Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Occult Significance of the Bhagavad Gita
GA 146

5 June 1913, Helsingfors

Lecture IX

The latter part of the Bhagavad Gita is permeated by feelings and shades of meaning saturated with ideas of sattwa, rajas and tamas. In these last chapters our whole mode of thinking and feeling must be attuned so as to understand what is said in the sense of those three conditions. In the last lecture I sought to give an idea of those important concepts by making use of present-day experiences. Certainly anyone who enters deeply into this poem must perceive that since the time when it arose those concepts have shifted to some extent. Nevertheless, it would not have been correct to describe them simply by verbal quotations from the poem because our mode of feeling is different from what is contained there and we are unable to make those very different feelings our own. If we tried to we would only be describing the unknown by the unknown.

So in the Bhagavad Gita you will find with regard to food that the concepts we developed last time have shifted a little. What is true for man today about plant food was true for the ancient Indian of that food Krishna calls mild, gentle food. Whereas rajas food, which we described correctly for man today as mineral food (salt, for instance), would have been designated at that time as sour or sharp. For our constitution meat is essentially a tamas food, but the Indian meant by this something that could hardly be considered food at present, which gives us an idea of how different men were then. They called tamas food what had become rotten, had stood too long, and had a foul smell. For our present incarnation we could not properly call that tamas food because man's organism has changed, even as far as his physical body.

Thus, in order to understand these feelings of sattwa, rajas and tamas, so fundamental in the Gita, it is well for us to apply them to our own conditions. Now if we would consider what sattwa really is, it is best to begin by taking the most striking conception of it. In our time the man who can give himself up to knowledge as penetrating as our present knowledge of the mineral kingdom is a sattwa man. For the Indian he was not one who had such knowledge, but was one who went through the world with intelligent understanding as we would say, with heart and head in the right place. A man who takes without prejudice and bias the phenomena the world offers. A man who always perceives the world with sympathy and conceives it with intelligence; who receives the light of ideas, of feelings and sentiments streaming out from all the beauty and loveliness of the world; who avoids all that is ugly, developing himself rightly. He who does all this in the physical world is a sattwa man. In the inorganic world a sattwa impression is that of a surface not too brilliant, illuminated in such a way that its details of color can be seen in their right lustre yet bright also.

A rajas impression is one where a man is in a certain way prevented by his own emotions, his impulses and reactions, or by the thing itself, from fully penetrating what lies around him, so that he does not give himself up to it but meets it with what he himself is. For example, he becomes acquainted with the plant kingdom. He can admire it, but he brings his own emotions to bear on it and therefore cannot penetrate it to its depths.

Tamas is where a man is altogether given up to his bodily life, so that he is blunt and apathetic toward his environment, as we are toward a consciousness different from our own. While we dwell on the physical plane we know nothing of the consciousness of a dog or a horse, not even of another human being. In this respect man, as a rule, is blunt and dull. He withdraws into his own bodily life. He lives in impressions of tamas. But man must gradually become apathetic to the physical world in order to have access to the spiritual worlds in clairvoyance. In this way we can best read the ideas of sattwa, rajas, and tamas. In external nature a rajas impression would be that of a moderately bright surface, say of green, a uniform green shade; a dark-colored surface would represent a tamas impression. Where man looks out into the darkness of universal space, when the beautiful spectacle of the free heavens appears to him, the impression he gains is none other than that blue color that is almost a tamas color.

If we saturate ourselves with the feeling these ideas give we can apply them to everything that surrounds us. These ideas are really comprehensive. For the ancient Indian, to know well about this threefold nature of his surroundings meant not only a certain understanding of the outer world, it also meant bringing to life his own inner being. He felt it somewhat as follows. Imagine a primitive country man who sees the glory of nature around him—the early morning sky, the sun and stars, everything he can see. He does not think about it however. He does not build up concepts and ideas about the world but just lives on in utmost harmony with it. If he begins to feel himself an individual person, distinguishing his soul from his environment, he has to do so by learning to understand his surroundings through ideas about them.

