Cosmic Memory
GA 11
xx. Prejudices Arising from Alleged Science (1904)
[ 1 ] It is certainly true that much in the intellectual life of the present makes it difficult for one who is seeking the truth to accept spiritual scientific (theosophical) insights. And what has been said in the essays on the Lebensfragen der theosophischen Bewegung (Vital Questions of the (Theosophical Movement) can be taken as an indication of the reasons which exist especially for the conscientious seeker of truth in this respect. Many statements of the scientist of the spirit must appear entirely fantastic to him who tests them against the certain conclusions which he feels obliged to draw from what he has encountered as the facts of the research of natural science. To this is added the fact that this research can point to the enormous blessings it has bestowed and continues to bestow on human progress. What an overwhelming effect is produced when a personality who wants to see a view of the world built exclusively on the results of this research, can utter the proud words: “For there lies an abyss between these two extreme conceptions of life: one for this world alone, the other for heaven. But up to the present day, traces of a paradise, of a life of the deceased, of a personal God, have nowhere been found by human science, by that inexorable science which probes into and dissects everything, which does not shrink back before any mystery, which explores heaven beyond the stars of the nebula, analyzes the infinitely small atoms of living cells as well as of chemical bodies, decomposes the substance of the sun, liquefies the air, which will soon telegraph by wireless transmission from one end of the earth to the other, and already today sees through opaque bodies, which introduces navigation under the water and in the air, and opens new horizons to us through radium and other discoveries; this science which, after having shown the true relationship of all living beings among themselves and their gradual changes in form, today draws the organ of the human soul, the brain, into the sphere of its penetrating research.” (Prof. August Forel, Leben und Tod (Life and Death) Munich, 1908, page 3). The certainty with which one thinks it possible to build on such a basis betrays itself in the words which Forel joins to the remarks quoted above: “In proceeding from a monistic conception of life, which alone takes all scientific facts into account, we leave the supernatural aside and turn to the book of nature.” Thus, the serious seeker after truth is confronted by two things which put considerable obstacles in the way of any inkling he may have of the truth of the communications of the science of the spirit. If a feeling for such communications lives in him, even if he also senses their inner well-founded-ness by means of a more delicate logic, he can be driven toward the suppression of such impulses when he has to tell himself two things. First of all, the authorities who know the cogency of positive facts consider that everything “supersensible” springs only from day-dreams and unscientific superstition. In the second place, by devoting myself to these transcendental matters, I run the risk of becoming an impractical person of no use in life. For everything which is accomplished in practical life must be firmly rooted in the “ground of reality.”
[ 2 ] Not all of those who find themselves in such a dilemma will find it easy to work their way through to a realization of how matters really stand with respect to the two points we have cited. If they could do it, with respect to the first point they would, for instance, see the following: The results of the science of the spirit are nowhere in conflict with the factual research of natural science. Everywhere that one looks at the relation of the two in an unprejudiced manner, there something quite different becomes apparent for our time. It turns out that this factual research is steering toward a goal which in a by no means distant future, will bring it into full harmony with what spiritual research ascertains in certain areas from its supersensible sources. From hundreds of cases which could be adduced as proof for this assertion, we shall cite a characteristic one here.
[ 3 ] In my lectures on the development of the earth and of mankind, it has been pointed out that the ancestors of the present-day civilized peoples lived in a land-area which at one time was situated in that part of the surface of the earth which today is occupied by a large portion of the Atlantic Ocean. In the essays, From the Akasha Chronicle, it is rather the soul-spiritual qualities of these Atlantean ancestors which have been indicated. In oral presentations also has often been described how the earth surface looked in the old Atlantean land. It was said that at that time the air was saturated with water mist vapors. Man lived in the water mist, which in certain regions never lifted to the point where the air was completely clear. Sun and moon could not be seen as they are today, but were surrounded by colored coronas. A distribution of rain and sunshine, such as occurs at present, did not exist at that time. One can clairvoyantly explore this old land; the phenomenon of the rainbow did not exist at that time. It only appeared in the post-Atlantean period. Our ancestors lived in a country of mist. These facts have been ascertained by purely supersensible observation, and it must even be said that the spiritual researcher does best to renounce all deductions based on his knowledge of natural science, for through such deductions his unprejudiced inner sense of spiritual research is easily misled. With such observations one should now compare certain ideas toward which some natural scientists feel themselves impelled at present. Today there are scientists who find themselves forced by facts to assume that at a certain period of its development the earth was enveloped in a cloud mass. They point out that at present also, clouded skies exceed the unclouded, so that life is still to a large extent under the influence of sunlight which is weakened by the formation of clouds, hence one cannot say that life could not have developed under the cloud cover of that Atlantean time. They further point out that those organisms which can be considered among the oldest of the plant world are of a kind which also develop without direct sunlight. Thus, among the forms of this older plant world those desert-type plants which need direct sunlight and dry air, are not present. And also with respect to the animal world, a scientist, Hilgard, has pointed out that the giant eyes of extinct animals, for instance, of the Ichthyosaurus, indicate that a dim illumination must have prevailed on the earth in their time. I do not mean to regard such views as not needing correction. They interest the spiritual researcher less through what they state than through the direction into which factual research finds itself forced. Even the periodical Kosmos, which has a more or less Haeckelian point of view, some time ago published an essay worthy of consideration which, because of certain facts of the plant and animal world, indicated the possibility of a former Atlantean Continent.
If one brought together a greater number of such matters one could easily show how true natural science is moving in a direction which in the future will cause it to join the stream which at present already carries the waters of the springs of spiritual research. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that spiritual research is nowhere in contradiction with the facts of natural science. Where its adversaries see such a contradiction, this does not relate to facts, but to the opinions which these adversaries have formed, and which they believe necessarily result from the facts. But in truth there is not the slightest connection between the opinion of Forel quoted above, for instance, and the facts of the stars of the nebulas, the nature of the cells, the liquefaction of the air, and so forth. This opinion represents nothing but a belief which many have formed out of a need for believing, which clings to the sensory-real, and which they place beside the facts. This belief is very dazzling for present-day man. It entices him to an inner intolerance of a quite special kind. Its adherents are blinded to the point where they consider their own opinion to be the only “scientific” one, and ascribe the views of others merely to prejudice and superstition. Thus it is really strange when one can read the following sentences in a newly-published book on the phenomena of the soul life [Hermann Ebbinghaus, Abriss der Psychologie (Outline of Psychology) ]: “As a help against the impenetrable darkness of the future and the insuperable might of inimical powers, the soul creates religion for itself. As in other experiences involving ignorance or incapacity, under the pressure of uncertainty and the terror of great dangers, ideas as to how help can be found here, are quite naturally forced upon man in the same way in which one thinks of water when in danger from fire, of the helpful comrade in the peril of combat.” “In the lower stages of civilization, where man still feels himself to be quite impotent and to be surrounded by sinister dangers at every step, the feeling of fear, and correspondingly, the belief in evil spirits and demons naturally entirely prevail. In higher stages on the other hand, where a more mature insight into the interconnection of things and a greater power over them produce a certain self-confidence and stronger hopes, a feeling of confidence in invisible powers comes to the fore and with it the belief in good and benevolent spirits. But on the whole, both fear and love, side by side, remain permanently characteristic of the feeling of man toward his gods, except that their relation to one another changes according to the circumstances.”—“These are the roots of religion . . . fear and need are its mothers, and although it is principally perpetuated by authority once it has come into existence, still it would have died out long since if it were not constantly being reborn out of these two.”
