From Jesus to Christ
GA 131
5 October 1911, Karlsruhe
Lecture I
The object of these lectures is to place before you an idea of the Christ-Event in so far as it is connected with the historical appearance of the Christ in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. So many questions of the spiritual life are bound up with this subject that the choice of it will enable us to make a wide survey of the realm of Spiritual Science and its mission, and to discuss the significance of the Anthroposophical Movement for the spiritual life of the present time. We shall also have the opportunity of learning what the content of religion is. And since this content must spring from the common heritage of mankind, we shall seek to know it in its relation to the deeper sources of religious life, and to what the sources of occult science have to tell us concerning the foundation of all religious and philosophic endeavours. Much that we shall have to discuss will seem to lie very far from the theme itself, but it will all lead us back to our main purpose.
We shall best come to a more precise understanding of our subject—modern religious life on the one hand and the spiritual-scientific deepening of spiritual life on the other—if we glance at the origins both of religious life and of occult spiritual life in recent centuries. For as regards spiritual development in Europe during this period, we can discern two directions of thought which have been cultivated with the utmost intensity: on the one hand an exaggeration of the Jesus-Principle, and on the other a most careful, conscientious preservation of the Christ-Principle. When we place before our minds these two recent streams, we must see in the exaggeration of the Jesus-Principle a great and dangerous error in the spiritual life of those times, and on the other side a movement of deep significance, a movement which seeks above all the true paths and is careful to avoid the paths of error. From the outset, therefore, in our judgment of two entirely different spiritual movements, we have to ascribe serious errors to one of them and most earnest efforts after truth to the other.
The movement which interests us in connection with our spiritual-scientific point of view, and which we may call an extraordinarily dangerous error in a certain sense, is the movement known in the external world as Jesuitism. In Jesuitism we encounter a dangerous exaggeration of the Jesus-Principle. In the other movement, which for centuries has existed in Europe as Rosicrucianism, we have an inward Christ-movement which above all seeks carefully for the ways of truth.
Ever since a Jesuitical current arose in Europe, much has been said and written in exoteric life about Jesuitism. Those who wish to study spiritual life from its deeper sources will thus be concerned to see how far Jesuitism signifies a dangerous exaggeration of the Jesus-Principle. If we wish to arrive at a true characterisation of Jesuitism, we must get to know how the three chief principles of world-evolution, which are indicated in the most varied ways in the different world-outlooks, find practical expression in human life, including exoteric life. Today we will first of all turn quite away from the deeper significance and characterisation of these three fundamental streams, which run through all life and all evolution, and will review them from an external point of view.
First of all we have the cognitional element in our soul-life. Now, whatever may be said against the abstractions of a one-sided intellectual search for truth, or against the alienation from life of many scientific, philosophical, and theosophical endeavours, anyone who is clear in his own mind as to what he wills and what he can will, knows that Cognition belongs to the most deeply rooted activities of the soul. For whether we seek knowledge chiefly through thinking, or more through sensation or feeling, Cognition always signifies a taking account of the world around us, and also of ourselves. Hence we must say that whether we are satisfied for the moment with the simplest experiences of the soul, or whether we wish to devote ourselves to the most complicated analysis of the mysteries of existence, Cognition is the primary and most significant question. For it is basically through Cognition that we form a picture of the content of the world—a picture we live by and from which our entire soul-life is nourished. The very first sense-impression, in fact all sense-life, must be included in the realm of Cognition, along with the highest formulations of the intellect.
Under Cognition we must include also the impulse to distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly, for although it is true in a certain sense that there is no disputing about taste, yet cognition is involved when someone has adopted a certain judgment in a question of taste and can distinguish between the beautiful and the ugly. Again, our moral impulses—those which prompt us to do good and abstain from evil—must be seen as moral ideas, as cognition, or as impulses to do the one and avoid the other. Even what we call our conscience, however vague the impulses from it may be, comes under the heading of cognition. In short, the world we are consciously aware of, whether it be reality or maya; the world we live in consciously, everything we are conscious of—all this can be embraced under the heading: cognitive spiritual life.
Everyone, however, must acknowledge that under the surface of this cognitive life something else can be discerned; that in our everyday existence our soul-life gives evidence of many things which are not part of our conscious life. When we wake up in the morning, our soul-life is always strengthened and refreshed and newly born from sleep. During the unconsciousness of sleep we have gained something which is outside the realm of conscious cognition, but comes from a region where our soul is active below the level of consciousness.
In waking life, too, we must admit that we are impelled by impulses, instincts and forces which throw up their waves into our conscious life, while they work and have their being below it. We become aware that they work below the conscious when they rise above the surface which separates the conscious from the subconscious. And indeed our moral life also makes us aware of a subconscious soul-life of this kind, for we can see how in the moral realm this or that ideal comes to birth. It takes only a little self-knowledge to realise that these ideals do rise up into our soul-life, but that we are far from always knowing how our great moral ideals are connected with the deepest questions of existence, or how they belong to the will of God, in which they must ultimately be grounded. We might indeed compare our soul-life in its totality with a deep ocean. The depths of this oceanic soul-life throw up waves to the surface, and those that break out into the realm of air, which we can compare with normal consciousness, are brought within the range of conscious cognition. All conscious life is rooted in a subconscious soul-life.
Fundamentally, the whole evolution of mankind can be understood only if a subconscious soul-life of this kind is acknowledged. For what does the progress of spiritual life signify save that many things which have long dwelt down below take form for the first time when they are brought to surface level? So it is, for example, when an inventive idea arises in the form of an impulse towards discovery. Subconscious soul-life, as real as our conscious life, must therefore be recognised as a second element in our life of soul.
If we place this subconscious soul-life in a realm that is at first unknown—but not unknowable—we must contrast it with a third element. This element is immediately apparent to external, exoteric observation, for if we turn our attention to the outer world through our senses, or approach it through our intellect or any form of mental activity, we come to know all sorts of things. But a more exact consideration of every age of cognition compels us to realise that behind everything we can know about the world at large something else lies hidden: something that is certainly not unknowable but in every epoch has to be described as not yet known. And this not-yet-known, which lies below the surface of the known in the mineral, plant, and animal kingdoms, belongs as much to ourselves as it does to external nature. It belongs to us in so far as we absorb and work up in our physical organism the materials and forces of the outer world; and inasmuch as we have within us a portion of nature, we have also within us a portion of the unknown in nature. So in the world wherein we live we must distinguish a triad: our conscious spiritual life; our subconscious soul-life below the threshold of consciousness; and that which, as the unknown in nature and at the same time in man, lives in us as part of the great unknown Nature.
This triad emerges directly from a rational observation of the world. And if looking away from all dogmatic statements, from all philosophical or theosophical traditions, in so far as these are clothed in conceptual definitions or formulations, we may ask: How has the human mind always expressed the fact that this triad is present not only in the immediate environment, but in the whole world to which man himself belongs? We must then reply: Man gives the name of Spirit to all that can be known within the horizon of the conscious. He designates as the Son or the Logos that which works in the subconscious and throws up only its waves from down below. And to that which belongs equally to the unknown in Nature, and to the part of our own being which is of one kind with Nature, the name of the Father-Principle has always been given, because it was felt to express the relation of the third principle to the other two.
Besides what has now been said concerning the Spirit, the Son, and the Father-Principle, it can be taken for granted that other differentiations we have formerly made, and also the differentiations made in this or that philosophy, have their justifications. But we can say that the most widely accepted idea of this differentiation corresponds with the account of it given here.
Now let us ask: How can we characterise the transition from that which belongs to the Spirit, and so plays directly into the conscious life of the soul, to the subconscious element which belongs to the Son-Principle? We shall best grasp this transition if we realise that into ordinary human consciousness there plays quite distinctly the element we designate as Will, in contrast to the elements of ideation and feeling. If we rightly interpret the Bible saying, ‘The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak’, it indicates that everything grasped by consciousness lies in the realm of the Spirit, whereas by ‘the flesh’ is meant everything that lies more in the subconscious. As to the nature of the Will, we need only think of that which plays up from the subconscious and enters into our consciousness only when we form concepts of it. Only when we transform into concepts and ideas the dark impelling forces which are rooted in the elemental part of the soul—only then do they enter the realm of the Spirit; otherwise they remain in the realm of the Son-Principle. And since the Will plays through our feelings into the life of ideas, we see quite clearly the breaking out into the conscious of the waves from the subconscious ocean. In our threefold soul-life we have two elements, ideation and feeling, which belong to conscious life, but feeling descends directly into the realm of the Will, and the nearer we come to the impulses of Will, the further we descend into the subconscious, the dark realms into which we sink completely when consciousness is engulfed in deep, dreamless sleep.
Thus we see that the Will-element, because it descends into the realm of the subconscious, stands towards the individual being of man in a relationship quite different from that of cognition, the realm of the Spirit. And so, when we differentiate between Spirit and Son, we may be impelled to surmise that man's relationship to the Spirit is different from his relationship to the Son. How is this to be understood?
Even in exoteric life it is quite easy to understand. Certainly the realm of cognition has given rise to all kinds of debate, but if people would only come to understand one another concerning the concepts and ideas they formulate for themselves, controversy over questions of cognition would gradually cease. I have often emphasised that we no longer dispute over mathematics, because we have raised mathematics entirely into consciousness. The things we dispute about are those not yet raised into consciousness: we still allow our subconscious impulses, instincts, and passions to play into them. So we see that in the realm of cognition we have to do with something more universally human than anything to be found in the subconscious realm. When we meet another human being and enter into the most varied relationships with him, it is in the realm of conscious spiritual life that understanding should be possible. And a mark of a healthy soul-life is that it will always wish and hope to reach an understanding with the other person concerning things that belong to conscious spiritual life. It will be unhealthy for the soul if that hope is lost.
On the other hand, we must recognise the Will-element, and everything in another person's subconscious, as something which should on no account be intruded upon; it must be regarded as his innermost sanctuary. We need consider only how unpleasant to a healthy soul-life is the feeling that the Will of another man is being put under compulsion. It is not only aesthetically but morally unpleasant to see the conscious soul-life of anyone eliminated by hypnotism or any other powerful means; or to see the will-power of one person working directly on the Will of another. The only healthy way to gain influence over another person's Will is through cognition. Cognition should be the means whereby one soul comes to an understanding with another. A person must first translate his wishes into a conceptual form; then they may influence another person's cognition, and they should touch his Will only by this indirect route. Nothing else can be satisfactory in the highest, most ideal sense to a healthy life of soul. Every kind of forcible working of Will upon Will must evoke an unpleasant impression.
In other words, human nature strives, in so far as it is healthy, to develop in the realm of the Spirit the life it has in common with others, and to cherish and respect the realm of the subconscious, in so far as it comes to expression in the human organism, as an inviolable sanctuary that should rest in the personality, the individuality, of each man and should not be approached save through the door of conscious cognition. So at least a modern consciousness, attuned to our epoch, must feel if it is to know itself to be healthy.
In later lectures we shall see whether this was so in all periods of human evolution. What has been said today will help us to think clearly about what is outside us and what is within us, at least for our own period. This leads to the conclusion that fundamentally the realm of the Son—embracing everything that we designate as the Son or Logos—must be awakened in each individual as a quite personal concern; and that the realm of common life, where men may be influenced by one another, is the realm of the Spirit.
We see this expressed in the grandest, most significant way in the New Testament accounts of the attitude of Christ Jesus towards His first disciples and followers. From all that is told concerning the Christ-Event we can gather that the followers who had hastened to Jesus during his life-time were bewildered when His life ended with the crucifixion; with that form of death which, in the land where the Christ-Event took its course, was regarded as the only possible expiation for the greatest crimes. And although this death on the cross did not affect everyone as it did Saul, who later became Paul, and as Saul had concluded that someone who suffered such a death could not be the Messiah, or the Christ—for the crucifixion had made a milder impression on the disciples, one might say—yet it is obvious that the writers of the Gospels wished to give the impression that Christ Jesus, through his subjection to the shameful death on the cross, had forfeited some of the effect he had had on the hearts of those around him.
