The Rudolf Steiner Archive

[ 1 ] The creator of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious”, Eduard von Hartmann, died on June 6, 1906. The world view that emerged in this work must arouse the warm interest of anyone who is interested in the intellectual currents of our age. And the creation of Eduard von Hartmann is one of those that are born entirely out of the character of the soul life of the last third of the nineteenth century. And more than from any other achievement of the immediate past, important directions of this soul life will be able to be derived from Eduard von Hartmann in the future. For he has followed up the aforementioned “Philosophy of the Unconscious”, which appeared as early as 1869, with numerous other works in which he has expressed his views on the most diverse major questions of humanity and also on many of the endeavors and intellectual currents of his era. None of these writings has achieved anywhere near the success of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious”. In a short time, it made Eduard von Hartmann a famous man. And not only within the German-speaking areas, but far beyond them. The work was translated into a number of languages.

[ 2 ] The significance of this success is all the more impressive when viewed in the context of the character of the time in which the book was published, and when one considers how much the world view represented in it was actually opposed to all the inclinations of Eduard von Hartmann's contemporaries. In it, he advocated a point of view from which insight could be gained into the spiritual foundations behind sensual reality. Hartmann sought to explore and reveal this spiritual reality in a truly bold manner. And his contemporaries in the broadest circles were tired and even weary of such research. This was the case with both the learned and the unlearned. In many cases, people had lost all understanding of philosophical thought. The unlearned had realized that none of the great hopes that had been aroused by the brilliant philosophical views of the first half of the century had been fulfilled. Whether this realization was really justified or whether it was based on a delusion because one had never really come to a true understanding of the spirit of these world views is not to be further discussed here. To characterize Eduard von Hartmann's appearance, it is sufficient to consider that the belief had become general that there was actually nothing to this whole way of philosophizing; that it only led to idealistic airy creations that stand on no firm ground and therefore cannot help man when he seeks satisfaction for the great riddles of his existence. Only Schopenhauer's writings have had a certain effect since the 1850s, due to their easy comprehensibility and because they spoke with warmth about important, immediate questions of humanity in a way that was particularly contemporary at that time. It was precisely the retreat of idealistic confidence and spiritualized hope for life that permeated the creations of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel that led to Schopenhauer, the “philosopher of pessimism”, achieving a late impact. Many people despaired of any kind of spiritual uplift being able to bring true elevation in life. Therefore, they willingly submitted to the arguments of a philosopher who even tried to prove the insignificance of life in a very pleasing form. But by the time the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” appeared, the inclination towards Schopenhauer had already largely disappeared.

[ 3 ] But no particular inspiration could come from the official centers of work in the field of philosophy. For there, with the loss of understanding for the previous philosophers, a certain perplexity had set in. There was a lack of all mental acuity, indeed of all courage, to really face the great world problems. They labored endlessly to explore how far human cognitive powers could actually go, and in doing so, they never got to the point of seriously recognizing anything, because they were constantly asking the same question over and over again: whether it was even possible to recognize anything at all. Kant's ideas were endlessly raked over in order to “orient oneself by them”. Anyone who has looked into the whole business can understand that this official philosophy could not have any effect on wider circles. Hermann Lotze had indeed attempted to describe a large, comprehensive body of ideas in his “Mikrokosmos” (1856-1864). But he could not succeed in conquering the field against a spiritual power that was then trying to take over the lost posts of philosophy everywhere. Lotze's approach was too diffuse, too much like a feuilleton. Gustav Theodor Fechner had also made many attempts to recognize the spiritual connections of the world. In 1851, he published “Zend-Avesta, or on the Nature of Heaven and the Hereafter”, in 1864 “On the Physical and Philosophical Theory of Atoms”, and in 1861 “On the Question of the Soul, a Journey through the Visible World to Find the Invisible”. At the time, these writings also had no profound effect. And that is understandable, because they came at a time when the natural sciences had taken a significant upswing. In them, people believed they could find the only sure ground of “facts” that could be trusted. And Fechner's way of looking at things was not such that the powerful advance from that side could have been repulsed by it. Due to a peculiar chain of circumstances, Fechner's achievements have only found a few supporters in our time. And this 'fact' shows the decreasing influence of scientific materialism today. In the last half of the nineteenth century, it had indeed earned real merits in the advancement of the human spirit. (Compare what was said about this in the previous article: “Haeckel, The World's Mysteries and Theosophy.”) And Gustav Theodor Fechner's way of philosophizing certainly offers some beautiful points of view and some quite fruitful suggestions. But in the main it builds a fantastic edifice of ideas on the basis of rather arbitrary analogies. And anyone who today believes that Fechner's revival can overcome the decaying materialism has neither gained the right relationship to natural science nor to true spiritual research, which is so urgently needed at present.

[ 4 ] Hartmann's appearance therefore fell in a time that was averse to all philosophizing and had turned its interest entirely to natural science. From this, people sought to construct a world view that, given the circumstances, had to be quite materialistic. Matter and its forces were to be the only reality, and all spiritual phenomena were to be nothing more than an expression of material effects. Those who thought differently were simply assumed by large sections of society to have not yet overcome their old prejudices and to have not yet arrived at the “only reasonable” philosophy of reality.

[ 5 ] And into this fell a phenomenon like the “philosophy of the unconscious”. Eduard von Hartmann took a challenging position towards natural science. He did not ignore the facts of natural science. Rather, he showed his full acquaintance with them everywhere. Indeed, it was precisely by making a particular use of facts from the field of natural science that he sought to prove that the spirit rules behind all sensory phenomena. The results that he arrived at through his purely speculative thinking are indeed very different from the spiritual facts that are reached by the actual spiritual research given in occultism. But in an age that was very much inclined towards a materialistic attitude, they were nevertheless numerous and ingenious demonstrations in favor of a world view that takes the spiritual into account. How many people had believed that they had clearly proven that natural science had forever “driven out the spirit”. And now someone dared to prove the “spirit” as real, precisely on the basis of what natural science itself teaches in many cases.

[ 6 ] The manner in which Hartmann has attempted this can only be indicated here in a few lines. Only a few of the many facts Hartmann has used may be mentioned here. For example, consider the so-called reflex movements of animals and of man. The eye closes when it is confronted with an impression that threatens it. Rational, conscious thought does not have time to become active. We are not dealing here with a process that is guided by the consciousness of the animal or human being. Nevertheless, it proceeds in such a way that reason is in it, and if conscious reason had to organize a similar process, it could not turn out differently. It is guided by an unconscious reason that is active within it or behind it. But reason can only give rise to the phenomena of such a fact; it cannot carry out the process itself. A will is needed for this. But again, this will is not a power of the conscious soul. It is therefore present as an unconscious one. Thus, in addition to unconscious reason, there is also an unconscious will behind the sensory facts. Another fact is given by instinctive actions. One need only look at the rational way in which animals build their homes, how they carry out actions that bear the character of expediency. Eduard von Hartmann derives his view from the healing power of nature, indeed from the creative work of the artist and the genius in general, which flows from the source of unconsciousness. To characterize this view, it is permissible to quote the sentences that are found in my book Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert (World and Life Views in the Nineteenth Century) (Volume II, pp. 164-165, Berlin, Siegfried Cronbach) for this purpose:

[ 7 ] "Man cannot - in the sense of Eduard von Hartmann - be content with the observation of facts. He must progress from facts to ideas. These ideas cannot be something that is arbitrarily added to the facts by thinking. There must be something corresponding to them in the things and events. These corresponding ideas cannot be conscious ideas, because such only come about through the material processes of the brain. Without a brain, there is no consciousness. We must therefore imagine that the conscious ideas of the human mind correspond to an unconscious ideal in reality. Like Hegel, Hartmann also regards the idea as the real thing in things, which exists in them beyond what is merely perceptible, accessible to sensory observation. However, the mere idea content of things could never bring about a real event in them. The idea of a sphere cannot push the idea of another sphere. The idea of a table cannot make an impression on the human eye either. A real event presupposes a real force. To gain an idea of such a force, Hartmann draws on Schopenhauer. In his own soul, man finds a force through which he gives reality to his own thoughts and decisions, the will. Just as the will expresses itself in the human soul, it presupposes the existence of the human organism. Through the organism, the will is a conscious one. If we want to think of a force in things, we can only imagine it as similar to the will, the only force that we know directly. But again, we must disregard consciousness. So, outside of us, there is an unconscious will in things, which gives ideas the possibility of becoming real. The content of ideas and will in the world, in their union, constitute the unconscious basis of the world. – Even though the world exhibits a thoroughly logical structure on account of its content of ideas, it owes its real existence to the illogical, irrational will. Its content is rational; that this content is a reality has its reason in the irrationality.»

[ 8 ] It is clear that Hartmann assumes a spiritual world as the basis of the one that reveals itself to man through his . external senses. This is what his view of the world has in common with occult knowledge. Only the way in which both arrive at this spiritual world is what distinguishes them. Occult knowledge shows that man does not need to stop at the outer senses in terms of his perceptive faculty. It says: There are dormant abilities in man; and if he develops these in the same way as he has developed his external senses up to now, then he will perceive the spiritual world directly, just as he perceives the ordinary sensual world with his eyes and ears. The philosophy of Eduard von Hartmann does not recognize such a development of man to a higher capacity for perception. For it, there is no perception other than that of the external senses. One can only combine the perceptions of these external senses, examine them with the intellect, dissect them, and reflect on their causes. Then one comes to realize that behind what one sees, hears, etc., there is something else that one does not perceive. This imperceptible spiritual reality is thus recognized through logical conclusions. It must remain a mere world of thought for man. — If occult knowledge advances on the basis of a higher human faculty of perception to a richly structured spiritual world, Hartmann's supersensible world of thought remains meager. It is composed only of the two elements, the unconscious will and the unconscious idea.

[ 9 ] If we realize this, it will be easy to see what is lacking in Eduard von Hartmann's view of the world to enable it to rise to the spiritual world. But such clarity will enable us to do justice to it within its limits. It is precisely because Hartmann does not go beyond sensory perception that he feels all the more compelled to look around him in this sensory world and to see exactly where it already requires thorough thinking to speak of a spiritual basis. This is Hartmann's strength in the face of scientific materialism. He can show how the conclusions of natural science are reached only by superficial observation of the facts. He can prove that the results of natural science itself urge us to seek spiritual causes in all phenomena. In this way he is able, for example, to give the materialistic natural scientists a picture of their own science which differs considerably from their own. This caused the materialistic-minded natural scientists to raise a vehement objection to the “philosophy of the unconscious”. They declared the creator of the same to be a dilettante in the field of natural science. With such a manner one usually has a very easy stand vis-à-vis a larger public. The public does not examine things closely. When the “experts”, who, according to the public, must know what they are talking about, say: “This philosophy is no good, because the philosopher does not understand the facts he is talking about”: the public will swear by such a statement. And the philosopher may then present the best reasons for his view: that does not help him at all.

[ 10 ] Hartmann recognized the futility of such a path. Therefore, he chose a much more clever one to refute the scientific materialists thoroughly. A path against which there was absolutely nothing to save the scientific superficiality. Allow me to present this path of Eduard von Hartmann's in such a way that I can reproduce what I have already said about it, namely in a lecture that I gave on February 20, 1893, at the Vienna Scientific Club and which was printed in the July 1893 issue of the Monatsblätter des wissenschaftlichen Klubs in Wien: “In one chapter of his book (the ‘Philosophy of the Unconscious’), Eduard von Hartmann attempted to deal with Darwinism from a philosophical perspective. He found that the prevailing view of the time could not withstand logical reasoning, and sought to deepen it. The result was that he was accused of dilettantism by natural scientists and condemned in the strongest possible terms. In numerous essays and writings, he was accused of lacking insight into scientific matters. Among the opposing writings was one by an unnamed author. The statements made in it were described by respected natural scientists as the best that could be said against Hartmann's views. The experts considered the philosopher to have been completely refuted. The famous zoologist Dr. Oskar Schmidt said that the work of the unknown author had “fully confirmed the conviction of all those who are not sworn to the unconscious that Darwinism – and Schmidt meant the view of it held by the natural scientists – is right”. And Ernst Haeckel, whom I also regard as the greatest German natural scientist of the present day, wrote: 'This excellent work says everything in essence that I myself could have said about the «philosophy of the unconscious ' — When a second edition of the work appeared later, the name of the author was on the title page: Eduard von Hartmann. The philosopher had wanted to show that it was not at all impossible for him to familiarize himself with the scientific way of thinking and to speak the language of natural scientists if he wanted to. Hartmann thus provided proof that it is not the philosophers who lack an understanding of natural science, but rather the representatives of the latter who lack insight into philosophy.” - That was indeed a harsh lesson that Eduard von Hartmann taught the materialistic natural scientists. Even if it cannot be said that the latter were driven to some thoroughness in relation to spiritual research by it: Hartmann's position towards them and probably also that of spiritual research in general has been put in a world-historically significant light by it.

[ 11 ] If the “philosophy of the unconscious” is thus vastly superior to materialistic natural science, then Eduard von Hartmann placed himself from the outset in an awkward position with regard to spiritual research, due to his epistemology, which, to a certain extent, follows Kantian lines. He characterized the common view of man as naïve realism. He said: “This common view sees real things in the perceptions of the senses. Now, however, it can easily be shown that this view is wrong. For the fact that man sees an object in a certain color, perceives it with a certain smell, etc., is due only to the fact that his eyes, his olfactory organ, etc., are built in a certain way. If he had other organs instead of eyes and olfactory organs, he would perceive something completely different. Thus, perceptions are not real things, but only phenomena that are caused by the sensory organs in their own way. The ordinary person who considers them real is therefore living in a delusion. Rather, one must assume that the true reality lies behind the perceptions of the senses as a cause. And it is precisely for this reason that Hartmann seeks to overcome the naive realism of the ordinary person. He seeks to fathom through thinking what lies behind the apparent true reality. In doing so, he admits in a certain limited sense that man can develop to a higher level of knowledge. He sees his own point of view as one that slumbers in every person, and to which the naive realist only does not rise.