To set up one's environment objectively before one is always a certain way of grasping the reality of one's own being. The Indian of the time of the Bhagavad Gita said, “So long as one does not penetrate and perceive the sattwa, rajas, and tamas conditions in one's environment, one continues merely to live in it. A person is not yet there, independently in his own being, but is bound up with his surroundings. However, when the world about him becomes so objective that one can pursue it everywhere with the awareness that this is a sattwa condition, this a rajas, that a tamas, then one becomes more and more free of the world, more independent in himself.” This therefore is one way of bringing about consciousness of self. At bottom this is Krishna's concern—to free Arjuna's soul from all those things that surround him and are characteristic of the time in which he lives. So Krishna explains, “Behold all the life there on the bloody field of battle where brothers confront brothers, with all that thou feelest thyself bound to, dissolved in, a part of. Learn to know that all that is there outside you runs its course in conditions of sattwa, rajas and tamas. Then wilt thou contrast thyself with it; know that in thine own highest self thou dost not belong to it, and wilt experience thy separate being within thyself, the spirit in thee.”

Here we have another of the beautiful elements in the dramatic composition of the Bhagavad Gita. At first we are gradually made acquainted with its ideas as abstract concepts, but afterward these become more and more vivid. The concepts of sattwa, rajas, and tamas take on living shape and form in the most varied spheres of life. Then at length the separation of Arjuna's soul from it all is accomplished, so to say, before our spiritual gaze. Krishna explains to him how we must free ourselves from all that is bound up with these three conditions, from that in which men are ordinarily interwoven.

There are sattwa men who are so bound up with existence as to be attached to all the happiness and joy they can draw from their environment. They speed through the world, drinking in their blissfulness from all that can give it to them. Rajas men are diligent, men of action; but they act because actions have such and such consequences to which they are attached. They depend on the joy of action, on the impression action makes upon them. Tamas men are attached to laziness, they want to be comfortable. They really do not want to act at all. Thus are men to be distinguished. Those whose souls and spirits are bound into external conditions belong to one or other of these three groups.

“But thine eyes shall see the daybreak of the age of self-consciousness. Thou shalt learn to hold thy soul apart. Thou shalt be neither sattwa, rajas nor tamas man.” Thus is Krishna the great educator of the human ego. He shows its separation from its environment. He explains soul activities according to how they partake of sattwa, rajas or tamas. If a man raises his belief to the divine creators of the world he is a sattwa man. Just in that time of the Gita, however, there were men who in a certain sense knew nothing of the Divine Beings guiding the universe. They were completely attached to the so-called nature spirits, those behind the immediate beings of nature. Such men are rajas men. The tamas men are those who in viewing the world get only so far as what we may call the ghost-like, which in its spiritual nature is nearest to the material. So, in regard to religious feeling also these three groups may be distinguished.

If we wished to apply these concepts to religious feeling in our time we should say (but without flattery) that those who strive after anthroposophy are sattwa men; those attached to external faith are rajas men; those who, in a material or spiritual sense, will only believe in what has bodily shape and form—the materialists and spiritualists—are the tamas men. The spiritualist does not ask for spiritual beings in whom he may believe; he is quite prepared to believe in them, but he does not want to lift himself up to them. He wants them to come down to him. They must rap, because he can hear rapping with physical ears. They must appear in clouds of light because such are visible to his eyes. Such are tamas men in a certain conscious sense, and quite in the sense too of the tamas men of Krishna's time.