Everything in these assertions has been shifted and thrown into disorder, and this disorder is illuminated from the wrong points of view. Furthermore, he who maintains this opinion is firm in his conviction that his opinion must be a generally binding truth. First of all, the content of religious conceptions is confused with the nature of religious feelings. The content of religious conceptions is taken from the region of the supersensible worlds. The religious feeling, for example, fear and love of the supersensible entities, is made the creator of this content without further ado, and it is assumed without hesitation that nothing real corresponds to the religious conceptions. It is not even considered remotely possible that there could be a true experience of supersensible worlds, and that the feelings of fear and love then cling to the reality which is given by this experience, just as no one thinks of water when in danger from fire, of the helpful comrade in the peril of combat, if he has not known water and comrade previously. In this view, the science of the spirit is declared to be day-dreaming because one makes religious feeling the creator of entities which one simply regards as non-existent. This way of thinking totally lacks the consciousness that it is possible to experience the content of the supersensible world, just as it is possible for the external senses to experience the ordinary world of the senses.
The odd thing that often happens with such views is that they resort to the kind of deduction to support their belief which they represent as improper in their adversaries. For example, in the above-mentioned work of Forel the sentence appears, “Do we not live in a way a hundred times truer, warmer, and more interestingly when we base ourselves on the ego, and find ourselves again in the souls of our descendants, rather than in the cold and nebulous fata morgana of a hypothetical heaven among the equally hypothetical songs and trumpet soundings of supposed angels and archangels, which we cannot imagine, and which therefore mean nothing to us.” But what has that which “one” finds “warmer,” “more interesting,” to do with the truth? If it is true that one should not deduce a spiritual life from fear and hope, is it then right to deny this spiritual life because one finds it to be “cold” and “uninteresting”? With respect to those personalities who claim to stand on the “firm ground of scientific facts,” the spiritual researcher is in the following position. He says to them, Nothing of what you produce in the way of such facts from geology, paleontology, biology, physiology, and so forth is denied by me. It is true that many of your assertions are in need of correction through other facts. But such a correction will be brought about by natural science itself. Apart from that, I say “yes” to what you advance. It does not enter my mind to fight you when you advance facts. But your facts are only a part of reality. The other part are the spiritual facts, through which the occurrence of the sensory ones first becomes understandable. These facts are not hypotheses, not something which “one” cannot imagine, but something lived and experienced by spiritual research. What you advance beyond the facts you have observed is, without your realizing it, nothing other than the opinion that those spiritual facts cannot exist. As a matter of fact, you advance nothing as the proof of your assertion except that such spiritual facts are unknown to you. From this you deduce that they do not exist and that those who claim to know something of them are dreamers and visionaries. The spiritual researcher does not take even the smallest part of your world from you; he only adds his own to it. But you are not satisfied that he should act in this way; you say—although not always clearly—“‘One’ must not speak of anything except of that of which we speak; we demand not only that that be granted to us of which we know something, but we require that all that of which we know nothing be declared idle phantasms.” The person who wants to have anything to do with such “logic” cannot be helped for the time being. With this logic he may understand the sentence: “Our I has formerly lived directly in our human ancestors, and it will continue to live in our direct or indirect descendants.” (Forel, Leben und Tod (Life and Death), page 21.) Only he should not add, “Science proves it,” as is done in this work. For in this case science “proves” nothing, but a belief which is chained to the world of the senses sets up the dogma: That of which I can imagine nothing must be considered as delusion; and he who sins against my assertion offends against true science.
[ 4 ] The one who knows the development of the human soul finds it quite understandable that men's minds are dazzled for the moment by the enormous progress of natural science and that today they cannot find their way among the forms in which great truths are traditionally transmitted. The science of the spirit gives such forms back to mankind. It shows for example how the Days of Creation of the Bible represent things which are unveiled to the clairvoyant eye.1Compare: Rudolf Steiner, Die Geheimnisse der biblischen Schopfungsgeschichte (The Secrets of the Biblical History of Creation), Freiburg i, Br., 1954. A mind chained to the world of the senses finds only that the Days of Creation contradict the results of geology and so forth. In understanding the deep truths of these Days of Creation, the science of the spirit is equally far removed from making them evaporate as a mere “poetry of myths,” and from employing any kind of allegorical or symbolical methods of explanation. How it proceeds is indeed quite unknown to those who still ramble on about the contradiction between these Days of Creation and science. Further, it must not be thought that spiritual research finds its knowledge in the Bible. It has its own methods, finds truths independently of all documents and then recognizes them in the latter. This way is necessary for many present-day seekers after truth. For they demand a spiritual research which bears within itself the same character as natural science. And only where the nature of this science of the spirit is not recognized does one become perplexed when it is a matter of protecting the facts of the supersensible world from opinions which appear to be founded on natural science. Such a state of mind was even anticipated by a man of warm soul, who however could not find the supersensible content of the science of the spirit. Almost eighty years ago this personality, Schleiermacher, wrote to the much younger Lücke: “When you consider the present state of natural science, how more and more it assumes the form of an encompassing account of the universe, what do you then feel the future will bring, I shall not even say for our theology, but for our evangelical Christianity? . . . I feel that we shall have to learn to do without much of what many are still accustomed to consider as being inseparably connected with the nature of Christianity. I shall not even speak of the Six Days' Work, but the concept of creation, as it is usually interpreted . . . How long will it be able to stand against the power of a world-outlook formed on the basis of scientific reasonings which nobody can ignore? . . . What is to happen, my dear friend? I shall not see this time, and can quietly lie down to sleep; but you, my friend, and your contemporaries, what do you intend to do?” (Theologische Studien und Kritiken von Ullmann und Umbreit (Theological Studies and Criticism by Ullmann and Umbreit), 1829, page 489). At the basis of this statement lies the opinion that the “scientific reasonings” are a necessary result of the facts. If this were so, then “nobody” could ignore them, and he whose feeling draws near the supersensible world can wish that he may be allowed “quietly to lie down to sleep” in the face of the assault of science against the supersensible world. The prediction of Schleiermacher has been realized, insofar as the “scientific reasonings” have established themselves in wide circles. But at the same time, today there exists a possibility of coming to know the supersensible world in just as “scientific” a manner as the interrelationships of sensory facts. The one who familiarizes himself with the science of the spirit in the way this is possible at present, will be preserved from many superstitions by it, and will become able to take the supersensible facts into his conceptual store, thereby divesting himself of the superstition that fear and need have created this supersensible world.