[ 12 ] How close it would have been, now that Hartmann had already gone so far, to say to himself: Could one not rise to an even higher level of knowledge? Could there not be a higher capacity for knowledge, which would also make my point of view appear to be a delusion, just as the point of view of naive realism appears to me? Hartmann never wanted to draw this obvious conclusion. That is why occult knowledge has always remained completely incomprehensible to him. This was due to the limitations of his mind. He was simply unable to go beyond a certain point. He did, however, make every effort in a certain respect. When Sinnett's “Esoteric Teaching of Secret Buddhism” appeared in the 1880s, thus giving the theosophical trend of the times its first literary expression, Hartmann wrote a detailed essay on this book. Now, it can be said that in that Sinnett book, theosophy was presented in a much too dogmatic way to be of much help to a thorough thinker, and that the “secret Buddhism” contained too much stereotyped, even directly erroneous, which made access difficult; but one must nevertheless find that Hartmann fell victim to a certain type of his mind in this direction of research, as he also did with other phenomena of spiritual research. He had encapsulated himself at an early stage in the thought-forms he had once established, and thus lost any possibility of even understanding anything else. Therefore, for him, a relationship to other research was never possible other than a purely comparative one, in which he would simply compare every other thought with his own and then say: what agrees with me is right; what does not is wrong. In a certain sense, therefore, Eduard von Hartmann's critical attitude towards the achievements of others was such that in individual cases there was no need to wait to hear what he would say. Anyone who was familiar with his philosophy and then took up a different point of view could always know what Hartmann would say about the latter, even before he himself had spoken.

[ 13 ] Hartmann also dealt with minor contemporary phenomena of spiritual research, such as hypnotism and spiritualism, without arriving at anything other than a rather stereotyped registration in his thought forms. This is why many of Eduard von Hartmann's later books are far less inspiring than his first. Of course, he modified his original results in some points, and that is why it is wrong for the public to judge him mostly according to his first creation, the “Philosophy of the Unconscious”. He often complained bitterly about this one-sided assessment of his philosophy. But the reason for this is also that, with regard to his fundamental ideas, Hartmann has not provided anything in many of his later writings that any expert in his principles could not actually develop for themselves. There are few authors in relation to whom it can be said with as much justification as with Hartmann: in order to gain what they offer in their later works, one no longer actually needs them. A reasonably talented person can, for example, construct for himself the essentials of what is contained in the “Categories” or in the “History of Metaphysics” in the sense of Hartmann, if he knows and understands his previous writings.

[ 14 ] It is easy to misunderstand what constitutes Hartmann's pessimism. The fact that he was originally influenced by Schopenhauer's school of thought has given the “philosophy of the unconscious” a pessimistic slant. However, it should not be overlooked that Hegel and Schelling, with their by no means pessimistic way of thinking, also had an equally strong influence on Hartmann as Schopenhauer. It would go far beyond the scope of this article to discuss Hartmann's relationship to the three philosophers mentioned or to other thinkers. Therefore, without such an elaboration, Hartmann's relationship to pessimism will be briefly characterized.

[ 15 ] Since the “philosophy of the unconscious” sees the spirit of the world as composed of two elements, the unconscious will and the unconscious idea, it cannot regard the course of world development as entirely rational and good. For although the idea is rational and logical for it, the will is not. But the world can only have come into being through the will. It has already been said above that a force is necessary for real creation. The powerless idea can create nothing. Hartmann therefore comes to the conclusion that the world is there at all because of the irrational will, and the idea can do nothing but take possession of the will in order to annul creation again. The process of the world consists, then, in the idea feeling itself unsatisfied by the fact that it has been called into existence by the will; it thus feels creation as its suffering, and strives to free itself from this suffering. It is again permissible to quote a few sentences from my book “Welt- und Lebensanschauungen im neunzehnten Jahrhundert” (pp. 165f.) in this connection: “The reign of the irrational is expressed in the existence of pain, which torments all beings. Pain outweighs pleasure in the world. This fact, which can be explained philosophically from the illogical will element of existence, is sought by Eduard von Hartmann to be substantiated by careful consideration of the relationship between pleasure and pain in the world. Anyone who does not indulge in any illusions, but objectively considers the evils of the world, cannot come to any other conclusion than that pain is present to a far greater extent than pleasure. From this, however, it follows that non-existence is to be preferred to existence. But non-existence can only be achieved if the logical-rational idea destroys the will, existence. Hartmann therefore sees the world process as a gradual destruction of the irrational will by the rational world of ideas. The highest moral task of man should be to help overcome the will.” It is clear that the ‘philosophy of the unconscious’ is diametrically opposed to occult spiritual research. For the latter, in a nutshell, must see the world and thus also man in a developmental current that ultimately leads everything to the divine, that is, to the good original being.

[ 16 ] But in Hartmann's case, this comprehensive pessimism is combined with a strange subordinate optimism. For his pessimism is not intended to lead to a turning away from existence, but on the contrary, to a devoted participation in it. He believes that only this pessimism can lead to moral action.

[ 17 ] As long as man believes that pleasure and happiness can be attained, he will not - according to Eduard von Hartmann's assumption - give up the selfish pursuit of them. Only one thing can bring real healing from all egoism. That is the realization that all belief in pleasure and happiness is an illusion. If a person is clear about this, then he will give up all such striving. Now one could say, however, that under such conditions all existence is pointless; and the “philosophy of the unconscious” would therefore actually have to recommend to man the annihilation of his existence. Hartmann replies that absolutely nothing would be achieved if the individual wanted to extinguish his existence. For what ultimately suffers is not only the individual spirit, but the All-Spirit. If suffering is to cease, the existence of the All-Spirit itself must be extinguished. This cannot be achieved by the individual destroying himself, but rather by the individual placing his work in the service of the whole. All the work of humanity must work together to ultimately free the All-Spirit from its suffering. The whole development of civilization is nothing other than working towards this goal. The development of the world consists in the redemption of the Godhead from the suffering of existence through the work of humanity. The individual must renounce his own happiness and place all his efforts at the service of the redemption of the deity. It cannot be the task here to show how Hartmann, in a rather fantastic way, presupposes that humanity could be educated to this end, ultimately through a common decision, through a united striving to radically destroy existence and to redeem the deity.

[ 18 ] Even if one has to admit that in such extreme points of philosophical thought the “philosophy of the unconscious” loses itself in unfathomable depths, it cannot escape the discerning reader that Hartmann has made many beautiful statements in particular. One such must be seen in particular in the discussion of the various moral viewpoints in his “Phenomenology of the Moral Consciousness”. There he has listed all possible moral views of life, from crass egoism to religious selfless devotion to work in the service of humanity as a whole. And even though a touch of pessimism lies over all these statements, with the paradoxical goal of redeeming the world spirit from its suffering: anyone who is able to disregard this radical end point can still gain a great deal from Hartmann's individual works. The same can be said of the book: “The Religious Consciousness of Humanity in the Gradual Sequence of its Development”. Here Hartmann wants to show how, in the course of history, humanity gradually struggles through the various religious standpoints to the worship of that All-Spirit, as it is conceived of as “the Unconscious”. To him, all previous religions appear as a preliminary stage of the “religion of the spirit”. That the “spirit” lives in each individual, and that life must consist in the redemption of this suffering spirit: this is to be the content of such a future religion. Christianity, too, can only be a preliminary stage to this “religion of the spirit”. It gives itself over – Hartmann believes – to the illusion that the All-Spirit suffered in one person, the Son of God: but the sum of all persons must take the place of this one person. All must feel themselves to be suffering sons of the One Spirit, called to redemption. Hartmann is convinced that the scientific theology of the new age must lead to a “self-destruction of Christianity”. It must ultimately dissolve through the contradiction that arises from reflecting on the impossibility of the work of redemption being brought about by a single individual. If Hartmann's explanation once again reveals a complete misunderstanding of Christianity, the creator of the “Philosophy of the Unconscious” has nevertheless provided many important details in this area, and in this respect he is far superior to contemporary theologians and philosophers in terms of his acumen and independence of thought.

[ 19 ] It would be interesting to also explain how, despite the inadequacy of his basic principles, Hartmann also achieved much that was excellent in the individual in his “Aesthetics”. However, due to a lack of space, this must be left out of consideration here.

[ 20 ] Eduard von Hartmann offers much that is stimulating to anyone who studies him. And he cannot be without benefit to spiritual research. In him we have a personality who, on the one hand, shows an energetic struggle to free himself from the prejudices of the materialistic spirit of the age, but who, on the other hand, cannot rise to the realm of real spiritual insight. In his case, one can see how the way of thinking of the present takes away the freedom of the spirit to such real vision. — And there is one more thing that should not be overlooked about this personality. Hartmann not only dealt with the highest questions of life, but he also penetrated all the questions of the time: cultural questions, politics, social economics, legal questions, etc. And everywhere he proves himself to be a thinker who wants to remain firmly on the ground of reality, who does not want to lose himself in fantastic utopias and abstract future perspectives. Yes, his sense of reality in this respect is in a strange contrast to his radical, and really often bottomless, dreams in the highest questions and goals of humanity. His conservatism in politics and socialism sometimes has something philistine about it, but it is also very healthy. That is why he will also be valuable for the spiritual researcher in this respect. The latter has every reason to beware of fantasies and to remain firmly grounded in reality. Hartmann can provide an excellent example of this. Whether one wants to accept this or that from him is not so important; but it is important that one can always receive fruitful suggestions from him.

[ 1 ] For a long time, many people who are not familiar with the theosophical movement of our time have held the opinion that many followers of this philosophy allow themselves to be deprived of their sound judgment by blind faith in authority. It is imagined that there are a number of people within this movement who, by their behavior and certain characteristics, are regarded by others as “enlightened”, “more highly developed”, “knowing”, and that their assertions are accepted in good faith by a large number of the followers of Theosophy. It is precisely because of such opinions that many refuse to get involved with this movement. They say: we only want to hear what can be “proved” to our powers of judgment; a person who has awakened to mature thinking rejects blind faith in dogmas. And since the claims of the theosophists do not appeal to “common sense”, we will not get involved in them, even if individual “enlightened ones” claim that they can know such things.

[ 2 ] Recently, such an opinion has even gained ground among many personalities who are themselves part of the theosophical movement. There, too, one can hear much said about the fact that “common sense” should not blindly submit to any authority or dogma, but should examine everything for itself. Sometimes, something like concern is clearly evident that one may have gone too far in accepting certain “revelations” by this or that person, whom one has too much revered as a “knower”, as an “infallible authority”. And many would like to urge prudence and examination, so that one does not lose oneself in bottomless fantasies, and one day has to admit that this or that fact destroys the appearance of knowledge that this or that “enlightened” person has assumed.

[ 3 ] Who would deny that such admonitions have much to justify them. Have not enough facts occurred to make people, to whom many looked up as if to sure authorities, lose their reputation and their validity? And have not accusations been raised recently against the most important workers in the theosophical field, which must give many people food for thought? Is it any wonder that many people say to themselves: “I don't want to believe more than what I can see for myself”? Just now, another alarming case has occurred. One of the Theosophical workers who are leading many on the path to higher knowledge, C. W. Leadbeater, has been accused of serious misconduct by some members of the American section of the Theosophical Society. The matter appeared to be so serious that the president of the society, H.S. Olcott, summoned a committee to London, which consisted of the business committee of the British section and delegates from the American and French sections, and which was to examine the situation. Leadbeater would probably have been expelled from the society if he had not already announced his resignation. Thus a personality was removed from the Society who had done untold service for the spread of Theosophy for many years, whose books had been guides for many leaders in spiritual life, and who had acquired a large number of disciples. Immediately before the fateful event, Leadbeater had made a successful lecture tour of America and had made a deep impression in many places through his meaningful work. - Should such a case not make us suspicious of all authorities? (Since a discussion of this case is to follow shortly, ' only this hint' is given here.) Now, in the face of such a case, one can certainly say with full justification that the Theosophical cause is above all persons; and no matter how many representatives of this cause may 'fall': he who is able to separate the cause from the persons cannot be misled by such facts. It is also emphasized that true spiritual “higher development” does not necessarily have to be connected with the ability for a certain “clairvoyant” life. And Leadbeater would have to be considered first and foremost as someone who had developed certain clairvoyant abilities in himself. Theosophy should, however, be less concerned with this than with making the means available to its followers by which they can purify and cleanse their “lower nature” and awaken their “higher self” within themselves. The acquisition of clairvoyant powers is even dangerous as long as the purification and cleansing has not taken place. (The section of this booklet on “The Stages of Higher Realization” contains some information on this very question.) And one can also hear voices that, on such occasions, recommend limiting the cultivation of such insights that are based on clairvoyant abilities and instead advise limiting oneself to what ennobles spiritual life without such reference. It is not important, so it is said, to gain insights into higher worlds, into “spirits”, into the cycles of the world and of life, but rather to acquire a refined, purified view of life.

[ 4 ] There can be no doubt that those who advocate such a view are quite right in a certain respect. Nevertheless, the Theosophical movement will become entangled in fatal contradictions to its mission if such opinions gain the upper hand in the circles of its followers. - Now, an objection is certainly possible here. One can say: who is authorized to consider his opinion of the mission of the Theosophical Movement as somehow authoritative? One person may believe that the dissemination of “higher insights” is the right thing; another may believe that it is not the spread of the results of Herschel's research that matters, but the cultivation of “spiritual and moral life”.

[ 5 ] In itself, this objection is quite correct. And if a majority of the Theosophical Society were to disapprove of the dissemination of so-called secret teachings, then from a certain point of view there would be no objection to it. But basically, from a higher point of view, it is not a matter of discussing what the Theosophical Society should be. It can only be what its members want it to be. What is at stake is something quite different. It is important that the dissemination of esoteric teachings is necessary for the further progress of humanity. And those people who recognize this and are capable of it must do their part to spread them. They must regard this as a task set for them by the circumstances of the times. And therefore the question of what the Theosophical Society should be is not of primary importance to them. If it were to be found that a majority of the votes within this society were against the cultivation of esoteric knowledge, then they would have to seek access to their contemporaries by other means than through this society.

