The Way of Initiation
GA 34
I. The Superphysical World and Its Gnosis
[ 1 ] It is natural that most people, who hear of transcendental truths in our time, should at once put the question: “How may we attain to such knowledge for ourselves?” Indeed, it is often remarked as a characteristic of people today, that they will accept nothing on faith, on mere “authority,” but wish rather to rely entirely upon their own judgment. And therefore it is that when mystics and theosophists profess to know something of the superphysical nature of man, and of the destiny of the human soul and spirit before birth and after death, they are at once confronted with this fundamental demand of our day. Such dogmas, they seem to say, have only an importance for anyone when you have shown him the way by which he may convince himself of their truth.
[ 2 ] This demand is quite justified; and never could any true mystic or theosophist fail to recognise it. But it is equally certain that with many who make it, there exists a feeling of scepticism or antagonism toward the assertions of the mystic. This feeling becomes especially marled when the mystic sets out by intimating how the truths which he has described may be attained. For then people often say to him: “What is true may be demonstrated; therefore, prove to us what you assert.” Furthermore, they imply that the truth must be something clear and simple, something which a. “modest” intellect may comprehend; surely, they seem to say, it cannot be the possession: of a chosen few, to whoa it is given by a “special revelation!” And in this way the messenger of transcendental truths is frequently confronted with people who reject him, because—unlike the scientist, for example—he can produce no proofs for his assertions, of such a nature as they can themselves understand. Again, there are some who more cautiously reject these matters, but who nevertheless, refuse any close connection with them because, they think, they do not seem reasonable. Thereupon they soothe themselves, though not entirely, by saying that we cannot know anything of what lies beyond birth or death, of what we cannot perceive with our senses.
[ 3 ] These are but a few of the conceptions and criticisms with which today the messenger of a spiritual philosophy has to deal. But they are similar to all those that compose the key-note of our time. And he who puts himself at the service of a spiritual movement must recognise this key-note quite clearly.
[ 4 ] For his own part, the mystic is aware that his knowledge rests upon superphysical facts; just as facts, for example, form the foundation of the experiences and observations described by a traveller in Africa. To the mystic applies what Annie Besant has said in her manual, “Death—and After?”
“A seasoned African explorer would care but little for the criticisms passed on his report by persons who had never been thither; he might tell what he saw, describe the animals whose habits he had studied, sketched the country he had traversed, sum up its products and its characteristics. If he was contradicted, laughed at, set right, by untravelled critics, he would be neither ruffled nor distressed, but would merely leave them alone. Ignorance cannot convince knowledge by repeated asseveration of its nescience. The opinion of a hundred persons on a subject of which they are wholly ignorant is of no more weight than the opinion of one such person. Evidence is strengthened by many consenting witnesses, testifying each to his knowledge of a fact, but nothing multiplied a thousand times remains nothing.”
Here is expressed the mystic's view of himself. He hears the objections which are raised on every side, yet he knows that he has no need to dispute them. He realises that his certain knowledge is being criticised by those who have not experienced or felt as he himself has done. He is in the position of a mathematician who has discovered a truth which loses no value though a thousand voices are raised in opposition.
[ 5 ] Here at once will arise the objection of the sceptic: “Mathematical truths may be proved to anyone,” he will say, “and though perhaps you have really found something, I shall only accept it when I have learnt of its truth by my, own observation.” Then he considers himself to be in the right, because, as he thinks, it is clear that anyone who acquires the necessary knowledge can prove a mathematical truth, while the experiences professed by the mystic depend upon the special faculties of a few elect people, whom he is expected to believe blindly.
[ 6 ] But for him who rightly considers this objection, any justification for the doubt immediately vanishes. For every true mystic will here speak just like the very sceptics themselves. He will always emphasise the truth that the way to the Higher Knowledge is open for anyone who has acquired for himself the faculties by which he may win entrance. The mystic asserts nothing which his opponents would not also be compelled to assert, if they did but fully understand what they are saying. They, however, in making an assertion, at once formulate a claim which constitutes a direct contradiction of their own assertion.
Sceptics are not content to test the assertions of the mystic only when they have acquired the necessary faculties, but rather judge him according to their present faculties, and not with those which he is bound to demand. He says to them; “I do not claim to be ‘chosen’ in the sense that you mean. I have merely worked within myself, in order to acquire these powers through which it is possible to speak of glimpses into superphysical regions. But these faculties are dormant within everyone, only they must be developed.” But his opponents then answer: “You must prove your truths to us as we are now.” They will not meet his demand that they should develop, first, the dormant powers within them, but rather, without being willing to do so, insist that he shall give there proofs. Nor do they see that this is exactly as if a peasant at his plough should demand of the mathematician the proof of a complicated problem without first undergoing the trouble of learning mathematics.
[ 7 ] All this appears to be so simple that one almost hesitates to speak of it. And yet it indicates a delusion under which millions of people at the present time are living. If one explains it to them they always agree with it in theory, since it is quite as obvious as that two and two make four. Yet in practice they continually contradict it. One can very soon convince oneself of that. Tue mistake has become second nature with many; they practise it without any longer realising that they do so, without desiring to be convinced of it, just as they offend against everything which they would at all times allow to pass for a principle of the simplest nature, could they only consider it quietly. It matters not whether the mystic of today moves in a circle of thinking artisans, or in a more educated circle, for wherever he goes he meets with the same prejudice, the same self-contradiction. One finds it in popular lectures, in all the newspapers and magazines, and even in more learned works or treatises.
[ 8 ] And here we must recognise quite clearly that we are dealing with a sign of the time which we cannot simply consider as mere incompetence, nor expose as criticism, correct perhaps, but nevertheless not just. We must understand that this symptom, this prejudice against the higher truths, lies deep in the very being of our age. We must understand clearly that the great successes, the immense advance, which distinguish it, necessarily tend toward this mistake. The nineteenth century especially had in this respect a dark side to its wonderful excellences. Its greatness rests upon its discoveries in the external world, and its conquest of natural forces for technical and industrial purposes. These successes could only have been attained by the observation of the senses, and afterwards by the employment of the mind noon what the senses had thus perceived. The civilisation of the present day is the result of the training of our senses, and of that part of our mind which is occupied with the world of sense. Almost every step we take in the street today shows us how much we owe to this kind of training. And it is under the influence of these blessings of civilisation that the habits of thought prevalent among our fellowmen of today have been developed. They continue to abide by the senses and the mind, because it is by means of these that they have grown great. People were taught to train themselves to admit nothing as true except those things that were presented to them by the senses or the mind. And nothing is more apt to claim for itself the only valid testimony, the only absolute authority, than the mind or the senses. If a man has acquired by means of them a certain degree of culture, he thenceforth accustoms himself to submit everything to their consideration, everything to their criticism. And again in another sphere, in the domain of Social Life, we find a similar trait. The man of the nineteenth century insisted, in the fullest sense of the word, upon the absolute freedom of personality, and repudiated any authority in the Social Commonwealth. He endeavoured to construct the community in such a way that the full independence, the self-chosen vocation of each individual, should, without interference, be assured. In this way it became habitual for him to consider everything from the standpoint of the average individual. The higher powers which lie dormant in the soul may be developed by one person in this direction, by another in that. One will make more progress, another less. When they develop such powers, or when they attach any value to them, men begin to differentiate themselves. One must also, if one admits their existence, allow to the man who has progressed further, more right to speak on a subject, or to act in a certain way, than to another who is less advanced. But with regard to the senses and the mind, one may employ an average standard. All have there the same rights, the same liberty.