But with this account something else is connected. The influence that Christ Jesus had acquired—an influence we must characterise more exactly during these lectures—was restored to Him after the Resurrection. Whatever may be our present thoughts about the Resurrection, we shall have to discuss it here in the light of occult science; and then, if we simply go by the Gospel narratives, one thing will be clear: for those to whom Christ appeared after the Resurrection He had become someone who was present in a quite special way, different entirely from His previous presence.
In speaking on the Gospel of St. John I have already pointed out how impossible it would have been for anyone who knew Jesus not to recognise Him after three days, or to confuse Him with someone else, if He had not appeared in an altered form. The Evangelists wish particularly to evoke the impression that the Christ appeared in this altered form. But they also wish to indicate something else. For the Christ to exert influence on human souls, a certain receptivity in those souls was necessary. And this receptivity had to be acted on not merely by an influence from the realm of the Spirit but by the actual sight of the Christ-Being.
If we ask what this signifies, we must realise that when a person stands before us, his effect upon us goes beyond anything we are conscious of. Whenever a human being or other being works upon us, unconscious elements affect our soul-life; they are produced by the other being indirectly through consciousness, but he can produce them only if he stands before us in actuality. What the Christ brought about from person to person after the so-called Resurrection was something that worked up from the unconscious soul-powers of the disciples into their soul-life: an acquaintance with the Son. Hence the differences in the portrayal of the risen Christ; hence, too, the variations in the accounts, showing how the Christ appeared to one or other person, according to the disposition of the person concerned. Here we see the Christ-Being acting on the subconscious part of the souls of the disciples; hence the appearances are quite individual, and we should not complain because they are not uniform.
If, however, the significance of the Christ for the world was to be His bringing to all men something common to all of them, then not only this individual working of the Son had to proceed from the Christ, but the element of Spirit, which can encompass something that belongs to all men, had to be renewed by Him. This is indicated by the statement that after the Christ had worked upon the Logos-nature of man. He sent forth the Spirit in the form of the renewed or ‘holy Spirit’. Thus was created that element common to all men which is characterised when we are told that the disciples, after they had received the Spirit, began to speak in the most diverse tongues. Here we are shown how the common element resides in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And something else is indicated: how different is this outpouring of the Spirit from the simple imparting of the power of the Son, for in the Acts of the Apostles we are told that certain persons to whom the apostles came had already received the Jesus-baptism, and yet they had now to receive for the first time the Spirit, symbolically indicated by the laying on of hands. In the characterisation of the Christ-Event we are made very precisely aware of the difference between the working we have to designate as the Christ-working, which acts upon the subconscious impulses of the soul and so must have a personal, inward character, and the Spirit-element, which represents something common to all mankind.
It is this Spirit-element that those who have named themselves ‘Rosicrucians’ have sought to preserve most carefully, as far as human weakness permits. The Rosicrucians have always wished to adhere strictly to the rule that even in the highest regions of Initiation nothing must be worked upon except the Spirit-element which, as common between man and man, is available in the evolution of humanity. The Initiation of the Rosicrucians was an Initiation of the Spirit. It was never an Initiation of the Will, for the Will of man was to be respected as a sanctuary in the innermost part of the soul. Hence the individual was led to those Initiations which were to take him beyond the stage of Imagination, Inspiration, and Intuition, but always so that he could recognise within himself the response which the development of the Spirit-element was to call forth. No influence was to be exerted on the Will.
We must not mistake this attitude for one of indifference towards the Will. The point is that by excluding all direct working upon the Will, the purest spiritual influence was imparted indirectly through the Spirit. When we come to an understanding with another man with regard to entering on the path of knowledge of the Spirit, light and warmth are radiated from the spiritual path, and they then enkindle the Will, but always by the indirect path through the Spirit—never otherwise.
In Rosicrucianism, therefore, we can observe in the highest sense that impulse of Christianity which finds twofold expression: on the one hand in the Son-element, in the Christ-working which goes down deeply into the subconscious; on the other, in the Spirit-working which embraces all that falls within the horizon of our consciousness. We must indeed bear the Christ in our Will; but the way in which men should come to an understanding with each other in life concerning the Christ can be found only—in the Rosicrucian sense—through a conscious soul-life which penetrates ever more deeply into the occult.
In reaction against many other spiritual streams in Europe, the opposite way was taken by those who are usually called Jesuits. The radical, fundamental difference between what we justifiably call the Christian way of the Spirit and the Jesuit way of the Spirit, which gives a one-sided exaggeration to the Jesus-Principle, is that the intention of the Jesuit way is to work directly, at all times, upon the Will. The difference is clearly shown in the method by which the pupil of Jesuitism is educated. Jesuitism is not to be taken lightly, or merely exoterically, but also esoterically, for it is rooted in esotericism. It is not, however, rooted in the spiritual life that is poured out through the symbol of Pentecost, but it seeks to root itself directly in the Jesus-element of the Son, which means in the Will; and thereby it exaggerates the Jesus-element of the Will.
This will be seen when we now enquire into the esoteric part of Jesuitism, its various spiritual exercises. How were these exercises arranged? The essential point is that every single pupil of Jesuitism goes through exercises which lead into the occult life, but into the Will, and within the field of occultism they hold the Will in severe discipline; they ‘break it in’, one might say. And the significant fact is that this discipline of the Will does not arise merely from the surface of life, but from something deeper, because the pupil has been led into the occult, in the way just indicated.
If now, leaving aside the exercises of prayer preparatory to all Jesuit exercises, we consider these occult exercises, at least in their chief points, we find that the pupil has first to call up a vivid Imagination of Christ Jesus as the King of the Worlds—mark this carefully: an Imagination. And no one would be received into the degrees of Jesuitism who had not gone through such exercises, and had not experienced in his soul the transformation which such psychic exercises mean for the whole man. But this Imaginative presentation of Christ Jesus as King of the Worlds has to be preceded by something else. The pupil has to call up for himself, in absolute solitude and seclusion, a picture of man as he was created in the world, and how by falling into sin he incurred the possibility of most terrible punishments. And it is strictly prescribed how one must picture such a man; how if he were left to himself he would incur the utmost of torturing penalties. The rules are extraordinarily severe. With all other concepts or ideas excluded, this picture must live uninterruptedly within the soul of the future Jesuit, the picture of the God-forsaken man, the man exposed to the most fearful punishments, together with the feeling: ‘That am I, since I have come into the world and have forsaken God, and have exposed myself to the possibility of the most fearful punishments.’ This must call forth the fear of being forsaken by God, and detestation of man as he is according to his own nature.
Then, in a further Imagination, over against the picture of the outcast, God-forsaken man, must be set the picture of the God full of pity who then became Christ, and through His acts on earth atones for what man has brought about by forsaking the divine path. In contrast to the Imagination of the God-forsaken man, there must arise that of the all-merciful, loving Being, Christ Jesus, to whom alone it is due that man is not exposed to all possible punishments working upon his soul. And, just as vividly as a feeling of contempt for the forsaking of the divine path had first to become fixed in the soul of the Jesuit pupil, so must a feeling of humility and contrition now take hold of him in the presence of Christ.
When these two feelings have been called forth in the pupil, then for several weeks he has to practise severe exercises, picturing to himself in Imagination all details of the life of Jesus from his birth to the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And all that can arise in the soul emerges when the pupil lives in rigorous seclusion and, except for necessary meals, lets nothing else work upon his soul than the pictures which the Gospels give of the compassionate life of Jesus. But these pictures do not merely appear before him in thoughts and ideas; they must work upon his soul in vivid, living Imaginations.
Only someone who really knows how the human soul is transformed through Imaginations which work with full living power—only he knows that under such conditions the soul is in fact completely changed. Such Imaginations, because they are concentrated in the most intense, one-sided way, first on sinful man, secondly on the compassionate God, and then only on the pictures from the New Testament, evoke precisely, through the law of polarity, a strengthened Will. These pictures produce their effect directly, at first hand, for any reflection upon them must be dutifully excluded. It is solely a matter of holding before one's mind these Imaginations, as they have just been described.
What then follows is this. In the further exercises Christ Jesus—and now we may no longer say Christ but exclusively Jesus—is represented as the universal King of the Worlds, and thereby the Jesus element is exaggerated. Because Christ had to be incarnated in a human body, the purely spiritual took part in the physical world; but over against this participation stand the monumental and most significant words: ‘My kingdom is not of this world.’ We can exaggerate the Jesus element by making Jesus into a king of this world, by making Him that which He would have become if He had not resisted the tempter who wished to give Him ‘all the kingdoms of the world and the glory thereof’. Then Jesus of Nazareth would have been a king who, unlike other kings who possess only a portion of the earth, would have had the whole earth under his sway. If we think of this king portrayed in this guise, his kingly power so increased that the whole earth is his domain, then we should have the very picture that followed the other exercises through which the personal will of each Jesuit pupil had been sufficiently strengthened.
To prepare for this picture of ‘King Jesus’, this Ruler over all the kingdoms of the earth, the pupil had to form an Imagination of Babylon and the plain around Babylon as a living picture, and, enthroned over Babylon, Lucifer with his banner. This picture had to be visualised with great exactitude, for it is a powerful Imagination: King Lucifer, with his banner and his hosts of Luciferic angels, seated amidst fire and dense smoke, as he sends out his angels to conquer the kingdoms of the earth. And the whole danger that issues from the ‘banner of Lucifer’ must first of all be imagined by itself, without casting a glance upon Christ Jesus. The soul must be entirely engrossed in the Imagination of the danger which issues from the banner of Lucifer. The soul must learn to feel that the greatest danger to the world's existence that could be conjured forth would be a victory for the banner of Lucifer. And when this picture has had its effect, the other Imagination, ‘The banner of Jesus’, must take its place. The pupil must now visualise Jerusalem and the plain around Jerusalem; King Jesus with His hosts, how He sends out His hosts, how He conquers and drives off the hosts of Lucifer and makes Himself King of the whole earth—the victory of the banner of Jesus over the banner of Lucifer.
These are the strength-giving Imaginations for the Will which are brought before the soul of the Jesuit pupil. This is what completely changes his Will; makes him such that in his Will, because it is trained occultly, he turns away from everything else and surrenders absolutely to the idea: ‘King Jesus must become the Ruler upon earth, and we who belong to His army have to employ every means to make Him Ruler of the earth. To this we pledge ourselves, we who belong to His host assembled on the plain of Jerusalem, against the host of Lucifer assembled on the plain of Babylon. And the greatest disgrace for a soldier of King Jesus is to forsake His banner.’
These ideas, gathered up into a single resolution of the Will, can certainly give the Will immense strength. But we must ask: what is it in the soul-life that has been directly attacked? The element that ought to be regarded as intrinsically holy, the element that ought not to be touched—the Will-element. In so far as this Jesuit training lays hold of the Will-element, while the Jesus-idea seizes the Will-element completely, in so far is the concept of the dominion of Jesus exaggerated in the most dangerous way—dangerous because through it the Will becomes so strong that it can work directly upon the Will of another. For where the Will becomes so strong through Imaginations, which means by occult methods, it acquires the capacity for working directly upon the Will of another, and hence also along all the other occult paths to which such a Will can have recourse.
Thus we see how in recent centuries we encounter these two movements, among many others: one has exaggerated the Jesus-element and sees in ‘King Jesus’ the sole ideal of Christianity, while the other looks solely at the Christ-element and carefully sets aside anything that could go beyond it. This second outlook has been much calumniated because it maintains that Christ has sent the Spirit, so that, indirectly through the Spirit, Christ can enter into the hearts and minds of men. In the development of civilisation during the last few centuries there is hardly a greater contrast than that between Jesuitism and Rosicrucianism, for Jesuitism contains nothing of what Rosicrucianism regards as the highest ideal concerning human worth and human dignity, while Rosicrucianism has always sought to guard itself from any influence which could in the remotest sense be called Jesuitical.