[ 6 ] But a quite different and weighty question arises. Does the Theosophical Society not shake its foundations if judgments like those just mentioned gain the upper hand? This question will become clear if one looks at how this society has gained recognition in the world so far. It owes this prestige not to general teachings that are readily accessible to “common sense”, but to the fact that the founders and members of this society were able to say something to people that is not readily accessible to “common sense”. Insights into the nature of man, into 'his imperishable spiritual essence, into higher worlds: these have been what people have sought through the society ever since. People wanted to satisfy their longing for knowledge of the “spiritual world” through theosophy. The leaders of the theosophical movement did not find the ear of their contemporaries through “generally provable” principles – which are certainly infinitely valuable in themselves – but through the revelation of truths that are only accessible to clairvoyant research. And although there is no one in the world who cannot come to such truths by developing his own dormant abilities, it is nevertheless in the nature of human development that only a few individuals have developed the necessary abilities. If one does not want to listen to what such people have to say about the spiritual world, one would have to renounce knowledge of it altogether. One can indeed say to these few: “We do not want you to tell us what you know; you can only satisfy us if you tell us how we ourselves can come to such knowledge. Do not tell us what is revealed to you through your clairvoyance, but tell us how we ourselves can become clairvoyant.” In this journal, more has been said about the question of how to attain knowledge of higher worlds than can be said publicly at the present time. From the information given, it will be seen to what extent every legitimate aspiration in this direction can find satisfaction. Although Theosophy can open the way for people to access real secret training, the public mission of esoteric research described above is something quite different. People need answers to certain questions that life poses for them. He needs them for the peace of mind that he needs, for inner peace, for security in life and work; only through such an answer can he be a useful member of human society, can he properly fulfill his place in the world. Of course, there are countless people who do not even raise such questions today, who do not feel any longing for their answers. But these people do not do so only because they are not given the opportunity to feel the necessity of it. The moment a person is confronted with certain spiritual matters in the right way, he also immediately feels what is missing in his life if he passes it by, and then every doubt about the necessity ceases. But it is a misunderstanding to believe that the answers to such questions about the higher world are only of value to those who themselves have clairvoyant insight into this world. This is absolutely not the case.

[ 7 ] If one takes in the answers with the right attitude and lives with them, then one will soon become convinced of the truth, even if one still has a long way to go before one becomes clairvoyant. The fact that so many people today are unable to experience this conviction is due solely to the fact that the materialistic spirit of the age places a heavy obstacle in the way of the soul. People believe themselves to be unprejudiced, and yet they have the greatest prejudice against the higher truth. Theosophy seeks to proclaim this higher truth in a way that is relevant to the needs of the present human being, and in a way that is necessary for true progress in the near future. But where else can it be received if not from those who have fathomed it through their own research? If one were to oppose this from the outset with “common sense”, then one would be declaring their entire research unnecessary. One should assume that those who have endeavored to develop higher possibilities of knowledge within themselves have not lost this common sense. It is certain that what the knowledgeable reveal can never contradict “common sense”, but it is equally certain that one can only understand this if one approaches their revelations with the right attitude. Without doubt, everyone can judge, and everyone should only trust their own judgment; but they must first know what they want to judge. Anyone who ponders these simple things for a moment will soon realize how little truth there is in much of what is said against the authorities in matters of the higher worlds. These authorities cannot be a danger to common sense, since they—if they are the right authorities—want to give this common sense precisely that which it is to judge. If the Theosophical Society does not want to cultivate only what its members already know, but to offer the path to higher knowledge, it will not be able to do without the inspiring authorities. It is quite different to judge and to be shown the way to judgment. Either the Theosophical Society will become something completely different from what it has been according to its foundations within the present, or it will have to be a scene for those who have not yet made higher experiences from it.

[ 8 ] Anyone who views the situation in this way will have to think and act differently from the way many members of the Society think today. At the Paris Congress of the “Federation of European Sections”, the danger of authorities in the name of “common sense” was also pointed out in many speeches and discussions. Even the Society's meritorious founder and president, H.S. Olcott, felt it necessary at the present time to emphasize the importance of “common sense” and to stress that no member of the Theosophical Society should rely on anything other than his own powers of judgment and should beware of falling prey to authorities. And to make this warning against authority particularly clear, he cited the authority of Buddha, who said: “Do not believe because it is written in a book, or because it is taught by a wise man, or because it is handed down by tradition, or because it is inspired by a god, etc., but believe only what is evident to you through your own reason and experience.” But these words of Buddha's can be taken as a guide in different ways. One person does so by considering the revelations of the wise to be worthless because they do not appeal to his understanding, while another seeks to develop his powers of perception so that he can form an independent judgment about such revelations.

[ 9 ] The conditions under which the Theosophical movement exists will be better understood than is often the case at present if we consider that the essence of it consists in the publication of some of those truths which were formerly regarded exclusively as so-called secret sciences. Such truths are those now proclaimed in writing and word about the nature of man, that is, his structure from the limbs of the physical, mental and spiritual world, his development and gradual perfection through a series of earthly lives; furthermore, about the law of the connection between cause and effect in the spiritual world, which is usually referred to as karma; and also about certain processes of the earth's development, which are revealed to the open eye of the seer and which must be known if one wants to understand man's higher destiny. In addition, there are certain insights into the higher spiritual worlds, without which one cannot have any understanding of the development of the world, and without which one cannot know anything about what lies hidden behind death, what is to be regarded as the invisible and immortal part of human nature.

[ 10 ] These insights have existed for a long time in the form in which they are disseminated by the Theosophical movement in books, essays and lectures. But they were not publicly announced in this form. They were only communicated to those who had first been carefully tested for their intellectual, spiritual and moral abilities. The purpose of testing for intellectual abilities was to ensure that the teachings only reached those people who were really able to understand them by virtue of their intellectual and rational powers. For the high spiritual truths are such that an imperfect mind can at first even find them nonsensical. If they are presented to such a person, they can only be misunderstood. And apart from the fact that such a communication would be completely useless, it must have a highly unsettling effect on the mind of the person to whom it is communicated. For while, if rightly understood, these teachings bring about the happiness and bliss of man, they must, misunderstood, bring about mischief in the soul. A small truth, if distorted by too little power of judgment, will not cause any particular mischief, for it brings about only slight agitations of the soul. A great truth is felt as something that interferes with the welfare and powers of the soul. If it is distorted or caricatured, it will have the opposite effect of what it should have. If it is properly understood, it will elevate man to a higher way of life; if it is misunderstood, it will lower him to a level below that which he would be without it. Furthermore, a misunderstanding of higher truths leads not only to a useless but also to a harmful discussion of them. Such a discussion confuses the soul, and because the truths are so momentous, it does not remain, as with the discussion of insignificant matters, a mere error of the intellect, but such an error can lead to the disruption of the whole structure of the soul, in other words, to the illness of the whole person. And if such insights are even communicated publicly, then the damage does not only affect individuals, but many.

[ 11 ] Therefore, in the secret schools, it was demanded that the right powers of understanding be present first, and then one imparted step by step what one thought it advisable to impart... The soul forces had to be prepared so that the pupil of the higher secrets could receive them in a worthy mood and frame of mind. For the feeling with which one approaches a truth gives it a certain spiritual coloration. And it is the case with higher truths that they have an incorrect effect if one does not approach them with the right feeling. A truth that relates to physical things is not particularly distorted if one receives it in an incorrect mood. With a higher truth, exactly the opposite is the case... The moral powers of the candidate for higher schooling had to be tested, because the corresponding realizations necessarily tear away the veil that is spread over certain hidden sides of his nature. These hidden sides of the human being are driven to the surface. In ordinary life they are veiled by acquired habits, by what is considered right according to the circumstances of life and by many other things. This is the case for the good of the individual and of all humanity. How many inclinations, drives, affects, passions, which, if they were released, would have a devastating effect, are purely held back by such things.

[ 12 ] One of the first effects of higher truths is that they completely free man from all such things. Everything that softens his nature from the outside falls away. It loses its hold over him, and from now on he can only be his own master. Man does not even need to realize immediately that this is the case. As soon as the higher knowledge approaches him, he will surrender himself. He must now be strong enough to take the guidance of his morals, his inclinations and habits, etc., into his own hands. He can only do this if he can, through his own strength, push back everything that previously brought the beneficial conditions of the outside world into the right track. Let us give just one example from this field. The tendency to vanity is particularly evident in the disciple of the higher mysteries. If he does not have the strength to suppress it, it will grow to an extreme and lead him to the most pernicious paths. It is possible that this vanity will disguise itself in all kinds of masks, even in those of its opposite. And while the person then believes that he is becoming particularly modest, this modesty is nothing but the mask of a terrible vanity... One can see why the old secret societies demanded such strict testing of their pupils.

[ 13 ] In the face of such facts, the question must immediately arise: if that is the case, why are these truths not treated in the same way as before; is it right at all that the theosophical movement should make some of them public? It should be said at once that a great number of those persons who are in possession of such truths are at present observing the principle of secrecy in regard to them, and many of them believe that the Theosophical Movement is really doing an injustice.

[ 14 ] But the matter is as follows: the higher part of spiritual knowledge will have to be kept secret in the manner indicated for a long time to come. What is published through the theosophical movement is the elementary part. But this cannot be kept secret any longer. For humanity has in many of its parts reached a stage of development at which it cannot do without it. It must be published because without it certain soul needs of humanity can no longer be satisfied. Without this publication, the life of the soul would have to become desolate.

[ 15 ] It must not be thought that the knowledge indicated has been withheld from mankind in every form. They have only been kept secret in the form in which they were taught in the secret schools and as they are now being communicated through the theosophical movement. But even people who lived in the most modest circumstances were able to receive them in a form that was appropriate for them. Fairy tales and myths contain these truths in the form of images, parables, etc. It is only out of a materialistic attitude that one does not want to recognize or acknowledge the profound wisdom contained in fairy tales, legends and myths. It cannot be the task here to show what could easily be shown, that legends and myths contain much, much greater wisdom about nature and the secrets of humanity than the explanations of our today's so advanced sciences. It is necessary to give people at certain cultural levels an idea of what must approach man in the form of ideas at a higher level of intellectual development. However, there are still many people today who believe that what the intellect has not grasped is not understood at all. In contrast to this, it must be emphasized that not only the intellect is a cognitive faculty, but that one can also understand things through feeling, through imagination and through other soul forces. And it was a real understanding for certain stages of development when people allowed the secrets of the world to work on them in fairy tales and myths. Indeed, for such stages of development, another form cannot even be considered. The form of higher truths that we find in theosophy today remains for such times the domain of secret teachings and their students. At other stages of development, it is the religions that proclaim the secrets of the invisible worlds to humanity. All religions contain the higher secrets in a form that is suited to the mind and to faith. Those who study religions without materialistic prejudice, but with an open mind and without preconceptions, will find all the secret teachings in them, so that each particular religion contains these teachings, adapted to the character, temperament and culture of the people and the time for whom they are intended.

[ 16 ] Myths, legends, religions are the various ways in which the highest truths have been conveyed to the majority of people. This must continue to happen if it were sufficient. But it is no longer sufficient. Mankind has now reached a stage of development at which a large proportion of it would lose all religion if the higher truths on which it is based were not also proclaimed in a form that would enable even the keenest reflection to recognize their validity. Religions are true, but for many people the time has passed when comprehension was possible through mere faith. And the number of people to whom this applies will increase at an unprecedented rate in the near future. Those who truly understand the laws of human development know this. If the wisdom underlying religious beliefs were not publicly proclaimed in a form that would stand up to perfect thinking, complete doubt and disbelief in the invisible world would soon break out. And a time in which that were the case would, despite all material culture, be a time worse than one of barbarism. Whoever knows the real conditions of human life knows that man cannot live without a relationship to the invisible, any more than a plant can live without nourishing juices.

[ 17 ] In the recently published essay on the education of children, it can be seen how only theosophical truths can have a real practical effect on life in the near future. The same could be shown for the most diverse areas of life.

[ 18 ] The truth is that we must convey to humanity the knowledge of the invisible worlds in the theosophical form, just as it has been conveyed to it in the form of parables and images. Theosophy, properly understood, is not a new religion, nor a religious sect, but the right means for the present time to show the wisdom of religion in a way that is necessary for the people of this time. Theosophy does not found a new religion, for it furnishes the very proofs of the validity of the old one, and thus becomes its firmest support... But Theosophy is not a matter for a few enthusiasts, for it makes man acquainted with the invisible world, from which he must draw the forces for the visible world.

[ 19 ] Thus, Theosophy arises from the realization of what humanity needs at the present time. And it is necessary for humanity to learn some of the truths of esoteric science. Because the facts are as they are, these truths have had such a powerful effect on many souls since they were first published a few decades ago, and that is why the true mission of the Theosophical Movement lies in the tactful publication of such truths. Just try to put the Theosophical Movement on a different basis, and it will have ceased to be of any interest to those who, from the very beginning, have turned to it out of a true present-day human need. Do not say that these truths about the higher mysteries are only valuable to those who can grasp them clairvoyantly. Nothing could be further from the truth. For clairvoyance is only necessary to find these truths. Once they have been found, they can be understood by anyone who really makes sufficient effort with his intellect. It is an empty phrase to say that these things must first be proved. They are proved as soon as one really wants to understand them. If someone finds them unproved, it is not because they must first be proved by special means, but simply because the person in question has not yet thought about them enough.

[ 20 ] Now, for more than thirty years, there has been a Theosophical Society, which is supposed to be a means of fostering the Theosophical movement. This society has three principles: the first is: “To form the nucleus of a universal brotherhood of humanity, without distinction of faith, nation, class, or sex.” The second principle is: “To reveal the kernel of truth in all religions.” Its third rule is: “To explore the deeper spiritual forces that slumber in human nature and in the rest of the world.”

[ 21 ] If we keep to what has been said in this essay about the actual mission of the Theosophical Movement, it will not be difficult to recognize that the Theosophical Society has a right to exist only because of the third goal.