It is also noticeable that the present formation of the Social Commonwealth has helped to bring about a revolt against the higher powers of man. According to the mystic, civilisation during the nineteenth century has altogether moved along physical lines; and people have accustomed themselves to move on the physical plane alone, and to feel at home there. The higher powers are only developed on planes other than the physical, and the knowledge which these faculties bring has, therefore, become alien to man. [ 9 ] It is only necessary to attend mass-meetings, if one wishes to be convinced of the fact that the speakers there are totally unable to think any thoughts but those which refer to the physical plane, the world of sense. This can also be seen among the leading journalists of our papers and magazines; and, indeed, on all sides one can observe the haughtiest and most complete denial of everything that cannot be seen with the eyes, or felt with the hands, or comprehended by the average mind. Once more let it be said that we do not condemn this attitude. It denotes a necessary stage in the development of humanity. Without the pride and prejudices of mind and sense, we should never have achieved our great conquests over material life, nor have been able to impart to the personality a certain measure of elasticity: neither could we hope that many ideals, which must be founded on man's desire for freedom and the assertion of personality, might yet be realised.
[ 10 ] But this dark side of a purely materialistic civilisation has deeply affected the whole being of the modern man. For proof it is not necessary to refer to the obvious facts already named; it would be easy to demonstrate by certain examples which are lightly underrated, especially today, how deeply rooted in the mind of the modern man is this adhesion to the testimony of the senses, or the average intelligence. And it is just these things that indicate the need for the renewal of spiritual life.
[ 11 ] The strong response evoked by Professor Friedrich Delitzsch's Babel and Bible Theory fully justifies a reference to its author's method of thinking, as a sign of the time. Professor Delitzsch has demonstrated the relationship of certain traditions in the Old Testament to the Babylonian accounts of the Creation, and this fact, coming from such a source and in such a form, has been realised by many who would otherwise have ignored such questions. It has led many to reconsider the so-called idea of Revelation. They ask themselves: How is it possible to accept the idea that the contents of the Old Testament were revealed by God, when we find very similar conceptions among decidedly heathen nations? This problem cannot here be further discussed. Delitzsch found many opponents who feared lest, through iris exposition, the very foundations of Religion had been shaken. He has defended himself in a pamphlet, Babel and Bible, a Retrospect and a Forecast. Here we shall only refer to a single sentence in the pamphlet. It is an important sentence, because it reveals the view of an eminent man of science regarding the position of man with respect to transcendental truths. And today innumerable other people think and feel just like Delitzsch. The sentence affords an excellent opportunity for us to find out what is the innermost conviction of our contemporaries, expressed here quite freely and therefore in its truest form.
Delitzsch turns to those who reproach him with a somewhat liberal use of the term “Revelation,” who would fain regard it as “a kind of old priestly wisdom” which “has nothing at all to do with the layman.” In opposition to this he says:
“For my part, I am of opinion that while our children or ourselves are instructed in school or at church as regards Revelation, not only are we within our right, but it is our duty, to think independently concerning these deep questions, possessing also, as they do, an eminently practical side, were it only that we might avoid giving our children ‘evasive’ answers. For this very reason it will be gratifying to many searchers after Truth when the dogma of a special ‘choosing’ of Israel shall have been brought forward into the light of a wider historical outlook, though the union of Babylonian, Assyrian, and Old Testament research. ... (A few pages earlier we are shown the direction of such thoughts.) For the rest, it would seem to me that the only logical thing is for Church and School to be satisfied as regards the whole past history of the world and of humanity, with the belief in One Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth, and that these tales of the Old Testament should be classified by themselves under some such title as ‘Old Hebraic Myths.’”
(It may be taken as a matter of course, we suppose, that no one will see in the following remarks an attack on the investigator Delitzsch.) What, then, is here said in naive simplicity? Nothing less than that the mind which is engaged upon physical investigation may assert the right of judging: experiences of superphysical nature. There is no thought that this mind, without further preparing itself, may perhaps be unfit to reflect upon the teachings of these “Revelations.” When one wishes to understand what appears as a “Revelation,” one cannot do so unless one brings to bear upon it those forces out of which the “Revelation” itself has come.
He who develops within himself the mystical power of perception soon observes that in certain stories of the Old Testament which were called by Delitzsch “Old Hebraic Myths,” there are revealed to him truths of a higher nature than those which may be comprehended by the intellect, which is only concerned with the things of sense. His own mystical experiences will lead him to see that these “Myths” have proceeded out of a mystical perception of transcendental truths. And then, in one moment, his whole point of view is changed.
As little as one can demonstrate the fallacy of a mathematical problem by discovering who solved it first, or even that several people have solved it—which would certainly be a valuable historical discovery—just so little can one impugn the truth of a biblical narrative by the discovery of a similar story elsewhere. Instead of demanding that everyone should insist upon his right, or even his duty, to think independently on the so-called “Revelations,” we ought rather to consider that only he has a. right to decide anything about the matter who has developed in himself those latent powers which make it possible for him to relive what was once realised by those very mystics who proclaimed the “super-sensuous revelations.”
Here we have an excellent example of how the average intellect, qualified for the highest triumphs in practical sense-knowledge, sets itself up, in naive pride, as a judge in domains, the existence of which it does not even care to learn. For purely historical investigation is also carried on by nothing but the experience of the senses.
[ 12 ] In just the same way has the investigation of the New Testament led us into a blind alley. At all costs the method of the “Newer Historical Investigation” had to be directed upon the Gospels. These documents have been compared with each other, and brought into relation with all sorts of things, in order that we might find out what really happened in Palestine from the year 1 to the year 33; how the “historical personality” of whom they tell really lived, and what He can really have said.
Now a man of the seventeenth century, Angelus Silesius, has already expressed the whole of the critical attitude toward this kind of investigation:
[ 13 ] “Though Christ were yearly born in Bethlehem, and never Had birth in you yourself, teen were you lost for ever; And if within yourself it is not reared again, The Cross at Golgotha can save you not from pain.”
[ 14 ] Nor are these the words of one who doubted, but of a Christian, strong in his belief. And his equally fervent predecessor, Meister Eckhart, said in the thirteenth century:
“There are some who desire to see God with their eyes, as they look at a cow; and just as they love a cow, so they desire to love God. ... Simple-minded people imagine that God may be seen as if He stood there and they stood here. But this is not so: in that perception, God and I are one,”
These words must emphatically not be directed against investigation of “historical truth.” Yet no one can rightly understand the historic truth of such documents as the Gospels, unless he has first experienced within himself the mystical meaning which they contain. All such comparisons and analyses are quite worthless, for no one can discover who was “born in Bethlehem” but he who has mystically experienced the Christ within himself; neither can anyone in whom it has not already been erected, decide how it is that “the Cross at Golgotha” can deliver us from pain. Purely historical investigation “can discover no more concerning the mystic reality than the dismembering anatomist, perhaps, can discover the secret of a great poetical genius.” (See my book, Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache, Berlin, C. A. Schwetschke and Sohn, 1902, or its French translation, mentioned on page 1.)
[ 15 ] He who can see clearly in these matters is aware how deeply rooted, at the present time, is the “pride” of the intellect, which only concerns itself with the facts of sense. It says: “I do not wish to develop faculties in order that I may reach the higher truths; I wish to form my decisions concerning them with the powers that I now possess.”