In this lecture I wished to show how even so lofty an element as the Jesus-principle can be exaggerated and then becomes dangerous, and how necessary it is to sink oneself into the depths of the Christ-Being if we wish to understand how the strength of Christianity must reside in esteeming, to the very highest degree, human dignity and human worth, and in strictly refraining from groping our clumsy way into man's inmost sanctuary. Rosicrucianism, even more than Christian mysticism, is attacked by the Jesuit element, because the Jesuits feel that true Christianity is being sought elsewhere than in the setting which offers merely ‘King Jesus’ in the leading role. But the Imaginations here indicated, together with the prescribed exercises, have made the Will so strong that even protests brought against it in the name of the Spirit can be defeated.
Erster Vortrag
Diese Vorträge sollen dazu bestimmt sein, eine Vorstellung zu schaffen von dem Christus-Ereignis, insofern als es zusammenhängt mit seiner geschichtlichen Erscheinung: mit der Offenbarung des Christus in der Persönlichkeit des Jesus von Nazareth. Mit dieser Frage sind so viele Fragen des geistigen Lebens verbunden, daß wir gerade dadurch, daß diesmal das Thema so gewählt worden ist, weite Ausblicke werden machen können in das Gebiet der Geisteswissenschaft und in ihre Mission; und die Bedeutung gerade der anthroposophischen Bewegung für das gegenwärtige Geistesleben werden wir an der Hand dieses Themas erörtern können. Auf der anderen Seite werden wir dabei Gelegenheit haben, das, was Inhalt der Religion ist und als solcher Inhalt für die menschliche Allgemeinheit bestimmt sein muß, erkennen zu lernen in seinem Verhältnis zu dem, was tiefere Quellen des geistigen Lebens, was die okkulten Quellen, die Quellen der Geheimwissenschaft uns zu sagen wissen über das, was allem religiösen und Weltanschauungs-Streben zugrunde liegen muß. Es wird manches von dem, was wir werden zu besprechen haben, scheinbar recht weit abliegen von dem 'Thema selbst; doch wird uns alles wieder hinführen zu unserer Hauptaufgabe.
Was eben angedeutet worden ist, kann aber gleich von Anfang an in einer genaueren Weise auseinandergesetzt werden, indem wir zum Verständnis unseres gegenwärtigen religiösen Lebens auf der einen Seite und der geisteswissenschaftlichen Vertiefung des gesamten Seelenlebens auf der anderen Seite, einen Blick werfen auf die Herkunft sowohl dieses religiösen wie auch des okkulten, geistigen Lebens in den letzten Jahrhunderten. Denn wir haben in den letzten Jahrhunderten gerade der europäischen Geistesentwickelung zwei Richtungen, die in allerextremster Weise ausgebildet haben auf der einen Seite die Überspannung des Jesus-Prinzips und auf der anderen Seite jetzt nicht mehr die Überspannung, sondern die sorgfältigste, gewissenhafteste Einhaltung des Christus-Prinzips. Wir haben, indem wir diese beiden Strömungen der letzten Jahrhunderte vor unsere Seelen hinstellen, in der Überspannung des Jesus-Prinzips eine große Verirrung, eine gefährliche Verirrung im Geistesleben der letzten Jahrhunderte — und auf der anderen Seite eine tief bedeutsame, überall die rechten Wege suchende und Irrwege sorgfältig vermeidende Bewegung. Also schon in bezug auf diese Beurteilung zweier voneinander ganz verschiedener Geistesbewegungen haben wir die eine zu den schweren Irrtümern, die andere zu den ernstlichsten Bestrebungen nach der Wahrheit zu zählen. Die eine Bewegung, die uns doch auch im Zusammenhang einer geisteswissenschaftlich christlichen Betrachtung interessieren muß, und von der wir als einer in gewisser Weise außerordentlich gefährlichen Verirrung sprechen dürfen, ist die, welche im äußeren exoterischen Leben genannt wird der Jesuitismus, und wir haben im Jesuitismus gegeben eine gefährliche Überspannung des Jesus-Prinzips. Und in demjenigen, was seit Jahrhunderten innerhalb Europas als Rosenkreuzertum besteht, haben wir eine intime, überall sorgfältig die Wege der Wahrheit suchende Christus-Bewegung. Es ist viel im exoterischen Leben zu allen Zeiten, seit es eine jesuitische Strömung innerhalb Europas gibt, über den Jesuitismus gesprochen worden, und deshalb soll es schon auch denjenigen, der das Geistesleben aus seinen tieferen Quellen studieren will, interessieren, inwiefern der Jesuitismus eine gefährliche Überspannung des Jesus-Prinzips bedeutet. Da müssen wir allerdings, wenn wir auf eine wahre Charakteristik des Jesuitismus eingehen wollen, uns von einer gewissen Seite her damit bekanntmachen, wie die drei Hauptprinzipien aller Weltentwickelung, die in der verschiedensten Weise in den verschiedenen Weltanschauungen angedeutet werden, sich praktisch innerhalb unseres Lebens auch schon exoterisch ausleben. Wir wollen heute zuerst einmal ganz absehen von der tieferen Bedeutung und der tieferen Charakterisierung der drei Grundströmungen alles Lebens und aller Entwickelung und wollen sie so, wie sie dem äußerlichen Blicke auffallen, einmal vor unsere Seele führen.
Da haben wir zunächst das eine, was wir nennen können: unser Seelenleben, insofern es ein Erkenntnisleben ist. Was auch der Mensch sonst sagen mag gegen das Abstrakte einer einseitigen Erkenntnis, eines einseitigen Wahrheitsstrebens, was er sagen mag gegen das Lebensfremde mancher wissenschaftlichen, philosophischen, theosophischen Bestrebungen — der Mensch, der sich wahrhaft in seiner Seele klar wird über das, was er will und wollen kann, weiß doch, daß das, was man mit dem Worte Erkenntnis umspannen kann, zu den tiefst eingewurzelten Bestrebungen unseres Seelenlebens gehört. Denn ob wir Erkenntnis suchen durch das Denken oder mehr durch die Empfindung, durch das Fühlen — immer bedeutet Erkenntnis eine Orientierung über alles das, was uns in der Welt umgibt, und auch über uns selbst. So daß wir uns sagen müssen, ob wir nun zufrieden sein wollen mit den allereinfachsten Erlebnissen der Seele, oder ob wir uns einlassen wollen auf die kompliziertesten Auseinandersetzungen über die Geheimnisse des Daseins: Erkenntnis bedeutet für uns doch zunächst die allerbedeutsamste Lebensfrage. Denn wir machen uns durch die Erkenntnis im Grunde genommen das Bild des Welteninhaltes, von dem wir doch leben, von dem all unser Seelenwesen genährt ist. Schon den allerersten Sinneseindruck und überhaupt alles Sinnesleben müssen wir in das Gebiet der Erkenntnis rechnen und ebenso auch die höchsten Abstraktionen von Begriffen und Ideen. Zur Erkenntnis müssen wir aber auch rechnen, was uns in der Seele antreibt, sagen wir, schön und häßlich zu unterscheiden. Denn wenn es auch in einem gewissen Sinne richtig ist, daß sich über den Geschmack nicht streiten läßt, so bedeutet es doch eine Erkenntnis, wenn man sich ein Geschmacksurteil angeeignet hat und entscheiden kann über schön und häßlich. Und auch unsere sittlichen Impulse, was uns dazu antreibt, das Gute zu tun und das Böse zu unterlassen, müssen wir empfinden als sittliche Ideen, als Erkenntnis oder als gefühlsmäßige Antriebe, das eine zu tun, das andere zu lassen. Ja, auch was wir unser Gewissen nennen, mag es noch so unbestimmte Impulse auslösen, es gehört auch zu dem, was mit dem Worte Erkenntnis zu umspannen ist. Kurz, was uns zunächst bewußt ist: die Welt, ob sie eine Welt der Maja oder der Wirklichkeit ist, die Welt, in der wir bewußt leben, alles, was uns bewußt ist, können wir mit dem Worte «Erkenntnisleben» im Geistigen umspannen.
Aber ein jeder Mensch wird auch zugeben müssen, daß gleichsam unter der Oberfläche dieses Geisteslebens, das wir mit der Erkenntnis umspannen, noch etwas anderes liegt; daß unser Seelenleben uns Mannigfaltiges schon für das alltägliche Dasein zeigt, was nicht zu unserem bewußten Leben gehört. Wir können da zunächst darauf hinweisen, wie wir unser Seelenleben des Morgens, wenn wir aufwachen, gestärkt und erfrischt aus dem Schlafe immer neu gebären lassen, und wie wir uns sagen müssen, daß wir für unser Seelenleben im Schlafzustande, also im Unbewußten, etwas gewonnen haben, was nicht in das Gebiet unserer Erkenntnis, unseres Bewußtseinslebens fallen kann, wo unsere Seele vielmehr unter dem Plan des Bewußten arbeitet. Aber auch in bezug auf das wache Tagesleben müssen wir zugeben, daß uns Triebe, Instinkte, Kräfte treiben, die zwar ihre Wellen heraufwerfen in das Feld des Bewußten, die aber unter dem Bewußsten arbeiten und ihr Wesen haben. Wir werden gewahr, daß sie unter dem Bewußten arbeiten, dann, wenn sie heraufkommen über die Oberfläche, durch die unser bewußtes Leben von dem unterbewußten getrennt wird. Und im Grunde genommen zeigt uns auch das sittliche Leben das Dasein eines solchen unterbewußten Seelenlebens, denn wir sehen in diesem sittlichen Leben in uns geboren werden diese oder jene Ideale. Man braucht nur ein wenig Selbsterkenntnis zu haben, um sich zu sagen, daß solche Ideale wohl in unserem Seelenleben aufsteigen, daß wir aber keineswegs immer wissen, wie unsere großen sittlichen Ideale nun zusammenhängen mit den allertiefsten Fragen des Daseins, sagen wir, wie sie im Willen Gottes, in dem sie ja doch schließlich wurzeln müssen, vorhanden sind. Es ist so, wie wenn wirklich unser gesamtes Seelenleben mit dem verglichen werden könnte, was in der Tiefe eines Meeres vorgeht. Diese Tiefen des Seelen-Meeres-Lebens werfen ihre Wellen herauf an die Oberfläche, und was in den Luftraum, mit dem wir das normal bewußte Seelenleben vergleichen können, heraufgeworfen wird, das wird dann zum Bewußtsein, zur Erkenntnis gebracht. Aber alles bewußte Leben wurzelt in einem unterbewußten Seelenleben.
Im Grunde genommen ist ja die ganze Entwickelung der Menschheit nur dann zu verstehen, wenn man ein solches unterbewußtes Seelenleben zugibt. Denn was bedeuten alle Fortschritte des Geisteslebens anderes, als daß aus dem Unterbewußten des Seelenlebens heraufgeholt wird, was lange schon unter der Oberfläche lebt, aber erst dann, wenn es heraufgeholt wird, in die Gestalt eintritt. So zum Beispiel wenn eine erfinderische Idee in die Gestalt des Impulses einer Entdeckung aufgeht. Unterbewußtes Seelenleben, das in uns ebenso ist wie das bewußte, muß man als ein zweites Element unseres Seelenlebens zugeben.
