Translated by Christian von Arnim
It
is important to be aware of the need which existed in the
anthroposophical movement for Christianity to be asserted,
specifically among those who were initially what might be
described as ordinary listeners. For the theosophical movement
under the guidance of H.P. Blavatsky had adopted an expressly
anti-christian orientation. I wish to throw a little more light
on this anti-christian attitude, a perspective which I also
mentioned in connection with Friedrich Nietzsche.
It
has to be understood that the Mystery of Golgotha occurred in the
first instance simply as a fact in the development of mankind on
earth. If you look at the way in which I have dealt with the
subject in my book, Christianity
As Mystical Fact,
you will see that I attempted to come to an understanding of the
impulses underlying the ancient Mysteries, and then to show how
the various forces which were active in the individual mystery
centres were harmonized and unified. Thus what was initially
encountered by human beings in a hidden way could be presented
openly as a historical fact. In this sense the historical reality
of the Mystery of Golgotha represents the culmination of the
ancient Mysteries. Remnants of the ancient mystery wisdom were
present when the Mystery of Golgotha took place. With the aid of
these remnants, which were incorporated into the Gospels, it was
possible to find access to this event, which gave earth
development its true meaning.
The
impulses derived from ancient wisdom which were still directly
experienced began to fade in the fourth century AD, so that the
wisdom was preserved only in a more or less traditional form,
allowing particular people in one place or another to revitalize
these traditions. But the kind of continuous development which
the Mysteries enjoyed in ancient times had disappeared, taking
with it the means to understand the Mystery of Golgotha.
The
tradition remained. The Gospels existed, kept secret at first by
the communities of the church and then published in individual
nations. The cults existed. As the western world developed it was
possible to keep alive a memory of the Mystery of Golgotha. But
the opportunity to maintain the memory came to an end in that
moment in the fifth post-Atlantean epoch when intellectualism,
with what I described yesterday as modern education, made its
appearance. And with it a type of science of the natural world
began, which pre-empted any understanding of the spiritual world
as it developed the kind of methodology seen to date. This
methodology needed to be expanded in the way that anthroposophy
has sought to expand it. If one does not progress beyond the
scientific method introduced by Copernicus, Galileo and so on,
the Mystery of Golgotha has no place within the resultant view of
nature.
Now
consider the following. In none of the ancient religions was
there any division between knowledge of the natural world and
knowledge of God. It is a common feature of all pagan religions
that there is a unity in the way in which they explain nature,
and in how that understanding of nature then ascends to an
understanding of the divine, the many-faceted divinity, which is
active in nature.
The
kind of abstract natural forces we are now aware of, unchallenged
in their absoluteness, did not exist. What did exist were nature
spirits which guided the various aspects of nature, and with
which links could be established through the content of the human
soul.
Now
anthroposophy will never make the claim that it somehow wants to
become a religion. However, although religion will always need to
be an independent spiritual stream in mankind, it is a simple
human desire for harmony to exist between cognition and the
religious life. It must be possible to make the transition from
cognition to religion and to return from religion to cognition
without having to cross an abyss. That is impossible, given the
structure of modern learning. It is impossible, above all, to
discover the nature of Christ on this scientific basis. Modern
science, in investigating the being of Christ ever more closely,
has scattered and lost it.
If
you bear this in mind, you will be able to understand what
follows. Let me begin by talking about Nietzsche, whose father
was a practising minister. He went through a modern grammar
school education. But since he was not a bread-and-butter scholar
but a thinker, his interest extended to everything which could be
learnt through modern methods. So he consciously and in a radical
way became aware of the dichotomy which in reality affects all
modern minds, although people do not realize it and are prone to
illusion because they draw a veil over it. Nietzsche says:
Nowhere does modern education provide a direct link to an
explanation of Jesus Christ without jumping over an abyss. His
uncompromising conclusion is that if one wants to establish a
relationship with modern science while preserving some sort of
inner feeling for the traditional explanations of Christ, it is
necessary to lie. And so he chose modern learning, and thus
arrived at a radical indictment of what he knew about
Christianity.
