Background to the Gospel of St. Mark
GA 124
16 January 1911, Berlin
VI. The Son of God and the Son of Man. The Sacrifice of Orpheus
The verses in St. Mark's Gospel which we were endeavouring to elucidate in the last lecture are followed by remarkable words in many ways similar to those found in the other Gospels, although their full significance can best be studied in that of St. Mark. The words are to the effect that after the Baptism and the experiences in the ‘wilderness’, Christ Jesus went into the synagogue and taught the people there.
The sentence is usually translated: ‘And they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught as one that had authority, and not as the scribes.’—To a man of the present age, however orthodox a believer in the Bible, this sentence conveys little more than that His teaching was powerful and impressive—unlike that of the scribes. But in the Greek text the sentence translated ‘as one that had authority and not as the scribes', is:
ὴν γαρ διδἁσχῳv αὐτοὐς ώς ἐξουαίχν ἕχων, χαὶ οὐχ ώç οί γραμματῑç
(ēn gar didamaskōn autous hōs exusiān echōn, kai ouch hōs hoi grammateis)
If we try to grasp the meaning of this significant passage we shall be led a step further towards understanding the secrets of Christ's mission. I have already called your attention to the fact that like other genuinely inspired writings, the Gospels are not easy to understand and that to grasp their real meaning we must bring together all the thoughts and ideas about the spiritual world acquired in the course of many years. Such ideas alone can give us insight into what is meant when it is said in the Gospel that He taught in the synagogue as one of the Exousiai, as a Power and Revelation, and not as those who are here called: γραμματῑç (scribes).
To understand a passage such as this we must remind ourselves of what we have learnt about the higher, supersensible worlds. We have learnt that man, as he lives in our world, is the lowest member of a hierarchical Order, that his place is at the lowest step of the ladder of this Order. Immediately above him in the supersensible world, at the first level, are the Beings called in Christian esotericism, Angeloi, Angels. They are the supersensible Beings of the rank immediately above man, who influence his life. Above them come the Archangeloi or Archangels, then the Archai or Spirits of Personality; then the Exousiai, Dynameis and Kyriotetes, and finally the Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim.
Thus above man there are nine ranks of hierarchical Beings. And we shall now try to picture how these different supersensible Beings intervene in human life.
The Angeloi are the Beings who as messengers of the spiritual world to the individual man in his life on Earth, are nearest of all to him. They exercise a perpetual influence upon the destinies of individuals on the physical plane. The Archangeloi are spiritual Beings whose activities embrace a wider sphere. They are the Beings whom we may call ‘Folk-Spirits’, who regulate and guide the affairs of whole groups of peoples. When a man of the present day speaks of a ‘Folk-Spirit’ he thinks, purely in terms of number, of so many thousands of individuals who happen to populate the same territory. But in Spiritual Science we mean by a Folk-Spirit the actual Folk-Individuality, not such and such a number of people but a real individuality just as we speak of an individuality in the case of a single man. The spiritual guidance of a whole Folk lies in the hands of the Archangelos. All these higher Beings are supersensible entities having their own spheres of activity. The Archai, Spirits of Personality or the ‘Primal Beginnings’, are again different from the Archangeloi or Folk-Spirits. If we speak of the French, the German, the English Folk-Spirit and so on, this points to different regions of the Earth. But there is something that is common to all men to-day, at least to all Western peoples, and affords them a basis for mutual understanding. In contrast to the single Folk-Spirit we speak here of the Time-Spirit: there is a Time-Spirit in the period of the Reformation, another in our own day. The Time-Spirits, the Archai, rank above the individual Folk-Spirits, and are the leaders of successive epochs.
At a still higher level we come to the Exousiai. They are supersensible Beings of an essentially different order. To form an idea of how the Beings of these still higher Hierarchies differ from the Angeloi, Archangeloi and Archai, let us remind ourselves that there is no essential difference between a member of one Folk and a member of a different Folk as regards his outer, physical make-up and what he eats and drinks. It cannot be said that, except as regards soul and spirit, the peoples differ essentially from each other. The guiding spiritual Beings (the Time-Spirits) of the successive epochs are concerned with things of the soul and spirit only. Man does not, however, consist only of soul and spirit. It is the human astral body that is essentially influenced by whatever is of the nature of soul and spirit. There are also denser members of man's being which do not differ greatly from each other as far as the activities of the Angeloi, Archangeloi and Archai are concerned. But creative influences are exercised upon these denser members of man's nature by spiritual Beings belonging to ranks from that of the Exousiai upwards. Language and current modes of thought belong to the sphere of the Folk-Spirits and the Time-Spirits—Archangeloi and Archai. But men are also influenced by the light and air and climate of a particular region. One type of human being thrives below the Equator, another in the regions nearer to the North Pole. We shall not agree with a German professor of philosophy whose view, presented in a very widely read book, was that civilisations of essential importance would have to develop in the Temperate Zone because the human beings responsible for such culture would freeze at the North Pole and scorch at the South Pole! But we can certainly speak of the different effects of food upon human beings living in different climates. External conditions are by no means without influence upon the character of a people—for example, whether they live in mountain valleys or on plains. We see there how the forces of nature penetrate into and affect the whole of man's constitution. Knowing from Spiritual Science that supersensible Beings are active in all the forces of nature and work upon men through these forces, we can make a distinction between Archai and Exousiai, and say: The Angeloi, Archangeloi and Archai influence man through what concerns the soul and spirit only—language, current modes of thought, ideas, and so on, but they do not work through the forces of nature; their operations do not directly affect the etheric body or the physical body, which are the lower members of man's organism.
On the other hand, spiritual Beings from the rank of the Exousiai upwards work not only upon man but also in the forces of outer nature; they are the ‘Directors’ as it were of air and light, of the different ways in which foodstuffs are produced in the kingdoms of nature. They are the Beings who hold sway in these kingdoms of nature. The phenomena of thunder and lightning, rain and sunshine, how one kind of foodstuff grows in one region, other kinds in another, in short the whole ordering of earthly conditions we ascribe to spiritual Beings of the Hierarchies higher than the Angeloi, Archangeloi and Archai. We see the effects of the activity of the Exousiai, for example, in the light that works upon us as well as upon the plants, not only in the invisible effects which are the manifestations of the Time-Spirits.
Let us now consider what it is that civilisation gives to men, what they have to learn in order to make progress. Every individual has at his disposal what is yielded by his own epoch, but also, to a certain extent, the fruits of earlier epochs. Now it is only what derives from the lowest Hierarchies up to and including the Time-Spirits that can be preserved as history and be taught and studied as such. What streams directly from the kingdoms of nature cannot be preserved in tradition. Nevertheless, men whose powers of knowledge enable them to penetrate into the supersensible worlds can pass beyond the Time-Spirits to still higher forms of revelation. Such revelations are recognised as belonging to a realm higher than that of the Time-Spirits, as having greater weight than anything deriving from the Time-Spirits, and as affecting men in a very special way. Every rational human being should ask himself now and then whether his soul is affected more profoundly by what can be learnt from the traditions of the several peoples and Time-Spirits of historical epochs, or by a glorious sunrise, which is a direct manifestation of nature and of the supersensible worlds. Individuals may well become conscious that a sunrise in all its glory can stir the soul infinitely more deeply than all the science, the learning and the art of the ages. Suppose we have been deeply moved by the works in the Italian Galleries of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael and others, and later on climb some Swiss mountain and contemplate the spectacle there presented, we shall be vividly conscious of what nature can reveal. We shall ask: Who is the greater artist: Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, or the Powers who have painted the sunrise to be seen from the Rigi?—And the answer can only be that wonderful as are the achievements of men, what comes before us as a revelation of divine-spiritual Powers is far greater.
Now when the spiritual leaders of mankind, the Initiates, appear before the world, their teachings are not based upon or drawn from tradition but flow from original sources, and their revelations are like the revelations of nature herself. What is merely repeated by others can never have an effect as powerful as that of a sunrise. Compared with what tradition has handed down of the teachings of Moses or Zarathustra and what the Time-Spirits and Folk-Spirits have communicated through forms of external culture, the effect made by nature herself is far the greater. It was only when the revelations of Moses and Zarathustra sprang from immediate experience of the supersensible worlds that their effect was as powerful as that of the revelations of nature. The wonderful thing about these original revelations to mankind is that they are like the revelations of nature herself. We should remember here that the Exousiai are the lowest Hierarchy of Beings who work in the forces and powers of nature.
What, then, was experienced by those who were gathered in the synagogue when Christ Jesus came among them? Hitherto they had been taught by the ‘Scribes’, by men who were cognisant of what the Time-Spirits and Folk-Spirits had communicated. To such teaching the people were accustomed. But now there came One who did not teach as the Scribes taught, whose words seemed like a revelation from the realm of the supersensible powers in nature, in thunder, or in lightning. Knowing that the higher the rank of the Hierarchies the greater are their powers, we can understand in all their depth these words in the Gospel of St. Mark.
If we can feel the supersensible reality behind the creations of men such as Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci and others of their calibre, we can still glimpse in the relatively small number of pictures that have come down to us, something of the original inspiration. Great works of art, works of spiritual genius, are always echoes of what was originally revealed. And if we can perceive something of what Raphael, for example, expressed in his pictures, or form a living idea of the work of Zarathustra, we shall be able to hear something of what comes from the Exousiai.
But in the teachings given in the synagogues by the Scribes, that is to say, by men whose knowledge stemmed from the Folk-Spirits and Time-Spirits, there was nothing that could even faintly echo direct revelations of nature. Hence these words in St. Mark's Gospel are an indication that in men living in those days an inkling was beginning to dawn that something entirely new was speaking to them; that through this man who came among them something revealed itself which was like a power of nature herself, like one of the supersensible Powers behind the phenomena of nature. Men began gradually to divine what it was that had entered into Jesus of Nazareth and was symbolised in the Baptism by John. The people in the synagogue were very near the truth when they said: When he speaks it is as though the Exousiai were speaking, not merely the Archai, the Time-Spirits, or the Folk-Spirits.
It is only through knowledge of Spiritual Science that we shall be able again to instil a full and living content and meaning into the barren abstractions abounding in modern translations of the New Testament, and to realise what is involved when efforts are made to penetrate to the core of the Gospels. Generations must pass before there can be any prospect of fathoming, even approximately, the deep meanings which our own times can dimly surmise. Actual investigation of a great deal in the Gospels will be possible only in the future.
Fundamentally, what the writer of St. Mark's Gospel wished to present was an elaboration of the teaching of Paul, one of the first to recognise the nature and essential being of the Christ through direct supersensible perception. We must understand what Paul actually taught and what he experienced through the revelation that came to him on the road to Damascus. Although the event is described in the Bible as a sudden revelation, those conversant with the real facts know that this kind of illumination can come at any moment to one who is striving to reach the spiritual world and that as a result of his experiences he becomes a changed man. And in the case of St. Paul it is abundantly evident that through the revelation at Damascus this was what happened.
Even a superficial study of the Gospels and of the Pauline Epistles will make it clear that St. Paul regards the Event of Golgotha as the central point of the whole evolution of humanity and that he links this Event directly with what is described in the Bible as the creation of Adam, the first man. St. Paul's teaching is to somewhat the following effect: The being we must call the spiritual man, the real man, of whom in the world of maya there is only an illusory image, came down in ancient Lemurian times to this world of illusion, facing the experiences he was to undergo in the flesh during successive incarnations. He became man in the form assumed throughout the Lemurian and Atlantean epochs and in post-Atlantean times until the coming of Christ. Then came the Event of Golgotha.
Paul was unshakably convinced after his vision near Damascus that in the Event of Golgotha something occurred that was exactly comparable with the descent of man into the flesh. For therewith the impulse was given gradually to overcome those forms of earthly existence into which man had entered through Adam. Hence Paul calls the Being who appeared in the Christ, the ‘new Adam’, whom every man can draw to himself through union with Christ.
Thus from Lemurian on into pre-Christian times we have to see the gradual descent of man into matter—whether we call him Adam or by some other name. Then he was given the power and the impulse to ascend again so that he might eventually return, enriched by the fruits of earthly existence, to the original, spiritual state that had been his before he descended into matter.
Now if we are to understand the essential meaning of evolution, we must not ask: Could man not have been spared this descent into matter? Why was it necessary for him to pass through different incarnations in order to re-ascend into the state that was his at the beginning? Such questions could spring only from complete misunderstanding of the spiritual meaning of evolution. For man takes with him from Earth-existence all the fruits of his experiences and is enriched with the content of his incarnations—a content that was not previously his.
Think, hypothetically, of a man descending and passing through his first incarnation: there he learns certain things. In his second incarnation he learns more; and so on through all the incarnations. Their course, to begin with, is one of descent: man becomes more and more deeply entangled in the physical world. Then he begins an ascent and can rise to the extent to which he receives the Christ Impulse into himself. One day he will find his way again into the spiritual world; but he will then take with him whatever he was able to acquire on the Earth.