Wenn wir dieses unterbewußte Seelenleben in einer gewissen Weise in das zunächst Unerkannte — nicht Unerkennbare — verlegen, müssen wir ihm noch ein Drittes gegenüberstellen. Dieses Dritte ergibt sich ohne weiteres auch für eine äußere, exoterische Beobachtung, wenn man sich sagt: Richtet man den Blick der Sinne oder des Verstandes oder auch des sonstigen Geisteslebens nach außen, so lernt man Verschiedenes erkennen. Aber man wird bei einer genaueren Besinnung über alles Erkennen doch zugeben müssen, daß hinter dem, was man über die gesamte Welt erkennt, ein anderes verborgen liegt, zwar nicht ein Unerkennbares, aber etwas, was man in jedem Zeitabschnitt ein Noch-nicht-Erkanntes nennen muß. Und dieses Nochnicht-Erkannte, das unter der Oberfläche des Erkannten liegt — wie im Mineralreich, wie im Pflanzen- und Tierreich —, das gehört sowohl der Natur draußen an, wie auch uns selbst. Es gehört uns selbst an, insofern wir in unsere physische Organisation die Stoffe und Kräfte der Außenwelt in uns aufnehmen und verarbeiten; und insofern wir darin ein Stück der Natur haben, haben wir darin auch ein Stück des Unbekannten der Natur. So müssen wir in der Welt, in der wir leben, ein Dreifaches unterscheiden: unser bewußtes Geistesleben, das heißt, das was eintritt in das Bewußtsein; dann das, was unter der Schwelle des Bewußtseins als unser unterbewußtes Seelenleben liegt, und dasjenige, was als unerkanntes Naturleben und zu gleicher Zeit unerkanntes Menschenleben selber, als ein Stück der großen unerkannten Natur in uns lebt.
Diese Dreiheit ergibt sich unmittelbar aus einer sinnvollen Beobachtung der Welt. Und wenn man absieht von allen dogmatischen Feststellungen, absieht von allen philosophischen oder theosophischen Überlieferungen, insofern diese sich in Begriffsdefinitionen kleiden oder in Schemen ausgedrückt werden, wenn man sagt: Wie drückte es der Menschengeist immer aus, daß die eben charakterisierte Dreiheit nicht bloß in seiner Umgebung, sondern in aller Welt vorhanden ist, zu der er selbst gehört, dann muß man sagen: der Mensch drückte es aus, indem er das, was sich auf dem Horizont des Bewußten zu erkennen gibt, den Geist nannte; das aber, was im unterbewußten Seelenleben wirkt und nur seine Wellen heraufwirft aus diesem unterbewußten Seelenleben, als den Sohn oder den Logos bezeichnete. Und das, was sowohl der Natur, insofern sie zunächst unerkannt ist, und dem Stück unseres Eigenwesens, das mit der Natur gleichartig ist, angehört, das bezeichnete der Menschengeist immer, weil er fühlte, daß damit das Dritte gegenüber den zwei anderen gegeben ist, als das Vater-Prinzip. Neben dem, was jetzt gesagt ist mit dem Geist-, Sohn- und Vater-Prinzip, gelten auch selbstverständlich die anderen Unterscheidungen, die wir von jeher gemacht haben, und ebenso haben die Unterscheidungen, die in dieser oder jener Weltanschauung gemacht worden sind, ihre Berechtigung. Aber man könnte sagen, der populärste Begriff dieser Unterscheidung ergibt sich, wenn wir das vor uns hinstellen, was jetzt charakterisiert worden ist.
Nun fragen wir uns: Wie können wir am besten den Übergang charakterisieren zwischen dem, was dem Geiste angehört, also unmittelbar in das bewußte Seelenleben hereinspielt, und dem unterbewußten Seelenleben, das dem Sohnes-Prinzip angehört? Diesen Übergang können wir am besten ins Auge fassen, wenn wir uns klar sind, daß eben in das gewöhnliche Geistesleben des Menschen, in das Bewußtsein, klar und deutlich aus dem Unterbewußtsein herauf diejenigen Elemente spielen, die wir gegenüber dem Vorstellungs- und Gefühlselemente als die Willenselemente bezeichnen müssen. Man braucht dazu nur das biblische Wort in der richtigen Weise zu interpretieren: «Der Geist ist willig», weil damit angedeutet ist, daß in das Geistgebiet alles gehört, was mit Bewußtsein erfaßt wird, — «aber das Fleisch ist schwach», womit man alles dasjenige meint, was mehr im Unterbewußtsein liegt. In bezug auf die Natur des Willens braucht sich der Mensch nur auf das zu besinnen, was aus dem Unterbewußten heraufspielt, und was nur dann in unser bewußtes Seelenleben hereinfällt, wenn wir uns — nach dem Heraufspielen der Wellen aus dem unteren Meere des Seelenlebens — darüber bewußte Begriffe bilden. Erst wenn wir das, was als dunkel treibende Seelenmächte in den Elementen des Seelenlebens wurzelt, zu Begriffen und Ideen umwandeln, wird es zum Inhalt des Geistes; sonst bleibt es in dem Gebiet des Prinzips des Sohnes. Und indem der Wille durch das Gefühl in das Vorstellungsleben heraufspielt, sehen wir ganz deutlich vor uns das Aufschlagen der Wellen aus dem Meere des Unterbewußten in das Bewußte. Daher können wir uns sagen: In der Dreiheit des Seelenlebens haben wir in den beiden Elementen Vorstellung und Gefühl etwas, was dem bewußten Seelenleben angehört; aber das Gefühl steigt schon herunter in das Gebiet des Willens; und je weiter wir an die Willensimpulse, an das Willensleben herankommen, desto mehr steigen wir in das Unterbewußte hinab, in jene dunklen Gebiete, in die wir vollends hinabsteigen, wenn das Bewußtsein ganz erlischt im tiefen, traumlosen Schlafesleben.
Der Sprachgenius ist oftmals viel weiter als der bewußte menschliche Geist und bezeichnet daher Dinge in einer richtigen Art, die wahrscheinlich recht falsch bezeichnet werden würden, wenn der Mensch mit dem Bewußtsein die Sprache ganz meistern könnte. So werden zum Beispiel gewisse Gefühle in der Sprache so ausgedrückt, daß schon im Worte die Verwandtschaft des Gefühles mit dem Willen zum Ausdruck gebracht wird, so daß wir gar nicht einen Willensimpuls meinen, sondern nur einen Gefühlsinhalt, und dennoch das Wort “Wille in der Sprache gebrauchen; eben weil der Sprachgenius bei gewissen tieferliegenden Gefühlen, über die man sich nicht mehr genau Rechenschaft gibt, das Wort “Wille anwendet. Das ist zum Beispiel der Fall, wenn wir von “Widerwillen’ sprechen. Da braucht man gar nicht den Antrieb zu haben, dies oder jenes zu tun; es ist gar nicht nötig, daß der Übergang zum Willen gemacht werde. Es drückt sich dann die Verwandtschaft tieferliegender Gefühle, über die man sich nicht mehr Rechenschaft gibt, mit dem Gebiete des Willens in dem unterbewußten Seelenleben aus. Weil dies so ist, daß das Willenselement in das Gebiet des unterbewußten Seelenlebens hinabsteigt, so müssen wir einsehen, daß dieses Willensgebiet in einem ganz anderen Verhältnisse zum Menschen und seiner individuellen persönlichen Wesenheit stehen muß, als das Erkenntnisgebiet, als das Gebiet des Geistes. Und wenn wir dann unsere unterscheidenden Worte vom Geiste und vom Sohn gebrauchen, dann können wir sagen: Wir können die Ahnung in uns erwecken, daß der Mensch zum Geiste anders stehen muß als zum Sohn. Wie ist das zu verstehen?
Es ist leicht auch schon im exoterischen Leben zu verstehen. Gewiß, es wird über das Gebiet des Erkennens in der mannigfaltigsten Weise diskutiert, aber man muß doch sagen, daß, wenn sich die Menschen nur verständigen über die Begriffe und Ideen, die sie sich auf dem Gebiet der Erkenntnis formulieren, der Streit in bezug auf Erkenntnisfragen immer mehr und mehr aufhören wird. Es ist schon öfter von mir betont worden, daß wir über die Dinge der Mathematik nicht mehr streiten, weil wir sie ganz ins Bewußtsein heraufgehoben haben, und daß wir bei denjenigen Dingen, über die wir uns streiten, diese noch nicht ins Bewußtsein heraufgehoben haben, sondern noch unsere unterbewußten Triebe, Instinkte und Leidenschaften hereinspielen lassen. Damit ist schon angedeutet, daß mit dem Gebiet der Erkenntnis etwas mehr allgemein Menschliches gegeben ist als mit dem Unterbewußten. Wenn wir einem anderen Menschen gegenübertreten, ihm in den verschiedensten Verhältnissen gegenüberstehen, so müssen wir sagen: das Gebiet des bewußten Geisteslebens ist etwas, worüber Verständigung zwischen Mensch und Mensch möglich sein muß. Und ein gesundes Seelenleben drückt sich darin aus, daß es die Sehnsucht, die Hoffnung hat, sich mit dem anderen über die Dinge des geistigen Lebens, des bewußten Seelenlebens verständigen zu können. Es müßte Ungesundheit das Seelenleben ergreifen, wenn einem die Hoffnung schwinden sollte, sich über die Dinge der Erkenntnis, des bewußten Geisteslebens mit dem anderen verständigen zu können. Dagegen gibt sich das Willenselement und alles, was im Unterbewußten ist, als etwas zu erkennen, in das wir, wenn es uns bei der anderen Persönlichkeit entgegentritt, im Grunde genommen gar nicht hineingreifen sollen, sondern es als das innerste Heiligtum des anderen Menschen betrachten sollen. Man fasse nur einmal ins Auge, wie unbehaglich einem gesunden Seelenleben das Gefühl ist, wenn der Wille des anderen niedergezwungen wird. Man mache sich klar, daß es doch nicht nur ein unästhetischer, sondern ein moralisch unbehaglicher Anblick ist, wenn bei einem anderen durch Hypnose oder auf andere gewaltsame Weise das bewußte Seelenleben ausgeschaltet wird; wenn man durch den Willen der einen Persönlichkeit eine Wirkung auf den Willen der anderen direkt ausgeübt sieht. Das einzig Gesunde ist doch, allen Einfluß auf den Willen des anderen Menschen nur durch Erkenntnis hindurch zu bekommen. Erkenntnis soll etwas sein, wodurch sich die eine Seele mit der anderen verständigt. Was der eine will, soll sich zunächst in die Erkenntnis umsetzen, dann in die Erkenntnis des anderen hineinwirken und erst auf dem Umwege der Erkenntnis den Willen des anderen berühren. Nur das kann im höchsten, idealsten Sinne im gesunden Seelenleben befriedigend erscheinen, und alle Art des gewaltsamen Einwirkens von Wille auf Wille muß einen unbehaglichen Eindruck hervorrufen.
Mit anderen Worten: es strebt die Menschennatur, insofern sie gesund ist, dahin, auf dem Gebiete des Geistes das Gemeinschaftsleben zu entwickeln und das Gebiet des Unterbewußten, insofern es sich in der menschlichen Organisation ausdrückt, zu schätzen und zu achten als ein unantastbares Heiligtum, das in der Persönlichkeit, in der Individualität des einzelnen Menschen ruhen soll, und dem man sich nicht anders nähern soll als durch das Tor der bewußten Erkenntnis. So wenigstens muß ein modernes, ein unserem Zeitalter angehörendes Bewußtsein empfinden, wenn es sich gesund weiß. Wir werden in den späteren Vorträgen noch sehen, ob es für alle Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung so der Fall war. Was aber jetzt gesagt worden ist, kann uns ein unmittelbares Besinnen über das, was außer uns, und das, was in uns ist, wenigstens für unsere Gegenwart klar erkennen lassen. Das hängt damit zusammen, daß im Grunde genommen das Gebiet des Sohnes — alles dessen, was wir mit dem Sohn oder Logos bezeichnen — in einem jeden einzelnen von uns als eine individuelle Angelegenheit, als eine ganz persönliche Angelegenheit erweckt werden muß; und daß das gemeinsame Gebiet, auf dem von Mensch zu Mensch gearbeitet werden kann, das Gebiet des Geistes ist.