No
one has been more cutting about Christianity than Nietzsche, the
minister's son. And he experiences this with his whole being. One
example is when he says — and it is not, of course, my
standpoint — that what a modern theologian believes to be
true is certainly false. And he finds that the whole of modern
philosophy has too much theological blood flowing through its
veins. As a result he formulates his tremendous indictment of
Christianity, which is of course blasphemous, but which is an
honest blasphemy and therefore worthy of greater attention than
the hypocrisy which is so often found in this field today. It
needs to be emphasized that a person like Nietzsche, who was
serious about wanting to understand the Mystery of Golgotha, was
not able to do so with the means at his disposal, including the
Gospels in their present form.
Anthroposophy
provides an interpretation of all four Gospels, [ Note
1 ] and
these interpretations are rejected decisively by theologians of
all denominations. But they were not available to Nietzsche. It
is the most difficult thing for a scientific mind — and
almost all people today have scientific minds in this sense, even
if at a basic level — to come to terms with the Mystery of
Golgotha, and what is precisely not the old Mysteries, but the
discovery of a whole new mystery knowledge. The discovery of the
spiritual world in a wholly new form is necessary.
Basically
Blavatsky's inspiration also came from the ancient Mysteries. If
one takes The Secret Doctrine as a whole, it
really feels like nothing fundamentally new but the resurrection
of that knowledge which was used in the ancient Mysteries to
recognize the divine and the spiritual. But these Mysteries are
only capable of explaining the events which happened in
anticipation of Christ. Those who were familiar with the impulses
of the ancient Mysteries when Christianity was still young were
able to adopt a positive attitude to what happened at Golgotha.
This applied into the fourth century. The real meaning of the
Greek Church Fathers was still understood: how their roots
stretched back to the ancient Mysteries, and how their words have
quite a different tone from those of the later Latin Church
Fathers.
The
ancient wisdom which understood nature and spirit as one was
contained in Blavatsky's revelations. That is the way, she
thought, to find the divine and the spiritual, to make them
accessible to human perception. And from that perspective she
turned her attention to what present-day traditional thinking and
the modern faiths were saying about Christ Jesus. She could not,
of course, understand the Gospels in the way they are understood
in anthroposophy, and the knowledge which came from elsewhere was
not adequate to deal with the knowledge of the spirit which
Blavatsky brought. That is the origin of her contempt for the way
in which the Mystery of Golgotha was understood by the world. In
her view, what people were saying about the Mystery of Golgotha
was on a much lower level than all the majestic wisdom provided
by the ancient Mysteries. In other words, the Christian god
stands on a lower level than the content of the ancient
Mysteries.
That
was not the fault of the Christian god, but it was the result of
interpretations of the Christian god. Blavatsky simply did not
know the nature of the Mystery of Golgotha and was able to judge
it only by what was being said about it. These things have to be
seen in an objective light. As the power of the ancient Mysteries
was drawing to a final close in the last remnants of Greek
culture in the fourth century AD, Rome took possession of
Christianity. The empirical attitude of Roman culture to learning
was incapable of opening a real path to the spirit. Rome forced
Christianity to adopt its outer trappings. It is this romanized
Christianity alone which was known to Nietzsche and Blavatsky.
Thus
these souls whom I described as homeless, whose earlier earth
lives were lighting up within them, took the first thing on offer
because their sole aim was to find access to the spiritual world,
even at the risk of losing Christianity. These were the people
who began by seeking a way into the Theosophical Society.
Now
the position of anthroposophy in relation to these homeless souls
has to be clearly understood. These were searching, questioning
souls. And the first necessity was to find out what questions
resided in their innermost selves. And if anthroposophy addressed
these souls, it was because they had questions about things to
which anthroposophy thought it had the answer. The other people
among our contemporaries were not bothered by such questions.
Anthroposophy
therefore considered what came into the world with Blavatsky to
be an important fact. But its purpose was not to observe the
knowledge which she presented, but essentially to understand
those questions which people found perplexing.
