Integration of linear differential equations,” synthetic geometry, and descriptive geometry, and thus also gained access to spiritual research in the sense of Plato, then nothing will happen to me.