[ 22 ] Let us look at it without prejudice. The establishment of the brotherhood must undoubtedly be the goal of every good person. And that is why there are countless associations and societies that recognize this goal as their ideal. You certainly don't have to become a theosophist to profess such an ideal. The Theosophical Society only makes sense if, within it, people express themselves about this ideal in the following way: Every good person recognizes the ideal of universal brotherhood. It is sought to be realized through various human fraternizations. The only thing that matters is that the right means are chosen for its realization. The most unsuitable means is certainly to talk about it in a sentimental way, to say that people should love each other as brothers, should form a unity and harmony, and whatever other fine phrases are used, which unfortunately are often just thrown around by theosophists. Such talk is not worth more than if someone were to stand in front of a stove and keep saying: Dear stove, you are a good stove when you heat the room at the right time. So just be nice and warm when it's necessary. If you want the stove to really heat up, don't talk about its task, but provide it with fuel. The theosophical movement can only regard the above-mentioned esoteric knowledge as the right “fuel” for human brotherhood. If the soul absorbs these insights, they will have the same effect on it as the heating material has on the stove when it is properly treated. It is in the spirit of theosophical insight to say: Of course, other people besides theosophists are currently pursuing this ideal, but they cannot achieve it because they do not apply the right means of esoteric knowledge. It is undoubtedly easier to keep saying “brotherhood, brotherhood” than to imbibe the knowledge of the occult sciences; but it is also easier for a Christian to keep saying “Lord, Lord” than to imbibe the true Christian content. Moreover, talking about brotherhood is not without danger, because it spreads a cloud of intellectual comfort around the speaker, which can suffocate the serious striving for real knowledge in a kind of mental voluptuousness. Many people are not even aware that it is a kind of intellectual comfort that drives them into the self-intoxication they feel when they repeatedly give themselves the pleasure that lies in the thoughts of brotherhood, unity and harmony. The best way to become an easy prey to certain dark forces is the intellectual intoxication that emanates from the phrases: unity, brotherhood, harmony... Good theosophists should make it their rule to avoid the words brotherhood, harmony, unity as far as possible, and to cultivate instead the real esoteric knowledge, which is the right means of attaining that for which one shows one's appreciation best by not vainly expressing it.

[ 23 ] But the “scientific” study of religious documents as such cannot be an independent goal of the theosophical movement. For that, one needs to be a scholar, not a theosophist. Even the comparative study of the documents: what does it have to do with the theosophical movement other than showing how the esoteric truths are contained in these documents? But that can only be shown by someone who really knows esotericism. A true example of a genuine esoteric examination of religion was given by Edouard Schuré in his “Great Initiates”. He revealed the esoteric core of the great founders of religion. In doing so, he naturally had to go beyond mere scholarly observation. It is only natural that mere scholars should object that he relied less on the documents than on his imagination. It is to be hoped that a 'theosophist' would not make such an objection, for in doing so he would be guilty of two errors: firstly, such an objection is naive, as naive as the objector himself does not even suspect, for to defend that scholarship , which is defended by it, would be a matter of course for a personality like Schuré if he would only stoop to his point of view, and secondly, the objector shows that he does not even suspect that there are really other sources of knowledge than those accessible to him.

[ 24 ] Thus, the fundamental goal of the Theosophical movement can only be recognized as the third principle of the Theosophical Society, the cultivation of the truths of the secret sciences, which are also called spiritual. If it should ever become unfaithful to this goal, then the mission inherent in it must be taken over by another movement, and the Theosophical Society will be one among many other well-meaning human associations that have fraternity, love, the cultivation of all kinds of science and other things on their banners.

[ 25 ] The cultivation of knowledge of the supersensible worlds has been designated as the essential task of the Theosophical Movement in the foregoing. Those who hold this view must not be unclear about the obstacles and difficulties that confront such work, especially in our time. However, it is soon clear that such knowledge is a strong need for an immense number of people in the present day. Many are more or less aware of their desire for it. But many are not. They feel only a deep dissatisfaction in life; they take up this or that which promises to give them a spiritual purpose in life, and then drop it again because after a while the dissatisfaction returns. Such people only feel their lack, but do not arrive at any fruitful thought about what they are actually missing. Those who know life know that insight into the higher worlds is longed for by a great many people, far more than is admitted by many. In the widest circles, what is sought is precisely what a theosophical movement that is walking in the right path can give. Those who understand these “right paths” will also soon realize that the effects of genuine cultivation of higher knowledge extend as far as human life itself. One can be a person whom fate has placed in the most modest position in life, who is occupied in the narrowest circle: through true Theosophy, one will be able to have healthy thinking and a happy, satisfied heart. The very existence in the apparently most commonplace, otherwise most unsatisfactory situation will acquire a deep meaning. And one can be a scientist, artist, businessman, civil servant, etc.: through Theosophy one will gain in every field creative power, joy in work, overview, security.

[ 26 ] It is, of course, only the result of a misunderstanding of the theosophical way of thinking when it becomes alienated from life. True theosophy cannot lead out of life, but only deeper into it. It is certainly true to emphasize that Theosophy is only of any use to a person if he does not stop at a few general thoughts or feelings, but does not shy away from really getting to know what can be known about the nature of man, about the processes and beings of the higher worlds, about the development of humanity and the world. But anyone who gets to know this also learns to understand life in its smallest details, and – what cannot be emphasized enough – to treat it.

[ 27 ] If theosophy is to have such an effect on a person, then a widespread aversion must be thoroughly combated. This is expressed in a certain contempt for what can be attained through theosophy in the way of real knowledge about the areas just mentioned. It is easy to say: “What do I need to know about the basic parts of man, about the development of the world and so on? All that is just intellectual stuff; it is something intellectual. But I want to deepen my mind. The divine foundations of existence cannot be grasped in such “dry concepts; they can only be reached through the living soul” ... If only those who speak in this way would have a little more patience to delve into the true facts of the matter. Through this patience they would be led to recognize that real knowledge in the sense meant here only appears to them as a matter of the intellect, as a mere intellectual matter, because they are afraid of bringing something else into motion than their intellect, their dry, sober thinking. Through such patience, they would realize that what their soul seeks must be found in what they reject as a “mere intellectual matter”. They shrink from the idea that they should devote themselves to the ideas of the higher worlds, and therefore never come to experience how warm and full of life the mind becomes through these very ideas. The immediate fate of such natures will be that their ardent longing for a content for their souls will consume itself within them, because they reject that which could bring them healing. The mere saying, “Man can delve into himself and he will find God in himself,” is really not enough. And it is not enough, either, no matter how many different ways it is repeated. Man has emerged from the world; he is a “small world” in which everything that is contained in the visible world and in a large part of the invisible world is concentrated in a certain way. And one cannot understand man if one does not understand the world. It is not by brooding over one's inner self that one comes to know oneself, but by grasping the true essence of the stones, plants and animals around us; for their essence is concentrated in one self. In the stars, their transformation and metamorphosis, man can read the secrets of his soul. In what happened in the most ancient times, the riddle of what the soul experiences today is solved; and from the way in which the most ancient has become the present, one understands what one is oneself: and from this understanding one can gain satisfaction of the mind and strength to act. True knowledge of the world is at the same time true knowledge of oneself; and it is the only fruitful knowledge of oneself. Those who feel compelled to repeat the saying: “Yes, what Theosophy tells us about the evolution of the world and of humanity is something for the intellect; but we want satisfaction for the emotions,” should delve into such facts.

[ 28 ] Only the energetic advance towards conceptions of higher worlds in this direction can create the necessary bridge for man between thinking, feeling and life.— And in this sense, the knowledge of the supersensible worlds should be cultivated within the theosophical movement. No point of view should be too high for us to adopt in order to gain knowledge. But we must also always seek every possibility of making the highest knowledge fruitful for the most everyday things in life. If the latter were disregarded, then theosophy would have to lead to things that it should lead to the least: to the formation of sects, to narrow-minded dogmatism, etc.

[ 29 ] And from the above indications the way can also be found to the deeper foundations of what has been touched upon in the preceding pages (page 276) regarding the effectiveness of the theosophical movement on ethical life. A true insight into the nature of the human soul reveals that moral behavior in the radical sense cannot be promoted by preaching even the most beautiful moral principles. Virtue does not arise from what one can learn as a moral principle, but rather has its source in noble feelings. There has been much debate among philosophers as to whether virtue can be taught. Now it certainly cannot be taught in the direct sense that one becomes virtuous by memorizing a system of virtues. One can indeed know such a system of virtues quite well, and therefore does not need to be a virtuous person. Yes, one can go even further and say – as has already been indicated in the foregoing – that within the theosophical movement, no matter how beautiful moral principles may be, no matter how many principles may be advocated, as general human love is constituted, nothing essential would be furthered by it. But even if it is absolutely true that virtue cannot be acquired in this way, it would still be quite wrong to think that knowledge cannot be a basis for virtue, and that higher knowledge cannot be a source of the most comprehensive love of humanity. What one takes in from the ideas of Theosophy are not moral principles at all, but, for example, ideas about the development of humanity and the earth. But those who are able to devote themselves to these ideas selflessly, not only with their intellect but with the warmth of their hearts, develop within themselves that source of feelings that by itself allows actions in the sense of universal love of humanity to emerge from within. The right understanding of the first principle of the Theosophical Society – the core of a universal brotherhood – is achieved when one cultivates the knowledge of the higher worlds without reservation, and in doing so lives in the unfailing hope that the corresponding virtues in the visible world will necessarily result from the knowledge of the invisible world. For the morally good follows from the spiritually true.

[ 30 ] What our time really needs, what is longed for by those whose state of soul has been indicated above, is the cultivation of knowledge of the supersensible. And the right effect of the theosophical movement in life can be achieved by the development of spiritual realities. The conditions of life in this society can only flow from two sides: one thing that matters is to cultivate the existing treasure of supersensible knowledge and, if possible, to increase and develop it; the other thing, however, is that those working in the field of theosophy have an open eye for the circumstances of life. They should observe wherever possible where life needs and can be deepened by the theosophical way of thinking. They should let the theosophical light fall on everything that touches the present human being. For example, that someone has insight into the laws of repeated earthly lives and into the karmic chain of fate is only one thing; that meaning and strength are given to life from this, that the person thereby becomes capable of the most everyday tasks and content in his mind: this is the other, the more essential.

[ 31 ] It is also very nice when the study of different religions is pursued in the society that calls itself theosophical, in order to find their core of truth. But the important thing is to find the kernel of truth, not to get to know the many religions; the latter is a matter of scholarship. The theosophical movement will also work most favorably in this direction if the cultivation of supersensible insights is its first concern, and its workers, according to their abilities, spread light from the point of view of supersensible knowledge of the world about what science is able to investigate about the various religious beliefs.

[ 32 ] Those who are convinced by the above arguments will have very definite feelings about the way of working that is necessary within the theosophical movement. For the dissemination of supersensible knowledge requires a different behavior than that of ordinary sensual knowledge. This is already evident from the fact that the bearers of supersensible truths in earlier periods behaved quite differently from the owners of any knowledge related to the sensory world in the present. The latter will usually hurry to share their knowledge with the public as quickly as possible. And in doing so, they are doing the right thing in their field. For what the individual investigates should bear fruit for the whole of humanity. The older 'bearers of supersensible knowledge' at first kept their knowledge secret from the public. They only imparted it to those who, on the basis of certain conditions, had proved that they were 'called'. In doing so, they did not sin against the principle that the knowledge of the individual must serve the whole. For they have found the ways in which this knowledge can bear fruit for humanity. It is not the place here to speak of these ways. But they were there. It has been said in the foregoing (page 272) that the possessor of supersensible knowledge is compelled by the present conditions of the time to make a certain part of this knowledge public. This is done through books, lectures, magazines and in all the ways in which, for example, the Theosophical Society seeks to work. But this gives rise to certain difficulties. On the one hand, those who have taken on the task of cultivating supersensible knowledge feel obliged to ensure that this knowledge is as accessible as possible to those who seek it. On the other hand, they feel a certain obligation to exercise restraint in the face of well-founded old methods. If they have truly penetrated the spirit of supersensible knowledge, they must have become completely familiar with a principle that goes something like this: “The fact that you have recognized some truth, or that you are convinced of it, must not be a reason for you to force this truth on other people. You should only share it with those who are entitled to demand it from you in the right spirit and in complete freedom.” Those who follow this last principle cannot have anything in common with a fanatic or a sectarian. For it is precisely this that characterizes fanaticism and the formation of sects, that people who fall prey to it live in the belief that what they consider to be right must become a conviction for as many people as possible. They consider their views to be the only true ones. This belief often leads them to use every conceivable means to win as many followers as possible. The bearer of supersensible knowledge would prefer to do as little as possible to win followers. The feelings of the fanatic, of the founder of a sect, are quite alien to him. And the more he can adhere to this fundamental attitude in the present, the more he will do so. But, as I said, the conditions of the present forbid him to adhere completely to this principle. He must go public. But he does maintain his convictions to the extent that he does not go public in any other sense than in that he says: “I have this or that to communicate from the realm of the supersensible worlds; I say it because it must be said before the world. Whoever wants to approach these things must do so solely because he wants to. I do not seek to win followers; but I do meet anyone who desires to learn something of the knowledge of higher worlds.” It is then the task of the cultivator of higher knowledge to find the right path between unreserved advocacy of his cause and that reserve which no one wishes to bestow on him with a ‘sole-saving wisdom’. He will do his work best if he has as little as possible of the “fanatical world-enlarger” in him, who sees his essential goal in transferring his convictions to others. One can say: the fanatic seeks followers; the bearer of supersensible knowledge waits quite calmly until they come of themselves. This appears quite simple in theory; in practice it is not at all easy. But it also shows how much value should be placed on certain feelings that the worker in the theosophical field must have; and how much it depends on him to chasten that enthusiasm that arises so naturally in the present man: to share with the world what he himself carries in his heart as his sacred conviction. With regard to certain higher regions of supersensible knowledge, for example, such a - perhaps noble - craving for communication could not have any useful purpose at the present time, for there would be very few people who would not consider these things to be foolishness, the unfortunate products of a sick mind. The bearer of the secret knowledge must be motivated to communicate nothing other than that the individual person, or the people in question, need the corresponding information for the salvation of their soul and their entire being.