How
were the answers to be formulated? We need to look at the matter
as positively and as factually as possible. Here we had these
questioning souls. Their questions were clear. They believed they
could find an answer to them in something like Annie Besant's
book The
Ancient Wisdom, [ Note
2 ] for
instance. Obviously, it would have been stupid to tell people
that this or that bit of The
Ancient Wisdom was
no longer relevant. The only possible course was to give real
answers by ignoring The
Ancient Wisdom at
a time when this book was, as it were, dogma among these people,
and by writing my book Theosophy, [ Note
3 ]which
gave answers to questions which I knew were being asked. That was
the positive answer. And there was no need to do more than that.
People had to be left completely free to choose whether they
wanted to continue to read The
Ancient Wisdom or
whether they wanted to use Theosophy.
In
times of great historical change things are not decided in as
rational and direct a manner as one likes to think. Thus I did
not find it at all surprising that the theosophists who attended
the lecture cycle on anthroposophy when the German Section was
established, remarked that it did not agree in the slightest with
what Mrs Besant was saying.
Of
course it could not agree, because the answers had to be found in
what the deepened consciousness of the present can provide. Until
about 1907 each step taken by anthroposophy was a battle against
the traditions of the Theosophical Society. At first the members
of the Theosophical Society were the only people whom one could
approach with these things. Every step had to be conquered. A
polemical approach would have been useless; the only sensible
course was hope, and making the right choices.
These
things certainly did not happen without inner reservations.
Everything had to be done at the right time and place, at least
in my view. I believe that in my Theosophy I
did not go one step beyond what it was possible to publish and
for a certain number of people to accept at that time. The wide
distribution of the book since then shows that this was an
accurate assumption.
It
was possible to go further among those who were engaged in a more
intensive search, who had been caught up in the stream set in
motion by Blavatsky. I will take only one instance. It was common
in the Theosophical Society to describe how human beings went
through what was called kamaloka after death. To begin with, the
description given by its leaders could only be put in a proper
context in my book Theosophy by
avoiding the concept of time. But I wanted to deal with the
correct concept of time within the Society.
G
= birth T = death
As
a result I gave lectures about life between death and a new birth
within the then Dutch Section of the Theosophical Society. And
there I pointed out, right at the start of my activity, that it
is nonsense simply to say that we pass through kamaloka as if our
consciousness is merely extended a little. (see diagram above). I
showed that time has to be seen as moving backwards, and I
described how our existence in kamaloka is life in reverse, stage
by stage, only at three times the pace of the life we spend on
earth. Nowadays, of course, people leading their physical lives
have no idea that this backward movement is a reality in the
spiritual realm, because time is imagined simply as a straight
line.
Now
the leaders of the Theosophical Society professed to renew the
teachings of the old wisdom. All kinds of other writings appeared
which were based on Blavatsky's book. But their content took a
form which corresponded exactly to the way things are presented
as a result of modern materialism. Why? Because new knowledge,
not simply the renewal of old knowledge, had to be pursued if the
right things were to be found. Buddha's wheel of birth and death
and the old oriental wisdom was quoted on every occasion. That a
wheel is something which has to be drawn as turning back on
itself (see diagram) was ignored. There was no life in this
rejuvenation of the old wisdom, because it did not spring from
direct knowledge. In short, it was necessary through direct
knowledge to create something which was also capable of
illuminating the ancient wisdom.
Nevertheless,
in the first seven years of my anthroposophical work there were
people who denied that there was anything new in my material in
relation to theosophy. But people never forgot the trouble I
caused in the Dutch Section by filling my lectures with living
material. When the congress took place in Munich in 1907 [ Note
4 ] the
Dutch theosophists were seething that an alien influence, as they
perceived it, was muscling in. They did not feel the living
present standing against something which was based merely on
tradition.
Something
had to change. That is when the conversation between Mrs Besant
and myself took place in Munich, [ Note
5 ] and
it was clarified that the things which I had to represent as
anthroposophy would work quite independently of other things
active within the Theosophical Society. What I might describe as
amodus
vivendi was
agreed.
On
the other hand, even at that time the absurdities of the
Theosophical Society which eventually led to its downfall began
to be visible on the horizon. For it is clear today that it has
been ruined as a society which is able to support a spiritual
movement, however great its membership. What the Theosophical
Society used to be is no longer alive today.