And so Paul sees in the Christ the central point of the whole process of man's earthly evolution, the power that gives him the impulse to rise into the supersensible world enriched with all the experiences of life on the Earth.
But from this standpoint, how does Paul regard the sacrifice on Golgotha, the actual Crucifixion? It is not easy to relate to our modern ideas the way in which St. Paul—and also the writer of St. Mark's Gospel—understood the sacrifice on Golgotha, this most essential fact of human evolution. Before this can be attempted we must familiarise ourselves with the thought that man as he stands before us is a Microcosm, and we must study all the implications of this fact.
Two periods of development, each very different from the other, are apparent in man's life between birth and death in every incarnation. In various ways I have already called attention to the difference between the two periods—for our study of Spiritual Science is more systematic than people usually imagine. One of these periods lies between birth and the point at which an individual's memory begins. If you follow your memories back, you reach a certain point beyond which they cease. You were already in existence then and may have heard from your parents or relatives about your doings; hence you have some knowledge of them but you yourself remember nothing beyond a certain point of time. Normal remembrance breaks off at this point, the most favourable age for which is somewhere about the third year of life. Before that point of time a child is highly impressionable. Just think how much is taken in during the first, second and third years of life; yet modern man has no remembrance at all of how the impressions were made.—Then follows the period through which the thread of memory runs continuously.
We must pay careful attention to these two periods of development for they are very important in man's life as a whole. We must observe the development of the human being closely and accurately and avoid the prejudiced views of modern science. The facts of science confirm what I have to say, but we should not attach too much weight to biased views that deviate widely from the truth. Close observation of man's development makes it evident that his life as an individual in society is conditioned by whatever forms part of the thread of memory which begins, approximately, in the third year. Within the span of this thread of memory lies every principle by which we consciously direct our life; it embraces whatever rules of conduct we consciously accept as worthy to be followed. Our Ego has no consciousness of what lies before this point; of that, nothing finds its way into the thread of our conscious life.
Thus before our conscious life begins there are certain years during which our relation with the surrounding world is quite different from what it is later.
The difference is radical. Penetrating observation of a child before the period back to which memory extends when he is older, would show that in those first years he feels himself to be within the universal, macrocosmic, spiritual life. He does not separate or isolate himself from that life but feels part and parcel of the whole environment. He even speaks of himself as others do. He does not say: ‘I want’, but, ‘John wants’. It is only later that he learns to speak of himself as ‘I’. Modern child psychologists pick holes in this explanation but the truth is not controverted by their arguments which are just evidences of their lack of insight. In his earliest years a child still feels part of the world around him; it is only at the point from which his memories begin that he gradually detaches himself from his environment as an independent being.
It can therefore be said that the principles a man may accept for the guidance of his life and the whole content of his consciousness belong to the second phase of development beginning at the point of time referred to. In the first phase he has a quite different relation to the environment; he feels much more closely connected with it. The only way to understand this thoroughly is to imagine what would happen if the form of consciousness which has produced this feeling of direct connection with the surrounding world in early childhood were to remain in later years. If that were the case human life would take a very different course. Man would not feel so isolated; even in later years he would feel himself to be an integral part, a member, of the Macrocosm, the Great World. As things are he loses his feeling of oneness with the Great World and believes himself to be isolated from it. In ordinary life this isolation comes into a man's consciousness in an abstract form only, for instance, in his egoisms, or in a tendency to shut himself off more and more within his own skin. The view that man's life is enclosed within his skin is complete nonsense. Whenever he exhales he becomes part of the outer world for the breath previously indrawn is now outside. Man's picture of himself is pure maya but his form of consciousness makes this inevitable. Human beings nowadays are neither particularly inclined nor indeed mature enough to understand karma. If, for instance, anyone gets his windows broken he is apt to take this as an offence directed against himself, and he is annoyed by it because he feels himself to be an isolated being. But were he to believe in karma he would feel related to the whole Macrocosm and would know that in point of fact it is we ourselves who have broken the windows. For in truth we are interwoven with the whole Cosmos and it is sheer nonsense to imagine that we are enclosed by our skin. But it is only in very early childhood that this feeling of oneness with the Cosmos exists; in later life it is lost at the point to which memory reaches.
It was not always so. In earlier times, by no means very long ago, the consciousness belonging to early childhood extended, in some degree at least, into the later years of a man's life. This was in the times of the ancient clairvoyance; and with it went a very different kind of thinking and a different way of expressing facts. This is an aspect of human evolution about which the student of Spiritual Science must be quite clear.
When a male child is born nowadays he is simply regarded as the son of his father and mother: and if he has no birth or baptismal certificate bearing the names of his parents to identify him as a citizen, nothing is officially known about him and in certain circumstances his very existence is questioned. To the modern mind a human being is simply the physical offspring of his father and his mother.
This was not how people thought in a past not so very far distant. Scholars and researchers to-day do not, however, know that in earlier times not only was men's thinking different but the content and implications of the words and designations used were different. Hence interpretations of ancient legends do not convey their real meaning. We are told, for instance, of Orpheus, a Greek singer. I refer to him because he belongs to the period several centuries before the rise of Christianity. We may think of him as the one responsible for the organisation of the Greek Mysteries. This fourth post-Atlantean epoch of which he was an important figure in the opening stage, was a preparation for the Christ Event and what humanity was to receive through it. Thus in Greece Orpheus was the great Preparer.
If a man of the modern age were to encounter a figure such as Orpheus, he would simply say: he is the son of such-and-such a father and such-and-such a mother—and science might possibly look for inherited characteristics. There is, for example, a bulky tome in which all the hereditary characteristics of Goethe's families are set forth in an endeavour to present him as the sum-total of those characteristics. That is by no means how people thought in the days of Orpheus. The man of flesh and his physical attributes were not what really mattered to them. The essential qualities were those that enabled Orpheus to be the leader and organiser of pre-Christian Greek culture—certainly not the physical brain or nervous system. The essential thing was the fact that he had within him—in his own field of experience—a quality derived from the supersensible world and united with the material-physical element provided by his personality. The eyes of the Greeks were directed, not to the physical figure of Orpheus descending from father and mother, perhaps also from grandfather and grandmother; this figure was more or less unessential, being merely the outer expression, the sheath. The essential element was what had descended from a supersensible source and had united with a material entity on the physical plane. Hence a Greek would have said to himself: When Orpheus is before me, the fact that he descends from a father and a mother need hardly be taken into account; what is of importance is that his soul-qualities, which have made him what he is, stem from the supersensible, from a supersensible reality which has never hitherto had anything to do with the physical plane; a physical-material element has here been able to unite with the supersensible reality in his personality.—And because the Greeks regarded a purely supersensible quality as the hallmark of Orpheus, they said he was the offspring of a Muse, the son of Calliope, not of a physical mother but of a supersensible reality which had never had any previous connection with the physical and material.
But as the son of Calliope and nothing more than that, Orpheus could have given expression only to manifestations of the supersensible world. In keeping with the nature of the age in which he lived, it was also his mission to give expression to what would be of service to physical life in that epoch. Hence he was not only a mouthpiece for the Muse, for Calliope, as in much earlier times the Rishis were merely mouthpieces for supersensible Powers, but his own life gave expression to the supersensible in such a way that the physical world also was important to his life. His teaching was connected with and suited to the climate of Greece, to what was part of outer nature in Greece—and so Orpheus was made the son of Oeagrus, the Thracian River-God.
This shows us that to the Greeks what mattered most in their view was what was living in Orpheus’ soul. In those days men were characterised by the quality of their souls, by their spiritual value, not, as in later times, by saying: he is the son of so-and-so, or, he comes from such and such a town. It is very interesting to see how deeply involved the Greeks felt in the destiny of a man such as Orpheus, who descended on the one side from a Muse and on the other from a Thracian River-God. Unlike the ancient prophets, Orpheus was subject not only to supersensible influences but to material influences as well—to all the influences exercised by the physical-material world.
Now we know that man consists of several members: the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body and the Ego, the ‘I’. A man such as Orpheus, descended from a Muse—you now know what that means—was still able to see into the spiritual world; but on the other hand, his capacity for experiencing the spiritual world was weakened by the life he led on the physical plane as the son of his father, the Thracian River-God.
The Leaders in the second and third post-Atlantean culture-epochs who became mouthpieces for utterances of the spiritual worlds were able to perceive their own etheric body separated from the physical. In the civilisations where ancient clairvoyance prevailed—and it was the same even among the Celts—when a man was to be made aware of something he was called upon to communicate to his fellow-men, it was revealed to him in this way: his etheric body emerged from the physical body and became the bearer of forces which streamed down into it. If those who proclaimed the utterances of the spiritual worlds were men, their etheric bodies were female and they consequently saw in female form whatever communicated messages to them from the spiritual worlds.
Now it was also the purpose of the legend to show that although Orpheus was in direct contact with the spiritual Powers, as the son of a Thracian River-God there was always the possibility that he would be unable to retain what was revealed to him through his own etheric body. The more thoroughly he made himself at home in the physical world and lived his life as a son of his country, the more did his power of clairvoyance recede. The story relates that Eurydice, the transmitter of his revelations, his soul-bride, was torn away from him through the bite of an adder—a picture of his human failings—and carried off to the underworld. He could win her back only by passing through an Initiation.—Whenever we are told of a journey into the underworld, an Initiation is meant.—In order to win back his bride, Orpheus must pass through an Initiation. But he was already too closely enmeshed in the physical world. He had indeed acquired the capacity to make his way into the underworld, but on his return, when his eyes again encountered the sunlight, Eurydice vanished from his sight. Why was this? It was because on seeing the sunlight he did something that was forbidden him: he turned and looked back. That is to say, he disobeyed a strict command given him by the God of the underworld, namely, that physical man, living on the physical plane, must not look back beyond the point of time I have indicated, to the period of the macrocosmic experiences of childhood; if these experiences were to penetrate into the consciousness normal in later life, they would give rise to clairvoyance in its ancient form. Hence the command of the God of the underworld that no man may seek to penetrate the mysteries of childhood, to remember where the Threshold is fixed.—But this was what Orpheus did, and he consequently lost the faculty of clairvoyance.
Something of great delicacy and subtlety in connection with Orpheus is set before us in this story of the loss of Eurydice. One consequence is that man is sacrificed to the physical world. With a nature still deeply rooted in the spiritual he is also, partially, the sort of being which it is his destiny to become on the physical plane. And so all the forces of the physical plane press in upon him and he loses Eurydice, his own innocent soul—which it is the fate of modern man also to lose. These forces tear Orpheus to pieces; in a sense, he is sacrificed.
What is it, then, that Orpheus experienced as representative of the transition between the third and fourth epochs of post-Atlantean culture? In the first place he experienced the stage of consciousness which the child leaves behind—the connection with the Macrocosm. This does not pass over into his conscious life and therefore in his essential being man is torn to pieces and killed by life on the physical plane which in the real sense begins at the point of which we have been speaking.
And now keep in mind this man living on the physical plane; he is normally able to remember back only to a certain point of time; beyond this lie the three years of earliest childhood. With this thread of memory he is so enmeshed in the physical plane that, in his own being, he cannot endure it and he is torn to pieces. Thus it is with the true spirit of man to-day—here is a proof of how deeply he is enmeshed in matter. This is the spirit which in Pauline Christianity is called the ‘Son of Man’. Here is a concept which you must grasp—the concept of the Son of Man who can be found in a human being onwards from the point in his life to which his later memory extends, and includes everything he has acquired from the civilisation around him. Keep this ‘man’ in your mind, and then picture to yourselves what he might become if there were added to him all that presses in upon him from the Macrocosm in the first three years of his childhood. This could be a foundation only, because at that stage the developed human ‘I’ is not yet present. But if it did merge into the consciousness of a developed ‘I’, we should witness a happening comparable with what took place at the Baptism in the Jordan at the moment when the Spirit descended from above into Jesus of Nazareth: the three innocent years of early childhood merged with the rest of the human being. That is the immediate fact. And the consequence was that this innocent childhood-life, as it sought to develop on the physical Earth, could evolve for three years only—as is indeed always the case—and then met its end on Golgotha. It could not merge with what man becomes at the point in time from which in later life his memory normally begins.
Think what it would be like if; in one man, we saw mingled together all the interconnections with the Macrocosm which show themselves dimly and indistinctly in the early years of childhood but which cannot really light up in the child because he is as yet without Ego-consciousness. Think further, and picture to yourselves how, if the reality did dawn in this way in a later consciousness, something would take shape which has its origin, not in man's own nature but in the depth of those cosmic worlds out of which we are born. If you think of all this you will get an idea of the meaning of the words spoken in connection with the event portrayed as the descent of the Dove: ‘This is my beloved Son; this day have I begotten him.’ That means: Here the Christ is incarnated, begotten, in Jesus of Nazareth, born in him at the moment of the Baptism by John. In the Christ there was present, in its highest form, the consciousness otherwise belonging only to the early years of childhood; now, mingling with it, there was feeling of oneness with the Cosmos which a child would feel if it could be fully aware of its experiences during the first three years. In that case there would be still another meaning in the words: ‘I and the Father’—that is, the cosmic Father—‘are one’.