The one who is able to struggle through to this view will no longer be held back by the idea that he might be estranged from reality and practical life by occupying himself with the science of the spirit. He will then realize how the true science of the spirit does not make life poorer, but richer. It will certainly not mislead him into underestimating telephones, railroad technology, and aerial navigation; but in addition he will see many other practical things which remain neglected today, when one believes only in the world of the senses and therefore recognizes only a part of the truth rather than all of it.
Vorurteile aus vermeintlicher Wissenschaft
[ 1 ] Es ist gewiß richtig, daß es im Geistesleben der Gegenwart vieles gibt, was demjenigen, der nach Wahrheit sucht, das Bekenntnis zu den geisteswissenschaftlichen (theosophischen) Erkenntnissen schwierig macht. Und dasjenige, was in den Aufsätzen über die «Lebensfragen der theosophischen Bewegung» gesagt ist, kann als Andeutung der Gründe erscheinen, welche insbesondere bei dem gewissenhaften Wahrheitsucher in dieser Richtung bestehen. Ganz phantastisch muß manche Aussage des Geisteswissenschafters dem erscheinen, welcher sie prüft an den sicheren Urteilen, die er glaubt aus dem sich bilden zu müssen, was er als die Tatsachen der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung kennengelernt hat. Dazu kommt, daß diese Forschung auf den gewaltigen Segen hinzuweisen vermag, den sie dem menschlichen Fortschritt gebracht hat und fortdauernd bringt. Wie überwältigend wirkt es doch, wenn eine Persönlichkeit, welche lediglich auf die Ergebnisse dieser Forschung eine Weltansicht aufgebaut wissen will, die stolzen Worte zu sagen vermag: «Denn es liegt ein Abgrund zwischen diesen beiden extremen Lebensauffassungen: die eine für diese Welt allein, die andere für den Himmel. Bis heute hat jedoch die menschliche Wissenschaft nirgends die Spuren eines Paradieses, eines Lebens der Verstorbenen oder eines persönlichen Gottes aufgefunden, diese unerbittliche Wissenschaft, die alles ergründet und zerlegt, die vor keinem Geheimnis zurückschreckt, die den Himmel hinter den Nebelsternen ausforscht, die unendlich kleinen Atome der lebenden Zellen wie der chemischen Körper analysiert, die Substanz der Sonne auseinanderlegt, die Luft verflüssigt, von einem Ende der Erde zum andern bald sogar drahtlos telegraphiert, heute bereits durch die undurchsichtigen Körper durchsieht, die Schiffahrt unter dem Wasser und in der Luft einführt, uns neue Horizonte mittelst des Radiums und anderer Entdeckungen eröffnet; diese Wissenschaft, die, nachdem sie die wahre Verwandtschaft aller lebenden Wesen unter sich und ihre allmählichen Formwandlungen nachgewiesen hat, heute das Organ der menschlichen Seele, das Gehirn ins Bereich ihrer gründlichen Forschung zieht.» (Prof. August Forel, Leben und Tod. München 1908, Seite 3.) Die Sicherheit, mit welcher man auf solcher Grundlage zu bauen glaubt, verrät sich in den Worten, welche Forel an die obigen Auslassungen knüpft: «Indem wir von einer monistischen Lebensauffassung ausgehen, die allein allen wissenschaftlichen Tatsachen Rechnung trägt, lassen wir das Übernatürliche beiseite und wenden wir uns an das Buch der Natur.» So sieht sich der ernste Wahrheitsucher vor zwei Dinge gestellt, die einer bei ihm etwa vorhandenen Ahnung von der Wahrheit der geisteswissenschaftlichen Mitteilungen starke Hemmungen in die Wege stellen. Lebt in ihm ein Gefühl für solche Mitteilungen, ja empfindet er durch eine feinere Logik auch ihre innere Begründung: er kann zur Unterdrückung solcher Regungen gedrängt werden, wenn er sich zweierlei sagen muß. Erstens finden die Autoritäten, welche die Beweiskraft der sicheren Tatsachen kennen, daß alles «Übersinnliche» nur der Phantasterei und dem unwissenschaftlichen Aberglauben entspringt. Zweitens laufe ich Gefahr, durch die Hingabe an solches Übersinnliche ein unpraktischer, für das Leben unbrauchbarer Mensch zu werden. Denn alles, was für das praktische Leben geleistet wird, muß fest im «Boden der Wirklichkeit» wurzeln.
[ 2 ] Es werden nun nicht alle, die in einen solchen Zwiespalt hineinversetzt sind, sich leicht durcharbeiten bis zu der Erkenntnis, wie es sich mit den beiden charakterisierten Dingen wirklich verhält. Könnten sie das, dann würden sie zum Beispiel in bezug auf den ersten Punkt das folgende sehen: Mit der naturwissenschaftlichen Tatsachenforschung stehen die Ergebnisse der Geisteswissenschaft nirgends in Widerspruch. Überall, wo man unbefangen auf das Verhältnis der beiden hinsieht, zeigt sich vielmehr für unsere Zeit etwas ganz anderes. Es stellt sich heraus, daß diese Tatsachenforschung hinsteuert zu dem Ziele, das sie in gar nicht zu ferner Zeit in volle Harmonie bringen wird mit dem, was die Geistesforschung aus ihren übersinnlichen Quellen für gewisse Gebiete feststellen muß. Aus Hunderten von Fällen, die zum Belege für diese Behauptung beigebracht werden könnten, sei hier ein charakteristischer hervorgehoben.