There are also unconscious tamas men; the materialistic thinkers of our time who deny all that is spiritual. When materialists meet in conference today they persuade themselves that they adhere to materialism on logical grounds, but this is an illusion. Materialists are people who remain so not on the basis of logic but for fear of the spiritual. They deny the spirit because they are afraid of it. They are in effect compelled to deny it by the logic of their own unconscious soul, which does indeed penetrate to the door of the spiritual but cannot pass through. One who can see reality can see in a materialistic congress how each person in the depths of his soul is afraid of the spirit. Materialism is not logic, it is cowardice before the spiritual. All its arguments are nothing but an opiate to damp down this fear. Actually, Ahriman—the giver of fear—has every materialist by the neck. This is a grotesque but an austere and fundamental truth that one may recognize if one goes into any materialistic meeting. Why is such a meeting called? The illusion is that people there discuss views of the universe, but in reality it is a meeting to conjure up the devil Ahriman, to beckon him into their chambers.

Krishna, then, indicates to Arjuna how the different religious beliefs may be classified, and he also speaks to him of the different ways men may approach the Gods in actual prayer. In all cases the temper of man's soul can be described in terms of these three conditions. Sattwa, rajas, and tamas men are different in the way they relate to their Gods. Tamas men are such as priests, but whose priesthood depends on a kind of habit. They have their office but no living connection with the spiritual world. So they repeat Aum, Aum, Aum, which proceeds from the dullness, the tamas condition of their spirit. They pour forth their subjective nature in the Aum.

Rajas men look out on the surrounding world and begin to feel that it has something in it akin to themselves, that it is related to them and therefore worthy to be worshipped. They are the men of “Tat” who worship the “That,” the Cosmos, as being akin to themselves. Sattwa men perceive that what lives within us is one with all that surrounds us in the universe outside. In their prayer they have a sense for “Sat,” the All-being, the unity without and within, unity of the objective and the subjective. Krishna says that he who would truly become free in his soul, who does not wish to be merely a sattwa, rajas or tamas man in any one respect or another, must attain to a transformation of these conditions in himself so that he wears them like a garment, while in his real self he grows out beyond them.

This is the impulse that Krishna as the creator of self-consciousness must give. Thus he stands before Arjuna and teaches him to “Look upon all the conditions of the world, with all that is to man highest and deepest, but free thyself from the highest and deepest of the three conditions and in thine own self become as one who lays hold of himself. Learn and know that thou canst live without feeling thyself bound up with rajas, or tamas, or sattwa.” One had to learn this at that time because it was the beginning of the dawn in self-liberation, but here again, what then required the greatest effort can today be found right at hand. This is the tragedy of present life. There are too many today who stand in the world and burrow down into their own soul, finding no connection with the outer world; who in their feelings and all their inner experiences are lonely souls. They neither feel themselves bound up with the conditions of sattwa, rajas or tamas, nor are they free from them, but are cast out into the world like an endlessly, aimlessly revolving wheel. Such men who live only in themselves and cannot understand the world, who are unhappy because in their soul-life they are separated from all external existence—these represent the shadow side of the fruit that it was Krishna's task to develop in Arjuna and in all his contemporaries and successors. What had to be Arjuna's highest endeavor has become the greatest suffering for many men today.

Thus do successive ages change. Today we must say that we are at the end of the age that began with the time of the Bhagavad Gita. This may penetrate our feelings with deep significance. It may also tell us that just as in that ancient time those seeking self-consciousness had to hear what Krishna told Arjuna, those seeking their soul's salvation today, in whom self-consciousness is developed to a morbid degree, these too should listen. They should listen to what can lead them once more to an understanding of the three external conditions. What can do this?