[ 33 ] In the following essay on the “Life Issues of the Theosophical Movement”, we will discuss in more detail the difficulties that arise in particular for those who, in the light of current views of the world, understand the work of the “theosophical movement” in the sense indicated.

Theosophy and Contemporary Intellectual Currents

[ 1 ] Anyone who knows the essence of the theosophical school of thought and the reasons why it has become, in the present day, a subject of public lectures, magazines, literary works and so on, rather than a matter of concern for the souls of a few individuals, also knows to what extent it must prove itself in the spiritual life of humanity. What underlies it is necessary as an active force in this spiritual life; and it will not only be accepted by it, but even demanded. In this, however, it will not depend on names and designations, but on the matter itself. Whether the name “Theosophy” as a designation for this spiritual current will recede into the background for justified reasons or out of prejudice is of no importance for the way of thinking in question and for its work in life.

[ 2 ] What is important, however, is that those who profess this way of thinking should not be under any illusions as to the difficulties that stand in the way of the acceptance of their ideas and feelings, especially in the spiritual life of the present day. And there is much in our time that makes it difficult for a wider circle to understand the real nature of the theosophical way of thinking. It is in the nature of things that someone who does not delve deeper into this nature will judge the peculiarity of theosophy by what appears to him to be the characteristic of such spiritual activities, which he throws together with it. No matter how often it is pointed out that the theosophical way of thinking would be completely unfaithful to its foundations if it were to lapse into “sectarianism”, those who do not have the will to engage with it will not stop calling its adherents a “sect”. Who, for example, would think of calling a number of people who have acquired a certain amount of knowledge of nature a sect? And who would want to accuse a society that has set itself the task of cultivating a certain branch of natural knowledge of “sectarianism”? But those people who are striving to acquire certain truths about the soul and spirit in the same way will be dismissed by many as a “sect”. And those who do so will not want to recognize that people who join together to cultivate certain insights into the life of the soul and spirit need to do so with no different attitude than that which leads to the formation of a group of people who have the cultivation of scientific truths as their goal.

[ 3 ] A discussion will not be of much use against prejudices that arise from such foundations. However, it will be useful to become clear about the reasons for such prejudices.

[ 4 ] There are three main reasons why people today may be led to accept the theosophical way of thinking. The first is a certain healthy sense of the truth of this way of thinking. The second arises from entering the path that is outlined in these books as the path to “acquiring knowledge of the higher worlds”. The third is a thorough philosophy that goes to the very last consequences. The first path can be the way of many. Such people will not engage in much philosophy or speculation; they will not want to delve deeply into scientific explanations of the pros and cons. They will let their immediate feelings work on what is presented in Theosophy, and this healthy feeling, untainted by philosophy and scientific criticism, tells them that what is presented is correct. Many of those who have had no opportunity or reason to become acquainted with philosophical or scientific teachings in their lives will belong to this type of theosophical adherents, but who, due to their entire mental state, cannot possibly be satisfied with what the world has to offer in terms of satisfying the great riddles of existence. Those who become theosophists in this way are, in a certain sense, the most important and valuable. When the word “blind” is often used to describe such believers, who accept certain insights without thorough examination, it is precisely because they do not realize that this human “feeling” is not based on error, but on truth. A person whose sense of feeling has not been taken away by a clever intellect really does feel the truth. And if the theosophist is also a judge of character, he will have every reason to be deeply satisfied with such followers of his school of thought. For he will recognize in them persons of a genuine, healthy and original sense of truth. He will never fall into the error of speaking of lack of judgment where the feeling judges so correctly. And it must be said that it will be to the great benefit of the present and the near future if many of those who, for one reason or another, cannot enter the higher path of knowledge and are also unable to engage in deeper philosophical thought, will, out of their healthy sense of truth, profess the Theosophical truths.

[ 5 ] The second path consists in acquiring the higher faculties of knowledge. Much is said about this in the articles of this journal that deal with it. The situation at present is such that more and more possibilities will open up to lead the honest seeker at least to the first steps of this path. How far someone gets depends on many things. The first condition is that the source from which he draws his instructions for higher knowledge is a right and pure one. The seeker has hardly any other means at his disposal than the trust he can have in the one from whom such instructions proceed. Many may regard this trust as a questionable thing. One can only reply to them: if this trust is based on calm and serene feelings in the seeker, if nothing passionate in a certain sense, if no selfishness is at play, then the questionable disappears. Caution is certainly something that cannot be recommended strongly enough in this area. Anyone who is seized by wild desire and passion for higher knowledge can certainly be easily deceived. Anyone who seriously examines whether his striving arises from the duty that every person has to increase his abilities as much as possible will hardly need to be deceived. And in all such instructions, which rightly exist, the seeker will soon be able to acquire the feeling that there is something true and good in his instructions. And although this feeling is a much more intimate one than the direct one for the theosophical truths described above, it can nevertheless also be an infallible guide.

[ 6 ] A second factor to be taken into account is the spiritual level of development of the seeker. Because of this, one will progress faster and another slower. Some may soon see the first signs, which they can interpret as evidence of their penetration into the higher worlds; others may struggle for years without seeing anything of the kind. It would not be quite correct to say that the corresponding progress depends on the degree of development of the seeker. It also depends on whether the source from which the instructions come finds the right thing for the personality in question, and on what speed of progress a teacher can and will take responsibility for with the seeker. The latter depends on many circumstances. And in our present time there are many things that force the teacher not to go too far in some cases. For he, for his part, is subject to the strict law that he must not harm anyone. The outsider can only have a slight idea of the severity of this law. But it must be emphasized again and again: no one is harmed by a real teacher in this field.

[ 7 ] The more people from the circles of those who profess to be Theosophists who enter this path, the better it will be for many things in the present and the near future. But no one should be led to it by anything other than his own untroubled free will. For that which Theosophy must by its very nature desire can only be meaningful to those seekers whose search progresses in such a way that an ever-increasing, unwavering loyalty to spiritual knowledge and an increasing understanding of the nature of the spiritual worlds develops within them. If, on the other hand, impatience and a sense of disappointment arise because one believes that one is not making sufficient progress on the path one has chosen, this is harmful to the seeker and to humanity. And it is easy to understand why such a sense of disappointment arises in someone who finds that certain ideas he has formed about his progress are not at all applicable. And yet this progress need not be really lacking. It may be present in a certain way and remain unnoticed by the seeker for a long time. Without, therefore, certain elementary, disordered higher experiences being held in low esteem - this is certainly not done by the true teacher - it is nevertheless true that in many cases the secret teacher must prefer progress in other areas to progress in the elementary higher experiences. Development can often proceed all the more surely if such experiences are initially, and for a long time, completely absent. They will surely come at some point. And the seeker will then also realize that it was good that he had to wait so long for them.

[ 8 ] The third of the indicated paths is that through a thorough philosophy and scientific knowledge, a person is led to the theosophical way of thinking. Admittedly, discoveries cannot be made in this way in the higher worlds. To investigate what goes on in these worlds and what beings are there, the supersensible faculties of perception developed by the path of knowledge are needed. But when things have been investigated and communicated by an investigator, those who have been thoroughly trained in philosophy can see their possibility and correctness. He can find all that which one might call rational reasons for the truth of what has been researched in the higher worlds. However, this requires a truly thorough philosophy, not one that stops halfway. For just as a perfect philosophy and a thorough science lead to the recognition of the theosophical way of thinking, so do superficial science and incomplete philosophy offer the greatest obstacles to its understanding. It is precisely these that must declare the teachings of Theosophy to be fantasies, dreams, wild “mysticism,” etc. etc. It would be so beneficial if a great many people were to engage in such thorough training in philosophy, but this is not the case at present. A thorough philosophy requires a strong devotion to many things that can only arouse the slightest interest in many people. Even that such a thing is beneficial, few will readily understand. And many will soon drop the matter after the first steps in a corresponding study. Either he will find that he is not sufficiently trained, or he will not be able to muster the energy of renunciation. It may seem more tempting to arrive at direct insight on the path of knowledge; but it should not be forgotten that for the researcher in the higher realms of existence, serious thought work is by no means a superfluous addition, but rather the best conceivable support.

[ 9 ] If we now ask ourselves how, under present conditions, wider circles relate to these three paths, which lead to theosophy, we will soon become aware of many obstacles that stand in the way of unprejudiced understanding.

[ 10 ] The healthy sense of truth described above is lacking in many people because they are under the influence of what is so often presented as the result of “strictly scientific facts”. The way in which such facts are presented by leading personalities and circles is also a factor. And this cannot be easily seen through. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, it is quite understandable when people who allow the scientific results to sink in come to the conclusion that, in the face of the certain facts of science, the “claims” of Theosophy are nothing but fantasies, wild 'dreams. And it is true that, from their point of view, such people are right. But it is no less true that theosophists would be madmen if they asserted things that contradict the established facts of science. No theosophical truth can seriously contradict the findings of sensual and rational science. But in the presentation of scientific results, it is not just the established facts that are communicated; rather, a very specific way of thinking is transferred to the reader or listener along with the facts. This is most strongly the case in the so-called “popular” presentations of scientific results; but the learned and “strictly scientific” achievements are by no means free from it. The presenters are usually not even aware of the extent to which this is the case. And the learners and readers are even less aware of it. Many people believe that they are only communicating facts, but their presentation is completely dominated by a world view that is transferred to the learner and reader. The latter receives an inspiration; and this fact is so far removed from his consciousness that he thinks he has formed a judgment purely from facts. What he has received with the facts through inspiration – suggestion is an unsuitable word, but one that is used a great deal today – is capable of depriving him of all possibility of recognizing anything real in the facts of the soul and spirit. If one were to think fully about what is said with these things, one would indeed look at the current teaching and literature with different eyes than is often the case. One would know that not only Haeckel's “Welträtsel” (World Riddle), but also many seemingly quite harmless representations of zoological, botanical, geological, astronomical facts, in truth inoculate a world view. And many would not be credulous “monists” etc. if they were not inoculated in such a way with the facts, at the same time in a way imperceptible to them.

[ 11 ] In addition, there are the feelings and emotions of the age. These also tend to recognize only that as real which is palpable and evident to the senses. If someone is even an “expert” in a particular field, then he must look down on the “amateur fantasist” and “enthusiast” as the theosophy devotee can only appear to him. (The following article, “Prejudices from Supposed Science,” illustrates the above truths with a few specific examples. This latter article is also included because it is intended to provide as complete a picture as possible of the obstacles that the theosophical worldview currently faces. ) Now, “expert” judgments are reaching the widest circles in a thousand and one ways. And when something goes under the flag of “science” today, then this catchword alone overwhelms all one's own ability to judge. Theosophy must clearly face this situation. It must understand the reasons for the objections against it. Those who have been inoculated with their world view in the manner described above will often criticize the “lack of judgment” of those who profess Theosophy simply because of their sense of truth, and say that they have no idea how ridiculous their “belief” is in the face of the established facts of science. It should certainly not be denied that there are those who profess Theosophy and who, when confronted with objections from the side of “science”, behave quite clumsily, even childishly. This is then a gift for those who want to ridicule the blind “superstition” of the Theosophists. But it remains true that, in the face of the healthy sense of truth of many people, the judgments of those who refer to their “scientifically based” world view are of no significance. Once we learn to present only the facts that can be perceived by the senses and their rational consequences, we will also recognize that true knowledge of nature can provide the perfect foundation for theosophy.

[ 12 ] For the time being, however, things are at their worst for the really learned circles and their followers. It is not the facts that they research and whose discovery is a blessing for humanity that envelop them in prejudice, but rather the way of thinking and world view that is customary in these circles. This is so to such an extent that it is not only compromising for a member of such circles to approach theosophy, but it is actually an absolute impossibility. One need not apply a harsh critical standard to such facts. It is better to try to understand them as a necessary phenomenon of the times. One will then know that many, because of the spiritual context in which they find themselves, cannot but strictly reject Theosophy. This is not at all said with reference to those who come to such a rejection out of external considerations. Rather, it is meant of those numerous, fundamentally honest souls who, with their judgments, are prisoners of their spiritual context.

[ 13 ] For the path that is called the path of knowledge, many people's understanding must necessarily be limited. For everything that is said in the present day about the “necessary limits” of human knowledge is directed against it. There is much talk of development: but when someone says that the powers of knowledge which man has at his present level are not a conclusion, but that they can be consciously developed to a higher degree, then such a statement meets either with complete doubt or with indifference. People will always try to determine what man is able to recognize according to the measure of his abilities; that he can penetrate into new worlds by increasing these abilities, many do not want to admit. The theosophist will certainly never claim that the faculties referred to by many of his opponents can penetrate into higher worlds; but he knows that it is possible for man to awaken such faculties in himself, which lead to these worlds. Many of our contemporaries consider it to be arrogance and self-conceit when someone speaks of the ability to penetrate into supersensible worlds. But is it arrogance to speak of what can be perceived under certain conditions; or should it not rather be called arrogance when someone considers it a matter of course that everything he does not know or does not want to know must be nonsense and fantasy? Theosophy can only take the standpoint that one should not decide about what one does not know.