In a well-meant pamphlet, which is written, however, entirely in that spirit of the age which we have already indicated (What do we know about Jesus? by A. Kalthoff, Berlin, 1904), we read as follows:
“Christ, who symbolises the life of the Community, may be discerned within himself by the man of today: out of his own soul the man of today can create Christ just as well as the author of a gospel created him; as a man he may put himself in the same position as the gospel-writers, because he can reinstate himself into the same soul-processes, can himself speak or write Gospel.”
These words may be true, but they may also be entirely erroneous. They are true when understood in the sense of Angelus Silesius, or of Meister Eckhart, when they are referred to the development of powers dormant in every human soul, which, from some such idea, endeavours to experience within itself the Christ of the Gospels. They are altogether wrong, if a more or less shallow ideal of the Christ is thus created out of the spirit of an age that acknowledges the truth of no perceptions but those of the senses.
The life of the Spirit can only be understood when we do not wish to criticise it with the lower mind, but rather to develop ourselves for it internally. No one can hope to learn anything of the highest truths accessible to man, if he demands that they shall be lowered to the “average understanding.” To this it might be objected: Why, then, do you, mystics and theosophists, proclaim these truths to people who, as you declare, cannot as yet understand them? Why should there be a Theosophical Movement which proclaims certain teachings, when the powers which bring men to the perception of them ought first to be developed?
It is the task of this book to solve this apparent contradiction. It will show that the spiritual currents of our day speak from a different basis, in a different manner, from the science which relies entirely on the lower intellect. Yet, in spite of this, the spiritual currents are not less scientific than the science which is based upon physical facts alone. Rather do they extend the field of scientific investigation into the superphysical. We must close this chapter with one more question, which will perhaps be asked: How can one attain to superphysical truths, and, towards this attainment, of what help are spiritual movements?
Die Übersinnliche Welt und Ihre Erkenntnis
[ 1 ] Begreiflich ist, daß bei den meisten, die heute von übersinnlichen Wahrheiten hören, sogleich die Frage auftaucht: «Wie kann man selbst zu solchen Erkenntnissen gelangen?» Es wird ja oft als ein Charakterzeichen der Menschen unserer Gegenwart hingestellt, daß sie nichts auf Treu und Glauben, auf «eine bloße Autorität» hin annehmen, sondern nur auf ihr eigenes Urteil bauen wollen. Wenn daher Mystiker und Theosophen Erkenntnisse aussprechen über die übersinnlichen Teile des Menschen, über das Schicksal von Menschenseele und Menschengeist vor der Geburt und nach dem Tode, so wird ihnen, aus der genannten Grundforderung unserer Zeit heraus, entgegnet: derlei «Dogmen » haben für den Menschen erst dann eine Bedeutung, wenn ihr ihm den Weg weist, auf dem er sich selbst von ihrer Wahrheit überzeugen kann.
[ 2 ] Diese Forderung ist gewiß berechtigt; und es kann keinen wahren Mystiker oder Theosophen geben, der diese Berechtigung nicht anerkennen wollte. Aber ebenso gewiß ist, daß bei vielen, die heute diese Forderung stellen, sich zugleich die Gefühle des Zweifels und der Ablehnung gegenüber den Behauptungen des Mystikers geltend machen. Diese Ablehnung tritt besonders dann deutlich zutage, wenn der Mystiker damit anfängt, Andeutungen darüber zu machen, wie man zu den von ihm dargestellten Wahrheiten gelangt. Man sagt ihm dann gar oft: was wahr ist, muß sich beweisen lassen; beweise uns also, was du behauptest. Man deutet weiter an: die Wahrheit muß eine einfache, klare Sache sein, die dem «schlichten » Verstande einleuchtet; sie kann doch nicht der Besitz einiger weniger Auserwählter sein, die sie einer besonderen «Erleuchtung» verdanken. Und so sieht sich der Träger übersinnlicher Wahrheiten gar oft vor Menschen gestellt, die ihn zurückweisen, weil er, nach ihrer Meinung, ihnen für seine Behauptungen nicht die Beweise erbringen könne, die ihnen doch der Naturforscher zum Beispiel in einer ihnen verständlichen Sprache erbringe. - Andere sind wieder, die vorsichtiger mit der Zurückweisung sind, die aber doch zurückzucken vor einer wahrhaften Beschäftigung mit diesen Dingen, weil sie «ihrem Verstande einmal nicht begreiflich erscheinen». Sie begnügen sich dann wohl mit der — meist halben - Beruhigung: was über Geburt und Tod hinausliegt, was man nicht mit den Sinnen wahrnehmen kann, davon «kann der Mensch eben nichts wissen».
[ 3 ] Nur einige von den Empfindungen und Gedanken sind damit angeführt, auf die gegenwärtig der Träger einer spirituellen Weltanschauung stößt. Aber sie sind mit all den andern gleichartig, die einen Grundton unseres Zeitalters bilden. Über diesen Grundton muß sich derjenige klar sein, der sich in den Dienst einer spirituellen Bewegung stellt.
[ 4 ] Der Mystiker selbst weiß für sich, daß seine Erkenntnisse ebenso auf — übersinnlichen — Tatsachen beruhen, wie zum Beispiel die Beschreibungen, die ein Afrikareisender von seinen Erlebnissen und Wahrnehmungen gibt. Für ihn gilt, was Annie Besant in ihrer Schrift «Der Tod und was dann?» sagt: «Wenn ein wettergebräunter Afrikaforscher uns von seinen Erlebnissen erzählt, uns die Tiere beschreibt, deren Eigenschaften und Lebensgewohnheiten er studiert hat, uns die Gegenden schildert, welche er durchwandert hat und uns deren Produkte und charakteristische Eigentümlichkeiten aufzählt, so wird er sich wenig um die Kritik bekümmern, welche Leute, die diese Orte nie gesehen haben, über seine Berichte fällen. Ja selbst wenn er von solchen unerfahrenen Kritikern Widerspruch erfährt oder lächerlich gemacht und zurechtgewiesen wird, so wird er sich darüber weder ärgern, noch gekränkt fühlen, sondern er wird sich einfach gar nicht darum bekümmern. Ein Unwissender kann durch noch so oftmalige Beteuerung seines Wissens den, der etwas wirklich weiß, nicht überzeugen. Die Ansicht von hundert Personen über eine Sache, von der sie absolut nichts wissen und verstehen, fällt ebensowenig ins Gewicht wie die Ansicht eines einzelnen von ihnen. Die übereinstimmenden Aussagen vieler Zeugen, welche alle für ihre Kenntnis einer Tatsache eintreten, verstärken die Beweiskraft; aber wenn wir nichts auch mit tausend multiplizieren, so bleibt es doch immer nichts.» Damit ist die Lage charakterisiert, in welcher [sich] der Mystiker sich selbst gegenüber befindet. Er hört die Einreden, die ihm ringsherum gemacht werden. Er weiß, daß er sich mit ihnen gar nicht auseinanderzusetzen braucht, weil er sieht, daß andere, die nicht erlebt, erfahren haben, was er erlebt und erfahren hat, über seine Erkenntnisse urteilen. Er ist in dem Falle eines Mathematikers, der eine Wahrheit eingesehen hat, und dem diese Wahrheit auch dann gelten muß, wenn tausend Stimmen gegen sie sich erheben.
[ 5 ] Aber hier kommt sogleich der Einwand der Zweifler: «Die mathematische Wahrheit kann jedem bewiesen werden», sagen sie. « Du hast sie zwar gefunden; aber wir nehmen sie erst an, wenn wir sie aus unserer eigenen Einsicht heraus erkannt haben.» Und dann glauben sie mit ihrer Einwendung im Rechte zu sein, da es doch sicher sei, daß jeder Mensch, der sich die nötigen Kenntnisse erwirbt, jede mathematische Wahrheit beweisen könne, während doch die von dem Mystiker behaupteten Erlebnisse von den besonderen Fähigkeiten einzelner Auserwählter abhingen, und man diesen «glauben » solle.