If you ponder deeply about these things you will get an inkling of what was experienced by St. Paul as a first, basic element in the revelation near Damascus and finds expression in the beautiful words: ‘Except ye become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of Heaven.’ Among many meanings of this saying there is the one indicated by St. Paul: Not I, but Christ in me—the Christ, that is, who has a macrocosmic consciousness such as a child would have if it could somehow combine the consciousness belonging to the first three years with the Ego-consciousness of later life. In the normal man of to-day these two forms of consciousness are separate: indeed they must be separate, for they are incompatible. Nor were they any more compatible in Christ Jesus Himself; after those three years, death was bound to supervene and to occur in the circumstances as they actually were in Palestine. These circumstances were not matters of chance but came about because these two lived within each other: the Son of God (which is man from the moment of his birth until the development of the Ego-consciousness) and the Son of Man (which is what he is after Ego-consciousness has been attained). The events which then culminated in the happenings in Palestine were the outcome of the living together of the Son of God and the Son of Man.
Sechster Vortrag
Wenn Sie im Markus-Evangelium von denjenigen Stellen an, die wir das letzte Mal bei Besprechung dieses Evangeliums zu erklären versuchten, weiter lesen, so kommen Sie an eine bedeutungsvolle Stelle, die allerdings ähnlich ist den Ausführungen der andern Evangelien, deren volle Bedeutung aber doch am besten am Markus-Evangelium betrachtet werden kann. Diese Stelle bezieht sich darauf, daß der Christus Jesus, nachdem er die Jordantaufe, die Erlebnisse in der Wüste durchgemacht hatte, dann, wie man sagt, in die Synagoge ging und lehrte.
Gewöhnlich wird diese Stelle ja so übersetzt: «Und sie entsetzten sich über seine Lehre; denn er lehrte gewaltiglich und nicht wie die Schriftgelehrten.» Was ist dieser Satz für einen heutigen modernen Menschen — und wenn er noch so bibelgläubig ist — mehr als ein, man möchte sagen, ziemlich abstraktes Wort: «denn er lehrte gewaltiglich und nicht wie die Schriftgelehrten»? Wenn wir nur den griechischen Text nehmen, finden wir für dasjenige Wort, welches in der modernen Sprache einfach übersetzt wird mit «denn er lehrte gewaltiglich» das Wort:
ὴν γαρ διδἁσχῳv αὐτοὐς ώς ἐξουαίχν ἕχων, χαὶ οὐχ ώç οί γραμματῑç
(ēn gar didamaskōn autous hōs exusiān echōn, kai ouch hōs hoi grammateis) «und nicht wie die Schriftgelehrten».
Wenn wir nun in den Sinn dieser bedeutungsvollen Stelle eindringen wollen, wird uns das wieder ein Stück hineinführen in das, was wir nennen können die Geheimnisse von der Sendung des Christus Jesus. Denn ich habe bereits darauf aufmerksam gemacht, daß die Evangelien, geradeso wie die andern Schriften, die wirklich dem inspirierten Gebiet entstammen, nicht so einfach zu verstehen sind, sondern daß man im Grunde genommen zu ihrem Verständnis alles zusammenhalten muß, was wir im Laufe vieler Jahre jetzt zusammengetragen haben an Vorstellungen, an Ideen über die geistigen Welten. Und nur solche Vorstellungen können uns einführen in das, was gemeint ist, wenn im Evangelium gesagt wird: denn er lehrte die, welche da in den Synagogen saßen, wie ein «Exusiai», wie eine Gewalt, wie eine Offenbarung, und nicht wie diejenigen, die hier mit dem Ausdruck γραμματῑç (grammateis) bezeichnet werden.
Wenn wir eine solche Stelle verstehen wollen, müssen wir uns an alles erinnern, was wir über die höheren, übersinnlichen Welten im Laufe der Zeiten in uns aufgenommen haben. Da haben wir in uns aufgenommen, daß der Mensch, wie er innerhalb unserer Welt lebt, sozusagen das unterste Glied einer hierarchischen Ordnung ist, daß wir also den Menschen an die unterste Stufenleiter einer hierarchischen Ordnung zu setzen haben. Dann schließt sich an den Menschen die übersinnliche Welt. In dieser finden wir zunächst, was wir nach der christlichen Esoterik die Angeloi oder Engel nennen, die ersten über dem Menschen stehenden übersinnlichen Wesenheiten, die auf sein Leben Einfluß haben; danach kommen die Archangeloi oder Erzengel, dann die Archai oder Geister der Persönlichkeit; darauf folgen die Exusiai, Dynamis und Kyriotetes, und dann haben wir die Throne, Cherubim und Seraphim. Auf diese Weise haben wir eine hierarchische Ordnung von neun übereinanderstehenden Wesensformen über den Menschen hinauf zu verzeichnen. Und nun wollen wir uns einmal klarmachen, wie in unser Leben diese verschiedenen geistigen, übersinnlichen Wesenheiten eingreifen.
Die Angeloi sind diejenigen Wesenheiten, die zunächst als die Boten der übersinnlichen Welt dem einzelnen Menschen, wie er auf unserer Erde lebt, am allernächsten stehen. Sie sind die Wesenheiten, die immerhin einen Einfluß haben auf das, was wir das Schicksal eines einzelnen individuellen Menschen auf unserem physischen Plan nennen können. Sobald wir dagegen zu den Archangeloi kommen, sprechen wir von geistigen Wesenheiten, die sozusagen schon einen weiteren Kreis von Tätigkeiten umspannen. Da sprechen wir von Wesenheiten, die wir auch bezeichnen können als Volksgeister, die also die Angelegenheiten ganzer Völkerverbände ordnen und lenken. Wenn der heutige moderne Mensch von einem Volksgeist spricht, so meint er — darauf habe ich schon oft aufmerksam gemacht — soundsoviele Tausende von Menschen, welche er rein der Zahl nach als auf einem Territorium lebend anführt. Wenn wir aber geisteswissenschaftlich von einem Volksgeist reden, so meinen wir die Volks-Individualität, und wir sind uns klar, daß wir nicht die Zahl so oder so vieler Menschen im Auge haben, sondern eine wirkliche Individualität, wie wir bei einem einzelnen Menschen von einer Individualität reden. Und wenn wir von der geistigen Leitung einer ganzen Volks-Individualität sprechen, so bezeichnen wir als die geistigen Leiter einer solchen Volks-Individualität die Erzengel, die Archangeloi. Sprechen wir also von diesen höheren Wesenheiten, so sprechen wir als von wirklichen, übersinnlichen Geschöpfen, die ihre Wirkungskreise haben. Bei den Archai oder den Geistern der Persönlichkeit, auch den Urbeginnen, sprechen wir von denjenigen geistigen Wesenheiten, die wieder verschieden sind von den bloßen Volksgeistern. Sprechen wir zum Beispiel von dem französischen, dem englischen, dem deutschen Volksgeist und so weiter, so sprechen wir sozusagen von etwas, was auf verschiedene Erdgebiete verteilt ist. Aber es gibt etwas, was allen Menschen, wenigstens allen westlichen Völkern heute gemeinschaftlich ist und worinnen sich diese Völker verstehen. Das können wir im Gegensatz zu den einzelnen Volksgeistern als den Zeitgeist bezeichnen, und wir müssen sprechen von einem andern Zeitgeist für das Zeitalter der Reformation und von einem andern in unserer Zeit. Über den einzelnen Volksgeistern stehen also diejenigen geistigen Wesenheiten, die wir als Zeitgeister bezeichnen, und im wesentlichen sind diese Leiter der aufeinanderfolgenden Epochen die Archai. Sie sind zu gleicher Zeit Zeitgeister.
Kommen wir noch höher hinauf zu den Exusiai, so haben wir es im wesentlichen zu tun mit ganz anders gearteten übersinnlichen Mächten. Um uns eine Vorstellung davon zu machen, wie sich die Wesenheiten höherer Hierarchien zunächst von den drei eben charakterisierten, Angeloi, Archangeloi, Archai, unterscheiden, wollen wir daran denken, daß der Angehörige irgendeines Volkes doch im wesentlichen heute in bezug auf die äußere physische Konstitution, sagen wir in bezug auf das, was er ißt und trinkt, dem Angehörigen irgendeines anderen Volkes doch sehr ähnlich ist. Wir können nicht sagen, daß das, was über das Seelisch-Geistige hinausgeht, die Völker voneinander unterscheidet. Aber auch die aufeinanderfolgenden Zeitepochen sind noch so, daß wir sagen können: Die lenkenden geistigen Wesenheiten beziehen sich nur auf das, was das Geistig-Seelische ist. Der Mensch ist aber nicht nur abhängig von dem Geistig-Seelischen. Was Geistig-Seelisches ist, hat im wesentlichen Einfluß auf den menschlichen Astralleib. Aber es gibt im Menschen auch dichtere Wesensglieder. Dieselben unterscheiden sich in bezug auf das, was Archai, Archangeloi und Angeloi zu tun haben, nicht sehr wesentlich voneinander. Aber auf diese dichteren menschlichen Wesensglieder haben schöpferischen Einfluß, in bezug auf sie sind schöpferisch tätig diejenigen Wesenheiten, die mit den Exusiai nach aufwärts anfangen. Sprache, Zeitideen verdanken wir den Zeitgeistern, den Volksgeistern, den Archai, den Archangeloi. Aber in bezug auf die menschliche Wesenheit hat auch Einfluß, was in Licht und Luft lebt, in dem Klima einer bestimmten Gegend. Eine andere Menschheit gedeiht unter dem Äquator, eine andere in den Gegenden, die mehr dem Nordpol zu gelegen sind. Wir wollen allerdings dem Ausspruch, den ein deutscher Philosophie-Professor in einem sehr verbreiteten Buch getan hat, nicht gerade beistimmen: Die wesentlichsten Kulturen mußten sich in der gemäßigten Zone entwickeln; denn alle diejenigen Wesenheiten, welche die wesentlichsten Kulturen hervorgebracht haben, würden am Nordpol erfrieren und am Südpol verbrennen! — Aber wir können doch sagen: In den verschiedenen Klimaten sehen wir, wie verschieden die Ernährung und so weiter auf den Menschen wirkt. Es ist keineswegs gleichgültig für den Volkscharakter, wie die äußeren Verhältnisse sind, ob der Mensch zum Beispiel in Gebirgstälern oder in der weiten Ebene lebt. Da sehen wir, wie die Naturkräfte hereinwirken in die ganze menschliche Konstitution. Und da wir durch die Geisteswissenschaft wissen, daß wir in den Naturkräften nichts anderes zu sehen haben als das Auswirken derjenigen Wesenheiten, die geistiger, übersinnlicher Art sind, so müssen wir sagen: In den Naturmächten wirken geistige, übersinnliche Mächte, die gerade durch die Naturkräfte auf den Menschen hereinwirken. Deshalb können wir uns zwischen Archai und Exusiai eine Trennung in der Art denken, daß wir sagen: Angeloi, Archangeloi und Archai wirken auf den Menschen so, daß sie zu ihrem Wirken noch nicht die Naturkräfte benutzen, sondern sie benutzen nur das, was geistig-seelisch auf den Menschen einwirkt, also Sprache, Zeitideen und so weiter. Ihre Wirksamkeit ergreift nicht die niederen Glieder seiner Organisation, weder den Ätherleib noch den physischen Leib. Dagegen haben wir von den Exusiai nach aufwärts diejenigen Wesenheiten, die auf den Menschen wirken, die aber auch in den Naturkräften draußen wirken, die die Leiter und Lenker sind von Luft und Licht, von den verschiedenen Arten, wie die Ernährungsstoffe verarbeitet werden in den Reichen der Natur. Sie sind es, die diesen Reichen der Natur vorstehen. Was wir haben in Blitz und Donner, in Regen und Sonnenschein, wie in der einen Gegend diese oder jene Sorte von Ernährungsstoffen wächst, kurz die ganze Verteilung und Ordnung der irdischen Verhältnisse, schreiben wir geistigen Wesenheiten zu, die wir unter den Wesenheiten der höheren Hierarchien suchen. Blicken wir also zu den Exusiai auf, so sehen wir ihre Ergebnisse nicht bloß in jenen unsichtbaren Auswirkungen, die zum Beispiel die Offenbarungen des Zeitgeistes sind, sondern wir sehen in den Exusiai dasjenige, was als Licht auf uns wirkt, was aber als Licht auch auf die Pflanzen wirkt.