Let us put forward some more preliminary ideas before we set out to answer this question. Let us ask again, what is it that Krishna really wants for Arjuna, whose relation to external conditions was a right one for his time? What is it that he says with divine simplicity and naïveté? He reveals what he wishes to be even to our present time. We have described how a kind of picture-consciousness, a living imagery, lighted up man's soul; how there was hovering above it, so to say, what today is self-consciousness, which men at that time had to strive for with all their might but which today is right at hand. Try to live into the soul condition of that time before Krishna introduced the new age. The world around men did not call forth clear concepts and ideas, but pictures like those of our dreams today. Thus the lowest region of soul-life was a picture-like consciousness, and this was illumined from the higher region—of sleep consciousness—through inspiration. In this way they could rise to still higher conditions. This ascent was called “entering into Brahma.” To ask a soul today, living in Western lands, to enter into Brahma would be a senseless anachronism. It would be like requiring a man who is halfway up a mountain to reach the top by the same way as one still down in the valley. With equal right could one ask a Western soul today to do Eastern exercises and “enter into Brahma” because this presupposes that a man is at the stage of picture consciousness, which as a matter of fact certain Easterners still are. What the men of the Gita age found in rising into Brahma, the Western man already has in his concepts and ideas. This is really true, that Shankaracharya would today introduce the ideas of Solovieff, Hegel and Fichte to his revering disciples as the first stage of rising into Brahma. It is not the content, however, it is the pains of the way, that are important.

Krishna indicates a main characteristic of this rising into Brahma, by which we have a beautiful characterization of Krishna himself. At that time the constitution of the soul was all passive. The world of pictures came to you, you gave yourself up to these flowing pictures. Compare this with the altogether different nature of our everyday world. Devotion, giving ourselves up to things, does not help us to understand them, even though there are many who do not wish to advance to what must necessarily take place in our time. Nevertheless, for our age we have to exert ourselves, to be alive and active, in order to get ideas and concepts of our surrounding world. Herein lies all the trouble in our education. We have to educate children so that their minds are awake when their concepts of the surrounding world are being formed. Today the soul must be more active than it was in the age before the origin of the Bhagavad Gita. We can put it so:

Bhagavad Gita Age—rising to Brahma with passive souls.

Intellectual Age (our present age)—actively working our way up into the higher worlds.

What then must Krishna say when he wishes to introduce that new age in which the active way of gaining an understanding of the universe is gradually to begin? He must say, “I have to come; I have to give thee the ego-man, a gift that shall impel thee to activity.” If it had all remained passive as before—a being interwoven with the world, devoted to the world—the new age would never have begun. Everything connected with the entry of the soul into the spiritual world before the time of the Gita, Krishna calls devotion. “All is devotion to Brahma.” This he compares to the feminine in man; while what is the self in man, the active working element that is to create self-consciousness, that pushes up from within as the generator of the self-consciousness that is to come, Krishna calls the masculine in man. What man can attain in Brahma must be fertilized by Krishna. So his teaching to Arjuna is, “All men until now were Brahma-men. Brahma is all that is spread out as the mother-womb of the whole world. But I am the father, who came into the world to fertilize the maternal womb.”

Thus the consciousness of self is created, which is to work on all men. This is indicated as clearly as possible. Krishna and Brahma are related to each other as father and mother in the world. Together they produce the self-consciousness man must have in the further course of his evolution—the self-consciousness that makes it possible for him to become ever more perfect as an individual being. The Krishna faith has altogether to do with the single man, the individual person. To follow his teaching exclusively means to strive for the perfection of oneself as an individual. This can be achieved only by liberating the self; loosening it from all that adheres to external conditions. Fix your attention on this backbone of Krishna's teaching, how it directs man to put aside all externals, to become free from the life that takes its course in continually changing conditions of every kind; to comprehend oneself in the self alone, that it may be borne ever onward to higher perfection. See how this perfection depends on man's leaving behind him all the external configuration of things, casting off the whole of outer life like a shell, becoming free and ever more inwardly alive in himself. Man tearing himself away from his environment, no longer asking what goes on in external processes of perfection but asking how shall he perfect himself. This is the teaching of Krishna.

Krishna—that is, the spirit who worked through Krishna—appeared again in the Jesus child of the Nathan line of the House of David, described in St. Luke's Gospel. Thus, fundamentally, this child embodied the impulse, all the forces that tend to make man independent and loosen him from external reality. What was the intention of this soul that did not enter human evolution but worked in Krishna and again in this Jesus child? At a far distant time this soul had had to go through the experience of remaining outside human evolution because the antagonist Lucifer had come; he who said, “Your eyes will be opened and you will distinguish good and evil, and be as God.” In the ancient Indian sense Lucifer said to man, “You will be as the Gods, and will have power to find the sattwa, rajas and tamas conditions in the world.”