[ 6 ] Aber für den, welcher diesen Einwand recht überdenkt und die Sachlage prüft, fällt zugleich die Berechtigung jeglichen Zweifels dahin. Denn jeder wahre Mystiker wird ganz so sprechen, wie diese Zweifler selbst. Er wird immer betonen: der Weg zu den höheren Erkenntnissen steht jedem Menschen offen, wenn er sich die nötigen Fähigkeiten erwirbt, ihn zu gehen; wie die Einsicht in die mathematischen Wahrheiten jedem offensteht, der sich die notwendigen Kenntnisse erwirbt. Der Mystiker behauptet also nichts, was seine Gegner nicht selbst behaupten müßten, wenn sie sich selbst auch nur richtig verstünden. — Sie aber stellen ihre Behauptung auf, um sogleich eine Forderung zu erheben, welche dieser ihrer eigenen Behauptung ins Gesicht schlägt. Sie wollen nämlich nicht dann erst die Aussagen des Mystikers prüfen, wenn sie sich die dazu erforderlichen Fähigkeiten angeeignet haben werden, sondern sie richten vorher über ihn, mit den Fähigkeiten, die sie schon haben, nicht mit denen, die er verlangen muß. Er sagt ihnen: ich will kein Auserlesener sein in dem Sinne, wie ihr meint. Ich habe nur an mir gearbeitet, um mir die Fähigkeiten anzueignen, die es mir möglich machen, jetzt von Einsichten in übersinnliche Gebiete zu sprechen. Das aber sind Fähigkeiten, die in jedem Menschen schlummern. Nur müssen sie eben ausgebildet werden. Seine Gegner aber sagen: du mußt uns deine «Wahrheiten» beweisen, so, wie wir jetzt sind. Sie gehen nicht ein auf sein Verlangen, erst die in ihnen selbst schlummernden Kräfte auszubilden, sondern sie verlangen den Beweis, ohne daß sie diese Ausbildung wollen. Und sehen nicht ein, daß das soviel heißt, wie wenn der Bauer am Pfluge von dem Mathematiker den Beweis eines höheren Lehrsatzes verlangte, ohne daß er sich zuerst der Mühe unterzöge, Mathematik zu lernen.
[ 7 ] Das alles scheint so einfach, daß man fast sich scheuen möchte, es auszusprechen. Und dennoch bezeichnet es einen Irrtum, in dem gegenwärtig Millionen von Menschen leben. Macht man ihnen das Obige klar, so werden sie es in der Theorie immer zugeben, denn es ist so einfach, wie daß «zwei mal zwei vier» ist. In ihrem Verhalten zeigen sie aber fortwährend das Gegenteil. Man kann sich immer davon überzeugen. Der Irrtum ist vielen eben, wie man sagt, in «Fleisch und Blut» übergegangen; sie üben ihn, ohne weiter darüber nachzudenken, ohne den Willen, sich davon überzeugen zu lassen, wie sie gegen alles verstoßen, was sie selbst als Verstandesregel der allereinfachsten Art jeden Augenblick würden gelten lassen, wenn nur sie zur Ruhe des Nachdenkens kämen. — Ob sich der Mystiker heute unter denkenden Arbeitern, ob er sich unter «Gebildeten » bewegt, überall begegnet er der geschilderten Befangenheit, dem gekennzeichneten Widerspruch in sich selbst. Man findet ihn in populären Vorträgen, in allen Zeitungen und Zeitschriften, und auch in gelehrten Abhandlungen und Werken.
[ 8 ] Nun muß man sich aber auch darüber klar sein, daß man eine Zeiterscheinung vor sich hat, die man nicht einfach als «Unzulänglichkeit» hinzustellen oder mit einer vielleicht richtigen, aber deshalb noch nicht berechtigten Kritik abzutun hat. Man muß wissen, daß diese Erscheinung, diese Befangenheit gegenüber den höheren Wahrheiten tief im Wesen unseres Zeitalters begründet liegt. Man muß sich darüber aufklären, daß die großen Erfolge, die unermeßlichen Fortschritte, welche dieses Zeitalter auszeichnen, notwendig zu dem genannten Fehler führten. Insbesondere das neunzehnte Jahrhundert hatte in dieser Beziehung die großen Schattenseiten seiner außerordentlichen Vorzüge. Die Größe dieses Jahrhunderts beruht auf seinen Entdeckungen in der Erkenntnis der äußeren Natur, auf seiner Eroberung der Naturkräfte für Technik und Industrie. Diese Erfolge konnten nur erzielt werden dutch die Beobachtung der Sinne und durch die Anwendung des Verstandes auf diese Sinnenbeobachtung. Unsere Gegenwartskultur ist das Ergebnis der Schulung unserer Sinne und unseres mit der Sinnenwelt beschäftigten Verstandes. Jeder Schritt fast, den wir heute auf die Straße machen, zeigt uns, wieviel wir dieser Schulung verdanken. — Und unter dem Einfluß dieser Kultursegnungen haben sich die Denkgewohnheiten unserer Gegenwartsmenschen herausgebildet. Sie bauen auf Sinne und Verstand, weil sie ihnen so viel verdanken, weil sie durch diese groß geworden sind. Die Menschen mußten sich so gewöhnen, nur das gelten zu lassen, was Sinne und Verstand liefern. Und nichts neigt mehr dazu, die alleinige Geltung, die unbedingte Autorität für sich in Anspruch zu nehmen, als Sinn und Verstand. Hat sich der Mensch bis zu einer gewissen Schulung in ihnen durchgerungen, dann gewöhnt er sich einfach daran, alles ihrem Richterspruche, alles ihrer Kritik zu unterwerfen. — Und noch auf einem anderen Gebiete begegnet man einer ähnlichen Erscheinung: auf dem des sozialen Lebens. Der Mensch des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts machte im vollsten Sinne des Wortes die absolute Freiheit der Persönlichkeit geltend, er verwarf die Autorität auf den Gebieten des sozialen Zusammenlebens. Er suchte die Gemeinwesen so zu gestalten, daß die volle Unabhängigkeit, die Selbstbestimmung der Persönlichkeit sich ganz ausleben kann. Dadurch wurde er gewöhnt, alles auf das zu bauen, was dem Durchschnittsmenschen entspricht. Die höheren Kräfte, die in den Seelen schlummern, kann der eine in dieser, der andere in jener Richtung entwickeln. Der eine kommt weiter, der andere weniger weit. Die Menschen unterscheiden sich, wenn sie solche Kräfte entwickeln oder ihnen eine Geltung zusprechen. Man muß, wenn man sie zugibt, auch dem einen, der weiter gekommen ist, mehr Recht zuerkennen, über eine Sache zu sprechen oder in einer Richtung zu handeln, als dem andern, der weniger weit ist. In bezug auf Sinne und Verstand kann ein gleicher, ein Durchschnittsmaßstab angelegt werden. Es können, von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus, alle gleiches Recht, gleiche Freiheit haben. — Man sieht, auch die Gestaltung des sozialen Zusammenlebens hat in der Gegenwart zur Auflehnung gegen die höheren Kräfte in der Menschennatur geführt. Der Theosoph sagt: im neunzehnten Jahrhundert hat sich die Kultur ganz auf dem physischen Plane bewegt; und die Menschen haben sich gewöhnt, sich ebenfalls nur auf diesem physischen Plane zu bewegen, sich da heimisch zu fühlen. Die höheren Fähigkeiten, die durch das Leben auf den anderen, nicht physischen Planen, entwickelt werden, und die Erkenntnisse, die sich auf diese andern Welten beziehen, wurden dadurch dem Menschen entfremdet.