When
anthroposophy began its work the Theosophical Society still
contained a justified and full spirituality. The things which
were brought into the world by Blavatsky were a reality, and
people had a living relationship with them. But Blavatsky had
already been dead for a decade. The mood within the Theosophical
Society, the things which existed as a continuation of
Blavatsky's work, had a solid historico-cultural foundation; they
were quite capable of giving something to people. But even at
that time they already contained the seeds of decay. The only
question was whether these could be overcome, or whether they
would inevitably lead to complete disharmony between
anthroposophy and the old Theosophical Society.
It
has to be said that a destructive element existed in the
Theosophical Society even in Blavatsky's time. It is necessary to
separate Blavatsky's spiritual contribution from the effect of
the way in which she was prompted to make her revelations. We are
dealing with a personality who, however she was prompted,
nevertheless was creative and through herself gave wisdom to
mankind, even if this wisdom was more like a memory of earlier
lives on earth and restricted to the rejuvenation of ancient
wisdom. The second fact, that Blavatsky was prompted to act in a
particular way, introduced elements into the theosophical
movement which were no longer appropriate if it was to become a
purely spiritual movement.
For
that it was not. The fact is that Blavatsky was prompted from a
certain direction, and as a result of this she produced all the
things which are written in Isis Unveiled. But by
various machinations Blavatsky for a second time fell under
outside influence, namely of eastern esoteric teachers propelled
by cultural tendencies of an egoistic nature. From the beginning
a biased policy lay at the basis of the things they wished to
achieve through Blavatsky. It included the desire to create a
kind of sphere of influence — first of a spiritual nature,
but then in a more general sense — of the East over the
West, by providing the West's spirituality, or lack of it if you
like, with eastern wisdom. That is how the transformation took
place from the thoroughly European nature of Isis
Unveiled to the thoroughly eastern nature of
Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine.
Various
factors were at work, including the wish to link India with Asia
in order to create an Indo-Asian sphere of influence with the
help of the Russian Empire. In this way her teaching received its
Indian content in order to win a spiritual victory over the West.
It reflected a one-sidedly egoistic, nationally egoistic,
influence. It was present
right from the beginning and was striking in its symptomatic
significance. The first lecture by Annie Besant which I attended
dealt with theosophy and imperialism. [ Note
6 ] And
if one questioned whether the fundamental impulse of the lecture
was contained in the wish to continue in Blavatsky's spiritual
direction or to continue what went alongside it, the answer had
to be the latter.
Annie
Besant frequently said things without fully understanding the
implications. But if you read the lecture “Theosophy and
Imperialism” attentively, with an awareness of the
underlying implications, you will see that if someone wanted to
separate India from England in a spiritual way, the first,
apparently innocuous step could be taken in a lecture of this
kind.
It
has always spelled the beginning of the end for spiritual
movements and societies when they have started to introduce
partisan political elements into their activity. A spiritual
movement can only develop in the world today if it embraces all
humanity. Indeed, today it is one of the most essential
conditions for a spiritual movement whose intention it is to give
access to the real spirit that it should embrace all mankind. And
anything which aims to split mankind in any way is, from the
beginning, a destructive element.
Just
consider the extent to which one reaches into the subconscious
regions of the human psyche with such things. It is simply part
of the conditions for spiritual movements, such as anthroposophy
wants to be, that they honestly and seriously endeavour to
distance themselves from all partisan human interests, and aspire
to take account of the general interest of mankind. That was what
made the theosophical movement so destructive, in so far as it
contained divisive elements from its inception. And on occasion
they also veered in their position; during the war there was a
tendency to become very anglo-chauvinistic. But it is essential
to understand very clearly that it is completely impossible to
make a genuine spiritual movement flourish if it contains
factional interests which people are unwilling to leave behind.
That
is why one of the main dangers facing the anthroposophical
movement today — in an age deteriorating everywhere into
nationalist posturing — lies in the lack of courage among
people to discard these tendencies.