Betrachten wir nun das, was den Menschen als Kultur gegeben wird, als dasjenige, was sie zu lernen haben, um weiterzukommen. Da wird einem jeden Menschen in seiner Epoche das gegeben, was diese Epoche selbst erzeugt, aber auch alles, was die früheren Epochen miterzeugt haben in einer gewissen Weise. Nur das kann geschichtlich, historisch aufbewahrt werden, kann Gegenstand des geschichtlichen Lehrens und Lernens werden, was von den untersten Hierarchien herrührt, die bis zum Zeitgeist hinaufgehen. Was dagegen herausströmt aus den Reichen der Natur selber, das kann nicht aufbewahrt werden in Überlieferungen und Traditionen. Diejenigen jedoch, welche in die übersinnlichen Welten eindringen können, sie dringen durch ihr übersinnliches Erkenntnisvermögen auch hinter den Zeitgeist zu noch höheren Offenbarungen. Solche Offenbarungen nehmen sich dann als etwas aus, was jenseits des Zeitgeistes ist, was mehr Gewicht hat als das, was vom Zeitgeist stammt, was in einer ganz eigentümlichen Art auf die Menschen wirkt. Jeder gesunde Mensch sollte wirklich einmal ernstlich Einkehr halten und sich fragen: Was wirkt auf meine Seele mehr: was ich lernen kann aus den Überlieferungen der einzelnen Völker und Zeitgeister, aus der historischen Überlieferung seit den geschichtlichen Zeiten — oder ein herrlicher Sonnenaufgang, das heißt, die Manifestation der Natur selber, der übersinnlichen Welten? -— Denn der Mensch kann sich bewußt werden, daß ein Sonnenaufgang mit all seiner Größe und Gewalt in der Seele unendlich viel mehr auslösen kann als alle Wissenschaft, als alle Gelehrsamkeit und Kunst zu allen Zeiten. Was überhaupt die Natur offenbart, das kann insbesondere der empfinden, der etwa einmal eine Reise gemacht hat durch die Galerien Italiens, der alles gesehen hat, was erhalten ist von Michelangelo, von Leonardo da Vinci, Raffael und so weiter, und mit aller Gewalt hat auf sich wirken lassen, und der dann irgendeinen der Schweizer Berge besteigt und sich ein Naturschauspiel ansieht. Da fragt man sich: Wer ist ein größerer Maler: Raffael, Leonardo da Vinci — oder diejenigen Mächte, welche den Sonnenaufgang malen, den man vom Rigi aus beobachten kann? — Und man wird sich sagen müssen: So sehr wir auch bewundern, was jemals Menschen geleistet haben das, was sich uns darstellt als die geistig-göttliche Offenbarung der geistigen Mächte, das erscheint uns dennoch als das Größere.
Wenn uns nun aber diejenigen geistigen Führer der Menschheit erscheinen, die wir die Eingeweihten nennen und die nicht aus den Überlieferungen heraus sprechen, sondern auf ursprüngliche Art, dann ist ihre Offenbarung etwas wie die Offenbarung der Natur selbst. Aber was wie ein Sonnenaufgang wirken kann, das kann nimmermehr so wirken, wenn es andere bloß nachsagen. Was wir in der Überlieferung von Moses, von Zarathustra erhalten haben - wenn es Überlieferung ist, wenn es so mitgeteilt ist, wie es die äußere Kultur, die Zeitgeister und Volksgeister aufbewahrt haben, und nun mitgeteilt wird, dann wirkt die Natur dagegen als das Größere. Denn so groß wie die Natur hat es bei den Moses- und Zarathustra-Offenbarungen nur gewirkt, als diese unmittelbar aus dem Erleben der übersinnlichen Welten selber hervorquollen. Das ist das Gewaltige der ursprünglichen Menschheitsoffenbarungen, daß sie herandringen wie das, was die Natur selber zu offenbaren hat. Das aber beginnt erst, wenn wir als unterste Hierarchie in den Naturgewalten ahnen die Exusiai.
Was erlebten nun die, welche in den Synagogen zusammensaßen, als der Christus Jesus unter sie trat? Sie hatten bisher erlebt, daß gelehrt hatten die «Grammatiker», die, welche kannten, was die Zeitgeister, die Volksgeister und so weiter mitgeteilt hatten. Das war man gewohnt. Jetzt kam einer, der nicht lehrte wie diese, sondern so, daß seine Worte eine Offenbarung waren des Reiches der übersinnlichen Mächte in der Natur selber, oder von Donner oder Blitz. Wenn wir also wissen, wie die Hierarchien nach oben wachsen, dann verstehen wir ein solches Wort des Evangeliums und nehmen es in seiner ganzen Tiefe. Das müssen wir fühlen gegenüber einem solchen Wort des Markus-Evangeliums.
Allerdings bei denjenigen Werken der Menschen, die so bleiben wie Raffaels, Leonardo da Vincis Werke und so weiter, kann der, welcher ein Gefühl für das Übersinnliche hat, das dahinter steht, auch noch im spätest gebliebenen Werke fühlen, was ursprünglich geoffenbart worden war. Daher können in der Tat die großen Kunstwerke, die großen Geisteswerke wie ein Nachklang der ersten Werke wirken. Und wenn es uns gelingt, das zu sehen, was zum Beispiel Raffael in seine Werke hineinzulegen verstand, wenn es uns gelingt, Zarathustras Werk wieder zu beleben, dann können wir so etwas von dem hören, was in den Exusiai zu uns dringt.
Aber durch das, was in den Synagogen die Schriftgelehrten mitteilten, das heißt die, welche das aufgenommen hatten, was von Volksgeistern und Zeitgeistern stammte, konnte man nichts hören, was irgendwie anklingen mochte an die Offenbarungen der Natur selber. Daher dürfen wir sagen: Es soll uns in einem solchen Satze angedeutet werden, daß die Menschen in jenen Tagen anfingen zu fühlen und zu empfinden, daß etwas völlig Neues zu ihnen sprach; daß durch diesen Menschen, der da zu ihnen kam, sich etwas offenbarte, was wie eine Naturmacht selber war, wie eine der übersinnlichen Mächte, die hinter den Naturerscheinungen stehen. Die Menschen fingen allmählich an zu ahnen, was eigentlich in den Jesus von Nazareth eingezogen war, was durch die Johannes-Taufe symbolisiert wird. Im Grunde genommen waren sie nicht einmal besonders weit, die da in den Synagogen sagen konnten: Er redet so, daß man empfindet, wie wenn die Exusiai sprechen würden, nicht bloß die Archai, die Zeitgeister, oder die Volksgeister.
Erst wenn es gelingt, dasjenige, was heute so ganz in Abstraktionen ausgeflossen ist, so ganz dünn geworden ist in den modernen Evangelien-Übersetzungen, wieder vollsaftig und inhaltsvoll zu machen durch das, was wir in der Geisteswissenschaft in uns aufgenommen haben, erst dann werden wir verstehen, wieviel dazu gehört, um wirklich zu durchdringen, was in den Evangelien steht. Es werden Generationen dazu gehören, um nur annähernd alle Tiefen auszuforschen, die unser heutiges Zeitalter schon ahnen kann. Manches wird erst in der Zukunft aus den Evangelien erforscht werden können.
Was insbesondere der Schreiber des Markus-Evangeliums darstellen wollte, war im Grunde genommen eine weitere Ausführung dessen, was derjenige lehren durfte, welcher als einer der Allerersten durch unmittelbares übersinnliches Erkennen selber die Natur und Wesenheit des Christus begriffen hat -— nämlich was Paulus lehren konnte. Nun hat man zu verstehen, was eigentlich Paulus alles lernte, was er alles in sich aufnahm durch die Offenbarung von Damaskus. Wenn dieses Ereignis uns auch in der Bibel als eine ganz plötzliche Erleuchtung geschildert wird, so weiß doch der, welcher eine solche Tatsache der Erleuchtung in ihrer wahren Wirklichkeit kennt, wie sie sich jederzeit vollziehen kann für den, der in die Gebiete der geistigen Welt hinaufsteigen will, und wie ein solcher durch alles, was er erlebt, ein ganz anderer Mensch wird. Bei Paulus wird es in der Tat hinlänglich geschildert, wie er ein ganz anderer Mensch durch die Offenbarung von Damaskus geworden ist.
Nun wissen Sie auch schon aus einer sehr wenig tiefgehenden Darstellung der Evangelien und der Paulus-Briefe, daß Paulus in dem Christus-Ereignis, in dem Ereignis von Golgatha den Mittelpunkt unserer ganzen Menschheitsentwickelung sieht, daß er dieses Ereignis unmittelbar anknüpft an jenes Ereignis, das in der Bibel ausgedrückt wird als erstes Menschwerden mit Adam, so daß Paulus etwa sagen will: Was wir als den geistigen Menschen zu bezeichnen haben, als den eigentlichen, wirklichen Menschen, von dem in Maya auch nur eine Maya vorhanden ist, der ist zur Illusion und zu alledem, was er im Fleische in den aufeinanderfolgenden Inkarnationen werden mußte, einmal, wie wir sagen, in der alten lemurischen Zeit herabgestiegen, wurde also ein Mensch, wie er sich darstellte durch die lemurische und atlantische Zeit und die nachatlantische Zeit bis zum Christus-Ereignis. Dann kam das Ereignis von Golgatha.
So stand die Sache für Paulus nach seiner Vision bei Damaskus fest. In dem Ereignis von Golgatha war etwas gegeben, was zunächst ganz gleichbedeutend ist mit dem Heruntersteigen des Menschen in das Fleisch. Denn es war damit der Impuls gegeben, nach und nach diejenigen Formen des irdischen Daseins zu überwinden, die der Mensch dazumal durch Adam angetreten hatte. Daher nennt Paulus den Menschen, der in dem Christus erschienen ist, den neuen Adam, den jeder Mensch durch die Verbindung mit dem Christus anziehen kann.
So haben wir wirklich zu sehen den allmählichen Abstieg des Menschen in die Materie hinein — ob man es nun als Adam bezeichnet oder sonstwie —- von dem lemurischen Menschen bis zum vorchristlichen Menschen, und dann wieder die Kraft und den Impuls aufwärts, so daß der Mensch mit allen Erdenerfahrungen, mit allem, was ihm auf der Erde werden kann, zu dem ursprünglichen geistigen Zustand zurückkommen kann, in welchem er sich befand, bevor er heruntergestiegen war. Man darf nun, wenn man den eigentlichen Sinn der Entwickelung nicht mißverstehen will, nicht etwa fragen: Hätte man denn dem Menschen nicht den Herunterstieg ersparen können? Warum mußte sich der Mensch inkarnieren und durch die verschiedenen Inkarnationen durchgehen, um dann wieder heraufzusteigen und dasselbe zu haben, was er vorher gehabt hat? - Das könnte nur einem völligen Mißverstehen des eigentlichen Geistes der Entwickelung entspringen. Denn der Mensch nimmt alles an Früchten und Erfahrungen mit aus der Erdenentwickelung und ist bereichert mit dem Inhalt der Inkarnationen. Das ist ein Inhalt, den er vorher nicht gehabt hat.
Denken Sie sich hypothetisch den Menschen heruntersteigend durch die erste Inkarnation: da lernt er; er lernt durch die zweite Inkarnation, und so fort durch alle Inkarnationen. Die verlaufen so, daß sie zuerst heruntersteigend, absteigend sind: der Mensch verstrickt sich immer mehr und mehr in die physische Welt. Dann beginnt er wieder aufzusteigen und kann so weit aufsteigen, als er den Christus-Impuls aufnimmt. Er wird einst wieder hinaufkommen in die geistige Welt, hat dann aber mitgenommen, was er auf der Erde gewinnen konnte.
So sieht Paulus in dem Christus wirklich den Mittelpunkt der ganzen Erdenentwickelung des Menschen, was dem Menschen den Impuls gibt, hinaufzusteigen in die übersinnliche Welt, bereichert mit allen Erdenerfahrungen.
Wie sieht nun Paulus von diesem Gesichtspunkte aus das Golgatha-Opfer an, die eigentliche Kreuzigung? - Es ist etwas schwierig, diese Tatsache des Golgatha-Opfers, diese wesentlichste Tatsache der Menschheitsentwickelung genau vor moderne Begriffe zu bringen im Sinne des Paulus. Denn dieser Sinn ist auch der des Schreibers des Markus-Evangeliums. Da müssen wir uns einmal mit dem Gedanken bekanntmachen, daß in dem Menschen, wie er auch heute vor uns steht, ein Mikrokosmos, eine kleine Welt vorhanden ist, und wir müssen schon einmal alles studieren, was da in Betracht kommt.