[ 3 ] In meinen Vorträgen über die Entwickelung der Erde und der Menschheit wird darauf hingewiesen, daß die Vorfahren der jetzigen Kulturvölker auf einem Landesgebiet gewohnt haben, welches sich einstmals an der Stelle der Erdoberfläche ausdehnte, die heute von einem großen Teile des Atlantischen Ozeans eingenommen wird. In den Aufsätzen «Aus der Akasha-Chronik» ist mehr auf die seelisch-geistigen Eigenschaften dieser atlantischen Vorfahren hingewiesen worden. In mündlicher Rede wurde auch oft geschildert, wie die Oberfläche des Erdgebietes im alten Atlantischen Land ausgesehen hat. Es wurde gesagt: damals war die Luft durchschwängert von Wassernebeldünsten. Der Mensch lebte im Wassernebel, der sich niemals für gewisse Gebiete bis zur völligen Reinheit der Luft aufhellte. Sonne und Mond konnten nicht so gesehen werden wie heute, sondern umgeben von farbigen Höfen. Eine Verteilung von Regen und Sonnenschein, wie sie gegenwärtig stattfindet, gab es damals nicht. Man kann hellseherisch dies Alte Land durchforschen: die Erscheinung des Regenbogens gab es damals nicht. Sie trat erst in der nachatlantischen Zeit auf. Unsere Vorfahren lebten in einem Nebelland. Diese Tatsachen sind durch rein übersinnliche Beobachtung gewonnen; und es muß sogar gesagt werden, daß der Geistes-forscher am besten tut, wenn er sich aller Schlußfolgerungen aus seinen naturwissenschaftlichen Erkenntnissen peinlich genau entäußert; denn durch solche Schlußfolgerungen wird ihm leicht der unbefangene innere Sinn der Geistesforschung in die Irre geführt. Nun aber vergleiche man mit solchen Feststellungen gewisse Anschauungen, zu denen sich einzelne Naturforscher in der Gegenwart gedrängt fühlen. Es gibt heute Forscher, welche sich durch die Tatsachen bemüßigt finden, anzunehmen, daß die Erde in einer bestimmten Zeit ihrer Entwickelung in eine Wolkenmasse eingebettet war. Sie machen darauf aufmerksam, daß auch gegenwärtig der bewölkte Himmel den unbewölkten überwiege, so daß das Leben auch jetzt noch zum großen Teile unter der Wirkung eines Sonnenlichtes stehe, das durch Wolkenbildung abgeschwächt werde, daß man also nicht sagen dürfe: das Leben hätte sich nicht entwickeln können in der einstigen Wolkenhülle. Sie weisen ferner darauf hin, daß diejenigen Organismen der Pflanzenwelt, welche man zu den ältesten zählen kann, solche waren, die auch ohne direktes Sonnenlicht sich entwickeln. So fehlen unter den Formen dieser älteren Pflanzenwelt diejenigen, welche wie die Wüstenpflanzen unmittelbares Sonnenlicht und wasserfreie Luft brauchten. Ja, auch bezüglich der Tierwelt hat ein Forscher (Hilgard) darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß die Riesenaugen ausgestorbener Tiere (zum Beispiel der Ichthyosaurier) darauf hinweisen, wie in ihrer Epoche eine dämmerhafte Beleuchtung auf der Erde vorhanden gewesen sein müsse. Es fällt mir nicht bei, solche Anschauungen als nicht korrekturbedürftig anzusehen. Sie interessieren den Geistesforscher auch weniger durch das, was sie feststellen, als durch die Richtung, in welche die Tatsachenforschung sich gedrängt sieht. Hat doch auch vor einiger Zeit die auf mehr oder weniger Haeckelschem Standpunkt stehende Zeitschrift «Kosmos» einen beherzigenswerten Aufsatz gebracht, der aus gewissen Tatsachen der Pflanzen- und Tierwelt auf die Möglichkeit eines einstigen atlantischen Festlandes hinwies. — man könnte, wenn man eine größere Anzahl solcher Dinge zusammenstellte, leicht zeigen, wie sich wahre Naturwissenschaft in einer Richtung bewegt, die sie in der Zukunft einmünden lassen wird in den Strom, der gegenwärtig schon bewässert werden kann aus den Quellen der Geistesforschung. Es kann gar nicht scharf genug betont werden: mit den Tatsachen der Naturwissenschaft steht Geistesforschung nirgends im Widerspruch. Wo von ihren Gegnern ein solcher Widerspruch gesehen wird, da bezieht er sich eben gar nicht auf die Tatsachen, sondern auf die Meinungen, welche sich diese Gegner gebildet haben und von denen sie glauben, daß sie aus den Tatsachen sich notwendig ergeben. In Wahrheit hat aber zum Beispiel die oben angeführte Meinung Forels nicht das geringste mit den Tatsachen der Nebelsterne, mit dem Wesen der Zellen, mit der Verflüssigung der Luft und so weiter zu tun. Diese Meinung stellt sich als nichts anderes dar denn als ein Glaube, den sich viele aus ihrem am Sinnlich-Wirklichen haftenden Glaubensbedürfnis heraus gebildet haben und den sie neben die Tatsachen hinstellen. Dieser Glaube hat etwas stark Blendendes für den Gegenwartsmenschen. Er verführt zu einer inneren Intoleranz ganz besonderer Art. Die ihm anhängen, verblenden sich dahin, daß sie ihre eigene Meinung nur für allein «wissenschaftlich» ansehen und die Anschauung anderer als nur aus Vorurteil und Aberglauben entspringen lassen. So ist es doch wirklich sonderbar, wenn in einem eben erschienenen Buche über die Erscheinungen des Seelenlebens (Hermann Ebbinghaus, Abriß der Psychologie) die folgenden Sätze zu lesen sind: «Hilfe gegen das undurchdringliche Dunkel der Zukunft und die unüberwindliche Macht feindlicher Gewalten schafft sich die Seele in der Religion. Unter dem Druck der Ungewißheit und in dem Schrecken großer Gefahren drängen sich dem Menschen nach Analogie der Erfahrungen, die er in den Fällen des Nichtwissens und Nichtkönnens sonst gemacht hat, naturgemäß Vorstellungen zu, wie auch hier geholfen werden könnte, so Wie man in Feuersnot an das rettende Wasser, in Kampfesnot an den helfenden Kameraden denkt.» «Auf den niederen Kulturstufen, wo der Mensch sich noch sehr machtlos und auf Schritt und Tritt von unheimlichen Gefahren umlauert fühlt, überwiegt begreiflicherweise durchaus das Gefühl der Furcht und dementsprechend der Glaube an böse Geister und Dämonen. Auf höheren Stufen dagegen, wo