[ 14 ] The third of the paths to theosophy also presents great difficulties in our time. These difficulties are the most difficult to speak about, because what needs to be said can all too easily be interpreted as presumption. One would prefer to remain silent about this point, if it were not useful, even necessary, to occasionally point out the facts in this direction. The philosophical education of our time is by no means a high or thorough one. There are many reasons why this is so. Our philosophy is barren in terms of free thinking, which could confront the facts of sensory experience with sovereign judgment. It is burdened by an anxiety, of which the philosophers are unaware, to lose the secure ground under their feet. It looks everywhere for supports and foundations for its statements, but not where they are to be found, in certain inner facts of self-producing thought that gives itself its certainty. It should not be denied that here and there one can find some pleasing beginnings. But the spirit of the times weighs most heavily on philosophical thinking. And this contemporary attitude has the weakness of not opening up the sources of certainty within the human being, but of allowing certainty to be given by something outside of the human being. In natural science this can be a blessing in many respects, because undisciplined philosophizing can easily lead to enthusiasm; but for philosophy this attitude is paralyzing. The matter is downright bad in the case of epistemological investigations. They are currently being pursued quite eagerly, and were even more so in the last few decades. But a healthy state of mind cannot arise in them as long as one does not get beyond the prejudice that man only lives in his representations, and that these do not absorb objective reality. It is something monstrous for many epistemologists, but it must be said: the judgment that nothing of reality enters into the idea is like that: nothing of the metal of the seal enters into the impression in the sealing wax. Certainly nothing of the matter of the seal enters into the seal impression; but that which matters can be seen completely in the impression. It is the same with the world of human ideas. The whole world, with all its secrets, can be found through them, if one does not allow oneself to be deceived from the outset by the fact, which is doubtless true but of no significance, that the “table in itself” does not enter into the “idea” of the table. (In my “Philosophy of Freedom” one can read exhaustive accounts of these things.) It is unfortunately only too true that the philosophy currently in vogue is not very suitable for leading to theosophy. And anyone who is under the authority of this philosophy has only an obstacle to understanding the higher worlds.

[ 15 ] The latter fact in particular is bad for Theosophy. For it is thereby placed in the position of appearing to want to rebel against all legitimate scientific phenomena of the time. But there could be nothing better for the Theosophists than to be able to point out everywhere where there is something for their full recognition and approval. Theosophy has no vocation at all for opposition; and it should avoid such as long as it possibly can. Those who look more closely will also easily recognize that genuine Theosophy only gives positive things and does not want to play the role of opponent anywhere. But it cannot close its eyes to the fact that its very nature means that certain opponents will arise from the moods of the times. And it must calmly characterize these opponents in their own way. If it did not do so, a large part of its work would remain fruitless. For the natural opponents would rightly come to believe that the Theosophists were unworldly people who understood nothing of the certain refutations of their “assertions”. Theosophy would not need to concern itself with this belief as such if it were only a matter of theoretical refutation. This could be left entirely to one's own devices. What matters, however, is to work with open eyes and to organize one's work in such a way that it does not rebound ineffectually from the resistance erected by the sensibilities and prejudices of the present day.

[ 1 ] It is certainly true that there is much in the intellectual life of the present day that makes it difficult for those who are seeking the truth to recognize the spiritual-scientific (theosophical) insights. And what has been said in the preceding article about the “Life Questions of the Theosophical Movement” may be taken as an indication of the reasons which exist in this direction, especially for the conscientious seeker after truth. Many a statement of the spiritual scientist must appear quite fantastic to him who examines it by the sure judgments which he believes he must form from what he has learned as the facts of natural scientific research. In addition, this research is able to point out the enormous blessing that it has brought and continues to bring to human progress. How overwhelming it is when a person who wants to build a world view solely on the results of this research is able to say the proud words: “For there is an abyss between these two extreme views of life: one for this world alone, the other for heaven. To this day, however, human science has nowhere found the traces of a paradise, of a life of the dead, or of a personal God. This inexorable science, which fathoms and dissects everything, which shrinks from no mystery, which explores the heavens behind the nebulous stars, which analyzes the infinitely small atoms of living cells and chemical bodies, which dissects the substance of the sun, which liquefies the air, which soon will be able to telegraph from one end of the earth and soon even wireless telegraphy from one end of the earth to the other, already sees through opaque bodies, introduces shipping under water and in the air, opens up new horizons for us with radium and other discoveries; this science, which, after proving the true relationship of all living beings among themselves and their gradual transformations of form, today draws the organ of the human soul, the brain, into the realm of its thorough research.” (Prof. August Forel, “Life and Death”, Munich 1908, page 5.) The certainty with which one believes to be able to build on such a foundation is revealed in the words that Forel adds to the above remarks : “Starting from a monistic view of life, the only one that takes all scientific facts into account, we leave the supernatural aside and turn to the book of nature.” Thus the serious seeker after truth finds himself confronted with two things that place strong obstacles in the way of any presentiment he may have of the truth of spiritual-scientific communications. If he has a feeling for such communications, or even if he senses their inner justification through a finer logic, he may be forced to suppress such impulses if he has to tell himself two things. Firstly, the authorities who know the cogency of certain facts find that all “supernatural” things are merely the product of fantasy and unscientific superstition. Secondly, I run the risk of becoming an impractical person, useless for life, through devotion to such supernatural things. For everything that is done for practical life must be firmly rooted in the “ground of reality.”

[ 2 ] Not everyone who is placed in such a dilemma will easily work their way through to the realization of how the two things characterized really are. If they could, they would see the following, for example, with regard to the first point: the results of spiritual science are in no way in contradiction with the research of natural science. Wherever one looks at the relationship of the two impartially, something quite different emerges for our time. It turns out that this research into facts is heading towards a goal that will bring it into full harmony with what spiritual research must establish from its supersensible sources for certain areas in the not too distant future. From hundreds of cases that could be brought forward as evidence for this assertion, one characteristic case will be emphasized here.

[ 3 ] In my lectures on the development of the earth and of mankind, I have pointed out that the ancestors of the present civilized peoples lived in a region of the earth which once extended over the surface of the earth in the place now occupied by a large part of the Atlantic Ocean. In this magazine, the articles “From the Akasha Chronicle” have referred more to the mental and spiritual characteristics of these Atlantean ancestors. In oral discourse, it has also often been described how the surface of the earth in the old Atlantean land looked. It was said: At that time, the air was saturated with water vapor. Man lived in the watery mist, which never cleared up to the point of complete air purity in certain areas. The sun and moon could not be seen as they are today, but were surrounded by colored halos. The distribution of rain and sunshine that we see today did not exist at that time. One can explore this ancient land clairvoyantly: the rainbow did not exist at that time. It did not appear until the post-Atlantean period. Our ancestors lived in a misty land. These facts have been obtained by purely supersensible observation; and it must even be said that the spiritual researcher does best when he carefully avoids all conclusions from his scientific knowledge, for such conclusions easily lead him astray from the unbiased inner sense of spiritual research. Now, however, compare with such statements certain views to which individual natural scientists feel impelled to adhere at the present time. There are today researchers who find themselves obliged by the facts to assume that the earth was embedded in a mass of clouds at a certain time in its development. They point out that even today the cloudy sky outweighs the unclouded sky, so that life is still largely under the influence of sunlight that is weakened by cloud formation, so that one cannot say that life could not have developed in the former cloud cover. They also point out that those organisms in the plant world that can be counted among the oldest were those that could develop even without direct sunlight. Thus, among the forms of this older plant world, those that need direct sunlight and anhydrous air, like desert plants, are missing. And as regards the animal world, a researcher (Hilgard) has pointed out that the giant eyes of extinct animals (for example, the ichthyosaur) indicate that there must have been a twilight-like illumination on the earth in their era. I do not consider such views to be in need of correction. They interest the spiritual researcher less for what they establish than for the direction in which the research of facts sees itself forced. Some time ago, the magazine “Kosmos”, which stands more or less on the Haeckelian point of view, published an essay that is worth considering, which pointed to the possibility of a former Atlantic mainland from certain facts of the plant and animal world.

[ 4 ] If one were to compile a larger number of such things, it would be easy to show how true natural science moves in a direction that will lead it in the future into the stream that can already be irrigated from the sources of spiritual research. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough: spiritual research is in no way in contradiction with the facts of natural science. Where such a contradiction is seen by its opponents, it does not refer to the facts but to the opinions that these opponents have formed and which they believe necessarily follow from the facts. In reality, however, Forel's opinion, for example, has nothing whatsoever to do with the facts of nebular stars, with the nature of cells, with the liquefaction of air, etc. This opinion is nothing more than a belief that many have formed out of their need for belief in the real world of the senses, and which they place next to the facts. This belief has something very dazzling for the modern man. It leads to an inner intolerance of a very special kind. Those who adhere to it delude themselves into regarding their own opinion as the only “scientific” one, and the opinions of others as arising only from prejudice and superstition. It is really strange, for example, to read the following sentences in a recently published book on the phenomena of the life of the soul (Hermann Ebbinghaus, “Abriß der Psychologie”):

[ 5 ] "The soul finds help against the impenetrable darkness of the future and the insurmountable power of hostile forces in religion. Under the pressure of uncertainty and in the face of great danger, people naturally think of analogies to the experiences they have otherwise had in cases of ignorance and inability, and how they could be helped here, just as one thinks of water to save in a fire or of a helping comrade in a fight.» “At the lowest levels of civilization, where people still feel very powerless and surrounded by sinister dangers at every turn, the feeling of fear and, accordingly, the belief in evil spirits and demons, understandably predominates. At higher levels, on the other hand, where a more mature understanding of the interrelationships of things and a greater power over them gives rise to a certain self-confidence and stronger hope, the feeling of trust in the invisible powers also comes to the fore, and with it the belief in good and benevolent spirits. But on the whole, both fear and love remain side by side, constantly characteristic of man's feelings towards his gods, only in different proportions according to circumstances.» “These are the roots of religion... Fear and need are its mothers; and although it is essentially propagated by authority, once it has come into being, it would have died out long ago if it were not constantly reborn from those two."

[ 6 ] How everything is shifted and confused in these assertions; how the confused matter is illuminated from false points of view. How strongly, moreover, the person who makes the assertion is influenced by the belief that his opinion must be a generally binding truth. First of all, the content of religious ideas is confused with the content of religious feeling. The content of religious ideas is taken from the realm of the supersensible worlds. Religious feeling, for example, fear and love towards the supersensible beings, is made the creator of the content without further ado, and accepted without any hesitation that something real does not correspond to religious ideas. The possibility that there could be a genuine experience of supersensible worlds is not even remotely considered; and that the feelings of fear and love cling to the reality given by such an experience, just as, in the end, no one thinks of water as a means of salvation in a fire, or of a helping comrade in a battle, if he has not previously known water and a comrade. In such a view, spiritual science is declared to be a fantasy, because religious feeling is allowed to become the creator of beings that are simply regarded as non-existent. Such a way of thinking completely lacks the awareness that it is possible to experience the content of the supersensible world, just as it is possible for the outer senses to experience the ordinary world of the senses.

[ 7 ] The peculiar thing about such views is that they often fall into the kind of conclusion for their faith that they present as offensive to their opponents. For example, the above-mentioned Forel text contains the sentence: “Do we not live in a hundred times truer, warmer and more interesting way in the I and in the soul of our descendants, than in the cold and misty mirage of a hypothetical heaven, with the equally hypothetical singing and trumpeting of supposed angels and archangels, whom we cannot imagine and who therefore mean nothing to us?» Yes, but what does it have to do with truth, what «one» finds «warmer», «more interesting»? If it is true that a spiritual life should not be derived from fear and hope, is it then right to deny this spiritual life because it is found to be “cold” and “uninteresting”? The spiritual researcher is in the following position with regard to such personalities who claim to stand on the “firm ground of scientific facts”. He says to them: I do not deny any of the facts you present from geology, paleontology, biology, physiology, etc. Of course, many of your assertions certainly need to be corrected by other facts. But such corrections will be made by natural science itself. Apart from that, I say “yes” to what you present. It does not occur to me to fight against the book when you present facts. But your facts are only part of reality. The other part is spiritual facts, which explain the course of the sensual ones. And these facts are not hypotheses, not something that “one” cannot imagine, but the experience of spiritual research. What you bring forward beyond the facts observed by you is, without you noticing it, nothing more than the opinion that such spiritual facts cannot exist. In truth, you bring forward nothing as proof of this assertion of yours, except that such spiritual facts are unknown to you. From this you conclude that they do not exist and that those who claim to know something about them are dreamers and visionaries. The spiritual researcher takes nothing, absolutely nothing, from your world; he only adds his own to it. But you are not satisfied with this procedure; you say, though not always clearly, that “one” may speak of nothing else but what we speak of; we demand not only that one should admit to us what we know, but we demand that one should declare as a vain phantasm everything of which we know nothing. There is no help for anyone who wants to get involved in such “logic”. He may understand this logic with the sentence: “In our human ancestors, our ego used to live directly and it will also live on in our direct or indirect descendants” (Forel, “Leben an und Tod”, page 21). But he should not add: “Science proves it, as it does in the cited writing. For science ‘proves’ nothing in this case, but rather the belief, which is tied to the world of the senses, sets up the dogma: What I cannot imagine must be considered a delusion; and whoever sins against my assertion is committing a crime against genuine science.”

[ 8 ] Anyone who knows the human soul in its development will find it quite understandable that the spirits are initially blinded by the enormous progress of natural science and cannot find their way around the forms in which high truths have traditionally been handed down. Spiritual science returns such forms to humanity. For example, it shows how the days of creation in the Bible reflect things that reveal themselves to the clairvoyant eye. The spirit, bound to the world of the senses, finds only that these days of creation contradict the achievements of geology, etc. In recognizing the profound truths of these days of Creation, spiritual science is just as far removed from dismissing them as mere “mythical fabrications” as it is from applying any kind of allegorical or symbolic explanations. How it proceeds, however, is completely unknown to those who still fantasize about the contradiction of these days of Creation with science. Nor should it be believed that spiritual research draws its knowledge from the Bible. It has its own methods, finds the truths independently of all documents and then recognizes them in these. However, this path is necessary for many present-day seekers of truth. For they demand a spiritual research that has the same character as natural science. And only where the nature of such spiritual science is not recognized does one fall into perplexity when it comes to protecting the facts of the supersensible world from the dazzling effects of opinions apparently based on natural science. Such a state of mind was even foreseen by a man of warm soul, who, however, could not find any spiritual-scientific, supersensible content for his feelings. Almost eighty years ago, a man of this kind, Schleiermacher, wrote to Lücke, who was much younger than himself: “When you consider the present state of natural science, as it is increasingly developing into a comprehensive world knowledge, what does it bode for the future, I will not even say for our theology, but for our Protestant Christianity? I fear that we will have to learn to manage without many things that many people are still accustomed to thinking of as being inextricably linked to the essence of Christianity. I don't want to talk about the six-day work, but the concept of creation as it is usually construed... how long will it be able to hold out against the force of a world view formed from scientific combinations that no one can escape?... What is to become of it, my dear friend? I shall not live to see that time, but can calmly go to sleep; but you, my friend, and your contemporaries, what do you intend to do? » («Theolog. Studien und Kritiken», by Ullmann and Umbreit, 1829, page 489.) This statement is based on the opinion that the «scientific combinations» are a necessary result of the facts. If they were, then “nobody” could escape them; and anyone whose feelings draw him to the supersensible world can wish that he may be granted the privilege of “going to sleep peacefully” before the onslaught of science against the supersensible world. Schleiermacher's prediction has been fulfilled to the extent that “scientific combinations” have taken hold in wide circles. But at the same time, there is currently a possibility of getting to know the supersensible world in just as “scientific” a way as the sensory connections of facts. Those who familiarize themselves with spiritual science, as is already possible today, will be protected from many superstitions, but will be able to incorporate the supersensible facts into their understanding, and thereby, in addition to all other superstitions, also strip themselves of the belief that fear and need have created this supersensible world. Anyone who can bring themselves to adopt this view will no longer be inhibited by the idea that they could be alienated from reality and practice by engaging in spiritual science. He will then recognize how true spiritual science does not impoverish life, but enriches it. Through it, he will certainly not be led to underestimate telephony, railway technology and airship travel; but he will see many other practical things that are currently disregarded, where one only believes in the world of the senses and therefore only recognizes part of reality, not the whole of it.