[ 9 ] Man braucht nur in Volksversammlungen zu gehen, um sich davon zu überzeugen, wie die Stimmführer ganz außerstande sind, einen anderen Gedanken zu haben als einen solchen, der sich auf die Sinnenwelt — auf den physischen Plan - bezieht. Ein gleiches kann man erleben an den Wortführern in unseren Zeitungen, Zeitschriften usw. Und überall auch die Erscheinung des hochmütigsten, absolutesten Ablehnens alles dessen, was sich nicht mit Augen sehen, mit Händen greifen läßt, was der Durchschnittsverstand nicht erfassen kann. Aber noch einmal sei es gesagt: nicht angeklagt, nicht verurteilt soll diese Erscheinung werden. Sie ist eine notwendige Stufe der Menschheitsentwickelung. Ohne den Hochmut und die Befangenheit von Sinn und Verstand hätten wir die großen Errungenschaften unseres materiellen Lebens nimmermehr, hätten wir es nicht dazu gebracht, der Persönlichkeit ein gewisses Maß freier Beweglichkeit zu geben - und könnten wir auch nimmermehr hoffen, daß uns noch manches Ideal verwirklicht werde, das gebaut werden muß auf des Menschen Freiheitsdrang und Persönlichkeitsgefühl.
[ 10 ] Aber die gekennzeichneten Schattenseiten einer rein materiellen Kultur haben das ganze Wesen des modernen Menschen auch tief ergriffen. Man braucht gar nicht auf die erwähnten auffallenden Tatsachen sich, zum Beweise, zu beziehen; man kann gerade an Dingen, deren Bedeutung leicht besonders heute unterschätzt wird, zeigen, wie tief das Verwachsensein mit Sinn und Durchschnittsverstand in der Seele des Gegenwartsmenschen sitzt. Und gerade diese Dinge sind es, an denen man die Notwendigkeit einer Umkehr und einer Erneuerung des spirituellen Lebens ersehen kann.
[ 11 ] Der starke Widerhall, welchen die von Prof, Friedrich Delitzsch angeregte «Bibel-Babel-Frage » hervorgerufen hat, rechtfertigt es wohl, auf die Denkweise ihres Urhebers als auf ein Zeitsymptom hinzuweisen. Prof. Delitzsch hat auf die Verwandtschaft gewisser Überlieferungen des Alten Testamentes mit babylonischen Schöpfungsurkunden hingewiesen, von einer Stelle aus und in einer Form, so daß es von vielen bemerkt worden ist, die sonst wohl an diesen Fragen vorbeigehen. Viele sind dadurch veranlaßt worden, über den sogenannten «Offenbarungsbegriff» nachzudenken. Sie fragten sich: wie kann man annehmen, daß der Inhalt des Alten Testamentes von Gott geoffenbart sei, wenn man ähnliche Vorstellungen auch bei entschieden heidnischen Völkern findet? Auf diese Frage kann hier nicht näher eingegangen werden. Delitzsch fand viele Gegner, die durch seine Ausführungen die Grundfesten der Religion erschüttert glaubten. Er hat sich nun gegen diese in einer Schrift: «Babel und Bibel. Ein Rückblick und Ausblick» verteidigt. Es soll nun hier auf einen einzigen Satz der Schrift hingewiesen werden. Er ist wichtig, weil er die Anschauung eines bedeutenden Mannes der Wissenschaft über des Menschen Stellung zur übersinnlichen Wahrheit kennzeichnet. Und so wie Delitzsch denken und empfinden heute Unzählige. Der Satz gibt so recht Gelegenheit, die Herzensmeinung unserer Zeitgenossen da kennenzulernen, wo sie sich ganz ungezwungen, also in ihrer allerwahrsten Gestalt ausspricht. Delitzsch wendet sich gegen diejenigen, die ihm ein etwas weitherziges Umspringen mit dem Begriff «Offenbarung» vorgeworfen haben, die gerne diesen. Begriff als eine «Art alter Priesterweisheit» ansehen wollen, der «den Laien nichts angeht». Dagegen sagter: «Ich für meine Person bin der Ansicht, daß, wenn wir selbst und unsere Kinder in Schule, Konfirmandenunterricht und Kirche in der ‹Offenbarung› unterwiesen werden, es nicht nur unser Recht, sondern unsere Pflicht ist, über diese ernsten Fragen, die doch auch eine eminent praktische Seite haben, selbständig nachzudenken, schon um unsern Kindern nicht «ausweichend» antworten zu müssen. Eben deshalb wird es vielen Wahrheitsuchenden nur willkommen sein, wenn durch die babylonisch-assyrische und alttestamentliche Forschung im Verein das Dogma einer Israel zuteil gewordenen besonderen «Auserwähltheit» in das Licht einer höheren und weitherzigeren Geschichtsbetrachtung gerückt werden wird.» Und ein paar Seiten vorher liest man, wozu solche Denkweise führen soll: «Im übrigen würde es mir als das einzig Konsequente erscheinen, daß sich Kirche und Schule für die ganze Urgeschichte der Welt und der Menschheit mit dem Glauben an Einen allmächtigen Schöpfer Himmels und der Erde begnügten und jene alttestamentlichen Erzählungen etwa unter der Bezeichnung «Althebräische Sagen) für sich gestellt würden.» — Es darf wohl als selbstverständlich vorausgesetzt werden, daß indemFolgenden niemand einen Angriff auf den Forscher Delitzsch sehen soll. - Was wird hier aus naiver Unbefangenheit heraus gesagt? Nichts anderes, als der auf Tatsachen der physischen Forschung gerichtete Verstand werfe sich zum Richter auf über die Erkenntnisse übersinnlicher Art. Es ist kein Bewußtsein davon vorhanden, daß dieser Verstand vielleicht auch ungeeignet sein könnte, über die Unterweisungen in der «Offenbarung» so ohne weiteres nachzudenken. Wenn das, was als «Offenbarung» auftritt, verstanden werden soll, dann müssen zu diesem Verständnis diejenigen Kräfte herangezogen werden, aus denen die «Offenbarung» selbst geflossen ist. Wer nun mystische Erkenntniskräfte in sich entwickelt, der sieht bald, daß sich ihm in gewissen von Delitzsch «althebräische Sagen» genannten Erzählungen des Alten Testamentes Wahrheiten höherer Art aussprechen, die nicht mit dem auf das Sinnliche gerichteten Verstande erfaßt werden können. Das eigene mystische Erleben führt ihn dazu, einzusehen, daß die «Sagen» aus mystischer Erkenntnis der übersinnlichen Wahrheiten geflossen sind. Und dann ändert sich der ganze Gesichtspunkt mit einem Schlage. So wenig man gegen die Wahrheit eines mathematischen Satzes etwas erfahren kann, wenn man nachweist, wer ihn zuerst gefunden hat, oder gar durch den historisch gewiß wertvollen Fund, daß ihn mehrere behauptet haben: so wenig kann irgend etwas gegen die Wahrheit einer biblischen Erzählung dadurch ausgemacht werden, daß man eine ihr ähnliche anderswo entdeckt. Statt zu fordern, daß jeder auf seinem Rechte, oder gar auf seiner Pflicht bestehen solle, über die sogenannten «Offenbarungen» nachzudenken, sollte vielmehr gesagt werden, daß nur der ein Recht habe, über diesen Begriff etwas zu entscheiden, der die in ihm schlummernden Kräfte entwickelt hat, die es ihm möglich machen, nachzuleben, was diejenigen Mystiker erlebt haben, welche «übersinnliche Offenbarungen» verkündet haben. — Hier hat man es so recht mit einem Beispiel zu tun, wie der zu den schönsten Triumphen auf dem Gebiete sinnlicher Erfahrung befähigte Durchschnittsverstand sich in naivem Hochmut zum Richter macht über Gebiete, die er gar nicht kennenlernen will. Denn auch die rein historische Forschung ist nichts anderes als sinnliche Erfahrung.