der reiferen Einsicht in den Zusammenhang der Dinge und der größeren Macht über sie ein gewisses Selbstvertrauen und ein stärkeres Hoffen entspringt, tritt auch das Gefühl des Zutrauens zu den unsichtbaren Mächten in den Vordergrund und eben damit der Glaube an gute und wohlwollende Geister. Aber im ganzen bleiben beide, Furcht und Liebe, nebeneinander, dauernd charakteristisch für das Fühlen des Menschen gegenüber seinen Göttern, nur eben je nach Umständen beide in verschiedenem Verhältnis zueinander.» — «Das sind die Wurzeln der Religion... Furcht und Not sind ihre Mütter; und obwohl sie im wesentlichen durch Autorität fortgepflanzt wird, nachdem sie einmal entstanden ist, so wäre sie doch längst ausgestorben, wenn sie aus jenen beiden nicht immer wieder neu geboren würde.» — Wie ist in diesen Behauptungen alles verschoben, alles durcheinandergeworfen; wie ist das Durcheinandergeworfene von falschen Punkten aus beleuchtet. Wie stark ferner steht der Meinende unter dem Einfluß des Glaubens, daß seine Meinung eine allgemein-verbindliche Wahrheit sein muß. Zunächst ist durcheinandergeworfen der Inhalt des religiösen Vorstellens mit dem religiösen Gefühlsinhalt. Der Inhalt des religiösen Vorstellens ist aus dem Gebiete der übersinnlichen Welten genommen. Das religiöse Gefühl, zum Beispiel Furcht und Liebe gegenüber den übersinnlichen Wesenheiten, wird ohne weiteres zum Schöpfer des Inhaltes gemacht und ohne alle Bedenken angenommen, daß dem religiösen Vorstellen etwas Wirkliches gar nicht entspreche. Nicht im entferntesten wird an die Möglichkeit gedacht, daß es eine echte Erfahrung geben könne von übersinnlichen Welten und daß an die durch solche Erfahrung gegebene Wirklichkeit sich hinterher die Gefühle von Furcht und Liebe klammern, wie ja schließlich auch keiner in Feuersnot an das rettende Wasser, in Kampfesnot an den helfenden Kameraden denkt, wenn er nicht Wasser und Kamerad vorher gekannt hat. Geisteswissenschaft wird in solcher Betrachtung dadurch für eine Phantasterei erklärt, daß man das religiöse Fühlen zum Schöpfer von Wesenheiten werden läßt, welche man einfach für nicht vorhanden ansieht. Solcher Denkungsart fehlt eben ganz das Bewußtsein davon, daß es möglich ist, den Inhalt der übersinnlichen Welt zu erleben, wie es möglich für die äußeren Sinne ist, die gewöhnliche Sinnenwelt zu erleben. — das Sonderbare tritt bei solchen Ansichten oft ein: sie verfallen in diejenige Art der Schlußfolgerung für ihren Glauben, die sie als die anstößige bei den Gegnern hinstellen. So findet sich in der obenangeführten Schrift von Forel der Satz: «Leben wir denn nicht in einer hundertmal wahreren, wärmeren und interessanteren Weise in dem Ich und in der Seele unserer Nachkommen von neuem als in der kalten und nebelhaften Fata morgana eines hypothetischen Himmels unter den ebenso hypothetischen Gesängen und Trompetenklängen vermuteter Engel und Erzengel, die wir uns doch nicht vorstellen können und die uns daher nichts sagen.» Ja, aber was hat es denn mit der Wahrheit zu tun, was «man» «wärmer», «interessanter» findet? Wenn es schon richtig ist, daß aus Furcht und Hoffnung nicht ein geistiges Leben abgeleitet werden soll, ist es dann richtig, dieses geistige Leben zu leugnen, weil man es «kalt» und «uninteressant» findet? Der Geistesforscher ist gegenüber solchen Persönlichkeiten, welche auf dem «festen Boden wissenschaftlicher Tatsachen» zu stehen behaupten, in der folgenden Lage. Er sagt ihnen: was ihr an solchen Tatsachen vorbringt, aus Geologie, Paläontologie, Biologie, Physiologie und so weiter, nichts wird von mir geleugnet. Zwar bedarf manche eurer Behauptungen sicherlich der Korrektur durch andere Tatsachen. Doch solche Korrektur wird die Naturwissenschaft selbst bringen. Abgesehen davon sage ich «Ja» zu dem, was ihr vorbringt. Euch zu bekämpfen fällt mir gar nicht bei, wenn ihr Tatsachen vorbringt. Nun aber sind eure Tatsachen nur ein Teil der Wirklichkeit. Der andere Teil sind die geistigen Tatsachen, welche den Verlauf der sinnlichen erst erklärlich machen. Und diese Tatsachen sind nicht Hypothesen, nicht etwas, was «man» sich nicht vorstellen kann, sondern das Erlebnis, die Erfahrung der Geistesforschung. Was ihr vorbringt über die von euch beobachteten Tatsachen hinaus, ist, ohne daß dies von euch bemerkt wird, nichts weiter als die Meinung, daß es solche geistige Tatsachen nicht geben könne. In Wahrheit bringt ihr zum Beweis für diese eure Behauptung nichts vor, als daß euch solche geistige Tatsachen unbekannt sind. Daraus folgert ihr, daß sie nicht existieren und daß diejenigen Träumer und Phantasten seien, welche vorgeben, von ihnen etwas zu wissen. Der Geistesforscher nimmt euch nichts, aber auch gar nichts von eurer Welt; er fügt zu dieser nur noch die seine hinzu. Ihr aber seid damit nicht zufrieden, daß er so verfährt; ihr sagt — wenn auch nicht immer klar -, «man» darf von nichts anderem sprechen, als wovon wir sprechen; wir fordern nicht allein, daß man uns das zugibt, wovon wir wissen, sondern wir verlangen, daß man alles das für eitel Hirngespinst erklärt, wovon wir nichts wissen. Wer auf solche «Logik» sich einlassen will, dem ist allerdings vorläufig nicht zu helfen. Er mag mit dieser Logik den Satz begreifen: «In unseren menschlichen Ahnen hat unser Ich früher direkt gelebt und es wird in unseren direkten oder indirekten Nachkommen weiter leben.» (Forel, Leben und Tod, Seite 21.) Er soll aber nur nicht hinzufügen: «Die Wissenschaft beweist es», wie es in der angeführten Schrift geschieht. Denn die Wissenschaft «beweist» in diesem Falle nichts, sondern der an die Sinnenwelt gefesselte Glaube stellt das Dogma auf: Wovon ich mir nichts vorstellen kann, das muß als Wahn gelten; und wer gegen meine Behauptung sündigt, vergeht sich an echter Wissenschaft.