Wie der Mensch heute vor uns steht, wie er sich entwickelt zwischen Geburt und Tod in der einen Inkarnation, zeigt er uns zwei sehr voneinander verschiedene Entwickelungsglieder. Man unterscheidet sie nur gewöhnlich nicht, aber sie sind sehr, sehr voneinander zu unterscheiden. Ich habe - weil tatsächlich mehr, als man gewöhnlich denkt, unser ganzes geisteswissenschaftliches Streben systematisch aufgebaut ist — bereits verschiedentlich auf diese zwei voneinander grundverschiedenen Glieder des Menschen aufmerksam gemacht. Das eine kann man sehen in der Zeit der menschlichen Entwickelung, die zwischen der Geburt und dem Zeitpunkte liegt, bis zu dem sich der heutige moderne Mensch zurückerinnert in dem einzelnen individuellen Leben. Wenn Sie Ihre Erinnerungen zurückverfolgen, kommen Sie bis zu einem gewissen Punkt; weiter erinnern Sie sich nicht. Obwohl Sie auch vorher da waren und sich vielleicht von Ihren Eltern oder Geschwistern haben erzählen lassen, was Sie vorher getrieben haben, und daher auch manches davon wissen, so erinnern Sie sich doch nicht über einen gewissen Punkt zurück. Es reißt die normale Erinnerung mit einem gewissen Zeitpunkt ab. Der liegt im günstigsten Falle so um das dritte Lebensjahr herum. Vorher ist nun der Mensch ungemein regsam und eindrucksfähig. Was lernt man nicht alles in dieser Zeit, im ersten, zweiten, dritten Lebensjahr! Aber wie die Dinge Eindruck gemacht haben, dessen erinnert sich der heutige moderne Mensch ganz und gar nicht. — Dann beginnt die Zeit, durch welche sich der Faden der Ich-Erinnerung einfach glatt hindurchzieht.
Diese zwei Entwickelungsglieder sollte man sehr wohl beachten, denn sie sind außerordentlich wichtig, wenn man den gesamten Menschen ins Auge fassen will. Man muß nun genau und ohne die Vorurteile der heutigen Wissenschaft die menschliche Entwickelung verfolgen. Die Tatsachen der Wissenschaft belegen und beweisen ja, was ich zu sagen habe; aber die Vorurteile der Wissenschaft darf man dabei nicht zu Rate ziehen, sonst könnte man Wege einschlagen, die von der Wahrheit sehr weit abirren. Wenn man also genau die Entwickelung des Menschen verfolgt, wird man sich sagen können: Wie der Mensch als Gesellschaftswesen, als eine soziale Individualität lebt, so kann er nur leben nach dem Zustande, der durch das bedingt ist, was er aufnimmt in jenen Faden der Erinnerung, der etwa vom dritten Jahre ab - im günstigsten Falle - fließt. Darinnen liegt alles, wovon man sich sagen kann: Es ist die Direktion des menschlichen bewußten Lebens; alle die Dinge, welche wir bewußterweise aufnehmen als Gesetze, nach denen wir uns richten als nachahmenswerten Impulsen und so weiter, alles das liegt darin. Was davor liegt, nehmen wir in einer gewissen Weise unbewußt auf für das Ich-Bewußtsein. Das reiht sich nicht ein dem Faden dessen, was wirklich unserem vollen ichbewußten Leben angehört. Es liegen also gewisse Jahre vor unserem ich-bewußten Leben, in denen die Umwelt in ganz anderer Weise auf uns wirkt als eben später.
Der Unterschied ist ein ganz radikaler. Wenn wir das Kind vor dieser Zeit betrachten könnten, würde sich sofort zeigen, daß es vor dem Zeitpunkt, bis zu dem sich später der Mensch zurückerinnert, sich viel mehr in dem allgemeinen makrokosmischen geistigen Leben drinnen fühlt. Es sondert sich noch nicht heraus, isoliert sich noch nicht, rechnet sich vielmehr zu der ganzen Umgebung zugehörig, spricht sich sogar so an, wie die andern es ansprechen. Denn es sagt nicht «ich will», sondern «Karlchen will», und später erst lernt es sich als ein Ich ansprechen - woran neuere Kinderpsychologen herummäkeln, was aber nicht gegen die Wahrheit spricht, sondern nur gegen die Einsicht der betreffenden Psychologen. Das Kind fühlt sich in den ersten Jahren noch in der Umgebung, fühlt sich als ein Glied der ganzen Umgebung. Sich herauszuisolieren aus der Umgebung als selbständiges Wesen, damit beginnt der Mensch erst in dem Zeitpunkt, bis zu dem er sich dann später zurückerinnerrt.
So werden wir also sagen können: Was der Mensch als Gesetze aufnehmen kann und was den Inhalt seines Bewußtseins bilden kann, das gehört dem zweiten Gliede seiner Entwickelung an von diesem charakterisierten Zeitpunkt ab. Dem ersten Entwickelungsgliede gehört ein ganz anderes Verhältnis zur Umwelt an, so daß man viel mehr darinnensteht und zusammenhängt mit der Umwelt - eine unmittelbare Korrespondenz mit ihr hat. Was eigentlich gesagt werden soll, das können Sie nur gut durchdenken, wenn Sie sich hypothetisch einmal vorstellen, daß dem Menschen jenes Bewußtsein, das im ersten Kindesalter diesen unmittelbaren Zusammenhang mit der Umwelt gibt, erhalten bliebe für die späteren Jahre. Da würde das menschliche Leben ganz anders verlaufen. Dann würde sich der Mensch nicht so isoliert fühlen, sondern er würde in späteren Jahren sich als ein Glied des gesamten Makrokosmos fühlen, er würde sich darinnen fühlen in der großen Welt. Das geht ihm verloren. Er hat keinen Zusammenhang später mit der großen Welt, glaubt sich isoliert dastehend. Wenn er ein Mensch des gewöhnlichen Lebens ist, kommt ihm diese Isolation nur abstrakt zum Bewußtsein. Da kommt sie ihm namentlich zum Bewußtsein, wenn er immer mehr die Egoismen ausbildet, wenn er immer mehr sich sozusagen in seiner Haut abschließen will. Wenig Geschulte glauben - was eigentlich ein vollständiger Unsinn ist -, daß man als Mensch nur in der Haut lebt. Denn in dem Augenblick, wo man ausgeatmet hat, ist doch die ganze eingeatmete Luft draußen, so daß wir also schon durch Ein- und Ausatmen fortwährend mit der ganzen Umwelt in Korrespondenz stehen. Es ist eine absolute Maya, wie sich der Mensch sich selbst als ein Wesen vorstellt. Aber sein Bewußtsein ist schon so geartet, daß er in dieser Maya leben muß. Er kann gar nicht anders. Denn Karma zu erleben, dazu sind die Menschen wirklich weder sehr geneigt noch auch ganz besonders reif in unserer Zeit. Wenn heute zum Beispiel jemandem die Fenster eingeschlagen werden, so empfindet er das, weil er sich als ein isoliertes Wesen fühlt, als einen ihm persönlich zugefügten Schaden und ärgert sich. Wenn er aber an Karma glauben würde, dann würde er sich zugehörig fühlen zu dem ganzen Makrokosmos und würde wissen, daß es ja richtig ist, daß wir eigentlich diejenigen sind, welche die Fenster eingeschlagen haben. Denn wir sind in Wahrheit dem ganzen Kosmos einverwoben. Es ist ein völliges Unding zu glauben, daß wir in unserer Haut eingeschlossen sind. Aber dieses Gefühl des Verbundenseins mit dem Makrokosmos hat nur noch das Kind in den ersten Jahren. Der Mensch verliert es von dem Zeitpunkt ab, bis zu dem er sich später zurückerinnerrt.
Das war nicht immer so. In älteren Zeiten, die gar noch nicht so weit hinter uns zurückliegen, hatte der Mensch in der Tat bis zu einem gewissen Grade jenes Bewußtsein der ersten Kinderjahre hereinragen in seine spätere Zeit. Das war in den Zeiten des alten Hellsehens. Damit aber ist verbunden gewesen eine ganz andere Art des Denkens, sogar des Aussprechens der Tatsachen. Das ist eine Angelegenheit der Menschheitsentwickelung, die sich wohl der Geisteswissenschafter einmal ganz klarmachen müßte.
Wenn heute ein Mensch in der Welt geboren wird, also unter uns auftritt, was ist er dann? — Für den heutigen Menschen ist er im wesentlichen der Sohn seines Vaters, der Sohn seiner Mutter zunächst. Und wenn er im bürgerlichen Leben nicht den Geburtsschein oder Taufschein hat, auf denen Vater und Mutter stehen, wonach man den Menschen identifizieren kann, so weiß man überhaupt nichts über den betreffenden Menschen und streitet ihm unter Umständen seine Existenz ab. Es ist also ein Mensch für das heutige Bewußtsein der Menschheit der physische Sohn seines Vaters, der physische Sohn seiner Mutter.
So dachten die Menschen eines noch gar nicht weit zurückliegenden Zeitalters nicht. Aber weil die Wissenschafter und Forscher der Gegenwart nicht wissen, daß die Menschen früher anders dachten und in ihren Worten und Bezeichnungen ganz anderes darinnen hatten, kommen sie auch zu ganz anderen Auslegungen der alten Mitteilungen. Da wird uns zum Beispiel berichtet von einem griechischen Sänger, Orpheus. Ich erwähne ihn deshalb, weil er in einer gewissen Weise dem Zeitalter angehört, das dem christlichen unmittelbar voranging. Orpheus war der, welcher die griechischen Mysterien eingerichtet hat. Der griechische Zeitraum ist der vierte innerhalb unserer nachatlantischen Kultur, so daß gleichsam durch die Kultur des Orpheus vorbereitet wurde, was der Menschheit später durch das Christus-Ereignis gegeben worden ist. Für Griechenland ist also Orpheus dieser große Vorbereiter. Was würde nun ein moderner Mensch sagen, wenn ihm solch ein Mensch entgegentreten würde, wie Orpheus es war? Er würde sagen: Es ist der Sohn dieses Vaters und der Sohn jener Mutter -, ja die moderne Wissenschaft wird vielleicht sogar nach den vererbten Merkmalen forschen. Es gibt heute schon ein dickes Buch, das die sämtlichen vererbten Merkmale aus den Goetheschen Familien zeigt und so Goethe summieren möchte aus den vererbten Merkmalen. So hat man zur Zeit des Orpheus nicht gedacht, hat nicht als das Wesentliche den äußeren fleischlichen Menschen und dessen Eigenschaften angesehen, sondern man hat als das Wesentliche in Orpheus dasjenige angesehen, wodurch er der Inaugurator, der eigentliche Führer der vorchristlichen griechischen Kultur hat werden können, und man war sich klar, daß das, was als physisches Gehirn, als Nervensystem in ihm lebte, nicht das Wesentliche ist. Als wesentlich betrachtete man vielmehr, daß er in sich trug ein Element - in dem, was er erlebte —, das unmittelbar aus den übersinnlichen Welten herstammte und das sich dann durch ihn auf dem Schauplatz, der durch seine Persönlichkeit gegeben war, traf mit einem sinnlich-physischen Element. Der Grieche sah in der Persönlichkeit des Orpheus nicht das Fleischliche, das abstammt von Vater und Mutter, vielleicht auch von Großvater und Großmutter; das war ihm ziemlich unwesentlich, das war ihm nur der äußere Ausdruck, die Schale. Das Wesentliche war ihm, was abstammte von einem Übersinnlichen und zusammentraf mit einem Sinnlichen auf dem physischen Plan. Daher sagte sich der Grieche: Wenn ich den Orpheus vor mir habe, kommt das kaum in Betracht, daß er von einem Vater und einer Mutter abstammt; aber das kommt in Betracht, daß sein Seelenhaftes, wodurch er etwas geworden ist, abstammt von einem Übersinnlichen, das nie mit dem physischen Plan etwas zu tun gehabt hat, und daß auf dieses Übersinnliche in seiner Persönlichkeit durch das, was die Menschen schon damals waren, ein Sinnlich-Physisches einwirken und sich mit diesem Übersinnlichen verbinden konnte. Und weil die Griechen in Orpheus als Wesentliches ein rein übersinnliches Element sahen, deshalb sagten sie von ihm: er stammt ab von einer Muse. Er war der Sohn einer Muse, Kalliope; er war nicht etwa bloß der Sohn einer fleischlichen Mutter, sondern eines übersinnlichen Elementes, das nie einen Zusammenhang hatte mit dem Sinnlichen.
Wäre er nun bloß der Sohn der Muse Kalliope gewesen, so hätte er nur zum Vorschein bringen können, was Kundgebung der übersinnlichen Welt war. Aber er war vermöge seines Zeitalters auch berufen, das zum Ausdruck zu bringen, was dem physischen Zeitalter dienen sollte. Daher war er nicht nur Sprachrohr für die Muse, für Kalliope, wie in früheren Zeiten die Rishis nur die Sprachrohre für die übersinnlichen Mächte waren, sondern er lebte das Übersinnliche so aus, daß Einfluß auf sein Ausleben die physische Welt hatte. Daher stammt er ab von seinem Vater Öagros, der ein thrakischer Flußgott war. Was Orpheus verkündete, war so auf der andern Seite verbunden und angepaßt dem Klima Griechenlands, dem, was da gab die äußere Natur Griechenlands, dem thrakischen Flußgott Öagros.