[ 12 ] In ganz ähnlicher Weise hat sich die neutestamentliche Forschung selbst in eine Sackgasse geführt. Es sollte durchaus auf die Evangelien die Methode .der «neueren Geschichtforschung» angewendet werden. Man hat diese Urkunden verglichen, sie mit allem möglichen in Beziehung gesetzt, um herauszubekommen, was sich eigentlich vom Jahre ı bis zum Jahre 33 in Palästina zugetragen hat, wie die «historische Persönlichkeit», von der sie uns erzählen, gelebt, und was sie wirklich gesagt haben kann. - Nun, ein Mann des siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, Angelus Silesius, hat schon die ganze Kritik über diese Forschung gesprochen:
[ 13 ] «Wird Christus tausendmal zu Bethlehem geboren, Und nicht in dir, du bleibst noch ewiglich verloren. Das Kreuz zu Golgatha kann dich nicht von dem Bösen, Wo es nicht auch in dir wird aufgericht, erlösen.» —
[ 14 ] Das hat kein Zweifler, sondern ein gut gläubiger Christ gesprochen. Und sein nicht minder gläubiger Vorgänger, der Meister Eckhart, hat im dreizehnten Jahrhundert gesagt: «Etliche Leute wollen Gott mit den Augen ansehen, als sie eine Kuh ansehen, und wollen Gott lieb haben, als sie eine Kuh lieb haben... Einfältige Leute wähnen, sie sollen Gott ansehen, als stände er dort und sie hier. So ist es nicht, Gott und ich sind eins im Erkennen.» Gewiß sollen solche Worte nicht gegen die Erforschung der «historischen Wahrheit» geltend gemacht werden. Aber niemand kann die historische Wahrheit solcher Urkunden, wie es die Evangelien sind, richtig erkennen, der nicht zuerst den in ihnen liegenden mystischen Sinn in sich erlebt hat. Alle Analysen und Vergleiche in dieser Richtung sind wertlos, denn niemand kann finden, wer «zu Bethlehem geboren ist», der nicht in sich mystisch den Christus erlebt hat; und niemand kann entscheiden, wie «das Kreuz zu Golgatha» von dem Bösen erlöset, der es nicht in sich aufgerichtet gefühlt hat. «Rein historische» Forschung kann gegenüber der «mystischen Tatsache» nichts anderes entscheiden als etwa der zergliedernde Anatom über einen großen Dichtergenius erkunden kann. (Vergleiche meine Schrift: «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache ».)
[ 15 ] Wer in solchen Dingen klar sieht, der erkennt, wie tief eingewurzelt gegenwärtig der «Hochmut» des auf die sinnlichen Tatsachen gerichteten Verstandes ist. Er sagt: ich will nicht Entwickelung der Kräfte, damit ich zu höheren Wahrheiten gelange, sondern ich will mit meinen Kräften, so wie ich bin, über die höchsten Wahrheiten entscheiden. — In einer gut gemeinten, aber ganz aus dem charakterisierten Geist der Gegenwart geschriebenen Broschüre («Was wissen wir von Jesus?» Von A. Kalthoff, Schmargendorf-Berlin, Verlag Renaissance 1904) ist zu lesen: «Dem Christus, der das Gemeindeleben verkörpert, kann der heutige Mensch innerlich frei gegenübertreten, er kann ihn heute aus seiner Seele geradesogut schaffen, wie ihn der Schreiber eines Evangeliums geschaffen; er kann mit den Verfassern der Evangelien als Mensch sich gleichstellen, weil er ihren seelischen Prozeß in sich nachempfinden, weil er selber Evangelium sagen, Evangelium schreiben kann.» Diese Worte können wahr, sie können aber auch grundfalsch sein. Wahr sind sie, wenn sie im Sinne des Angelus Silesius oder des Meisters Eckhart gefaßt werden, wenn sie der Ausgangspunkt sind für die Entwickelung der in jeder Menschenseele schlummernden Kräfte, die den Christus der Evangelien in sich selbst zu erleben suchen. Grundfalsch sind sie, wenn aus dem Geiste der Gegenwart, der nur Sinnliches gelten lassen will, ein mehr oder minder seichtes Christus-Ideal geschaffen werden soll. - Das Leben im Geiste kann nur begriffen werden, wenn der Mensch es nicht nach dem äußerlichen Verstande kritisieren, sondern wenn er sich in seinem Innern dazu entwickeln will. Es kann niemand hoffen, über die höchsten dem Menschen zugänglichen Wahrheiten etwas zu erfahren, der verlangt, daß diese Wahrheiten bis zu dem «gemeinen Verständnisse» heruntergeführt werden sollen. - Nun könnte man ja einwenden: warum verkündet ihr Mystiker und Theosophen dennoch diese Wahrheiten vor Leuten, von denen ihr behauptet, daß sie dieselben noch nicht fassen können? Wozu gibt es eine theosophische Bewegung, die Lehren verkündet, da doch vielmehr erst die Kräfte entwickelt werden sollten, welche den Menschen zu der Erkenntnis dieser Lehren führen? Es wird gerade die Aufgabe dieser Zeitschrift sein, diesen scheinbaren Widerspruch zu lösen. An dieser Stelle wird gezeigt werden, daß die spirituellen Strömungen der Gegenwart in anderer Art und auf anderer Grundlage sprechen, als die auf den bloß sinnlichen Verstand bauende Wissenschaftlichkeit. Damit sind diese spirituellen Bewegungen nicht weniger wissenschaftlich als die auf «bloße Tatsachen» bauende Wissenschaft. Sie dehnen vielmehr das Gebiet wirklicher wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis auf das Übersinnliche aus. Mit einer Frage, die gestellt werden kann, muß diesmal geschlossen werden: Wie gelangt man zu übersinnlichen Wahrheiten, und was tragen die spirituellen Bewegungen zu dieser Erlangung bei? Von der Beantwortung dieser Frage hängt auch die Ansicht ab, die man sich über die religiös-geistige Entwickelung der Gegenwart bilden kann. Ihr sollen Ausführungen gewidmet sein, die nächstens in dieser Zeitschrift hier erscheinen werden.
The Supersensible World and Its Realization
[ 1 ] It is understandable that most people who hear about transcendental truths today immediately ask the question: “How can one come to such realizations oneself?” It is often presented as a characteristic of people in our time that they do not accept anything on faith, on “a mere authority,” but only want to rely on their own judgment. When mystics and theosophists therefore express insights into the supersensible parts of man, into the fate of the human soul and spirit before birth and after death, they are met with the following response, based on the aforementioned fundamental requirement of our time: such “dogmas” only have meaning for man when they show him the way in which he can convince himself of their truth.