In relation to the facts developed in the essay on “The Education of the Child from the Point of View of Spiritual Science”, it may be interesting to learn about the tentative attempts of a man who, more than a hundred years ago, sought without the aid of spiritual science to form an idea of the different stages of life of the growing human being. We are referring to the philologist Friedrich August Wolf, who was famous in Goethe's day. His attempt to describe the “developmental stages of the male individual” seems somewhat grotesque. However, he also showed that a mind that seeks to understand the nature of education must feel the need to solve the relevant questions not with general phrases, as is so often the case in educational science, but rather, as he must proceed, to survey the nature of the various stages of life in detail. The need for spiritual science to replace arbitrary classifications and fantastic ideas in this field with insights that are based in reality is clearly demonstrated by this well-intentioned but fundamentally flawed attempt by Friedrich August Wolf. It reads:

1. Golden, mildly harmonious age. The childhood of American Indians and South Sea Islanders from the first to the third year; undivided childhood.

2. Asian struggle. State of the North American and other savages. Heroic age of the Greeks. - First physical exercises, formation of concepts. Boyhood up to the age of six.

3. Greek period from Homer to Alexander. Not yet reflective, but inventive and poetic. — Youth until about the age of nine.

4. Roman period. Transition to the so-called awkward age (but this is ennobled by the Roman period). — Until about the age of twelve.

5. Middle Ages. The age of chivalry, physical growth. Up to the age of fifteen. To be ennobled by religion, spiritual love, chivalry, respect for the female sex, bold, enthusiastic undertakings.

6. Reawakening of the arts and sciences with a reflective, critical spirit. At the grammar school. Intellectual wrestling school, ennobled by the study of the ancients, but with later practice of the spirit of invention and discovery, of interpretation, criticism – from the lower to the higher – in the heart through the finer knightly age of the minnesingers and Petrarchian love. Further period of discovery. – Until the eighteenth year.

7. Reformation and systematic learning, ennobled by noble freedom, warmest awakening up to the sacrifice for truth and justice. University time. - Up to the twenty-first year.

8. Education for the present time. Period for practical experiments in the affairs of life. Defense of the noble. Striving to rise above the time. — Until the age of twenty-four.

9. Elevation above time. Until the thirtieth year.

10. Now the perfect man appears and acts, great as a god.

The starting point is the idea that the individual human being will soon once again go through the stages that the whole of humanity has gone through up to his age. Apart from the fact that Friedrich August Wolf seems to have less in mind the “human being” as such than the “philologist”, his essay is full of errors of observation with regard to human development. The tools for real observation in this field can only be provided by spiritual science.

The question repeatedly arises within the intellectual movement that this journal serves: How does theosophy relate to the scientific foundations of the epistemology that currently prevail? In the following, I would like to present some of the ideas of Kant's epistemology, which is probably the starting point for most modern epistemologies. “Back to Kant” has been the motto of our philosophers since the 1960s. Therefore, an epistemological consideration must probably be linked to Kant's thoughts.

The theory of knowledge is supposed to be a scientific investigation of that which all other sciences presuppose without examination: cognition itself. This means that it is assigned the character of a philosophical fundamental science from the outset. For only through it can we learn what value and what significance the insights gained by the other sciences have. In this respect, it forms the basis for all scientific endeavor. It is clear, however, that it can only fulfill this task if it itself, as far as the nature of human cognitive faculty allows, is free of presuppositions. This is generally conceded. Nevertheless, a close examination of the better-known epistemological systems reveals that a whole series of presuppositions are made at the very outset of the investigation, which then significantly impair the convincing effect of the further explanations. In particular, it will be noticed that certain hidden assumptions are usually made even when the basic epistemological problems are being formulated. But if the questions posed by a science are wrong, then one must doubt the correctness of the solution from the outset. The history of science teaches us that countless errors, which have plagued entire ages, are solely and exclusively due to the fact that certain problems were posed incorrectly. To give just one example: what modifications did certain questions in physics undergo as a result of the discovery of the mechanical equivalent of heat and the law of the conservation of energy! In short, the success of scientific investigations depends to a large extent on whether one is able to pose the problems correctly. Even though epistemology, as the basis of all other sciences, occupies a very special position, it is nevertheless foreseeable that successful progress in its investigation will only be possible if the fundamental questions are posed in the correct form.

One could rightly object to the view that Kant was the founder of epistemology in the modern sense of the word, that the history of philosophy before Kant shows numerous investigations that can be seen as more than just the seeds of such a science. Volkelt, for example, notes in his fundamental work on epistemology (“Erfahrung und Denken. Kritische Grundlegung der Erkenntnistheorie” by Johannes Volkelt. Hamburg and Leipzig 1886, page 20) that the critical treatment of this science began with Locke. But even in the case of earlier philosophers, even in the philosophy of the Greeks, one finds discussions that are currently being held in epistemology. However, Kant has stirred up all the problems that come into consideration here in their depths, and numerous thinkers have followed up on him and worked through them so thoroughly that one finds the earlier attempts at solutions either in Kant himself or in his epigones. If, then, we are dealing with a purely factual and not a historical study of epistemology, we can hardly fail to recognize an important phenomenon if we take into account only the period since Kant's appearance with the “Critique of Pure Reason”. What had been achieved in this field before is repeated in this epoch.

Kant's fundamental epistemological question is: How are synthetic judgments a priori possible? Let us examine this question in terms of its presuppositions! Kant raises this question because he believes that we can only attain an absolutely certain knowledge if we are able to prove the justification of synthetic judgments a priori. He says: “The solution of the above problem also includes the possibility of the pure use of reason in the foundation and execution of all sciences that contain a theoretical knowledge a priori of objects” (“Critique of Pure Reason”, page 61 ff. according to the edition by Kirchmann, to which edition all other page numbers in quotations from the Critique of Pure Reason and the Prolegomena are to be referred), and “The resolution of this task is the be-all and end-all of metaphysics, and thus of its very existence” (Prolegomena$ 5).

Is this question, as Kant puts it, without presuppositions? Not at all, for it makes the possibility of an absolutely certain system of knowledge dependent on the fact that it is built up only from synthetic judgments and from such judgments as are won independently of all experience. Kant calls synthetic judgments those in which the predicate concept adds something to the subject concept that lies completely outside of it, “even though it is linked to it” (“Critique of Pure Reason”, p. 53 f.), whereas in analytical judgments the predicate only states something that (hidden) is already contained in the subject. This is not the place to discuss Johannes Rehmke's astute objections to this classification of judgments (“Die Welt als Wahrnehmung und Begriff”, page 161ff.). For our present purposes, it is sufficient to realize that we can only attain true knowledge through judgments that add a second concept to a first, the content of which was not yet present in the first concept, at least for us. If we wish to call this class of judgments synthetic judgments, we can still concede that knowledge can only be gained in the form of judgments if the connection between the predicate and the subject is a synthetic one. The matter is different, however, with the second part of the question, which requires that these judgments must be arrived at a priori, that is, independently of all experience. It is quite possible (we mean here, of course, the mere possibility of thought) that such judgments do not exist at all. For the beginning of epistemology, it must be considered completely undecided whether we can arrive at judgments other than through experience, or only through it. Indeed, such independence seems impossible from the outset in the face of unbiased reflection. For whatever may become the object of our knowledge, it must first approach us as an immediate, individual experience, that is, it must become an experience. We also gain mathematical judgments in no other way than by experiencing them in certain individual cases. Even if, as Otto Liebmann does, for example, in his book “Analysis of Reality: Thoughts and Facts”, one allows the same to be based on a certain organization of our consciousness, the matter does not present itself differently. We can then say that this or that proposition is necessarily valid, for if its truth were annulled, consciousness would be annulled with it; but we can only gain the content of consciousness as knowledge if it becomes an experience for us, in exactly the same way as a process in external nature. The content of such a proposition may always contain elements that guarantee its absolute validity, or it may be secured for other reasons: I cannot get hold of it in any other way than when it confronts me as an experience. This is the one.

The second concern is that at the beginning of epistemological investigations, one should not claim that absolutely valid knowledge cannot come from experience. It is certainly quite conceivable that experience itself would have a characteristic that would guarantee the certainty of the insights gained from it.

Thus, Kant's question contains two presuppositions: firstly, that we must have a way of gaining knowledge other than experience, and secondly, that all knowledge gained through experience can only have limited validity. Kant is not at all aware that these statements need to be examined, that they can be doubted. He simply takes them over from dogmatic philosophy as prejudices and uses them as the basis for his critical investigations. Dogmatic philosophy presupposes them as valid and simply applies them in order to arrive at knowledge corresponding to them; Kant presupposes them as valid and only asks himself: under what conditions can they be valid? What if they were not valid at all? Then Kant's edifice of doctrine lacks any foundation.

Everything that Kant presents in the five paragraphs that precede the formulation of his fundamental question is an attempt to prove that mathematical judgments are synthetic. (An attempt that, incidentally, is not completely refuted by Robert Zimmermann's objections – “On Kant's mathematical prejudice and its consequences” – but is very much called into question.) But the two premises we have cited remain as scientific prejudices. In Introduction II of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant writes: “Experience teaches us that something is so or so, but not that it could not be otherwise,” and: “Experience never gives its judgments true or strict generality, but only assumed and comparative generality (through induction). In the “Prolegomena” § I we find: “First, as regards the sources of metaphysical knowledge, it is already in their concept that they cannot be empirical. The principles of the same (to which not only their principles, but also their basic concepts belong) must therefore never be derived from experience; for it is not physical, but metaphysical, that is, knowledge beyond experience.” Finally, in the Critique of Pure Reason (page 58), Kant says: “First of all, it must be noted that actual mathematical propositions are always judgments a priori and not empirical, because they involve necessity, which cannot be derived from experience. But if you do not want to concede this, then I limit my proposition to pure mathematics, whose concept already implies that it does not contain empirical, but only pure knowledge a priori.” We may open the Critique of Pure Reason wherever we like, and we will find that all the investigations within it are conducted under the assumption of these dogmatic propositions. Cohen (“Kants Theorie der Erfahrung”, p. 90ff.) and Stadler (“Die Grundsätze der reinen Erkenntnistheorie in der Kantschen Philosophie”, p. 76£.) attempt to prove that Kant demonstrated the a priori nature of mathematical and pure scientific propositions. However, everything that is attempted in the Critique can be summarized as follows: Because mathematics and pure natural science are a priori sciences, the form of all experience must be grounded in the subject. Thus, only the material of sensations, which is given empirically, remains. This is built up into a system of experience by the forms lying in the mind. The formal truths of a priori theories only have meaning and significance as organizing principles for the material of sensations; they make experience possible, but do not extend beyond it. These formal truths are, however, the synthetic judgments a priori, which, as conditions of all possible experience, must therefore extend as far as this experience itself. The Critique of Pure Reason does not, therefore, prove the a priori nature of mathematics and pure natural science, but only determines their area of validity under the precondition that their truths are to be obtained independently of experience. In fact, Kant is so reluctant to provide a proof of this a priori nature that he simply excludes that part of mathematics (see above) in which, even in his view, it could be doubted and confines himself to that in which he believes he can deduce it from the mere concept. Johannes Volkelt also finds that “Kant proceeds from the explicit assumption” that “there is in fact a general and necessary knowledge”. He goes on to say: “This assumption, which Kant never explicitly examined, is so contrary to the character of the critical theory of knowledge that one must seriously ask oneself whether the ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ can be considered a critical theory of knowledge.” Volkelt finds that this question can be answered in the affirmative for good reasons, but that “the critical attitude of Kant's epistemology is thoroughly disturbed by that dogmatic presupposition” (“Erfahrung und Denken”, p. 21). Suffice it to say that Volkelt also finds that the “Critique of Pure Reason” is not an epistemology without presuppositions.

The views of Otto Liebmann (“Zur Analysis der Wirklichkeit”, p. 211 ff.), Hölder (“Darstellung der Kantischen Erkenntnistheorie”, p. 14f.), Windelband (“Vierteljahrsschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie”, p. 239, 1877), Überweg (“System der Logik”, 3rd edition , p. 380f.), Eduard von Hartmann's (“Kritische Grundlegung des transcendentalen Realismus”, pp. 142-172) and Kuno Fischer's (“Geschichte der neueren Philosophie” V.Bd., p. 60. Volkelt is mistaken in his reference to Kuno Fischer when he says - “Kants Erkenntnistheorie”, p. 198f. Note - says that it is “not clear from K. Fischer's account whether, in his view, Kant presupposes only the psychological actuality of general and necessary judgments or at the same time the objective validity and legitimacy of the same”. For at the point in question, Fischer says that the main difficulty of the “Critique of Pure Reason” is to be found in the fact that its “foundations are dependent on certain presuppositions” that “one must have conceded in order to accept the following”. For Fischer, these preconditions are the fact that “first the fact of knowledge” is established and then, through analysis, the cognitive faculties are found “from which that fact itself is explained”) in relation to the fact that Kant places the a priori validity of pure mathematics and natural science at the forefront of his discussions as a precondition.