But
what is the root cause of this tendency? It arises when a society
wants to accrue power by something other than spiritual
revelation. At the beginning of the twentieth century there was
still much that was positive in the way the Theosophical Society
developed an awareness of its power, but that awareness had
almost completely disappeared by 1906 and was replaced by a
strong drive for power.
It
is important to understand that anthroposophy grew out of the
general interests of mankind, and to recognize that it had to
find access to the Theosophical Society, because that is where
the questioners were to be found. It would not have found
accomodation anywhere else.
Indeed,
as soon as the first period came to an end, the complete
inappropriateness of the theosophical movement for western life
became evident, particularly in its approach to the issues
surrounding Christ. Where Blavatsky's contempt for Christianity
was still basically theoretical, albeit with an emotional basis,
the theosophical movement later turned this contempt into
practice, to the extent that a boy was specially brought up with
the intention of making him the vehicle for the resurrection of
Christ. There is hardly anything more absurd. An Order [ Note
7 ] was
established within the Theosophical Society with the aim of
engineering the birth of Christ in a boy already alive here.
This
soon descended into total farce. A congress of the Theosophical
Society was to take place in Genoa in 1911, [ Note
8 ] and
I felt it necessary to announce my lecture “From Buddha to
Christ” for this congress. This should have resulted in a
clear and concise debate by bringing into the open everything
which was already in the air. But — surprise, surprise —
the Genoa Congress was cancelled. It is, of course, easy to find
excuses
for something like that, and every word that was uttered sounded
uncommonly like an excuse.
Thus
we can say that the anthroposophical movement entered its second
stage by pursuing its straightforward course, and it was
introduced by a lecture which I delivered to a non-theosophical
audience of which only one person — no more! — is
still with us, although many people attended the original
lecture. That first lecture, lecture cycle in fact, was entitled
“From Buddha to Christ”. In 1911 I had wanted to
deliver the same cycle. There was a direct connection! But the
theosophical movement had become caught up in a hideous zig-zag
course.
If
the history of the anthroposophical movement fails to be taken
seriously and these things are not properly identified, it is
also impossible to give a proper answer to the superficial points
which are continually raised about the relationship between
anthroposophy and theosophy; points made by people who refuse
absolutely to acknowledge that anthroposophy was something quite
independent from the beginning, and that it was quite natural for
anthroposophy to provide the answers it possessed to the
questions which were being asked.
Thus
we might say that the second period of the anthroposophical
movement lasted until 1914. During that time nothing in
particular happened, at least as far as I am concerned, to
resolve its relationship with the theosophical movement. The
Theosophical Society remedied that when it expelled the
anthroposophists.[ Note
9 ] But
it was not particularly relevant to be in the Theosophical
Society and it was not particularly relevant to be excluded. We
simply continued as before. Until 1914 everything which occurred
was initiated by the Theosophical Society. I was invited to
lecture there on the basis of the lectures which have been
reprinted in my book Eleven
European Mystics.
I then proceeded to develop in various directions the material
contained in it.
The
Society, with its unchanged views, then proceeded to expel me —
and, of course, my supporters. I was invited in for the same
material which later caused my exclusion. That is how it was. The
history of the anthroposophical movement will not be understood
until the fundamental fact is recognized that it was irrelevant
whether I was included in or excluded from the theosophical
movement. That is something upon which I would ask you to
concentrate in your self-reflection.
Today
how many souls have a hint of such homelessness about them? That
is revealed in incidents such as the following, which was
reported very recently. A professor announced a course of
university lectures on the development, as he called it, of
mystic-occult perceptions from Pythagoras to Steiner. Following
the announcement, so many people came to the first lecture that
it could not be held in the usual lecture hall but had to be
transferred to the Auditorium Maximum which is normally used only
for big festive occasions.
Such
occurrences demonstrate the way things are today, how the
tendency to such homelessness has become an integral element in
many souls. All of this could be anticipated: the rapidly growing
evidence of a longing in homeless souls for an attitude to life
which was not organized in advance, which was not laid out in
advance; a longing for the spirit among them which was
increasingly asserting itself, and asserting itself more strongly
week by week.
Thanks
to the Rudolf Steiner Archive
Continued in the next issued of SCR.
Home