[ 2 ] This demand is certainly justified; and there can be no true mystic or theosophist who would not recognize its justification. But it is equally certain that many of those who make this demand today also harbor feelings of doubt and rejection towards the claims of the mystic. This rejection becomes particularly clear when the mystic begins to make suggestions about how one can arrive at the truths he presents. He is then often told that what is true must be proved; so prove what you claim. It is further implied that truth must be a simple, clear matter that is evident to the “simple” mind; it cannot be the possession of a few chosen ones who owe it to a special “enlightenment”. And so the bearer of supersensory truths often finds himself confronted by people who reject him because, in their opinion, he cannot provide them with the evidence for his assertions that the natural scientist, for example, provides them with in a language they understand. Others are more cautious in their rejection, but still shrink from a true engagement with these things because they “do not appear comprehensible to their understanding”. They are then content with the – usually half-hearted – reassurance that what lies beyond birth and death, what cannot be perceived by the senses, “is something that man simply cannot know”.
[ 3 ] Only a few of the feelings and thoughts that are currently encountered by the bearer of a spiritual worldview have been mentioned. But they are similar to all the others that form a keynote of our age. Those who place themselves in the service of a spiritual movement must be clear about this keynote.
[ 4 ] The mystic himself knows for himself that his insights are based on — supersensible — facts, just as, for example, the descriptions that an African traveler gives of his experiences and perceptions. For him, what Annie Besant says in her book “Death and What Then?” applies: “When a weather-beaten African explorer tells us about his experiences, describes the animals whose characteristics and habits , the products of the soil and the characteristic peculiarities of the people, he will care little for the criticism which may be passed on his account by those who have never seen the places he describes. Even if he is contradicted, ridiculed or reprimanded by such inexperienced critics, he will neither be annoyed nor offended, but will simply not care. No matter how often an ignorant person may assert his knowledge, he cannot convince someone who really knows something. The opinion of a hundred people about a matter of which they know and understand absolutely nothing carries just as little weight as the opinion of a single one of them. The concurring statements of many witnesses, who all vouch for their knowledge of a fact, strengthen the force of the evidence; but if we multiply nothing by a thousand, it will still remain nothing.” This characterizes the situation in which the mystic finds himself in relation to himself. He hears the objections that are made to him from all sides. He knows that he does not need to argue with them at all, because he sees that others who have not experienced or learned what he has experienced and learned are judging his insights. He is in the position of a mathematician who has recognized a truth, and to whom this truth must apply even if a thousand voices rise up against it.
[ 5 ] But here the doubters immediately raise the objection: “Mathematical truth can be proved to anyone,” they say. “You may have found it, but we will only accept it when we have recognized it from our own insight.” And then they believe that they are right with their objection, since it is certain that every person who acquires the necessary knowledge can prove every mathematical truth, while the experiences claimed by the mystic depend on the special abilities of individual chosen ones, and one should “believe” in them.
[ 6 ] But for anyone who considers this objection carefully and examines the facts, the justification for any doubt falls away at the same time. For every true mystic will speak exactly as these doubters themselves do. He will always emphasize that the way to higher knowledge is open to every man if he acquires the necessary faculties to tread it; just as insight into mathematical truths is open to every one who acquires the necessary knowledge. The mystic does not assert anything that his opponents would not have to assert themselves if they only understood themselves correctly. But they make their assertion in order to immediately make a demand that contradicts their own assertion. They do not want to examine the mystic's statements until they have acquired the necessary abilities to do so, but pass judgment on him before they do so, with the abilities they already have, not with those that he must demand. He says to them: I do not want to be a select person in the sense that you mean. I have only worked on myself to acquire the abilities that make it possible for me to speak of insights into the supersensible realm. But these are abilities that slumber in every human being. They just have to be developed. But his opponents say: you must prove your “truths” to us, just as we are now. They do not respond to his request to first develop the powers slumbering within themselves, but instead demand proof without wanting to undergo this training. And they do not realize that this is like a farmer at the plough demanding proof of a higher theorem from a mathematician without first taking the trouble to learn mathematics.
[ 7 ] All this seems so simple that one almost feels reluctant to express it. And yet it describes an error in which millions of people currently live. If you make the above clear to them, they will always admit it in theory, because it is as simple as “two times two is four”. But in their behavior they constantly show the opposite. You can always convince yourself of this. The error has, as they say, become second nature to many; they practise it without further thought, without the will to be convinced of how they violate everything that they themselves would accept as the simplest rule of reason every moment if only they could find the time to reflect. Whether the mystic moves among thinking workers or among the “educated”, everywhere he encounters the described self-consciousness, the marked contradiction within himself. He can be found in popular lectures, in all newspapers and magazines, and also in learned treatises and works.
[ 8 ] But we must also be clear about this: we are dealing with a phenomenon of our time that cannot simply be dismissed as an “inadequacy” or with a criticism that may be correct but is not justified. We must know that this phenomenon, this self-consciousness in the face of higher truths, is deeply rooted in the essence of our age. It must be explained that the great successes, the immense progress that characterize this age, necessarily led to the error mentioned. In particular, the nineteenth century had in this respect the great drawbacks of its extraordinary merits. The greatness of this century is based on its discoveries in the knowledge of external nature, on its conquest of the forces of nature for technology and industry. These successes could only be achieved by observing the senses and by applying reason to this sensory observation. Our contemporary culture is the result of training our senses and our minds, which are occupied with the sensory world. Every step we take on the street today shows us how much we owe this training. — And under the influence of these cultural blessings, the thinking habits of our contemporary people have developed. They rely on their senses and their intellect because they owe so much to them, because they have grown through them. People had to get used to only accepting what their senses and intellects provide. And nothing tends more to claim exclusive validity and unconditional authority for itself than sense and understanding. Once a person has trained himself to a certain extent in these faculties, he simply gets used to submitting everything to their judgment, to their criticism. — And in another area, too, we encounter a similar phenomenon: in the area of social life. The nineteenth-century man asserted the absolute freedom of the personality in the fullest sense of the word; he rejected authority in the areas of social coexistence. He sought to shape the community in such a way that the full independence, the self-determination of the personality, could be fully realized. In this way, he became accustomed to building everything on that which corresponds to the average person. The higher powers that slumber in the souls of men can be developed in one direction by one man and in another direction by another. One man will get further than another. Men differ in the way they develop such powers or in the way they recognize their value. If we admit that they exist, we must also recognize that the one who has progressed further has more right to speak about a matter or to act in a certain direction than the other who has progressed less. With regard to the senses and the intellect, an equal, an average standard can be applied. From this point of view, all can have equal rights, equal freedom. — It is clear that the organization of social life has also led to a rebellion against the higher powers in human nature. The theosophist says: in the nineteenth century, culture moved entirely on the physical plane; and people got used to moving only on this physical plane, to feeling at home there. The higher faculties, which are developed through life on other, non-physical planes, and the knowledge that relates to these other worlds, have thus been alienated from man.
[ 9 ] One need only attend a public meeting to see how the leaders of the meeting are quite unable to think of anything but the world of the senses, the physical plane. The same can be seen in the spokesmen of our newspapers, magazines, etc. And everywhere, too, the phenomenon of the most arrogant, absolute rejection of everything that cannot be seen with the eyes, grasped with the hands, or grasped by the average mind. But let it be said once again: this phenomenon should not be accused or condemned. It is a necessary stage in the development of humanity. Without the arrogance and the self-consciousness of mind and reason, we would never have had the great achievements of our material life, we would never have been able to give the personality a certain degree of free mobility – and we could never hope that many an ideal would be realized that must be built on man's desire for freedom and sense of personality.