Das zeigt uns also, wie das Wesentliche in Orpheus in dem gesehen wurde, was in seiner Seele lebte. Danach bezeichnete man früher die Menschen. Man bezeichnete sie nicht so, wie später, wo man sagte: Der ist der Sohn dieses oder jenes, oder: Er stammt aus dieser oder jener Stadt ab -; sondern man bezeichnete die Menschen nach ihrer geistigen Wertigkeit. An Orpheus ist es nun außerordentlich interessant zu sehen, wie intim das ganze Schicksal eines solchen Menschen empfunden wurde, der so auf der einen Seite von einer Muse abstammte, auf der andern Seite von einem thrakischen Flußgott. Ein solcher Mensch hatte nicht wie die alten Propheten bloß das Übersinnliche, sondern schon das Sinnliche aufgenommen. Er war schon ausgesetzt all den Einflüssen, welche die physisch-sinnliche Welt auf uns ausübt.
Nun wissen wir, daß der Mensch aus verschiedenen Wesensgliedern besteht: aus dem untersten, dem physischen Leib, dann dem Ätherleib - von dem wir gesagt haben, daß er das andere Geschlecht in sich birgt -— und dann dem Astralleib und dem Ich. Ein solcher Mensch wie Orpheus sieht auf der einen Seite noch, weil er von einer Muse abstammt - Sie wissen jetzt, was das bedeutet -, in die geistige Welt hinein. Aber auf der andern Seite werden seine Fähigkeiten, in der geistigen Welt zu leben, untergraben, gerade durch das Leben auf dem physischen Plan, durch die Abstammung von dem Vater, von dem thrakischen Flußgott. Dadurch wird sein rein geistiges Leben untergraben. Bei allen früheren Führern der Menschheit in der zweiten und dritten nachatlantischen Kulturperiode, bei denen bloß vorhanden war ein Sprechen der übersinnlichen Welten durch sie, war es so, daß sie gewissermaßen ihren eigenen Ätherleib als etwas vom physischen Leib Getrenntes wahrnehmen konnten. Wenn in den Kulturen des alten Hellsehens, auch bei den Kelten noch, der Mensch etwas wahrnehmen sollte, was er seinen Mitmenschen zu offenbaren hatte, dann wurde ihm das dadurch geoffenbart, daß sein Ätherleib selber aus ihm heraustrat. Dieser Ätherleib war dann Träger derjenigen Kräfte, die sich zu ihm niedersenkten. Wenn nun die Verkünder Männer waren und also ihre Ätherleiber weiblich waren, so nahmen sie dasjenige, was ihnen etwas aus den geistigen Welten vermittelte, in weiblicher Gestalt wahr.
Nun sollte dargestellt werden, daß Orpheus da, wo er rein mit den geistigen Mächten in Beziehung stand, weil er schon der Sohn des thrakischen Flußgottes war, der Möglichkeit ausgesetzt war, nicht halten zu können, was sich ihm durch seinen eigenen Ätherleib offenbarte. Und je mehr er sich einlebte in die physische Welt und zum Ausdruck brachte, was er war als Sohn des Landes, desto mehr kam ihm sein hellseherisches Vermögen abhanden. Das wird darin dargestellt, daß ihm entrissen wird durch den Biß einer Natter — das heißt durch das, was als Menschliches aus ihm kommt Eurydike, seine Offenbarerin, seine Seelenbraut, und entführt wird in die Unterwelt. Er sollte sie nur wiedererhalten durch eine Initiation, die er dann durchzumachen hatte. Überall, wo von einem Gang in die Unterwelt gesprochen wird, ist eine Initiation gemeint. So sollte er sich durch eine Initiation die Gattin wiedererringen. Aber er war schon zu stark verwoben mit der physischen Welt. Zwar erlangte er in der Tat die Fähigkeit, herunterzudringen in die Unterwelt, aber als er wieder heraufkam, als er wieder der Tagessonne ansichtig wurde, da entschwand ihm Eurydike. Warum? Weil er, als er die Tagessonne erblickte, etwas tat, was er nicht tun durfte: sich umschauen, zurückschauen. Das heißt, er übertrat ein Gebot, das ihm vom Gott der Unterwelt streng auferlegt worden war. Was ist das für ein Gebot? Daß der physische Mensch, wie er heute auf dem physischen Plane lebt, nicht zurückblicken darf hinter jenen charakterisierten Zeitpunkt, wo die makrokosmischen Kindheitserlebnisse liegen, und die, wenn sie hereindringen würden in das spätere Bewußtsein, das alte Hellsehen geben würden. Du darfst nicht, sagt der Gott der Unterwelt, Verlangen danach tragen, wirklich die Geheimnisse der Kindheit zu durchschauen, dich daran zu erinnern, wo die Schwelle aufgerichtet ist. - Da er das tut, verliert er die Fähigkeit des Hellsehens.
So wird etwas außerordentlich Feines und Intimes an Orpheus durch diesen Verlust der Eurydike dargestellt. Dann ist nur eine Folge davon, daß der Mensch ein Opfer der physischen Welt wird. Er ist mit einer Wesenheit, die noch im Übersinnlichen wesenhaft wurzelte, hineingelangt in das, was er werden mußte auf dem physischen Plan. Dadurch dringen alle Kräfte des physischen Planes auf ihn ein, und er verliert Eurydike, seine eigene unschuldige Seele, die dem modernen Menschen verlustig gehen muß; sie verliert er. Und diejenigen Kräfte, in die er dann versetzt wird, zerfleischen ihn. Das ist dann eine Art Opfer des Orpheus.
Was ist es also, was Orpheus zuerst erlebt, weil er herauflebt von dem dritten in den vierten nachatlantischen Kulturzeitraum? Er erlebt dasjenige zuerst, was die erste Bewußtseinsstufe der Kindheit abstreift, den Zusammenhang mit dem Makrokosmos. Der ist nicht da, tritt nicht ins bewußte Leben hinüber. Und so wie der Mensch seiner eigentlichen Wesenheit nach ist, wird er aufgezehrt, getötet von dem Leben des physischen Planes, das eigentlich erst mit dem genannten Zeitraum beginnt. — Fassen Sie jetzt diesen Menschen ins Auge, der sozusagen der Mensch des physischen Planes ist, der sich im heutigen normalen Bewußtsein zurückerinnert bis zu einem bestimmten Zeitpunkt; vor diesem liegen drei Jahre der Kindheit. Dieser Mensch mit dem Faden der Erinnerung ist so verstrickt mit dem physischen Plan, daß es Orpheus seiner eigentlichen Wesenheit nach nicht in ihm aushalten kann, sondern zerrissen wird. Das ist der eigentliche Menschengeist der heutigen Zeit, derjenige Menschengeist, der uns zeigt, wie der Mensch am tiefsten mit der Materie verstrickt sein kann. Das ist der Geist, der im Sinne des paulinischen Christentums der Menschensohn genannt wird. Das müssen Sie sich einmal als einen Begriff aneignen: der Menschensohn, der sich im Menschen findet von dem Zeitpunkt ab, bis zu dem sich der Mensch heute zurückerinnert, mit alledem, was sich der Mensch von der Kultur aneignen kann. Fassen Sie diesen Menschen ins Auge, und denken Sie sich nun alles, was der Mensch sein könnte durch den Zusammenhang mit dem Makrokosmos, wenn hinzukäme, was in den ersten Kindheitsjahren hereindringt vom Makrokosmos. In den ersten Kindheitsjahren kann es nichts anderes sein als eine Grundlage, weil das entwickelte menschliche Ich noch nicht da ist. Wenn es aber in das entwickelte menschliche Ich hereinfiele, dann würde geschehen, was zuerst geschehen ist in dem Augenblick, als dem Jesus von Nazareth der Geist von oben herunterkam durch die Jordan-Taufe: Die drei unschuldigen Kindheits-Entwickelungsstadien mischten sich mit dem übrigen Menschentum zusammen. Das ist das Nächste. Und was war die Folge davon? Die Folge war, daß dieses unschuldige Kindheitsleben, als es sich entwickeln wollte auf der physischen Erde, sich nur drei Jahre entwickeln konnte - wie es sich überall nur drei Jahre entwickelt — und dann auf Golgatha sein Ende fand, das heißt, sich nicht vermischen konnte mit dem, was der Mensch wird in dem Zeitpunkt, bis zu dem er sich dann normalerweise zurückerinnert.
Wenn Sie dies durchdenken: was es bedeuten würde, wenn sich herein mischte in einen Menschen all der Zusammenhang mit dem Makrokosmos, der dumpf und dämmerhaft in den ersten Kindheitsjahren aufkommt, der aber, weil das Kind noch nicht das Ich-Bewußtsein hat, noch nicht wirklich leuchten kann; und wenn Sie weiter denken, wie, wenn er aufdämmerte im späteren Bewußtsein, etwas sich bilden würde, etwas hereinfiele in uns, was nicht aus dem Menschen in uns stammt, sondern aus der ganzen Weltentiefe, aus der wir herausgeboren werden - dann haben Sie die Interpretation der Worte, die da gesprochen worden sind in bezug auf das, was dargestellt ist in dem Herunterkommen der Taube: «Dies ist mein vielgeliebter Sohn; heute habe ich ihn gezeuget!» Das heißt, es ist hier der Christus in dem Jesus von Nazareth inkarniert worden, «gezeuget» worden, der Christus, der in der Tat geboren wurde in den Jesus von Nazareth in dem Augenblick der Johannes-Taufe und der auf der Höhe jenes Bewußtseins stand, das sonst die Menschen nur in den ersten Kindheitsjahren haben, aber mit allem kosmischen Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühl, welches das Kind haben müßte, wenn es wissen würde, was es fühlt in den ersten drei Jahren. Dann würden allerdings auch jene Worte eine ganz andere Bedeutung bekommen: «Ich und der Vater» - der kosmische Vater — «sind eins.»
Wenn Sie dies auf Ihre Seele wirken lassen, dann werden Sie ein wenig von dem nachfühlen, was sozusagen als ein erstes Grundelement in der Offenbarung von Damaskus für Paulus eingetreten ist, und was in dem schönen Worte zum Ausdruck kommt: «Wenn ihr nicht werdet wie die Kindlein, könnt ihr nicht in die Reiche der Himmel kommen!» Dieses Wort hat eine vielfache Bedeutung, aber auch diese. Paulus sagte: «Nicht ich, sondern der Christus in mir!» das heißt die Wesenheit, die ein solches makrokosmisches Bewußtsein hat, wie es das Kind haben würde, wenn es das Bewußtsein der ersten drei Jahre durchdringen könnte mit dem Bewußtsein der späteren Zeit. Beim heutigen normalen Menschen sind diese beiden Arten getrennt, müssen getrennt sein; denn sie würden sich sonst nicht vertragen können. Sie haben sich auch nicht im Christus Jesus vertragen. Denn nach jenen drei Jahren mußte notwendigerweise der Tod eintreten, und zwar unter den Verhältnissen, wie sie sich in Palästina abgespielt haben. Nicht zufällig haben sie sich so dargestellt, sondern durch das Ineinanderleben dieser zwei Faktoren: des Gottessohnes, der der Mensch ist von dem Zeitpunkt der Geburt bis zur Entwickelung des Ich-Bewußtseins, und des Menschensohnes, der der Mensch ist nach dem Zeitpunkt der Erringung des Ich-Bewußtseins. Durch das Zusammenleben des Menschensohnes und des Gottessohnes wurden hervorgerufen die Ereignisse, die dann zu den Ereignissen von Palästina geführt haben.
Sixth Lecture
If you continue reading the Gospel of Mark from the passages we tried to explain last time when discussing this Gospel, you will come to a significant passage which is similar to the accounts in the other Gospels, but whose full meaning can best be understood in the Gospel of Mark. This passage refers to the fact that Christ Jesus, after undergoing the baptism in the Jordan and the experiences in the desert, then, as it is said, went into the synagogue and taught.
This passage is usually translated as follows: “And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.” What is this sentence for a modern person today—even if they are a devout believer in the Bible—other than a rather abstract phrase: “for he taught as one of the scribes”? If we take only the Greek text, we find that the word which in modern language is simply translated as “for he taught as one of the scribes” is:
ὴν γαρ διδἁσχῳv αὐτοὐς ώς ἐξουαίχν ἕχων, χαὶ οὐχ ώç οί γραμματῑç
(ēn gar didamaskōn autous hōs exusiān echōn, kai ouch hōs hoi grammateis)
«und nicht wie die Schriftgelehrten».
If we now want to penetrate the meaning of this significant passage, it will lead us a step further into what we can call the mysteries of the mission of Christ Jesus. For I have already pointed out that the Gospels, just like the other writings that truly originate from the inspired realm, are not so easy to understand, but that, in order to understand them, we must basically hold together everything we have gathered over many years in terms of concepts and ideas about the spiritual worlds. And only such ideas can introduce us to what is meant when the Gospel says: for he taught those who sat in the synagogues as an “Exusiai,” as an authority, as a revelation, and not as those who are here designated by the expression γραμματῑç (grammateis).