Lucifer directed man's attention to the outer world. By his instigation man had to learn to know the external, and therefore had to go through the long course of evolution down to the time of Christ. Then he came who was once withdrawn from Lucifer; came in Krishna and later in the Luke Jesus child. In two stages he gave that teaching that from another side was to be the antithesis of the teaching of Lucifer in Paradise. “He wanted to open your eyes to the conditions of sattwa, rajas, and tamas. Shut your eyes to these conditions and you will find yourselves as men, as self-conscious human beings.” Thus does the Imagination appear before us. On the one side the Imagination of Paradise, where Lucifer opens man's eyes to the three conditions in the external world, when for a while the Opponent of Lucifer withdraws. Then men go through their evolution and reach the point where in two stages another teaching is given them, of self-consciousness, which bids them close their eyes to the three external conditions. Both teachings are one-sided. If the Krishna-Jesus influence alone had continued, one one-sidedness would have been added to another. Man would have taken leave of all that surrounds him, would have lost all interest in external evolution. Each person would only have sought his own perfection. Striving for perfection is right; but such striving bought at the price of a lack of interest in the whole of humanity is one-sided, even as the Luciferic influence was one-sided. Hence the all-embracing Christ Impulse entered the higher synthesis of the two one-sided tendencies.

In the personality of the St. Luke Jesus child Himself the Christ Impulse lived for three years; the Christ who came to mankind to bring together these two extremes. Through each of them mankind would have fallen into weakness and sin. Through Lucifer humanity would have been condemned to live one-sidedly in the external conditions of sattwa, rajas and tamas. Through Krishna they were to be educated for the other extreme, to close their eyes and seek only their own perfection. Christ took the sin upon Himself. He gave to men what reconciles the two one-sided tendencies. He took upon Himself the sin of self-consciousness that would close its eyes to the world outside. He took upon Himself the sin of Krishna, and of all who would commit his sin, and He took upon Himself the sin of Lucifer and of all who would commit the sin of fixing their attention on externalities. By taking both extremes upon Himself he makes it possible for humanity by degrees to find a harmony between the inner and the outer world because in that harmony alone man's salvation is to be found.

An evolution that has once begun, however, cannot end suddenly. The urge to self-consciousness that began with Krishna went on and on, increasing and intensifying self-consciousness more and more, bringing about estrangement from the outer world. In our time too this course is tending to continue. At the time when the Krishna impulse was received by the Luke Jesus child mankind was in the midst of this development, this increase of self-consciousness and estrangement from the outer world. It was this that was brought home to the men who received the baptism of John in the Jordan, so that they understood the Baptist when he said to them, “Change your disposition; walk no longer in the path of Krishna”—though he did not use this word. The path on which mankind had then entered we may call the Jesus-path if we would speak in an occult sense. In effect, the pursuit of this Jesus-path alone went on and on through the following centuries. In many respects human civilization in the centuries following the foundation of Christianity was only related to Jesus, not to the Christ Who lived in Jesus for the three years from the baptism by John until the Mystery of Golgotha.

Every line of evolution, however, works its way onward up to a certain tension. In the course of time this longing for individual perfection was driven to such a pitch that men were in a certain sense brought more and more into the tragedy of estrangement from the divine in nature, from the outer world. Today we are experiencing this in many ways. Many people are going about among us who have little understanding left of our environment. Therefore, it is just in our time that an understanding of the Christ Impulse must break in upon us. The Christ-path must be added to the Jesus-path. The path of one-sided striving for perfection has become too strong. It has gone so far that in many respects men are so remote from their surroundings that certain movements, when they arise, over-reach themselves immediately, and the longing for the opposite is awakened. Many human souls now feel how little they can escape from this enhanced self-consciousness, and this creates an impulse to know the divinity of the outer world. It is such souls as these who in our time will seek the understanding of the Christ Impulse that is opened up by true anthroposophy; the force that does not merely strive for the one-sided perfection of the individual soul but belongs to the whole progress of humanity. To understand the Christ means not merely to strive toward perfection, but to receive in oneself something expressed by St. Paul, “Not I, but Christ in me.” “I” is the Krishna word. “Not I, but Christ in me,” is the Christian word.