That we really have knowledge that is independent of all experience, and that the latter only provides insights of comparative generality, we could only accept as corollaries of other judgments. These assertions would have to be preceded by an investigation into the nature of experience and one into the nature of our knowledge. The first of the above propositions could follow from the former, the second from the latter.

Now, one could still reply to our objections to the criticism of reason as follows. One could say that every epistemology must first lead the reader to the point where the starting point without presuppositions is to be found. For what we possess as knowledge at any point in our lives has moved far from this starting point, and we must first be led back to it artificially. Indeed, such a purely didactic understanding of the beginning of his science is a necessity for every epistemologist. But it must in any case be limited to showing in what way the beginning of knowledge in question is really such a beginning; it should proceed in purely self-evident analytical propositions and should not make any real, substantial assertions that influence the content of the following discussions, as is the case with Kant. It is also incumbent upon the epistemologist to show that the beginning he assumes is really without presuppositions. But all this has nothing to do with the nature of this beginning itself, is completely outside of it, and says nothing about it. Even at the beginning of a mathematics lesson, I have to try to convince the student of the axiomatic character of certain truths. But no one will want to claim that the content of the axioms is made dependent on these considerations. In exactly the same way, the epistemologist would have to show in his introductory remarks the way in which one can arrive at a beginning without presuppositions; the actual content of this beginning, however, must be independent of these considerations. But anyone who, like Kant, makes assertions of a very definite, dogmatic character at the beginning is far removed from such an introduction to epistemology.

Question: A reader has asked the following question: “Does theosophical teaching not recognize the concept of ‘chance’ at all? For example, I cannot imagine that it could be the karma of each individual if five hundred people perish in a ‘theatrical fire’.”

Answer: The laws of karma are so complex that no one should be surprised if some fact seems to contradict the general validity of this law. One must realize that this mind is initially trained in our physical world and that it is generally only accustomed to admitting what it has learned in this world. However, the karmic laws belong to higher worlds – in Germany it is customary to say “higher planes”. If, therefore, we wish to think of any event that befalls a human being as having a karmic effect, as we might think of the operation of a justice purely in earthly-physical life, we must necessarily encounter contradiction upon contradiction. We must realize that a common experience that befalls several people in the physical world can mean something quite different for each of them in the higher worlds. Of course, the opposite is also possible, that common karmic chains of events in common earthly experiences can have an effect. Only those who can see clearly in the higher worlds can say in detail what is at hand. If the karmic chains of five hundred people are realized in such a way that these people perish in a theater fire, then the following cases are possible, among others:

Firstly, the karmic chains of one of the five hundred people need have nothing to do with those of another of the victims. The common misfortune then relates to the karma of the individual persons in the same way as the shadow of fifty people on a wall relates to the thoughts and feelings of these persons. An hour ago, these fifty people may have had nothing in common; in an hour they may have many things in common again. What they experienced when they met in the same room will have a special effect on each of them. But their being together is expressed in the shadow image mentioned. However, anyone who wanted to draw any conclusions from this shadow image about a commonality of the people would be quite wrong.

Secondly, it is possible that the shared experience of the five hundred people has nothing to do with their karmic past, but that precisely through this shared experience something is being prepared that will bring them together karmically in the future. Perhaps these five hundred people will undertake a joint enterprise in the distant future, and the misfortune has brought them together for higher worlds. The experienced mystic is well aware that, for example, associations that are currently being formed owe their origin to the fact that the people who join together have experienced a common misfortune in the distant past.

Thirdly, such a case can really be the effect of previous joint guilt of the persons in question. But there are still countless other possibilities. For example, all three possibilities mentioned can be combined with each other, etc.

To speak of “chance” in the physical world is certainly not unjustified. And just as the sentence “There is no such thing as chance” is absolutely true when all the worlds are taken into consideration, so it would be unjustified to eliminate the word “chance” when we are merely talking about the concatenation of things in the physical world. Chance in the physical world is brought about by the fact that in this world things happen in sensory space. In so far as they take place in this space, they must also obey the laws of this space. In this space, however, externally things can come together that initially internally have nothing to do with each other. Just as my face is not really distorted because it appears distorted in an uneven mirror, so the causes that make a brick fall from the roof and damage me, as I happen to be passing by, have nothing to do with my karma, which comes from my past. The mistake that is made here is that many people imagine the karmic connections to be too simple. They assume, for example, that if a brick has damaged this person, he must have earned this damage karmically. But this is by no means necessary. In the life of every person, events occur continually that have absolutely nothing to do with his merit or guilt in the past. Such events find their karmic compensation in the future. What happens to me today through no fault of my own, I will be compensated for in the future. One thing is certain: nothing remains without karmic compensation. But whether an experience of a person is the effect of his karmic past or the cause of a karmic future: this must first be determined in detail. And this cannot be decided by the mind accustomed to the physical world, but only by occult experience and observation.

Another question is: “What is the theosophical view of mental illness? Modern science denies that anyone can fall into mental illness through an erroneous, wrong train of thought. At most, overwork in relation to mental work can make the nervous system and brain ill, but not the mental content. Does theosophy also agree with this?”

Answer: Modern medical science is certainly not aware of the lawful connections in higher worlds; but as far as the assertion mentioned is concerned, there is a truth underlying it. What is called mental illness and what is a disease of physical organs can only have its immediate origin in physical facts. A wrong sensation, a mistaken thought, has its harmful effects first in higher worlds, and it can only indirectly affect the physical world. Therefore, anyone who speaks only of the laws of the physical world and does not know of others would make a mistake if he were to admit an influence of the spirit on the brain in the direction indicated. Thus, from its point of view, contemporary medicine is quite right. In their view, insane thoughts can only be the result of a diseased brain, but not, conversely, can a diseased brain be the result of erring thoughts. However, the connection between the brain and thought does not lie in the physical world. It lies in a higher world. And although the physical brain, which our eye sees in physical space, cannot be directly influenced by the content of the thought, as the mind, which is also bound to the physical world, knows it: there is nevertheless a connection, hidden from physical observation, between the higher (mental) laws from which the brain on the one hand, and the thoughts of this brain on the other hand, originate. And for those who can see this connection, the following statement is absolutely correct: Man makes himself insane, that is, brain-sick, through his wrong thoughts. But one must first understand such a statement before criticizing it. And contemporary medicine – not all physicians, of course – lacks the means to understand it. As a theosophist, one should be tolerant in such cases. Merely condemning the medical profession and its materialism does not accomplish anything. The theosophist should understand why today's physicians cannot understand him, while he is perfectly capable of understanding these physicians.

The following question is asked: “From the point of view of the view represented in your journal, how should we imagine the relationship between the animal soul and the human soul? It is undeniable that many animals can be taught mental tasks through training that are very similar to those of humans, as can be seen in the much-discussed horse of Mr. von Osten. Should we not therefore logically assume that animals also reincarnate?"

Certainly, it should not be denied that animals show abilities that, when compared to human expressions of the mind, make it difficult to answer the question: where is the boundary between the animal soul and the human soul? And materialism has always derived its justification from denying the essential difference between man and animal, and from maintaining that the human soul is only a fully developed animal soul and only developed from it. But anyone who is able to observe spiritually will not be misled on this point. And for the theosophist, such phenomena as the horse mentioned in the question (there is therefore no point in discussing this particular case in particular) are neither surprising nor mysterious. The animal soul is a generic soul. And what reincarnates in the animal kingdom is the species. The lion that one sees will not return in the same way as the human being who speaks to us. What reincarnates from the lion is the “species lion”, not this or that “individual” lion. But what reincarnates from the human being is precisely this individual. Therefore, in reality, only in the case of the human being can one speak of a biography, that is, of a description of the individual. In the case of animals, we are generally satisfied if we understand and describe the “species”. For example, who would want to write three biographies of a lion in the same way as of a human being, with father, son and grandson? All three have been recognized when one has grasped the one genus of lion.

Now it can certainly be objected that something biographical can also be said about animals, and that one dog differs from another just as a human being differs from another. One might say that a dog owner is certainly able to write the biography of his dog; and if one denies the individual differences of animals, this is only because one does not know them exactly. All this is admitted without further ado. But can one not also write the “biography” of any object from this point of view? Do we not remember that children are set the task of writing the “life story of a pin”? In nature, there are transitions everywhere. Thus, an animal can develop individual characteristics to such an extent that these appear like a striking shade of its generic character; and conversely, a human being can have so little individuality that everything about him appears generic. The training of the spiritual observation must ensure that such things do not distract us from the essential, which is what matters. The first books that were produced by the printing press were similar to those that were produced by artistic copying before and even after the invention of the printing press. Would anyone conclude from this that copying and printing are essentially the same?

Now, after these rational explanations, the facts should be put here in the sense of 'theosophy'. In the animal, spirit, soul and body are revealed. However, of these three principles, only the soul and the body find expression in the physical world. The spirit works from a higher world into the animal world. In the case of humans, all three principles express themselves in the physical world. Therefore, one cannot say that the actions of an animal do not originate from the spirit. When the beaver constructs its elaborate lodge, it is the spirit that causes this from a higher world. When humans build, it is the spirit within them. When a human being trains an animal, his spirit works on the non-individual spirit of the animal; and the latter uses the organs of the animal to carry out what has been brought about. That is why it is so incorrect to say that the animal, that is to say a particular animal individual, calculates, etc., as if one were to say that my “hand takes the spoon” instead of “I take the spoon”. However, for those who only recognize material facts, none of this makes any sense at all. And they have no choice but first to marvel at many of the mental expressions of an animal, and then to think of the animal's mind as being as similar as possible to the human mind. The fact that today's science is so amazed by the “intelligent” achievements of some animals, and is initially baffled, only proves that this science is still completely materialistic in its way of thinking. However, the characteristic difference between animals and humans does not result from a materialistic point of view, but only from a spiritual point of view.

Theosophists would not be surprised if much “smarter” animals were presented, as happens. But that is why they will always know where the difference in nature between animals and humans lies.

Question: “How does Buddha's teaching relate to Hinduism, the Upanishads and Blavatsky's Theosophy?

The answer to this question is partly given in what was said in the last issue in connection with Annie Besant's book “The Four Religions”. The original Brahman teaching, which is expressed in Hinduism and the Upanishads, was given a form in Buddha's teaching that was appropriate to the people's understanding. Buddhism was to turn a doctrine that was more focused on knowledge into one that served to elevate and purify moral strength and to lead a direct life. This is not to say that Buddhism taught something fundamentally new or even different from ancient Brahmanism. Rather, everything that Buddha taught was already present in Brahmanism. And anyone who understood Brahmanism correctly can be said to have been a Buddhist before the Buddha. It is as if someone were to describe a plant that many others had already described; the only difference is that he emphasizes certain characteristics that his predecessors did not feel the need to discuss in particular. Brahmanism is based on a world view. The Buddha showed how one should live in order to live in accordance with this world view. A person can live in accordance with a world view without fully understanding it. Indeed, he will understand it better later if he has already lived in accordance with it. This is what Buddha wanted to achieve in those who followed him. If he refused to speak about the supernatural, it was not because he considered it unknowable or even denied it; but because he wanted to first point people to a life that would then enable them to penetrate the supernatural. He did not deny the eternity of the soul; but he did not want his followers to engage in speculations about this eternity before they had arrived at the conclusion, through observing his rules of life, that their own lives fit into the spiritual order of the world. One could say that Buddha's teachings are Hinduism applied to practical life for people who are not yet able to grasp the connection between this life and the highest mysteries. Man has his destiny in the eternal; but only if he sees the temporal, the transitory, in the right light, is he also able to relate to the eternal in the right way. This is what characterizes Buddha's goal. That is why he refrained from teaching higher truths in his outer teachings, and taught the doctrine of the causes of earthly life and of its proper purification through the eightfold path.

Thus, all Indian worldviews, including Buddhism, are based on the doctrine of a spiritual, higher world, to which man belongs just as much as to the earthly one. And this teaching is no different from that which forms the basis of all great religious systems and world views. It is the one that is also contained in theosophy. For it corresponds to the one human nature, which, depending on the circumstances of life, develops differently in form, but which is essentially, in its basis, one. Anyone who knows the deeper foundations of Christianity also knows that this ancient wisdom is contained and active within it. And anyone who can penetrate to this ancient wisdom through true, spiritual Christianity (compare Annie Besant's “Esoteric Christianity” and Rudolf Steiner's “Christianity as a Mystical Fact”) does not need Hinduism or Buddhism. Yes, the same spiritual doctrine is also effective in modern science, but it remains attached to the most external truths and thereby distorts the spiritual. This is the case, for example, with the materialistic view of Darwinism. If one wants to penetrate to the spiritual basis of truth through this modern science, one needs a far greater power than on the path of religion. — Now, in an age that was completely devoted to outward, material knowledge, H.P. Blavatsky was initiated into the secrets of wisdom research by great teachers of the East. It was only natural that these teachers expressed themselves in the terms of their own race. And it was in this form of expression that Mrs. Blavatsky communicated what she had received to the world. However, it must be clear that this form of expression is of little importance. The point is to penetrate the content. Whether this content is then communicated in the forms of Hinduism, Buddhism or Christianity, or in the formulas borrowed from modern Western science, depends solely on the person to whom the content is to be communicated. Our great masters never tire of admonishing us again and again not to fall into rigid dogmatism, not to turn the search for wisdom into mere word wisdom. Under certain circumstances it is even un-theosophical to teach the Hindu or Buddhist formulas in the Occident. For the theosophist should not force anything alien upon anyone, but should lead everyone to the truth in his own way. Why, for example, should one teach Buddhist formulas of thought to Christians, when the core of truth is also based on their own formulas? Theosophy should not be Buddhist propaganda, but rather a help for everyone to achieve a true understanding of their own inner world.