Wir sehen das, was eben jetzt gesagt worden ist, in der bedeutsamsten, grandiosesten Weise ausgedrückt in all den Erzählungen, die uns das Neue Testament um die Gestalt des Christus Jesus und seiner ersten Jünger und Anhänger herum bietet. Wir sehen — das können wir durchaus aus alledem entnehmen, was wir über das ChristusEreignis zeigen können — wie im Grunde genommen die Anhänger, die dem Christus Jesus zur Zeit seines Lebens zugeeilt waren, irre wurden, als er mit dem Kreuzestode endete; mit jenem Tode, den man in dem Lande, in welchem das Christus-Ereignis sich abspielte, ansah als die einzig mögliche Sühne für größte Verbrechen innerhalb des Menschenlebens. Und wenn auch nicht auf alle dieser Kreuzestod so wirkte wie auf Saulus, der dann der Paulus geworden ist — der als Saulus zunächst die Konsequenz gezogen hatte: der kann nicht der Messias oder der Christus sein, der eines solchen Todes stirbt! — wenn auch auf die anderen Jünger der Kreuzestod einen, man möchte sagen, milderen Eindruck gemacht hat: das eine ist doch mit Händen zu greifen, daß die Evangelienschreiber diesen Eindruck sogar hervorrufen wollen, daß der Christus Jesus alle Wirkung, die er auf die Herzen seiner Umgebung gehabt hat, in einer gewissen Weise verloren hatte dadurch, daß er dem schmählichen Kreuzestode verfallen mußte.
Aber wir sehen mit dieser Nachricht verbunden etwas anderes: daß der Einfluß, den der Christus Jesus verloren hatte — was wir auch in diesen Vorträgen noch genauer charakterisieren müssen — nach der Auferstehung wieder zurückkehrte. Mögen wir heute noch über die Auferstehung denken, wie wir wollen; wir werden sie im Sinne der okkulten Wissenschaft in den nächsten Tagen zu besprechen haben, und dann wird eines klar sein, wenn wir bloß die Evangelienberichte auf uns wirken lassen: daß der Christus für diejenigen, von denen erzählt wird, daß er ihnen nach der Auferstehung erschienen ist, in einer ganz besonderen, einer ganz anderen Art noch ein Gegenwärtiger geworden ist, als dies vorher der Fall war. Ich habe schon bei Besprechung des Johannes-Evangeliums angedeutet, wie es unmöglich wäre, daß nach drei Tagen eine Bekannte des Jesus von Nazareth diesen nicht wiedererkannt hätte, und ihn mit einer anderen Persönlichkeit hätte verwechseln können, wenn er nicht in einer verwandelten Gestalt erschienen wäre. Diesen Eindruck wollen die Evangelien durchaus hervorrufen, daß der Christus in einer anderen Gestalt erschienen ist. Aber auch das andere wollen die Evangelien andeuten: daß etwas notwendig war in dem Innern der Menschenseelen, um den verwandelten Christus auf die Menschenseelen wirken zu lassen, nämlich eine gewisse Empfänglichkeit. Um auf diese Empfänglichkeit zu wirken, durfte nicht bloß dasjenige wirken, was etwa dem Gebiete des Geistes angehört; sondern es mußte wirken der unmittelbare Anblick des Daseins der Christus-Wesenheit. Wenn wir uns fragen, was dabei in Betracht kommt, so müssen wir sagen: wenn ein Mensch uns gegenübersteht, so ist das, was auf uns wirkt, noch weit mehr, als was wir in unser Bewußtsein aufnehmen. Es wirken in jedem Augenblick, wenn ein Mensch oder eine andere Wesenheit auf uns wirkt, unterbewußte Elemente auf unser Seelenleben; solche unterbewußte Elemente, welche die andere Wesenheit auf dem Umwege durch das Bewußtsein erzeugt, die sie aber nur dadurch erzeugen kann, daß sie als Wesenheit uns in ihrer Realität gegenübertritt. Was der Christus von Wesen zu Wesen zunächst gewirkt hat nach der sogenannten Auferstehung, das war etwas, was aus den unbewußten Seelenkräften der Jünger heraufwirkte in ihr Seelenleben: eine Bekanntschaft mit dem Sohne. Daher auch der Unterschied in der Schilderung des auferstandenen Christus; daher auch das Verschiedene der Charakteristiken, wie der Christus auf den einen oder den anderen gewirkt hat, wie er diesem oder jenem erschienen ist, je nachdem der eine oder der andere geartet war. Sie sind Wirkungen der Christus-Wesenheit auf das Unterbewußte seiner Jünger-Seelen; daher auch sind sie ein ganz Individuelles, und wir dürfen uns nicht daran stoßen, daß uns diese Erscheinungen nicht gleichförmig, sondern mannigfaltig geschildert werden.
Wenn aber das, was der Christus der Welt werden sollte, allen Menschen ein Gemeinsames bringen sollte, so mußte nicht nur diese individuelle Wirkung, diese Sohnes-Wirkung von dem Christus ausgehen, sondern es mußte von dem Christus erneuert werden das Element des Geistes, was die Gemeinsamkeit im Menschenleben bilden kann. Das wird dadurch charakterisiert, daß der Christus, nachdem er auf die Logos-Natur der Menschen gewirkt hat, den Geist in der Form des erneuerten oder ‘heiligen’ Geistes sendet. Damit wird das Gemeinsamkeits-Element geschaffen, was dadurch charakterisiert ist, daß gesagt wird: die Jünger fingen an, in den verschiedensten Sprachen zu reden, als sie den Geist empfangen hatten. Damit ist hingedeutet auf das Gemeinsame, das in der Ausgießßung des heiligen Geistes liegt. Und noch durch ein anderes wird angedeutet, wie es verschieden ist von der bloßen Mitteilung der Sohnes-Kraft; denn es wird in der Apostelgeschichte erzählt, wie gewisse Leute, zu denen die Apostel gekommen sind, schon die Taufe nach Johannes hatten — und dennoch — wie es in der Apostelgeschichte symbolisch angedeutet wird, indem auf das Händeauflegen hingewiesen wird — erst empfangen mußten den Geist. Daher müssen wir sagen: Es wird gerade bei der Charakteristik des Christus-Ereignisses in scharfer Weise aufmerksam gemacht auf den Unterschied zwischen jener Wirkung, die wir als die eigentliche Christus-Wirkung zu bezeichnen haben, die auf die unterbewußten Seelenmomente einwirkt und deshalb einen persönlichen, innerlichen Charakter haben muß, und zwischen den Geist-Elementen, die etwas Gemeinschaftliches darstellen.
Dieses Moment der christlichen Entwickelung haben in der sorgfältigsten Weise, so gut es sich bei der menschlichen Schwachheit überhaupt durchführen läßt, diejenigen einhalten wollen, die sich auf den Namen der Rosenkreuzer getauft haben. Sorgfältig haben sie überall das einhalten wollen, daß selbst in den höchsten Regionen der Initiation auf nichts anderes gewirkt werden sollte als auf das, was bei Mensch und Mensch gemeinsam in der Menschheitsentwickelung zur Verfügung steht; daß nur eingewirkt werden durfte auf den Geist. Eine Geist-Initiation war die Initiation der Rosenkreuzer. Sie wurde daher niemals eine Willens-Initiation; denn der Wille des Menschen war etwas, was als ein Heiligtum im Innersten der Seele geachtet wurde. Der Mensch wurde daher zu jenen Initiationen hinaufgeführt, die ihn führen sollten über die Stufe der Imagination, Inspiration und Intuition — aber nur so weit, daß er in seinem Innern erkennen sollte dasjenige, was durch die Entwickelung des Geist-Elementes hervorgerufen werden sollte. Nicht eine Einwirkung auf das Willenselement sollte geschehen. Verwechseln wir das nicht mit einem Gleichgültigsein gegenüber dem Willen. Es handelte sich gerade darum, daß durch das Ausschließen der unmittelbaren Wirkung auf den Willen die reinste geistige Wirkung mittelbar, auf dem Umwege durch den Geist, gegeben wurde. Indem wir uns mit dem anderen Menschen verständigen über das Hineingehen in den Erkenntnispfad des Geistes, wird aus dem Geistespfade heraus das Licht und die Wärme entsendet, die dann auch den Willen anfachen können; aber immer auf dem Umwege durch den Geist, niemals anders. Daher finden wir im eminentesten Sinne jenes Moment der christlichen Wesenheit im Rosenkreuzertum beobachtet, das ausgedrückt ist in einem Zweifachen: auf der einen Seite in dem SohnesElement, in der Christus-Wirkung, die tief ins menschliche Unterbewußtsein hineingeht; und dann in der Geist-Wirkung, die sich auf alles erstreckt, was in den Horizont unseres Bewußtseins hereinfallen soll. Den Christus müssen wir allerdings in unserem Willen tragen; aber die Art, wie sich die Menschen im Leben über den Christus verständigen sollen, kann im Rosenkreuzersinne nur in der immer weiter- und weitergehenden, in das Okkulte hineinbohrenden Art des bewußten Seelenlebens liegen.
Den entgegengesetzten Weg gingen durch eine Reaktion auf manche andere Geistesströmungen innerhalb Europas diejenigen, die gewöhnlich mit dem Namen Jesuiten bezeichnet werden. Das ist der radikale, der Grundunterschied zwischen dem berechtigt christlich zu nennenden Geistesweg und dem jesuitischen Geistesweg, der das JesusPrinzip einseitig überspannt: daß der jesuitische Weg überall auf den Willen direkt zu wirken beabsichtigt, überall den Willen direkt, unmittelbar ergreifen will. Das drückt sich schon bedeutsam aus in der Art und Weise, wie der Zögling des Jesuitismus herangebildet wird. Der Jesuitismus ist deshalb nicht leicht zu nehmen, nicht bloß exoterisch, sondern auch esoterisch, weil er im Esoterischen wurzelt. Aber er wurzelt nicht im Geistesleben, das ausgegossen ist durch das Symbol der Pfingstfeier, sondern er will unmittelbar wurzeln in dem Jesus-Element des Sohnes, das heißt in dem Willen; und dadurch überspannt er das Jesus-Element des Willens. Das wird sich ergeben, wenn wir auf das eingehen, was das Esoterische im Jesuitismus genannt werden muß: auf die verschiedenen geistigen Übungen. Wie sind dieselben eingerichtet? Das ist ja das Bedeutsame, daß jeder einzelne Zögling des Jesuitismus Übungen durchmacht, die in das okkulte Leben, aber in den Willen hineinführen, und den Willen innerhalb des okkulten Feldes in eine strenge Zucht, man könnte sagen Dressur nehmen. Und das ist das Bedeutsame, daß diese Zucht des Willens nicht nur aus der Oberfläche des Lebens hervorquillt, sondern aus einem Tieferen, weil der Zögling in das Okkulte — aber eben in der angedeuteten Richtung — hineingeführt wird.