So we see how every spiritual movement in history has in a certain sphere its justification. No one must imagine that the Krishna impulse could have been dispensed with. No one should ever think either that one human spiritual movement is fully justified in its one-sidedness. The two extremes—the Luciferic and the Krishna impulses—had to find their higher unity in the mission of the Christ.

He who would understand in the true anthroposophic sense the impulse necessary for the further evolution of mankind, must realize how anthroposophy has to become a means of shedding light on all religions. He must learn to see how the different streams in evolution all flow into the one main current of development. It would be a dilettante way of beginning to do this if one tried to find again in the Krishna stream what can be found in the stream of Christianity. Only when we regard the matter in this way do we understand what it means to seek a unity in all religions. There is, however, another way of doing so. One may repeat over and over, “In all religions the same fundamental essence is contained.” In effect, the same essence is contained in the root of a plant, in the stem, leaves, flowers, the pollen, and the fruit. That is true, but it is an abstract truth. It is no more profound than if one were to say, “Why make any distinctions? Salt, pepper, vinegar, and milk all have their place on the table; all are one, for all are substance.” Here you can tell how futile such a way of thought can be, but you do not notice it so easily when it comes to comparing religions. It will not do to compare the Chinese, Brahmin, Krishnan, Buddhist, Persian, Moslem, and Christian faiths in this abstract way, saying, “Look, everywhere we find the same principles. In each case there is a Savior.”

Abstractions can indeed be found in countless places and in countless ways, but this is a dilettante method because it leads to nothing. One may form societies to pursue the study of all religions, and do so in the same sense as saying pepper, salt, etc. are one because they are all substance. That has no importance. What is important is to regard things as they really are. To the way of looking at things that goes so far in occult dilettantism as to keep on declaiming the equality of all religions, it is one and the same whether what lived in the Christ is the pivot of the whole of evolution or whether it can be found in the first man you meet in the street. For one who wishes to guide his life by truth it is an atrocity to associate the impulse in the world's history that is bound up with the Mystery of Golgotha and for which the name Christ has been preserved—to associate that impulse with any other impulse in history, because in truth it is the central point of the whole of earthly evolution.

In these lectures I have tried by means of a particular instance to indicate how present-day occultism must try to throw light on the different spiritual movements that have appeared in the course of human history. Though each has its right and proper point of contact, one must distinguish between them as between the stem of a plant and the green leaf, and the green leaf from the colored petal, though all together form a unity. If one tries with this truly modern occultism to penetrate with one's soul into what has flowed into humanity in diverse currents, one recognizes how the different religious faiths lose nothing of their greatness and majesty. How sublime was the greatness that appeared to us in the figure of Krishna even when we simply tried to get a definite view of his place in evolution. All such lines of thought as we can give only in outline are indeed imperfect enough, and you may be assured that no one is more aware of their imperfection than the present speaker. But the endeavor has been to show in what spirit a true consideration of the spiritual movement toward individuality in mankind must be carried out. I purposely tried to derive our thoughts from a spiritual creation remote from us, the Bhagavad Gita, to show how Western minds can perceive and feel what they owe to Krishna; what he, through the continued working of his impulse, still signifies for their own upward striving.