[ 4 ] Wer die menschliche Seele in ihrer Entwickelung kennt, der findet es ganz begreiflich, daß durch die gewaltigen Fortschritte der Naturwissenschaft die Geister zunächst geblendet sind und sich heute nicht zurechtfinden können in den Formen, in denen hohe Wahrheiten traditionell überliefert sind. Die Geisteswissenschaft gibt der Menschheit solche Formen wieder zurück. Sie zeigt zum Beispiel, wie die Schöpfungstage der Bibel Dinge wiedergeben, die dem hellseherischen Blick sich entschleiern.11Vergleiche: Rudolf Steiner, die Geheimnisse der biblischen Schöpfungsgeschichte, Gesamtausgabe Dornach 1961. Der an die Sinnenwelt gefesselte Geist findet nur, daß die Schöpfungstage den Errungenschaften der Geologie und so weiter widersprechen. Die Geisteswissenschaft ist bei dem Erkennen der tiefen Wahrheiten dieser Schöpfungstage ebensoweit davon entfernt, sie als bloße «Mythendichtung» zu verflüchtigen, wie irgendwie allegorische oder symbolische Erklärungsarten anzuwenden. Wie sie vorgeht, das ist allerdings denen ganz unbekannt, welche noch immer von dem Widerspruch dieser Schöpfungstage mit der Wissenschaft phantasieren. Auch darf nicht geglaubt werden, daß die Geistesforschung ihr Wissen aus der Bibel schöpft. Sie hat ihre eigenen Methoden, findet unabhängig von allen Urkunden die Wahrheiten und erkennt sie dann wieder in diesen. Dieser Weg ist aber notwendig für viele gegenwärtige Wahrheitssucher. Denn diese fordern eine Geistesforschung, die in sich denselben Charakter tragt wie die Naturwissenschaft. Und nur wo das Wesen solcher Geisteswissenschaft nicht erkannt wird, verfällt man in die Ratlosigkeit, wenn es sich darum handelt, die Tatsachen der übersinnlichen Welt vor den blendenden Wirkungen der scheinbar auf Naturwissenschaft gebauten Meinungen zu bewahren. Eine solche Gemütsverfassung wurde sogar schon vorhergeahnt von einem seelisch warmen Manne, der aber für sein Gefühl keinen geisteswissenschaftlichen übersinnlichen Inhalt finden konnte. Schon vor beinahe achtzig Jahren schrieb eine solche Persönlichkeit, Schleiermacher, an Lücke, der um vieles jünger war als er selbst: «Wenn Sie den gegenwärtigen Zustand der Naturwissenschaft betrachten, wie sie sich immer mehr zu einer umfassenden Weltkunde gestaltet, was ahndet Ihnen von der Zukunft, ich will nicht einmal sagen für unsere Theologie, sondern für unser evangelisches Christentum... Mir ahndet, daß wir werden lernen müssen, uns ohne Vieles zu behelfen, was Viele noch gewohnt sind, als mit dem Wesen des Christentums unzertrennlich verbunden zu denken. Ich will gar nicht vom Sechstagewerk reden, aber der Schöpfungsbegriff, wie er gewöhnlich konstruiert wird ... wie lange wird er sich noch halten können gegen die Gewalt einer aus wissenschaftlichen Kombinationen, denen sich niemand entziehen kann, gebildeten Weltanschauung? ... Was soll denn werden, mein lieber Freund? Ich werde diese Zeit nicht mehr erleben, sondern kann mich ruhig schlafen legen; aber Sie mein Freund, und Ihre Altersgenossen, was gedenken Sie zu tun?» (Theologische Studien und Kritiken von Ullmann und Umbreit, 1829, Seite 489.) Diesem Ausspruch liegt die Meinung zugrunde, daß die «wissenschaftlichen Kombinationen » ein notwendiges Ergebnis der Tatsachen seien. Wären sie es, dann könnte sich ihnen «niemand» entziehen; und wen dann sein Gefühl nach der übersinnlichen Welt zieht, der kann wünschen, es möge ihm gegönnt sein, sich «ruhig schlafen zu legen» vor dem Ansturm der Wissenschaft gegen die übersinnliche Welt. Die Voraussage Schleiermachers hat sich insofern erfüllt, als in weiten Kreisen die «wissenschaftlichen Kombinationen» Platz ergriffen haben. Aber zugleich gibt es gegenwärtig eine Möglichkeit, die übersinnliche Welt auf ebenso «wissenschaftliche» Art kennenzulernen wie die sinnlichen Tatsachenzusammenhänge. Wer sich mit der Geisteswissenschaft so bekanntmacht, wie es gegenwärtig schon möglich ist, der wird durch sie vor manchem Aberglauben bewahrt sein, aber die übersinnlichen Tatsachen in seinen Vorstellungsinhalt aufnehmen können, und dadurch außer allem andern Aberglauben auch den abstreifen, daß Furcht und Not diese übersinnliche Welt geschaffen haben. — Wer sich zu dieser Anschauung durchzuringen vermag, der wird dann auch nicht mehr gehemmt sein durch die Vorstellung, er könne der Wirklichkeit und Praxis durch die Beschäftigung mit der Geisteswissenschaft entfremdet werden. Er wird dann eben erkennen, wie wahre Geisteswissenschaft nicht das Leben ärmer, sondern reicher macht. Er wird durch sie gewiß zu keiner Unterschätzung der Telephone, Eisenbahntechnik und Luftschiffahrt verführt; aber er wird manches andere Praktische noch sehen, das gegenwärtig unberücksichtigt bleibt, wo man nur an die Sinnenwelt glaubt und daher nur einen Teil, nicht die ganze Wirklichkeit, anerkennt.