Wenn wir jetzt absehen von den Gebetsübungen, die vorbereitend sind für alle jesuitischen esoterischen Übungen, und auf diese okkulten Übungen, wenigstens in ihren Hauptsachen, selbst eingehen, so müssen wir sagen: Da hatte sich der Zögling zunächst eine lebendige Imagination hervorzurufen von dem Christus Jesus als dem Weltenkönig — wohl gemerkt: eine Imagination! Und keiner wurde zugelassen zu den eigentlichen Graden des Jesuitismus, der nicht solche Übungen durchgemacht hatte und der nicht in seiner Seele erfahren hatte die Umwandlung, die solche Seelenübungen für den ganzen Menschen bedeuten. Aber diesen imaginativen Vorstellungen des Christus Jesus als Weltenkönig mußte noch etwas anderes vorhergehen. Da hat sich der Mensch vorzustellen — und zwar in tiefer Einsamkeit und Abgeschlossenheit — das Bild des Menschen, wie er in die Welt hereingeschaffen ist und der Sünde verfällt und damit der Möglichkeit der furchtbarsten Strafen. Und streng wird vorgeschrieben, wie das Bild eines solchen Menschen, wenn er sich selbst überlassen ist, den Qualen aller möglichen Strafen verfallen muß. Die Vorschriften sind außerordentlich streng; und ohne daß andere Begriffe und Ideen in seine Seele einziehen, muß fortwährend in der Seele des kommenden Jesuiten das Bild des gottverlassenen, den furchtbarsten Strafen ausgesetzten Menschen leben, und das Gefühl: Das bin ich, indem ich in die Welt hineingetreten bin und Gott verlassen habe und mich der Möglichkeit der furchtbarsten Strafen ausgesetzt habe! — Das muß hervorrufen Furcht vor dem Gorttverlassensein, Abscheu vor dem Menschen, wie er seiner bloßen Natur nach ist. Dann soll in einer weiteren Imagination dem Bilde des verworfenen, gottverlassenen Menschen gegenübertreten das Bild des erbarmungsvollen Gottes, der dann zum Christus wird, und durch seine Taten auf der Erde dasjenige sühnt, was der Mensch durch das Verlassen des göttlichen Pfades angerichtet hat. Entgegentreten soll der Imagination des gottverlassenen Menschen all das Erbarmende, das Liebende der Christus-Jesus-Wesenheit, der einzig und allein es zuzuschreiben ist, daß der Mensch nicht allen auf die Seele wirkenden Strafmöglichkeiten ausgesetzt ist. Und ebenso lebendig, wie sich vorher das Gefühl der Verachtung gegenüber dem Verlassen des göttlichen Pfades in der Seele des Jesuitenzöglings festsetzen muß, so muß jetzt in ihm Platz greifen das Gefühl der Demut und Zerknirschung gegenüber dem Christus. Wenn diese zwei Empfindungsqualitäten in dem Zögling hervorgerufen sind, dann muß die Seele mehrere Wochen hindurch in strengen Exerzitien leben, indem sie sich alle Einzelheiten der Bilder des Jesuslebens — von der Geburt bis zum Kreuzestode und bis zur Auferstehung — in der Imagination vormalt. Und alles das entsteht dann in der Seele, was entstehen kann, wenn der Zögling so, mit Ausnahme der notwendigen Essenszeit, in strenger Abgeschlossenheit lebt und nichts auf die Seele wirken läßt als die Bilder, die das Evangelium von dem erbarmenden Jesusleben schildert. Das aber wird nicht bloß in Gedanken und Begriffen vorgestellt, sondern muß in lebendigen, vollsaftigen Imaginationen auf die Seele wirken.
Nur der, der eben weiß, wie die menschliche Seele umgewandelt wird durch die Imaginationen, die in aller Lebendigkeit wirken, der weiß auch, daß in der Tat unter solchen Bedingungen aus der Seele etwas anderes gemacht wird. Und zwar wird durch solche Imaginationen, weil sie in der intensivsten Weise einseitig, erstens auf den sündigen Menschen, zweitens auf den nur erbarmenden Gott und dann nur auf die Bilder des Neuen Testamentes sich erstrecken, durch das Gesetz der Polarität gerade ein gestärkter Wille hervorgerufen. So daß unmittelbar durch diese Bilder gewirkt wird; denn jedes Nachdenken und so weiter über diese Bilder muß pflichtgemäß ausgeschlossen sein. Da gibt es nur ein Sichvorhalten der Imaginationen, wie sie eben charakterisiert worden sind.
Was dann folgt, ist dies: In den weiteren Exerzitien wird der Christus Jesus — und jetzt kann man sagen, nicht mehr der Christus, sondern ausschließlich Jesus — als der Welten allgemeiner König vorgestellt, und damit wird das Jesus-Element überspannt. Der Jesus ist nur ein Element dieser Welt. Denn dadurch, daß der Christus in einem menschlichen Leibe inkarniert sein mußte, hat zwar das rein Geistige Anteil genommen an der physischen Welt, aber diesem Anteilnehmen an der physischen Welt stehen monumental und bedeutungsvoll die Worte gegenüber: «Mein Reich ist nicht von dieser Welt!» Man kann das Jesus-Element überspannen, indem man den Jesus zu einem König dieser Welt macht, indem man ihn zu dem macht, was er geworden wäre, wenn er dem Versucher nicht widerstanden hätte, der ihm geben wollte «alle Reiche der Welt und ihre Herrlichkeiten». Dann hätte der Jesus von Nazareth ein König werden müssen, der zum Unterschiede von den anderen Königen, die alle nur ein Stück der Erde besitzen, die ganze Erde zu seinem Wirkensbereich gehabt hätte. Man denke sich also diesen König so vorgestellt, die Königskraft so erhöht, daß die ganze Erde zu seinem Reiche gehört: dann hätte man ihn in der Tat in jenem Bilde vorgestellt, das nun folgen muß auf die anderen Exerzitien, die schon den Willen der eigenen Persönlichkeit des Jesuitenzöglings genug gestärkt haben. Und um vorzubereiten dieses Bild des ‘Königs Jesus’, dieses Herrschers über alle Reiche der Erde, muß vorgestellt werden in einer Imagination: Babylon und die Ebene rings um Babylon, als lebendiges Bild, und thronend auf dem babylonischen Feld Luzifer, mit der Fahne des Luzifer. Dieses Bild muß ganz genau vorgestellt werden, denn es ist eine mächtige Imagination: der König Luzifer mit seiner Fahne und seinen Scharen von luziferischen Engeln, sitzend in Feuer und Rauchqualm, wie er aussendet seine Engel, um zu erobern die Reiche der Erde. Und die ganze Gefahr, die von der «Fahne des Luzifer» ausgeht, muß zunächst für sich allein imaginiert werden, ohne einen Blick zu werfen auf den Christus Jesus. Ganz muß die Seele aufgehen in die Imagination der Gefahr, die von der Fahne des Luzifer ausgeht. Die Seele muß empfinden lernen als die größte Gefahr des Weltendaseins die, welche heraufbeschworen würde, wenn die Fahne des Luzifer siegen würde. Und wenn dieses Bild gewirkt hat, dann muß die andere Imagination, die «Fahne des Christus», an ihre Stelle treten. Dazu muß der Zögling sich vorstellen: Jerusalem und die Ebene um Jerusalem, den König Jesus, seine Scharen um ihn, und das Bild, wie er seine Scharen aussendet, wie er überwindet und vertreibt die Scharen des Luzifer und sich zum König der ganzen Erde macht — der Sieg der Fahne Christi über die Fahne des Luzifer!
Das sind die stärkenden Imaginationen für den Willen, die vor die Seele des Jesuitenzöglings geführt werden. Das ist das, was seinen Willen ganz und gar verwandelt, was ihn so macht, daß in der Tat in diesem Willen — weil er auf okkulte Weise heranerzogen ist — ein Absehen von allem Übrigen ist, und ein Hingegebensein an die Idee: Der König Jesus muß zum Herrscher auf der Erde werden! Und wir, die wir zu seinem Heere gehören, wir haben alles anzuwenden, was ihn zum Herrscher auf Erden macht. Das geloben wir, die wir zu dem Heere gehören, das auf der Ebene von Jerusalem versammelt ist, gegenüber dem Heere des Luzifer auf der Ebene von Babylon. Und die größte Schande für einen Soldaten des Königs Jesus ist es, die Fahne zu verlassen!
Das in einen einzigen Willensentschluß zusammengefaßt, ist etwas, was allerdings dem Willen eine gewaltige Stärke geben kann. Wenn wir es uns charakterisieren wollen, müssen wir fragen: Was ist denn in dem Seelenleben unmittelbar angegriffen worden? Das Element, das als das unmittelbar heilige gelten soll, wo man nicht hineingreifen soll: das Willenselement! Insofern bei dieser Schulung des Jesuitismus in das Willenselement eingegriffen wird, indem der Jesus ganz eingreift in das Willenselement, insofern ist der Begriff des Jesustums in der gefährlichsten Weise überspannt, — gefährlich deshalb, weil dadurch der Wille so stark wird, daß er auch unmittelbar auf den Willen des anderen wirken kann. Denn wo der Wille so stark wird durch die Imaginationen, das heißt durch okkulte Mittel, da erwirbt er auch die Fähigkeit, unmittelbar auf den anderen hinüberzuwirken. Daher auch alle die übrigen okkulten Wege, zu denen ein solcher Wille seine Zuflucht nehmen kann.
So sehen wir, wie zwei Strömungen in den letzten Jahrhunderten unter den vielen anderen uns entgegentreten: Die eine, die das JesusElement überspannt hat und nur in dem König Jesus das einzige Ideal des Christentums sieht — und die andere, die einzig und allein auf das Christus-Element sieht und sorgfältig unterscheidet, was darüber hinausgehen könnte; die deshalb auch vielfach verleumdet worden ist, weil sie sich daran hält, daß der Christus den Geist gesandt hat, damit der Christus auf dem Umwege durch den Geist seinen Einzug in die Herzen und Gemüter der Menschen halten kann. Es gibt wohl kaum einen größeren Gegensatz in der Kulturentwickelung der letzten Jahrhunderte, als den zwischen dem Jesuitismus und dem Rosenkreuzertum, weil in dem Jesuitismus nichts von dem enthalten ist, was das Rosenkreuzertum als das höchste Ideal der Beurteilung von Menschenwert und Menschenwürde ansieht; und weil sich das Rosenkreuzertum immer hat bewahren wollen vor einem jeglichen Einfließen dessen, was auch nur im schwachen Sinne als ein jesuitisches Element bezeichnet werden kann.
Damit wollte ich zeigen, wie selbst ein so hohes Element wie das Jesus-Prinzip überspannt werden kann und dann gefährlich wird; und wie es notwendig ist, sich in die Tiefen der Christus-Wesenheit zu versenken, wenn man verstehen will, wie die Stärke des Christentums gerade darin bestehen muß, daß die menschliche Würde, der menschliche Wert aufs allerhöchste geschätzt wird; daß nirgends mit plumpen Schritten hineingetappt wird in das, was der Mensch als sein innerstes Heiligtum betrachten muß. Deshalb wird auch christliche Mystik von dem jesuitischen Element so angefochten — und erst das Rosenkreuzertum im höchsten Maße — weil gefühlt wird, daß wahres Christentum doch anders gesucht wird als dort, wo bloß der König Jesus [eine Rolle] spielt. Aber durch die angedeuteten Imaginationen ist der Wille so stark geworden, daß selbst die gegenteiligen Einsprüche des Geistes durch diesen Willen, der durch die beschriebenen Exerzitien erreicht ist, besiegt werden können.
First Lecture
These lectures are intended to give an idea of the Christ event insofar as it is connected with its historical appearance: with the revelation of Christ in the personality of Jesus of Nazareth. So many questions of spiritual life are connected with this question that, precisely because this topic has been chosen this time, we will be able to gain broad insights into the field of spiritual science and its mission; and we will be able to discuss the significance of the anthroposophical movement for contemporary spiritual life on the basis of this topic. On the other hand, we will have the opportunity to learn to recognize what the content of religion is and, as such, must be intended for the human community in its relationship to what the deeper sources of spiritual life, the occult sources, the sources of secret science, have to tell us about what must underlie all religious and worldview striving. Some of what we will have to discuss will seem quite far removed from the topic itself, but everything will lead us back to our main task.
What has just been indicated can, however, be explained in more detail right from the start by taking a look at the origins of both religious and occult spiritual life in recent centuries, in order to understand our present religious life on the one hand and the spiritual-scientific deepening of the entire soul life on the other. For in the last few centuries, European spiritual development has taken two directions that have developed in the most extreme ways: on the one hand, the exaggeration of the Jesus principle and, on the other hand, no longer the exaggeration, but the most careful, conscientious adherence to the Christ principle. When we consider these two currents of the last centuries, we see in the exaggeration of the Jesus principle a great aberration, a dangerous aberration in the spiritual life of the last centuries — and on the other hand, a deeply significant movement that seeks the right paths everywhere and carefully avoids wrong paths. So already in relation to this assessment of two completely different spiritual movements, we must count one as a serious error and the other as a most earnest striving for truth. The one movement, which must also interest us in the context of a spiritual-scientific Christian view, and which we may speak of as an extraordinarily dangerous aberration in a certain sense, is that which is called Jesuitism in the outer, exoteric life, and in Jesuitism we have a dangerous exaggeration of the Jesus principle. And in what has existed for centuries within Europe as Rosicrucianism, we have an intimate Christ movement that carefully seeks the paths of truth everywhere. Much has been said in exoteric life at all times since there has been a Jesuit current within Europe about Jesuitism, and therefore it should also be of interest to those who want to study spiritual life from its deeper sources to what extent Jesuitism represents a dangerous exaggeration of the Jesus principle. However, if we want to arrive at a true characterization of Jesuitism, we must first familiarize ourselves with how the three main principles of all world development, which are indicated in various ways in different worldviews, are already being lived out exoterically in our lives. Today, we will first of all disregard the deeper meaning and characterization of the three fundamental currents of all life and all development and simply present them to our soul as they appear to the outer eye.