However, the spiritual movement we here represent necessarily demands that we enter concretely, and with real love, into the special nature of every current in man's spiritual history. This is a bit inconvenient because it brings us all too near to the humble thought of how little after all we really penetrate into their depths. Another idea follows upon this, that we must go on striving further and ever further. Both of these ideas are inconvenient. It is the sad fate of that movement we call anthroposophy, that it produces inconvenient results for many souls. It requires that we actively lay hold of the definite, separate facts of the world's development. At the same time it requires each of us to say earnestly to himself, “I can indeed reach something higher, and I will. Always it is only a certain stage and standpoint that I have attained. I must forever go on striving—on—and on—without end.”

Thus, all along it has been not quite comfortable to belong to that spiritual movement that by our efforts is endeavoring to take its place in what is called the Theosophical Movement.1Dr. Steiner is referring here, and in the following passages, to his break with the Theosophical Society and to the formation of the Anthroposophical Society. A full account of these events can be found in G. Wachsmuth, The Life and Work of Rudolf Steiner, pp. 186–189, available from the Anthroposophic Press, Inc. It has not been easy, because we demand that people shall learn to strive ever more deeply to penetrate the sacred mysteries. We could not supply you with anything so easy as introducing some person's son or even daughter, saying, “You need only wait, the Savior of mankind will appear physically embodied in this boy or girl.” We could not do this because we must be true. Yet, one who perceives what is happening cannot but regard these latest proceedings as the final grotesque outcome of the dilettante comparison of religions that can also be put forward so easily, and that continually repeats what should be taken as a matter of course, the tritest of all sayings, “All religions contain the same essence.”

The last weeks and months have shown—and my speaking here on this significant subject has shown it again—that a circle of people can be found at the present time who are ready to seek spiritual truths. We have no other concern than to put these truths forward, though many, or even everyone, may leave us. If so, it will make no difference in the way the spiritual truths are here proclaimed. The sacred obligation to truth will guide that movement that underlies this cycle of lectures. Whoever would go with us must do so under the conditions that have now become necessary. It is certainly more convenient to proceed otherwise, not entering into another side of the matter as we do by pointing out the reality in all things. But that also is part of our obligation to truth. It is simpler to inform people of the equality and unity of religions, or tell them they are to wait for the incarnation of a Savior who is predestined, whom they are to recognize not by themselves but on someone's authority.

Human souls today will themselves have to decide how far a spiritual movement can be carried on and upheld by pure devotion to the ideal of truthfulness. In our time it had to come to that sharp cleavage, whose climax was reached when those who had no other desire than to set forth what is true and genuine in evolution, were described as Jesuits. This was a convenient way of separating, but the external evidence was the work of objective falsehood. This cycle of lectures may once more have shown you that we have been working out of no one-sided tendency, since it comprises the present, the past, and the primal past, in order to reveal the unique, fundamental impulse of human evolution. So I too may say that it fills me with the deepest satisfaction to have been able to give these lectures here before you. This shows me there is hope because there are souls here who have the impulse, the urge toward that which works also in the super-sensible with nothing but simple, honest truthfulness.

I was forced to add this final word to these lectures, for it is necessary in view of all that has happened to us in the course of time down to the point of being excluded from the Theosophical Society. Considering all we have suffered, and all that is now being falsely asserted in numerous pamphlets, it was necessary to say something, although a discussion of these matters is always painful to me.

Those who desire to work with us must know that we have taken for our banner the humble, yet unconditional, honest, striving for truth; striving ever upward into the higher worlds.