[ 10 ] But the marked shadowy sides of a purely material culture have also deeply affected the whole nature of modern man. There is no need to refer to the striking facts mentioned as proof; one can show, precisely by means of things whose significance is easily underestimated, especially today, how deeply the sense of meaning and common sense is rooted in the soul of the modern man. And it is precisely these things that show the necessity of a change and a renewal of spiritual life.
[ 11 ] The strong response that Prof. Friedrich Delitzsch's “Bible-Babel question” has provoked justifies pointing out the thinking of its author as a symptom of the times. Prof. Delitzsch has pointed out the relationship between certain traditions of the Old Testament and Babylonian creation documents, from a point of view and in a form that has been noticed by many who would otherwise have passed over these questions. Many have been prompted to reflect on the so-called “concept of revelation”. They asked themselves: how can one assume that the content of the Old Testament was revealed by God, when similar ideas can also be found among decidedly pagan peoples? This question cannot be discussed in detail here. Delitzsch found many opponents who believed that his explanations had shaken the foundations of religion. He has now defended himself against these in a work entitled “Babel and the Bible. A Retrospective and a Prospective View”. We would like to draw your attention to just one sentence in this work. It is important because it characterizes the view of an important man of science regarding man's position in relation to the supernatural truth. And today, countless people think and feel the same way as Delitzsch. The sentence provides a good opportunity to get to know the heartfelt opinions of our contemporaries where they express themselves quite freely, that is, in their truest form. Delitzsch turns against those who have accused him of a somewhat broad-minded use of the term “revelation”, who would like to see this term as a “kind of ancient priestly wisdom” that “is none of the layman's business”. He said in response: “I, for my part, am of the opinion that if we ourselves and our children are taught about the ‘revelation’ in school, confirmation classes and church, it is not only our right but also our duty to think independently about these serious questions, which also have an eminently practical side, if only so that we do not have to give our children ‘evasive’ answers. For this very reason, many truth seekers will only welcome it if the dogma of a special “chosen people” bestowed upon Israel is moved into the light of a higher and more open-minded view of history through Babylonian-Assyrian and Old Testament research in the association.” And a few pages earlier, we read what such a way of thinking should lead to: “Incidentally, it would seem to me to be the only consistent thing for the church and school to be content with the belief in one almighty creator of heaven and earth for the entire prehistory of the world and mankind, and for those Old Testament stories to be placed on their own under the heading ‘Old Hebrew legends’.” — It may be taken for granted that no one should see the following as an attack on the researcher Delitzsch. - What is being said here out of naive impartiality? Nothing other than that the mind directed towards the facts of physical research should judge the insights of a transcendental nature. There is no awareness that this mind might also be unsuitable for thinking about the teachings in the “revelation” without further ado. If what appears as “revelation” is to be understood, then those forces from which the “revelation” itself has flowed must be drawn upon for this understanding. Anyone who develops mystical powers of knowledge within himself will soon see that certain narratives in the Old Testament, which Delitzsch calls “ancient Hebrew legends”, express truths of a higher nature that cannot be grasped by the intellect, which is directed towards the senses. His own mystical experience leads him to realize that the “legends” have flowed from mystical knowledge of the supersensible truths. And then the whole point of view changes at a stroke. Just as little as anything can be said against the truth of a mathematical theorem by proving who first found it, or even by the historically valuable discovery that several people claimed it, so little can anything be said against the truth of a biblical story by discovering a similar one elsewhere. Instead of demanding that everyone should insist on their right, or even on their duty, to reflect on the so-called “revelations”, it should rather be said that only the one who has developed the powers slumbering within him that make it possible for him to live again what those mystics experienced who proclaimed “supernatural revelations” has the right to decide on this concept. — Here we have a perfect example of how the average mind, which is capable of the most beautiful triumphs in the field of sensory experience, makes itself the judge in naive arrogance over areas that it does not want to get to know at all. For even purely historical research is nothing more than sensory experience.
[ 12 ] In a very similar way, New Testament research has led itself into a dead end. The method of “modern historical research” should definitely be applied to the Gospels. These documents have been compared and related to everything possible in order to find out what actually happened in Palestine from the year ı to the year 33, how the “historical personages” they tell us about lived, and what they really said. - Well, a man of the seventeenth century, Angelus Silesius, has already spoken the whole critique of this research:
[ 13 ] “If Christ is born a thousand times in Bethlehem, And not in you, you will remain eternally lost. The cross of Golgotha cannot redeem you from evil, Unless it is also erected in you.” —
[ 14 ] These words were spoken not by a doubter, but by a devout Christian. And his no less devout predecessor, Meister Eckhart, said in the thirteenth century: “Some people want to look at God with their eyes as they look at a cow, and want to love God as they love a cow... Simple people think they should look at God as if he were standing there and they were here. It is not like that, God and I are one in knowledge.” Certainly such words should not be used to oppose the search for “historical truth”. But no one can recognize the historical truth of such documents as the Gospels are unless they have first experienced the mystical sense inherent in them. All analyses and comparisons in this direction are worthless, for no one can find who is “born in Bethlehem” who has not mystically experienced the Christ in himself; and no one can decide how “the cross at Golgotha” redeems from evil who has not felt it erected in himself. “Purely historical” research can decide nothing about the ‘mystical fact’ other than the dissecting anatomist can discover about a great poet genius. (Compare my writing: ‘Christianity as a Mystical Fact.’)
[ 15 ] Anyone who sees clearly in such matters recognizes how deeply rooted the “pride” of the intellect, which is directed towards sensual facts, is at present. He says: I do not want to develop my powers so that I can reach higher truths, but I want to decide on the highest truths with my powers, as I am. — In a well-intentioned brochure written in the spirit of the present day (Was wissen wir von Jesus? by A. Kalthoff, Schmargendorf-Berlin, Renaissance Verlag 1904), we read: “Today's man can approach the Christ who embodies the life of the community with inner freedom; he can create him today from his soul just as the writer of a gospel created him; he can place himself on an equal footing with the writers of the gospels as a human being, because he can empathize with their spiritual process within himself, because he himself can say gospel, can write gospel.” These words can be true, but they can also be fundamentally wrong. They are true if they are understood in the sense of Angelus Silesius or Meister Eckhart, if they are the starting point for the development of the forces slumbering in every human soul, which seek to experience the Christ of the Gospels in themselves. They are fundamentally false if a more or less superficial ideal of Christ is to be created from the spirit of the present, which only wants to accept the sensual. - Life in the spirit can only be understood if man does not criticize it according to his external understanding, but if he wants to develop himself inwardly. No one can hope to learn anything about the highest truths accessible to man who demands that these truths be brought down to the level of “common understanding”. Now one might object: why do you mystics and theosophists proclaim these truths before people whom you claim are not yet able to grasp them? What is the point of a theosophical movement that proclaims teachings when the powers that lead people to the realization of these teachings should first be developed? It will be the task of this journal to resolve this apparent contradiction. At this point it will be shown that the spiritual currents of the present speak in a different way and on a different basis than the science that builds on the merely sensual intellect. This does not make these spiritual movements any less scientific than science, which builds on “mere facts”. Rather, they extend the field of real scientific knowledge to the supersensible. This time we must conclude with a question that can be asked: How does one arrive at supersensory truths, and what do spiritual movements contribute to this attainment? The view that one can form about the religious-spiritual development of the present also depends on the answer to this question. It will be the subject of the next few articles to appear in this journal.