Prejudices based on supposed science
[ 1 ] It is certainly true that there are many things in contemporary spiritual life that make it difficult for those who seek the truth to confess spiritual-scientific (theosophical) knowledge. And what is said in the essays on the "Vital Questions of the Theosophical Movement" can appear as an indication of the reasons that exist in this direction, especially for the conscientious seeker of truth. Many a statement of the spiritual scientist must appear quite fantastic to him who tests it against the certain judgments which he believes he must form from what he has come to know as the facts of scientific research. In addition, this research is able to point to the enormous blessing that it has brought and continues to bring to human progress. How overwhelming it is when a person who wants to have a world view based solely on the results of this research is able to say the proud words: "For there is an abyss between these two extreme views of life: the one for this world alone, the other for heaven. To this day, however, human science has found no trace of a paradise, a life of the departed or a personal God, this relentless science that fathoms and dissects everything, that shrinks from no mystery, that probes the heavens beyond the nebulous stars, that analyzes the infinitely small atoms of living cells and chemical bodies, dissects the substance of the sun, liquefies the air, soon even telegraphs wirelessly from one end of the earth to the other, today already sees through the opaque bodies, introduces navigation under the water and in the air, opens up new horizons for us by means of radium and other discoveries; this science, which, after having proved the true relationship of all living beings to one another and their gradual changes of form, is now drawing the organ of the human soul, the brain, into the field of its thorough research. " (Prof. August Forel, Leben und Tod. Munich 1908, page 3.) The certainty with which one believes to build on such a foundation is betrayed in the words that Forel attaches to the above omissions: "By starting from a monistic conception of life, which alone takes into account all scientific facts, we leave aside the supernatural and turn to the book of nature." Thus the serious seeker after truth is confronted with two things that place strong obstacles in the way of any inkling he may have of the truth of spiritual-scientific information. If he has a feeling for such messages, or even senses their inner justification through a finer logic, he may be forced to suppress such impulses if he has to say two things to himself. First, the authorities who know the conclusiveness of certain facts find that everything "supernatural" springs only from fantasy and unscientific superstition. Secondly, I run the risk of becoming an impractical person, useless for life, by devoting myself to such supernatural things. Because everything that is done for practical life must be firmly rooted in the "ground of reality".
[ 2 ] Not all those who are caught up in such a dichotomy will easily work their way through to the realization of how the two characterized things really are. If they could, they would, for example, see the following with regard to the first point: The results of spiritual science are nowhere in contradiction with scientific factual research. On the contrary, wherever one looks impartially at the relationship between the two, something quite different emerges for our time. It turns out that this factual research is heading towards the goal that in the not too distant future will bring it into full harmony with what spiritual research must establish from its supersensible sources for certain areas. Out of hundreds of cases that could be brought forward to prove this assertion, a characteristic one is highlighted here.
[ 3 ] In my lectures on the development of the earth and mankind, it is pointed out that the ancestors of the present civilized peoples lived on a territory which once extended over the area of the earth's surface which is now occupied by a large part of the Atlantic Ocean. In the essays "Aus der Akasha-Chronik" (From the Akashic Chronicle), more reference was made to the soul-spiritual characteristics of these Atlantean ancestors. The surface of the earth in the ancient Atlantean land was often described orally. It was said that at that time the air was saturated with water mist vapors. Man lived in a water mist that never cleared to the point of complete air purity in certain areas. The sun and moon could not be seen as they are today, but surrounded by colored halos. There was no distribution of rain and sunshine as there is today. You can search this ancient land clairvoyantly: the appearance of the rainbow did not exist back then. It only appeared in the post-Atlantean period. Our ancestors lived in a land of fog. These facts have been obtained by purely supersensible observation; and it must even be said that the spiritual researcher does best when he scrupulously refrains from drawing any conclusions from his scientific knowledge; for by such conclusions the unbiased inner sense of spiritual research is easily led astray. But now compare with such statements certain views to which individual natural scientists feel themselves urged in the present day. There are researchers today who find themselves compelled by the facts to assume that the earth was embedded in a cloud mass at a certain time in its development. They point out that even today the cloudy sky outweighs the unclouded one, so that even now life is still largely under the effect of sunlight, which is attenuated by cloud formation, so that one cannot say that life could not have developed in the former cloud cover. They also point out that those organisms in the plant world that can be counted among the oldest were those that could develop without direct sunlight. Thus, among the forms of this older plant world, those which, like the desert plants, needed direct sunlight and anhydrous air are missing. Indeed, one researcher (Hilgard) has also pointed out with regard to the animal world that the giant eyes of extinct animals (for example the ichthyosaurs) indicate that there must have been dim lighting on earth in their epoch. It is not easy for me to regard such views as not requiring correction. They interest the spiritual researcher less because of what they establish than because of the direction in which factual research sees itself forced. Some time ago, the journal "Kosmos", which is more or less based on Haeckel's point of view, published an article worthy of consideration, which pointed to the possibility of a former Atlantic mainland on the basis of certain facts from the plant and animal world. - If a larger number of such things were compiled, one could easily show how true natural science is moving in a direction that will in the future allow it to flow into the stream that can already be irrigated from the sources of spiritual research. It cannot be emphasized strongly enough: spiritual research is nowhere in contradiction with the facts of natural science. Where such a contradiction is seen by its opponents, it does not refer to the facts at all, but to the opinions which these opponents have formed and which they believe necessarily follow from the facts. In truth, however, Forel's above-mentioned opinion, for example, has not the slightest connection with the facts of the nebular stars, with the nature of the cells, with the liquefaction of the air and so on. This opinion presents itself as nothing other than a belief, which many have formed out of their need for faith in the sensual-real and which they place alongside the facts. This belief has something strongly blinding about it for contemporary man. It leads to an inner intolerance of a very special kind. Those who adhere to it blind themselves to the fact that they regard their own opinion as solely "scientific" and regard the opinions of others as arising solely from prejudice and superstition. So it is really strange to read the following sentences in a recently published book on the phenomena of mental life (Hermann Ebbinghaus, Abriß der Psychologie): "Help against the impenetrable darkness of the future and the insurmountable power of hostile forces, the soul creates for itself in religion. Under the pressure of uncertainty and in the terror of great dangers, man, by analogy with the experiences he has otherwise had in cases of not knowing and not being able, naturally has ideas of how help could also be given here, just as in need of fire one thinks of the saving water, in need of battle of the helping comrade." "On the lower cultural levels, where man still feels very powerless and surrounded at every turn by uncanny dangers, the feeling of fear understandably prevails and, accordingly, the belief in evil spirits and demons. At higher levels, on the other hand, where a certain self-confidence and a stronger hope arise from the more mature insight into the connection between things and the greater power over them, the feeling of trust in the invisible powers also comes to the fore and with it the belief in good and benevolent spirits. But on the whole, both fear and love remain side by side, constantly characteristic of man's feelings