First, we have what we can call our soul life, insofar as it is a life of knowledge. Whatever people may say against the abstract nature of one-sided knowledge, of a one-sided striving for truth, whatever they may say against the alienation from life of many scientific, philosophical, and theosophical endeavors — people who truly become clear in their souls about what what he wants and can want, knows that what can be encompassed by the word “knowledge” belongs to the most deeply rooted aspirations of our soul life. For whether we seek knowledge through thinking or more through sensation, through feeling — knowledge always means orientation toward everything that surrounds us in the world, and also toward ourselves. So we have to ask ourselves whether we want to be satisfied with the simplest experiences of the soul, or whether we want to engage in the most complicated discussions about the mysteries of existence: for us, knowledge is first and foremost the most important question in life. For through knowledge we basically form a picture of the content of the world in which we live, which nourishes our whole soul. We must include even our very first sensory impressions and all sensory life in general in the realm of knowledge, as well as the highest abstractions of concepts and ideas. But we must also include in knowledge what drives us in our souls to distinguish, say, between beautiful and ugly. For even if it is true in a certain sense that there is no arguing about taste, it is nevertheless an act of knowledge when one has acquired a sense of taste and can decide what is beautiful and ugly. And we must also perceive our moral impulses, what drives us to do good and refrain from evil, as moral ideas, as knowledge or as emotional impulses to do one thing and refrain from another. Yes, even what we call our conscience, however vague the impulses it triggers may be, also belongs to what can be encompassed by the word knowledge. In short, what we are initially conscious of: the world, whether it is a world of Maya or reality, the world in which we consciously live, everything that we are conscious of, we can encompass in the spiritual realm with the word “life of knowledge.”
But every human being will also have to admit that beneath the surface of this spiritual life, which we encompass with knowledge, there lies something else; that our soul life already shows us many things in our everyday existence that do not belong to our conscious life. We can point out, first of all, how we allow our soul life to be reborn anew in the morning when we wake up, strengthened and refreshed from sleep, and how we must tell ourselves that we have gained something for our soul life in the state of sleep, that is, in the unconscious, which cannot fall within the realm of our knowledge, our conscious life, where our soul works according to the plan of consciousness. But even in relation to our waking life, we must admit that we are driven by impulses, instincts, and forces that, although they send their waves into the field of consciousness, work beneath the conscious and have their essence there. We become aware that they work beneath the conscious when they rise above the surface that separates our conscious life from the subconscious. And, in essence, moral life also shows us the existence of such a subconscious soul life, for we see these or those ideals being born within us in this moral life. One need only have a little self-knowledge to realize that such ideals do indeed arise in our soul life, but that we do not always know how our great moral ideals are connected with the deepest questions of existence, that is, how they exist in the will of God, in which they must ultimately have their roots. It is as if our entire soul life could be compared to what goes on in the depths of the sea. These depths of the soul-sea life throw their waves up to the surface, and what is thrown up into the airspace, which we can compare to normal conscious soul life, then becomes consciousness, becomes knowledge. But all conscious life is rooted in a subconscious soul life.
Basically, the entire development of humanity can only be understood if one admits the existence of such a subconscious soul life. For what else do all the advances of the spiritual life mean but that what has long been living beneath the surface is brought up from the subconscious of the soul life and only then, when it is brought up, does it take shape? For example, when an inventive idea takes shape in the impulse of a discovery. We must admit that the subconscious life of the soul, which is just as much a part of us as the conscious life, is a second element of our soul life.
If we transfer this subconscious life of the soul in a certain way into the initially unknown — not the unknowable — we must then contrast it with a third element. This third element arises immediately from external, exoteric observation when we say to ourselves: if we direct the gaze of our senses or our intellect or even our other mental faculties toward the outside world, we learn to recognize various things. But on closer reflection about all knowledge, we must admit that behind what we know about the entire world there lies something else, not something unknowable, but something that we must call, in every period of time, something not yet known. And this not-yet-recognized, which lies beneath the surface of what is recognized—as in the mineral kingdom, as in the plant and animal kingdoms—belongs both to nature outside and to ourselves. It belongs to us insofar as we take in and process the substances and forces of the external world into our physical organization; and insofar as we have a piece of nature in it, we also have a piece of the unknown in nature. Thus, in the world in which we live, we must distinguish between three things: our conscious spiritual life, that is, what enters into consciousness; then what lies below the threshold of consciousness as our subconscious soul life; and what lives within us as unrecognized natural life and at the same time as unrecognized human life itself, as a part of the great unrecognized nature.
This triad arises directly from a meaningful observation of the world. And if one disregards all dogmatic assertions, disregards all philosophical or theosophical traditions insofar as they are clothed in conceptual definitions or expressed in schemata, if one says: How has the human spirit always expressed that the triad just characterized is present not only in its environment but in the whole world to which it itself belongs, then one must say: Man expressed this by calling that which reveals itself on the horizon of consciousness the spirit; but that which works in the subconscious life of the soul and only throws up its waves from this subconscious life, he designated as the Son or the Logos. And that which belongs both to nature, insofar as it is initially unknown, and to that part of our own being which is similar to nature, the human spirit has always designated as the Father principle, because it felt that this gives the third element in relation to the other two. In addition to what has now been said about the spirit, son, and father principles, the other distinctions we have always made also apply, of course, and likewise the distinctions made in this or that worldview have their justification. But one could say that the most popular concept of this distinction arises when we put before us what has now been characterized.
Now we ask ourselves: How can we best characterize the transition between what belongs to the spirit, that is, what plays directly into conscious soul life, and the subconscious soul life that belongs to the Son principle? We can best grasp this transition when we realize that elements which we must designate as the elements of the will, as opposed to the elements of imagination and feeling, play clearly and distinctly from the subconscious into the ordinary mental life of human beings, into consciousness. One need only interpret the biblical words in the right way: “The spirit is willing,” because this implies that everything that is grasped by consciousness belongs to the realm of the spirit, “but the flesh is weak,” by which we mean everything that lies more in the subconscious. With regard to the nature of the will, human beings need only reflect on what rises up from the subconscious and only enters our conscious soul life when we form conscious concepts about it — after the waves have risen from the lower sea of soul life. Only when we transform what is rooted in the elements of the soul life as dark, driving soul forces into concepts and ideas does it become the content of the spirit; otherwise it remains in the realm of the principle of the Son. And as the will rises through feeling into the life of imagination, we see very clearly before us the waves rising from the sea of the subconscious into the conscious. We can therefore say that in the threefold life of the soul, we have something in the two elements of imagination and feeling that belongs to conscious soul life; but feeling already descends into the realm of the will; and the closer we come to the impulses of the will, to the life of the will, the more we descend into the subconscious, into those dark realms into which we descend completely when consciousness is completely extinguished in the deep, dreamless life of sleep.
The genius of language is often far ahead of the conscious human mind and therefore describes things in a correct way that would probably be quite wrong if humans were able to master language with their consciousness. For example, certain feelings are expressed in language in such a way that the word itself expresses the relationship between the feeling and the will, so that we do not mean a volitional impulse at all, but only an emotional content, and yet we use the word “will” in language; precisely because the linguistic genius uses the word “will” for certain deeper feelings that we are no longer able to account for precisely. This is the case, for example, when we speak of “reluctance.” There is no need to have the impulse to do this or that; it is not necessary to make the transition to the will. What is expressed is the relationship between deeper feelings, which we are no longer aware of, and the realm of the will in the subconscious life of the soul. Because the element of will descends into the realm of the subconscious soul life, we must realize that this realm of the will must stand in a completely different relationship to the human being and his individual personal nature than the realm of knowledge, the realm of the spirit. And when we then use our distinguishing words about the spirit and the Son, we can say: We can awaken the inkling within ourselves that the human being must stand differently to the spirit than to the Son. How is this to be understood?
It is easy to understand even in exoteric life. Certainly, the realm of cognition is discussed in the most diverse ways, but it must be said that if people only communicate about the concepts and ideas they formulate in the realm of cognition, disputes about questions of cognition will gradually cease. I have often emphasized that we no longer argue about mathematical matters because we have raised them entirely into consciousness, and that in the case of those things about which we argue, we have not yet raised them into consciousness, but still allow our subconscious drives, instincts, and passions to play a role. This already suggests that there is something more generally human in the realm of knowledge than in the subconscious. When we encounter another person, when we face them in a wide variety of circumstances, we must say: the realm of conscious mental life is something about which understanding between human beings must be possible. And a healthy soul life expresses itself in the longing and hope of being able to communicate with others about the things of spiritual life, of conscious soul life. It would be unhealthy for the soul life if the hope of being able to communicate with others about the things of knowledge, of conscious spiritual life, were to disappear. On the other hand, the element of will and everything that is in the subconscious can be recognized as something into which we should not interfere when we encounter it in another personality, but rather regard it as the innermost sanctuary of the other person. Just consider how uncomfortable it is for a healthy soul life when the will of another person is suppressed. It should be realized that it is not only unaesthetic but also morally uncomfortable to see the conscious soul life of another person being switched off by hypnosis or other violent means, to see the will of one personality directly exerting an effect on the will of another. The only healthy thing is to exert influence on the will of another person solely through knowledge. Knowledge should be something through which one soul communicates with another. What one person wants should first be translated into knowledge, then influence the knowledge of the other, and only then, through the detour of knowledge, touch the will of the other. Only this can appear satisfactory in the highest, most ideal sense in a healthy soul life, and all kinds of violent influence of will upon will must produce an unpleasant impression.
In other words, human nature, insofar as it is healthy, strives to develop community life in the realm of the spirit and to value and respect the realm of the subconscious, insofar as it is expressed in the human organization, as an inviolable sanctuary that should rest in the personality, in the individuality of each human being, and which should not be approached except through the gate of conscious knowledge. At least, this is how a modern consciousness belonging to our age must feel if it knows itself to be healthy. We shall see in later lectures whether this has always been the case throughout human development. But what has now been said can give us immediate insight into what is outside of us and what is within us, at least for our present situation. This has to do with the fact that, basically, the realm of the Son—everything we call the Son or Logos—must be awakened in each of us as an individual matter, as a completely personal matter; and that the common realm in which work can be done from person to person is the realm of the spirit.
We see what has just been said expressed in the most significant and grandiose way in all the stories that the New Testament offers us about the figure of Christ Jesus and his first disciples and followers. We see — we can see this quite clearly from everything we can show about the Christ event — how, in essence, the followers who had rushed to Christ Jesus during his lifetime were led astray when he ended his life on the cross; by that death which, in the country where the Christ event took place, was regarded as the only possible atonement for the greatest crimes within human life. And even if the death on the cross did not have the same effect on all of them as it did on Saul, who then became Paul — who, as Saul, initially regarded the crucifixion as the greatest crime within human life — as the only possible atonement for the greatest crimes within human life. And even if this death on the cross did not affect everyone in the same way as it did Saul, who then became Paul — who as Saul had initially drawn the conclusion: he cannot be the Messiah or the Christ who dies such a death! — even if the death on the cross made a milder impression, one might say, on the other disciples: it is nevertheless obvious that the Gospel writers even want to give the impression that Christ Jesus had lost, in a certain sense, all the effect he had had on the hearts of those around him by having to suffer the shameful death on the cross.