If we want to understand such a passage, we must remember everything we have absorbed over time about the higher, supersensible worlds. We have absorbed that human beings, as they live within our world, are, so to speak, the lowest link in a hierarchical order, that we must therefore place human beings on the lowest rung of a hierarchical ladder. Then the supersensible world follows on from human beings. In this world we first find what we call, according to Christian esotericism, the Angeloi or angels, the first supersensible beings above man who influence his life; then come the Archangeloi or archangels, then the Archai or spirits of personality; followed by the Exusiai, Dynamis and Kyriotetes, and then we have the Thrones, Cherubim and Seraphim. In this way, we have a hierarchical order of nine superordinate forms of being above human beings. And now let us try to understand how these various spiritual, supernatural beings intervene in our lives.
The Angeloi are those beings who, as messengers of the supernatural world, are closest to the individual human being as he lives on our earth. They are the beings that have an influence on what we can call the fate of an individual human being on our physical plane. When we come to the archangels, however, we are talking about spiritual beings that, so to speak, already encompass a wider circle of activities. We are talking about beings that we can also describe as folk spirits, who therefore organize and direct the affairs of entire peoples. When modern people today speak of a folk spirit, they mean — as I have often pointed out — so many thousands of people whom they count as living in a particular territory. But when we speak of a folk spirit in spiritual science, we mean the individuality of a people, and we are clear that we do not have in mind the number of people, but a real individuality, just as we speak of the individuality of a single human being. And when we speak of the spiritual guidance of an entire national individuality, we refer to the archangels, the Archangeloi, as the spiritual leaders of such a national individuality. When we speak of these higher beings, we are therefore speaking of real, supersensible creatures that have their spheres of activity. When we speak of the Archai or the spirits of personality, also the primordial beginnings, we are speaking of spiritual beings that are again different from mere folk spirits. When we speak, for example, of the French, English, German folk spirit, and so on, we are speaking, so to speak, of something that is distributed over different areas of the earth. But there is something that is common to all people, at least to all Western peoples today, and in which these peoples understand each other. In contrast to the individual folk spirits, we can call this the spirit of the times, and we must speak of a different spirit of the times for the age of the Reformation and a different one for our time. Above the individual folk spirits, therefore, stand those spiritual beings whom we call Zeitgeists, and essentially these leaders of successive epochs are the Archai. They are at the same time Zeitgeists.
If we rise even higher to the Exusiai, we are essentially dealing with supersensible powers of a completely different nature. In order to form an idea of how the beings of higher hierarchies differ from the three just characterized, the angeloi, archangeloi, and archai, let us remember that the member of any people today is essentially very similar to the member of any other people in terms of his external physical constitution, that is, in terms of what he eats and drinks. We cannot say that what goes beyond the soul-spiritual distinguishes peoples from one another. But even successive epochs are still such that we can say: The guiding spiritual beings relate only to what is soul-spiritual. However, human beings are not only dependent on the spiritual-soul realm. The spiritual-soul realm has an essential influence on the human astral body. But there are also denser elements in human beings. These do not differ greatly from one another in relation to what the archai, archangeloi, and angeloi have to do. But these denser parts of the human being are influenced by creative forces, and the beings that begin with the Exusiai and above are creatively active in relation to them. We owe language and ideas of time to the spirits of the times, the folk spirits, the Archai, and the Archangeloi. But what lives in light and air, in the climate of a particular region, also has an influence on the human being. One kind of humanity thrives near the equator, another in regions closer to the North Pole. However, we do not entirely agree with the statement made by a German philosophy professor in a widely read book: The most essential cultures had to develop in the temperate zone, because all the entities that produced the most essential cultures would freeze to death at the North Pole and burn at the South Pole! — But we can say that in different climates we see how differently nutrition and so on affect people. It is by no means irrelevant to the character of a people what the external conditions are, whether people live in mountain valleys or on the wide plains, for example. Here we see how the forces of nature affect the entire human constitution. And since we know through spiritual science that we have nothing to see in the forces of nature other than the effects of beings that are spiritual, supersensible in nature, we must say: Spiritual, supersensible forces are at work in the forces of nature, and it is precisely through the forces of nature that they affect human beings. Therefore, we can conceive of a distinction between archai and exusiai in such a way that we say: angeloi, archangeloi, and archai work upon human beings in such a way that they do not yet use the forces of nature for their work, but only use what works upon human beings spiritually and soulfully, that is, language, ideas of time, and so on. Their activity does not affect the lower members of his organization, neither the etheric body nor the physical body. On the other hand, from the Exusiai upwards we have those beings who work upon human beings, but who also work in the forces of nature outside, who are the leaders and guides of air and light, of the various ways in which nutrients are processed in the realms of nature. It is they who preside over these realms of nature. What we have in lightning and thunder, in rain and sunshine, how this or that kind of nutrient grows in one region, in short, the entire distribution and order of earthly conditions, we attribute to spiritual beings whom we seek among the beings of the higher hierarchies. So when we look up to the Exusiai, we see their results not only in those invisible effects which are, for example, the revelations of the spirit of the age, but we see in the Exusiai that which acts upon us as light, but which also acts as light upon the plants.
Let us now consider what is given to human beings as culture, as what they have to learn in order to progress. Every human being in his or her epoch is given what that epoch itself produces, but also everything that previous epochs have co-produced in a certain way. Only that which originates from the lowest hierarchies, which extend up to the spirit of the times, can be preserved historically and become the subject of historical teaching and learning. On the other hand, that which flows out of the realms of nature itself cannot be preserved in traditions and customs. However, those who can penetrate the supersensible worlds also penetrate beyond the spirit of the age to even higher revelations through their supersensible powers of perception. Such revelations then appear as something that is beyond the spirit of the age, something that has more weight than what originates from the spirit of the age, something that affects people in a very peculiar way. Every healthy person should really pause for a moment and ask themselves: What has a greater effect on my soul: what I can learn from the traditions of individual peoples and time spirits, from historical tradition since the dawn of time — or a magnificent sunrise, that is, the manifestation of nature itself, of the supersensible worlds? For human beings can become aware that a sunrise, with all its grandeur and power, can trigger infinitely more in the soul than all science, all scholarship, and all art throughout the ages. What nature reveals in general can be felt especially by someone who has traveled through the galleries of Italy, who has seen everything that has been preserved by Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, and so on, and has allowed it to have its full effect on them, and who then climbs one of the Swiss mountains and beholds a spectacle of nature. One asks oneself: Who is the greater painter: Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci — or those powers that paint the sunrise that can be observed from the Rigi? — And one must say: As much as we admire what human beings have ever accomplished, what appears to us as the spiritual-divine revelation of spiritual powers nevertheless seems to us to be greater.
But when we see those spiritual leaders of humanity whom we call the Initiates, who do not speak from tradition but in an original way, then their revelation is something like the revelation of nature itself. But what can have the effect of a sunrise can never have that effect when others merely repeat it. What we have received in the traditions of Moses and Zarathustra—if it is tradition, if it has been communicated as preserved by external culture, the spirits of the times, and the spirits of the people, and is now being communicated—then nature appears as the greater thing in contrast. For the revelations of Moses and Zarathustra only had such an effect as nature itself when they sprang directly from the experience of the supersensible worlds. That is the power of the original revelations to humanity, that they come forward as what nature itself has to reveal. But this only begins when we, as the lowest hierarchy in the forces of nature, sense the Exusiai.
What did those who sat together in the synagogues experience when Christ Jesus came among them? Until then, they had experienced the teachings of the “grammarians,” those who knew what the spirits of the times, the folk spirits, and so on had communicated. They were used to that. Now someone came who did not teach like them, but in such a way that his words were a revelation of the kingdom of the supersensible powers in nature itself, or of thunder or lightning. So if we know how the hierarchies grow upwards, then we understand such a word of the Gospel and take it in all its depth. We must feel this towards such a word of the Gospel of Mark.
However, in the works of men who remain as they are, such as Raphael, Leonardo da Vinci, and so on, those who have a feeling for the supersensible behind them can still feel in the latest works what was originally revealed. Therefore, the great works of art, the great works of the spirit, can indeed seem like an echo of the first works. And if we succeed in seeing what Raphael, for example, understood how to put into his works, if we succeed in reviving Zarathustra's work, then we can hear something of what comes to us in the Exusiai.
But through what the scribes communicated in the synagogues, that is, those who had absorbed what came from the folk spirits and the spirits of the times, nothing could be heard that might in any way echo the revelations of nature itself. Therefore, we may say that such a sentence is meant to indicate that people in those days began to feel and sense that something completely new was speaking to them; that through this man who came to them, something was revealed that was like a force of nature itself, like one of the supernatural powers behind natural phenomena. People gradually began to sense what had actually entered into Jesus of Nazareth, what is symbolized by John's baptism. Basically, those who could say in the synagogues, “He speaks in such a way that one feels as if the Exusiai were speaking, not merely the Archai, the spirits of the times, or the folk spirits,” were not even particularly far advanced.
Only when we succeed in making what has become so abstract today, so thin in modern translations of the Gospels, full and rich again through what we have taken into ourselves in spiritual science, only then will we understand how much is needed to truly penetrate what is written in the Gospels. It will take generations to explore even approximately all the depths that our present age can already intuit. Some things will only be able to be researched from the Gospels in the future.
What the writer of the Gospel of Mark wanted to show was basically a further elaboration of what the one who was one of the very first to understand the nature and essence of Christ through direct supersensible knowledge was allowed to teach—namely, what Paul was able to teach. Now we need to understand what Paul actually learned, what he absorbed through the revelation at Damascus. Even though this event is described in the Bible as a sudden enlightenment, those who know the true reality of such an enlightenment, how it can happen at any time to those who want to ascend into the realms of the spiritual world, and how such a person becomes a completely different human being through everything they experience, know that this is not the case. In Paul's case, it is indeed sufficiently described how he became a completely different person through the revelation at Damascus.
Now you already know from a very superficial reading of the Gospels and the letters of Paul that Paul sees the Christ event, the event of Golgotha, as the center of our entire human development, that he directly links this event to the event expressed in the Bible as the first becoming human with Adam, so that Paul wants to say, for example: What we must call the spiritual human being, the actual, real human being, of whom only a Maya exists in Maya, descended once, as we say, in the ancient Lemurian epoch, to become a human being, as he presented himself through the Lemurian and Atlantean epochs and the post-Atlantean epoch up to the Christ event. Then came the event of Golgotha. That was the situation for Paul according to his vision. as he presented himself through the Lemurian and Atlantean times and the post-Atlantean time until the Christ event. Then came the event of Golgotha.
This was how Paul saw things after his vision at Damascus. In the event of Golgotha, something was given that is initially quite equivalent to the descent of the human being into the flesh. For with it, the impulse was given to gradually overcome those forms of earthly existence that the human being had entered into at that time through Adam. That is why Paul calls the human being who appeared in Christ the new Adam, whom every human being can put on through connection with Christ.
Thus we must truly see the gradual descent of man into matter — whether we call it Adam or something else — from the Lemurian man to the pre-Christian man, and then again the upward force and impulse, so that man, with all his earthly experiences, with everything that can become his on earth, can return to the original spiritual state in which he was before he descended. If we do not want to misunderstand the actual meaning of evolution, we must not ask: Could man not have been spared the descent? Why did human beings have to incarnate and go through various incarnations in order to ascend again and have the same thing they had before? This could only arise from a complete misunderstanding of the actual spirit of evolution. For man takes with him all the fruits and experiences of earthly evolution and is enriched by the content of his incarnations. This is content that he did not have before.
Imagine hypothetically that man descends through the first incarnation: there he learns; he learns through the second incarnation, and so on through all incarnations. These proceed in such a way that they are first descending, going down: the human being becomes more and more entangled in the physical world. Then he begins to ascend again and can ascend as far as he takes in the Christ impulse. He will one day ascend again into the spiritual world, but will then have taken with him what he was able to gain on earth.
Thus Paul truly sees in Christ the center of the entire earthly development of man, which gives man the impulse to ascend into the supersensible world, enriched with all earthly experiences.
How does Paul view the sacrifice at Golgotha, the actual crucifixion, from this point of view? It is somewhat difficult to express this fact of the sacrifice at Golgotha, this most essential fact of human evolution, in modern terms in the sense of Paul. For this meaning is also that of the writer of the Gospel of Mark. We must first familiarize ourselves with the idea that in the human being as he stands before us today there is a microcosm, a small world, and we must first study everything that comes into consideration there.
The human being as he stands before us today, as he develops between birth and death in one incarnation, shows us two very different stages of development. Usually, we don't distinguish between them, but they're really, really different. Because our whole spiritual scientific endeavor is actually more systematically structured than people usually think, I've already pointed out these two fundamentally different parts of the human being in various ways. One can be seen in the period of human development between birth and the point in time to which modern human beings can remember back in their individual lives. If you trace your memories back, you will come to a certain point; you cannot remember any further. Although you were there before and may have been told by your parents or siblings what you did before, and therefore know some things, you cannot remember anything beyond a certain point. Normal memory breaks off at a certain point in time. In the best case, this is around the age of three. Before that, human beings are extremely active and impressionable. What do we not learn during this time, in the first, second, and third years of life! But modern humans today do not remember at all how things made an impression on them. Then begins the period through which the thread of ego-memory simply runs smoothly.