towards his gods, only in different proportions depending on the circumstances." - "These are the roots of religion... Fear and need are its mothers; and although it is essentially propagated by authority once it has come into being, it would have died out long ago if it had not been reborn again and again from these two." - How everything is shifted in these assertions, how everything is thrown into confusion; how the confusion is illuminated from the wrong points of view. How strongly, moreover, is the opinionator under the influence of the belief that his opinion must be a universally binding truth. First of all, the content of the religious imagination is confused with the content of religious feeling. The content of the religious imagination is taken from the realm of the supersensible worlds. The religious feeling, for example, fear and love towards the supersensible beings, is made the creator of the content without further ado, and it is assumed without any hesitation that something real does not correspond to the religious imagination. Not the remotest thought is given to the possibility that there can be a genuine experience of supersensible worlds and that the feelings of fear and love cling to the reality given by such experience afterwards, just as, after all, no one in need of fire thinks of the saving water, in need of battle of the helping comrade, if he has not known water and comrade beforehand. In such a view, spiritual science is declared to be a fantasy by allowing religious feeling to become the creator of entities that are simply not considered to exist. Such a way of thinking completely lacks the awareness that it is possible to experience the content of the supersensible world, just as it is possible for the external senses to experience the ordinary sense world. - The strange thing often occurs with such views: they fall into that kind of conclusion for their belief which they present as the most objectionable to their opponents. Thus we find in the above-mentioned writing of Forel the sentence: "Do we not live anew in a hundred times truer, warmer and more interesting way in the ego and in the soul of our descendants than in the cold and misty mirage of a hypothetical heaven under the equally hypothetical songs and trumpet sounds of supposed angels and archangels, which we cannot imagine and which therefore tell us nothing." Yes, but what does it have to do with the truth what "one" finds "warmer", "more interesting"? If it is right that a spiritual life should not be derived from fear and hope, is it right to deny this spiritual life because one finds it "cold" and "uninteresting"? The spiritual researcher is in the following position with regard to such personalities who claim to stand on the "solid ground of scientific facts". He says to them: whatever you present of such facts, from geology, paleontology, biology, physiology and so on, nothing is denied by me. Admittedly, some of your assertions certainly require correction by other facts. But such correction will come from science itself. Apart from that, I say "yes" to what you say. It is not at all difficult for me to fight you when you present facts. But your facts are only one part of reality. The other part are the spiritual facts, which explain the course of the sensory facts. And these facts are not hypotheses, not something that "one" cannot imagine, but the experience, the experience of spiritual research. What you bring forward beyond the facts observed by you is, without this being noticed by you, nothing more than the opinion that such spiritual facts cannot exist. In truth, you produce nothing to prove this assertion of yours except that such spiritual facts are unknown to you. From this you conclude that they do not exist and that those who pretend to know about them are dreamers and fantasists. The spiritual scientist takes nothing, but nothing at all from your world; he only adds his own to it. But you are not satisfied that he proceeds in this way; you say - though not always clearly - that "one" must not speak of anything but what we speak of; we demand not only that we be admitted to what we know, but we demand that all that we know nothing about be declared a vain fantasy. However, anyone who wants to accept such "logic" cannot be helped for the time being. He may use this logic to understand the sentence: "In our human ancestors, our ego lived directly in the past and it will continue to live in our direct or indirect descendants." (Forel, Life and Death, page 21.) But he should not add: "Science proves it", as is done in the cited text. For science "proves" nothing in this case, but faith, which is bound to the world of the senses, establishes the dogma: What I cannot conceive of must be considered delusion; and whoever sins against my assertion commits an offense against genuine science.
[ 4 ] Those who know the human soul in its development will find it quite understandable that the spirits are at first blinded by the tremendous progress of natural science and today cannot find their way in the forms in which high truths have traditionally been handed down. Spiritual science restores such forms to humanity. It shows, for example, how the days of creation in the Bible reflect things that are obscured to the clairvoyant eye.11Comparison: Rudolf Steiner, Die Geheimnisse der biblischen Schöpfungsgeschichte, Gesamtausgabe Dornach 1961. The spirit bound to the sense world only finds that the days of creation contradict the achievements of geology and so on. Spiritual science, in recognizing the profound truths of these days of creation, is as far removed from evaporating them as mere "mythic fiction" as it is from somehow applying allegorical or symbolic modes of explanation. How it proceeds, however, is completely unknown to those who still fantasize about the contradiction of these days of creation with science. Nor should it be believed that spiritual research draws its knowledge from the Bible. It has its own methods, finds the truths independently of all documents and then recognizes them again in these. However, this path is necessary for many present-day seekers of truth. For they demand spiritual research that has the same character as natural science. And it is only where the essence of such spiritual science is not recognized that one falls into perplexity when it comes to protecting the facts of the supersensible world from the blinding effects of opinions apparently based on natural science. Such a state of mind was even suspected beforehand by a man with a warm soul, but who could not find any spiritual-scientific supersensible content for his feelings. Almost eighty years ago, such a personality, Schleiermacher, wrote to Lücke, who was much younger than he himself: "If you look at the present state of natural science, how it is increasingly developing into a comprehensive knowledge of the world, what do you suspect of the future, I don't even want to say for our theology, but for our Protestant Christianity... I suspect that we will have to learn to make do without much of what many are still accustomed to thinking of as inseparably connected with the essence of Christianity. I don't want to talk about the six-day work at all, but the concept of creation, as it is usually constructed ... how long will it be able to hold its own against the force of a world view formed from scientific combinations that no one can escape? ... What is to become, my dear friend? I will not live to see this time, but can go to sleep quietly; but you, my friend, and your contemporaries, what do you intend to do?" (Theologische Studien und Kritiken von Ullmann und Umbreit, 1829, page 489.) This statement is based on the opinion that the "scientific combinations" are a necessary result of the facts. If they were, then "no one" could escape them; and whoever is then drawn by his feelings to the supersensible world can wish that it may be granted him to "lie down quietly to sleep" before the onslaught of science against the supersensible world. Schleiermacher's prediction has come true insofar as "scientific combinations" have taken hold in wide circles. At the same time, however, there is currently an opportunity to get to know the supersensible world in the same "scientific" way as the sensory factual contexts. Whoever acquaints himself with spiritual science in the way that is already possible at present will be protected by it from many a superstition, but will be able to absorb the supersensible facts into the content of his imagination, and thereby, in addition to all other superstitions, will also be able to cast off the belief that fear and adversity have created this supersensible world. - Whoever is able to bring himself to this view will then no longer be inhibited by the idea that he could be alienated from reality and practice by occupying himself with spiritual science. He will then recognize how true spiritual science does not make life poorer, but richer. He will certainly not be tempted by it to underestimate telephones, railroad technology and airship travel; but he will still see many other practical things that currently remain unconsidered, where one only believes in the world of the senses and therefore only recognizes a part, not the whole of reality.