But we see something else connected with this news: that the influence which Christ Jesus had lost — which we must characterize more precisely in these lectures — returned after the Resurrection. Whatever we may think today about the resurrection, we will have to discuss it in the light of occult science in the next few days, and then one thing will become clear if we simply allow the Gospel accounts to work on us: that for those to whom it is said that he appeared after the resurrection, Christ became present in a very special, completely different way than was previously the case. I already hinted at this when discussing the Gospel of John, that it would have been impossible for a friend of Jesus of Nazareth not to recognize him after three days and confuse him with another person if he had not appeared in a transformed form. The Gospels definitely want to give the impression that Christ appeared in a different form. But the Gospels also want to suggest something else: that something was necessary within human souls in order for the transformed Christ to have an effect on them, namely a certain receptivity. In order to have an effect on this receptivity, it was not enough for something belonging to the realm of the spirit to act; the direct sight of the existence of the Christ being had to act. When we ask ourselves what this might be, we must say that when a human being stands before us, what affects us is far more than what we take into our consciousness. Every moment that a human being or another entity acts upon us, subconscious elements act upon our soul life; such subconscious elements are produced by the other entity via a detour through consciousness, but they can only be produced in this way because the entity confronts us in its reality. What Christ initially did from being to being after the so-called resurrection was something that arose from the unconscious soul forces of the disciples into their soul life: an acquaintance with the Son. Hence the difference in the descriptions of the risen Christ; hence also the differences in the characteristics of how Christ worked on one person or another, how he appeared to this or that person, depending on the nature of the individual. They are effects of the Christ Being on the subconscious of his disciples' souls; therefore, they are also entirely individual, and we should not be offended that these appearances are not described uniformly, but in a variety of ways.
But if what Christ was to become for the world was to bring something common to all human beings, then not only did this individual effect, this Son-effect, have to emanate from Christ, but the element of the spirit that can form the common ground in human life had to be renewed by Christ. This is characterized by the fact that Christ, after working on the Logos nature of human beings, sends the Spirit in the form of the renewed or “holy” Spirit. This creates the element of commonality, which is characterized by the statement that the disciples began to speak in different languages when they received the Spirit. This points to the commonality that lies in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. And something else indicates how this differs from the mere communication of the Son's power; for it is told in the Acts of the Apostles how certain people to whom the apostles came had already been baptized by John — and yet — as is symbolically indicated in the Acts of the Apostles by the reference to the laying on of hands — they first had to receive the Spirit. Therefore, we must say: It is precisely in the characterization of the Christ event that sharp attention is drawn to the difference between that effect which we must designate as the actual Christ effect, which acts upon the subconscious moments of the soul and therefore must have a personal, inner character, and between the spirit elements, which represent something communal.
Those who have baptized themselves in the name of the Rosicrucians have sought to observe this moment of Christian development in the most careful manner possible, given human weakness. They have carefully sought to observe everywhere that even in the highest regions of initiation, nothing should be worked upon except what is common to all human beings in the evolution of humanity; that only the spirit should be influenced. The initiation of the Rosicrucians was a spiritual initiation. It therefore never became an initiation of the will, for the human will was something that was regarded as a sanctuary in the innermost part of the soul. Human beings were therefore led up to those initiations that were to take them beyond the stages of imagination, inspiration, and intuition—but only so far that they could recognize within themselves what was to be brought about by the development of the spirit element. No influence was to be exerted on the element of the will. Let us not confuse this with indifference toward the will. It was precisely a matter of excluding any direct influence on the will so that the purest spiritual influence could be exerted indirectly, via the spirit. By communicating with another person about entering the path of spiritual knowledge, light and warmth are sent forth from the spiritual path, which can then also kindle the will; but always indirectly through the spirit, never otherwise. Therefore, we find in the Rosicrucianism the most eminent expression of that moment of Christian essence, which is expressed in two ways: on the one hand, in the Son element, in the Christ activity that penetrates deeply into the human subconscious; and then in the Spirit activity that extends to everything that is to fall within the horizon of our consciousness. We must carry Christ in our will, but the way in which people should communicate about Christ in life can, in the Rosicrucian sense, only lie in the ever-advancing, ever-deepening, occult nature of conscious soul life.
Those who are usually referred to as Jesuits took the opposite path in response to certain other spiritual currents within Europe. This is the radical, fundamental difference between the spiritual path that can rightly be called Christian and the Jesuit spiritual path, which one-sidedly exaggerates the Jesus principle: that the Jesuit path intends to act directly on the will everywhere, to grasp the will directly and immediately everywhere. This is already significantly expressed in the way in which the pupil of Jesuitism is educated. Jesuitism is therefore not easy to take lightly, not merely exoterically, but also esoterically, because it is rooted in the esoteric. But it is not rooted in the spiritual life that is poured out through the symbol of Pentecost, but wants to root itself directly in the Jesus element of the Son, that is, in the will; and in this way it spans the Jesus element of the will. This will become clear when we examine what must be called the esoteric in Jesuitism: the various spiritual exercises. How are these organized? What is significant is that every single pupil of Jesuitism undergoes exercises that lead into the occult life, but into the will, and that the will is subjected to strict discipline, one might say training, within the occult field. And what is significant is that this discipline of the will does not spring from the surface of life, but from a deeper level, because the pupil is led into the occult — but precisely in the direction indicated.
If we now disregard the prayer exercises that are preparatory for all Jesuit esoteric exercises and go into these occult exercises themselves, at least in their main points, we must say: Here the pupil first had to evoke a living imagination of Christ Jesus as the King of the World — note well: an imagination! And no one was admitted to the actual degrees of Jesuitism who had not undergone such exercises and who had not experienced in his soul the transformation that such soul exercises mean for the whole human being. But these imaginative ideas of Christ Jesus as the King of the World had to be preceded by something else. The individual must imagine — in deep solitude and seclusion — the image of the human being as he is brought into the world and falls into sin, and thus into the possibility of the most terrible punishments. And it is strictly prescribed how the image of such a human being, when left to himself, must fall prey to the torments of all possible punishments. The rules are extremely strict; and without any other concepts or ideas entering his soul, the image of man abandoned by God and exposed to the most terrible punishments must live continuously in the soul of the future Jesuit, together with the feeling: That is me, because I entered the world and abandoned God and exposed myself to the possibility of the most terrible punishments! This must evoke fear of being forsaken by God and abhorrence of man as he is by his very nature. Then, in a further imagination, the image of the rejected, forsaken man should be confronted with the image of the merciful God, who then becomes Christ and, through his deeds on earth, atones for what man has done by abandoning the divine path. The imagination of the godforsaken human being should be countered by all the mercy and love of the Christ-Jesus being, to whom alone it is attributable that human beings are not exposed to all the punishments that could affect the soul. And just as the feeling of contempt for abandoning the divine path must take hold in the soul of the Jesuit pupil, so now the feeling of humility and contrition toward Christ must take hold in him. When these two qualities of feeling have been brought about in the pupil, the soul must then live for several weeks in strict spiritual exercises, picturing in its imagination all the details of the life of Jesus—from his birth to his death on the cross and his resurrection. And then everything that can arise in the soul arises when the pupil lives in strict seclusion, with the exception of the necessary meal times, and allows nothing to affect the soul except the images that the Gospel depicts of the merciful life of Jesus. But this is not merely presented in thoughts and concepts; it must affect the soul in vivid, rich imaginations.
Only those who know how the human soul is transformed by imaginations that work in all their liveliness also know that, under such conditions, something else is indeed made of the soul. And because such imaginations are intensely one-sided, extending first to sinful human beings, second to the merciful God alone, and then only to the images of the New Testament, they bring about a strengthened will through the law of polarity. Thus, these images have a direct effect, for all reflection and so forth on these images must be dutifully excluded. There is only a presentation of the imaginations as they have just been characterized.
What follows is this: in the further exercises, Christ Jesus—and now one can say, no longer Christ, but exclusively Jesus—is presented as the universal king of the worlds, and thus the Jesus element is overridden. Jesus is only an element of this world. For through the fact that Christ had to be incarnated in a human body, the purely spiritual did indeed take part in the physical world, but this participation in the physical world is counterbalanced in a monumental and meaningful way by the words: “My kingdom is not of this world!” One can overemphasize the Jesus element by making Jesus a king of this world, by making him what he would have become if he had not resisted the tempter who wanted to give him “all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.” Then Jesus of Nazareth would have had to become a king who, unlike other kings, who all possess only a piece of the earth, would have had the whole earth as his sphere of activity. Imagine this king, whose royal power is so exalted that the whole earth belongs to his kingdom: then he would indeed have been presented in the image that must now follow the other exercises, which have already sufficiently strengthened the will of the Jesuit pupil's own personality. And in order to prepare this image of 'King Jesus', this ruler over all the kingdoms of the earth, the following must be imagined: Babylon and the plain around Babylon as a living image, and Lucifer enthroned on the Babylonian field with the flag of Lucifer. This image must be presented very precisely, for it is a powerful imagination: King Lucifer with his banner and his hosts of Luciferian angels, sitting in fire and smoke, sending out his angels to conquer the kingdoms of the earth. And all the danger emanating from the “banner of Lucifer” must first be imagined on its own, without casting a glance at Christ Jesus. The soul must be completely absorbed in the imagination of the danger emanating from the banner of Lucifer. The soul must learn to feel that the greatest danger of world existence is that which would be conjured up if the banner of Lucifer were to triumph. And when this image has taken effect, the other imagination, the “banner of Christ,” must take its place. To this end, the pupil must imagine Jerusalem and the plain around Jerusalem, King Jesus, his followers around him, and the image of him sending out his followers, overcoming and driving away the followers of Lucifer, and making himself king of the whole earth—the victory of the banner of Christ over the banner of Lucifer!
These are the strengthening imaginations for the will that are presented to the soul of the Jesuit pupil. This is what completely transforms his will, what makes him such that in fact, in this will — because it has been brought about in an occult manner — there is a disregard for everything else and a devotion to the idea: King Jesus must become the ruler on earth! And we who belong to his army must use everything to make him ruler on earth. We who belong to the army gathered on the plain of Jerusalem, facing the army of Lucifer on the plain of Babylon, vow this. And the greatest shame for a soldier of King Jesus is to abandon the flag!
Summarized in a single decision of the will, this is something that can indeed give the will tremendous strength. If we want to characterize it, we must ask: What has been directly attacked in the life of the soul? The element that is to be regarded as immediately sacred, where one must not interfere: the element of the will! Insofar as this Jesuit training interferes with the element of will, in that Jesus intervenes completely in the element of will, insofar is the concept of Jesuitism exaggerated in the most dangerous way—dangerous because it makes the will so strong that it can also act directly on the will of others. For where the will becomes so strong through the imagination, that is, through occult means, it also acquires the ability to act directly upon others. Hence all the other occult paths to which such a will can resort.
Thus we see how two currents have confronted us in recent centuries among many others: One that has spanned the Jesus element and sees only in King Jesus the sole ideal of Christianity — and the other that looks solely to the Christ element and carefully distinguishes what might go beyond it; which has therefore been much slandered because it holds fast to the belief that Christ sent the Spirit so that Christ could enter the hearts and minds of people indirectly through the Spirit. There is hardly a greater contrast in the cultural development of the last centuries than that between Jesuitism and Rosicrucianism, because Jesuitism contains nothing of what Rosicrucianism regards as the highest ideal for judging human worth and dignity; and because Rosicrucianism has always sought to preserve itself from any influence that could even remotely be described as Jesuit.
With this I wanted to show how even such a lofty element as the Jesus principle can be exaggerated and then become dangerous; and how it is necessary to immerse oneself in the depths of the Christ being if one wants to understand how the strength of Christianity must lie precisely in the fact that human dignity, human value, is held in the highest esteem; that nowhere are clumsy steps taken into what man must regard as his innermost sanctuary. This is why Christian mysticism is so contested by the Jesuit element—and Rosicrucianism in the highest degree—because it is felt that true Christianity is sought elsewhere than where only King Jesus plays a role. But through the imaginations indicated, the will has become so strong that even the contrary objections of the mind can be overcome by this will, which is achieved through the exercises described.