These two stages of development should be taken into account, for they are extremely important if one wants to understand the whole human being. We must now follow human development precisely and without the prejudices of modern science. The facts of science confirm and prove what I have to say; but the prejudices of science must not be taken into account, otherwise we could stray very far from the truth. If one therefore follows the development of the human being precisely, one will be able to say: Just as the human being lives as a social being, as a social individuality, so he can only live according to the condition that is determined by what he takes in through that thread of memory that flows from about the age of three, in the best case. Therein lies everything that can be said: it is the direction of human conscious life; all the things that we consciously take in as laws, which we follow as impulses to be imitated, and so on, all of that lies there. What lies before that, we take in unconsciously, in a certain way, for the ego-consciousness. This does not fit into the thread of what really belongs to our full conscious life. There are therefore certain years before our conscious life in which the environment affects us in a completely different way than it does later.
The difference is quite radical. If we could observe the child before this time, it would immediately become apparent that, before the point in time to which the person later remembers, it feels much more at home in the general macrocosmic spiritual life. It does not yet separate itself, does not yet isolate itself, but rather considers itself part of the whole environment and even addresses itself in the same way that others address it. For it does not say “I want,” but “Little Karl wants,” and only later does it learn to address itself as an “I” — something that modern child psychologists find fault with, but which does not speak against the truth, only against the insight of the psychologists in question. In its first years, the child still feels itself to be in its environment, feels itself to be a member of the whole environment. It is only at the point in time that it later remembers that the human being begins to isolate itself from its environment as an independent being.
We can therefore say that what the human being can take in as laws and what can form the content of its consciousness belongs to the second stage of its development from this characteristic point in time. The first stage of development involves a completely different relationship to the environment, so that one is much more immersed in and connected with the environment—one has an immediate correspondence with it. You can only really understand what this means if you imagine hypothetically that the consciousness that gives children this immediate connection to the environment in early childhood were to remain with them into later years. Human life would then take a completely different course. People would not feel so isolated, but would feel themselves to be a member of the entire macrocosm in later years; they would feel themselves to be part of the greater world. This is lost to them. They have no connection with the greater world later on and believe themselves to be isolated. If they are people of ordinary life, they are only abstractly aware of this isolation. They become particularly aware of it when they develop more and more egoism, when they increasingly want to shut themselves off in their own skin, so to speak. Those with little education believe – which is actually complete nonsense – that as human beings we only live in our skin. For the moment we exhale, all the air we have inhaled is outside, so that through inhaling and exhaling we are constantly in correspondence with the whole environment. It is an absolute Maya how human beings imagine themselves as beings. But his consciousness is already so constituted that he must live in this Maya. He cannot do otherwise. For human beings are really neither very inclined nor particularly mature in our time to experience karma. If, for example, someone's windows are smashed today, they feel it because they feel like an isolated being, as damage done to them personally, and they get angry. But if they believed in karma, they would feel connected to the whole macrocosm and would know that it is right that we are actually the ones who smashed the windows. For in truth, we are woven into the entire cosmos. It is completely absurd to believe that we are enclosed in our own skin. But only children in their early years have this feeling of being connected to the macrocosm. Human beings lose it from the moment they later remember it.
This was not always the case. In earlier times, which are not so far behind us, human beings did indeed retain to a certain extent the consciousness of their early childhood into their later years. That was in the days of ancient clairvoyance. But this was connected with a completely different way of thinking, even of expressing facts. This is a matter of human evolution that spiritual scientists will one day have to clarify.
When a human being is born into the world today, that is, when he appears among us, what is he? For the human being of today, he is essentially the son of his father, the son of his mother, first of all. And if he does not have a birth certificate or baptismal certificate in civil life, on which his father and mother are named, by which a person can be identified, then one knows nothing at all about the person in question and may even deny his existence. So, for the present consciousness of humanity, a human being is the physical son of his father, the physical son of his mother.
People in an age not so long ago did not think this way. But because the scientists and researchers of the present day do not know that people used to think differently and meant something completely different in their words and designations, they arrive at completely different interpretations of the ancient accounts. For example, we are told about a Greek singer named Orpheus. I mention him because he belongs in a certain way to the age that immediately preceded the Christian era. Orpheus was the one who established the Greek mysteries. The Greek period is the fourth within our post-Atlantean culture, so that the culture of Orpheus prepared, as it were, what was later given to humanity through the Christ event. Orpheus is therefore the great preparer for Greece. What would a modern person say if they encountered someone like Orpheus? He would say: He is the son of this father and the son of that mother — indeed, modern science would perhaps even investigate his inherited characteristics. There is already a thick book today that lists all the inherited characteristics of Goethe's family and attempts to summarize Goethe from these inherited characteristics. People did not think this way in Orpheus' time. did not regard the outer, physical human being and his characteristics as essential, but rather regarded as essential in Orpheus that which enabled him to become the initiator, the actual leader of pre-Christian Greek culture, and it was clear that what lived in him as a physical brain, as a nervous system, was not essential. Rather, they considered it essential that he carried within himself an element — in what he experienced — that came directly from the supersensible worlds and then, through him, met with a sensual-physical element on the stage provided by his personality. The Greeks did not see in Orpheus' personality the physical, which comes from his father and mother, perhaps also from his grandfather and grandmother; that was quite insignificant to them, it was only the outer expression, the shell. The essential thing for them was what came from the supersensible and met with the sensible on the physical plane. Therefore, the Greeks said to themselves: When I have Orpheus before me, it is hardly conceivable that he descends from a father and mother; but it is conceivable that his soul, through which he has become something, descends from something supersensible that has never had anything to do with the physical plane, and that this supersensible element in his personality could be influenced by what human beings already were at that time could influence the supersensible and connect with it. And because the Greeks saw a purely supersensible element as essential in Orpheus, they said of him: he is descended from a muse. He was the son of a muse, Calliope; he was not merely the son of a physical mother, but of a supersensible element that never had any connection with the physical.
If he had been merely the son of the muse Calliope, he would have been able to reveal only what was a manifestation of the supernatural world. But by virtue of his age, he was also called upon to express what was to serve the physical age. Therefore, he was not only the mouthpiece for the muse, for Calliope, as in earlier times the rishis were only the mouthpieces for the supernatural powers, but he lived out the supernatural in such a way that the physical world had an influence on his life. That is why he descended from his father Oagros, who was a Thracian river god. What Orpheus proclaimed was, on the other hand, connected and adapted to the climate of Greece, to what existed there in the external nature of Greece, to the Thracian river god Öagros.
This shows us how the essence of Orpheus was seen in what lived in his soul. In the past, people were described in this way. They were not described as they were later, when people said, “He is the son of this or that person,” or “He comes from this or that city.” Instead, people were described according to their spiritual value. In Orpheus, it is extremely interesting to see how intimately the entire destiny of such a person was felt, who on the one hand descended from a muse and on the other from a Thracian river god. Such a person had not only absorbed the supersensible, like the ancient prophets, but also the sensible. He was already exposed to all the influences that the physical-sensory world exerts on us.
Now we know that human beings consist of different elements: the lowest, the physical body, then the etheric body — which we have said contains the opposite sex — and then the astral body and the I. A person like Orpheus, on the one hand, still sees into the spiritual world because he is descended from a muse — you now know what that means. But on the other hand, his ability to live in the spiritual world is undermined precisely by his life on the physical plane, by his descent from his father, the Thracian river god. This undermines his purely spiritual life. All the earlier leaders of humanity in the second and third post-Atlantean cultural periods, who merely spoke through the supersensible worlds, were able to perceive their own etheric body as something separate from the physical body. In the cultures of ancient clairvoyance, including among the Celts, when a person was to perceive something that he had to reveal to his fellow human beings, it was revealed to him by his etheric body emerging from within him. This etheric body was then the carrier of the forces that descended upon him. If the messengers were men and their etheric bodies were therefore female, they perceived what was conveyed to them from the spiritual worlds in female form.
Now it should be explained that Orpheus, because he was purely connected with the spiritual powers, being the son of the Thracian river god, was exposed to the possibility of not being able to hold on to what was revealed to him through his own etheric body. And the more he settled into the physical world and expressed what he was as a son of the land, the more he lost his clairvoyant abilities. This is represented by the fact that Eurydice, his revealer, his soul mate, is snatched from him by the bite of a snake — that is, by what comes out of him as human — and is carried off to the underworld. He could only get her back through an initiation that he then had to undergo. Wherever there is talk of a journey into the underworld, an initiation is meant. Thus, he was to regain his wife through an initiation. But he was already too strongly interwoven with the physical world. Although he did indeed gain the ability to descend into the underworld, when he came back up, when he saw the sun again, Eurydice vanished from him. Why? Because when he saw the sun, he did something he was not allowed to do: he looked back. In other words, he broke a commandment that had been strictly imposed on him by the god of the underworld. What is this commandment? That physical human beings, as they live today on the physical plane, must not look back beyond that characteristic point in time where the macrocosmic experiences of childhood lie, and which, if they were to penetrate into later consciousness, would give rise to the old clairvoyance. You must not, says the god of the underworld, desire to truly see through the secrets of childhood, to remember where the threshold is set. Because he does so, he loses the ability to see clearly.
Thus, something extraordinarily delicate and intimate about Orpheus is represented by this loss of Eurydice. The only consequence of this is that man becomes a victim of the physical world. He has entered into what he must become on the physical plane with a being that was still essentially rooted in the supersensible. As a result, all the forces of the physical plane penetrate him, and he loses Eurydice, his own innocent soul, which modern man must lose; he loses her. And the forces into which he is then placed tear him apart. This is then a kind of sacrifice of Orpheus.
So what is it that Orpheus experiences first, because he lives up from the third to the fourth post-Atlantean cultural epoch? He first experiences what the first stage of consciousness in childhood casts off, the connection with the macrocosm. It is not there, it does not enter conscious life. And just as human beings are in their true nature, they are consumed, killed by the life of the physical plane, which actually only begins with the period mentioned above. Now look at this human being, who is, so to speak, a human being of the physical plane, who in today's normal consciousness remembers back to a certain point in time; before that point lie three years of childhood. This human being, with the thread of memory, is so entangled with the physical plane that Orpheus, in his true nature, cannot endure it and is torn apart. This is the true human spirit of the present age, the human spirit that shows us how deeply human beings can be entangled with matter. This is the spirit that, in the sense of Pauline Christianity, is called the Son of Man. You must make this concept your own: the Son of Man, who is found in human beings from the point in time to which human beings can remember back today, with everything that human beings can acquire from culture. Look into the eyes of this human being and think of everything that human beings could be through their connection with the macrocosm if what enters from the macrocosm in the first years of childhood were added. In the first years of childhood, this can be nothing other than a foundation, because the developed human ego is not yet there. But if it were to fall into the developed human ego, then what happened at the moment when the Spirit descended from above upon Jesus of Nazareth through the baptism in the Jordan would happen: the three innocent stages of childhood development would mix with the rest of humanity. That is the next thing. And what was the consequence of this? The consequence was that this innocent childhood life, when it wanted to develop on the physical earth, could only develop for three years — as it develops everywhere for only three years — and then came to an end at Golgotha, that is, it could not mix with what the human being becomes at the point in time up to which he then normally remembers.
If you think this through: what it would mean if all the connections with the macrocosm, which arise dimly and obscurely in the first years of childhood but cannot really shine because the child does not yet have ego-consciousness, were to mix into a human being; and if you think further, how, if it dawned in later consciousness, something would form, something would fall into us that does not come from the human being within us, but from the whole depth of the world from which we are born—then you have the interpretation of the words that were spoken in relation to what is depicted in the descent of the dove: “This is my beloved Son; today I have begotten him!” That is to say, it is here that Christ was incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth, “begotten,” the Christ who was indeed born in Jesus of Nazareth at the moment of John's baptism and who stood at the height of that consciousness which human beings otherwise only have in the first years of childhood, but with all the cosmic sense of belonging that a child must have if it knew what it feels in the first three years. Then, however, those words would take on a completely different meaning: “I and the Father” — the cosmic Father — “are one.”
If you let this sink into your soul, you will feel a little of what came to Paul, so to speak, as a first basic element in the revelation at Damascus, and which is expressed in the beautiful words: “Unless you become like little children, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven!” These words have many meanings, but this is one of them. Paul said, “Not I, but Christ in me!” That is, the being who has such a macrocosmic consciousness as a child would have if it could permeate the consciousness of the first three years with the consciousness of later life. In today's normal human being, these two types are separate and must be separate, for otherwise they would be incompatible. They were also incompatible in Christ Jesus. For after those three years, death had to come, and it had to come under the circumstances that prevailed in Palestine. It was not by chance that they presented themselves in this way, but through the interliving of these two factors: the Son of God, who is man from the moment of birth until the development of ego-consciousness, and the Son of Man, who is man after the attainment of ego-consciousness. The coexistence of the Son of Man and the Son of God brought about the events that then led to the events in Palestine.