Neunter Vortrag

Die Schlußpartien der Bhagavad Gita werden durchströmt von Empfindungen und Gefühlen, die durchdrungen sind von Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamasbegriffen. Es muß in diesen letzten Partien der Bhagavad Gita gleichsam das ganze auffassende Empfinden eingestellt sein darauf, die Dinge, die einem da entgegentreten, im Sinne der Ideen von Rajas, Sattva und Tamas aufzufassen. Im vorigen Vortrage versuchte ich mehr mit Zuhilfenahme von Erlebnissen der Gegenwart diese drei wichtigen Begriffe zu zeichnen. Derjenige freilich, der die Bhagavad Gita vornimmt und sich in all das vertieft, der muß sich klar sein darüber, daß seit jener Zeit, in welcher die Bhagavad Gita entstanden ist, sich die Begriffe etwas verschoben haben. Aber es würde dennoch nicht richtig gewesen sein, rein aus den wörtlichen Übertragungen der Bhagavad Gita die Begriffe Sattva, Rajas, Tamas zu charakterisieren, aus dem einfachen Grunde, weil ja unsere Empfindungen verschieden sind von jenen und man doch nicht sich die ganz anderen Empfindungen aneignen kann. Wenn man so charakterisieren wollte, so würde man doch das Unbekannte durch das Unbekannte charakterisieren.

So werden Sie finden, daß in bezug auf das Essen zum Beispiel in der Bhagavad Gita ein wenig verschoben sind die Begriffe, die wir im vorigen Vortrage entwickelt haben, weil alles das, was für den heutigen Menschen von der Pflanzennahrung gilt, für den Inder von jener Nahrung galt, die Krishna die milde sanfte Nahrung nennt, während die Rajasnahrung, die wir als die mineralische Nahrung charakterisierten, wie es für den jetzigen Menschen richtig ist — Salz gibt zum Beispiel den Charakter einer Rajasnahrung -, der Inder zur Bhagavad Gita-Zeit als das Sauere, das Scharfe bezeichnete. Und Tamasnahrung ist für unsere Organisation im wesentlichen die Fleischnahrung. Der Inder bezeichnete damit eine Nahrung, die in unserer Zeit überhaupt nicht recht als Nahrung aufzufassen ist, die allerdings eine gute Vorstellung gibt, wie anders die Menschen damals waren: Der Inder bezeichnete als Tamasnahrung das Faulgewordene, Abgestandene, Stinkende. Für unsere heutige Inkarnation würden wir nicht mehr gut das als Tamasnahrung bezeichnen können, denn die Organisation des Menschen hat sich bis in die Physis hinein verändert.

So müssen wir gerade zum besseren Verständnis dieser Grundempfindungen der Bhagavad Gita von Sattva, Rajas und Tamas auf unsere Verhältnisse reflektieren. Und wenn wir dann uns einlassen auf dasjenige, was eigentlich Sattva ist, so nehmen wir am besten zunächst den augenfälligsten Begriff von Sattva: Es ist der Mensch ein Sattvamensch, der in unserer Zeit sich hingeben kann einer Erkenntnis, die so eindringlich ist wie eine Erkenntnis des mineralischen Reiches heute. Für den Inder war ein Sattvamensch nicht ein solcher, der diese Art Erkenntnisse hat, sondern einer, der verständnisvoll, klug im gewöhnlichen Sinne, mit Kopf und Herz durch die Welt geht. Jemand, der unbefangen und vorurteilsfrei das aufnimmt, was ihm die Welterscheinungen darbieten, jemand, der so durch die Welt geht, daß er all sein Gehen durch die Welt mit dem verständnisvollen Auffassen dieser Welt begleitet, indem er das Licht der Begriffe und Ideen, das Licht der Gefühle und Empfindungen, das von aller Schönheit und Herrlichkeit der Welt ausgeht, aufnimmt, jemand, der allem Häßlichen der Welt ausweicht, der eben in richtiger Weise sich ausbildet, jemand, der das tut der physischen Welt gegenüber, ist ein Sattvamensch. Auf leblosem Gebiete zum Beispiel ist ein Sattvaeindruck der Eindruck einer nicht zu grellen Fläche, so beleuchtet, daß sie uns unterscheiden läßt die Einzelheiten der Farben in einer richtigen Helligkeit und dabei hellfarbig ist. Eine solche Fläche wäre der Sattvaeindruck von der Außenwelt. Rajaseindruck ist derjenige, wo der Mensch in einer gewissen Weise gehindert ist, durch seine eigenen Emotionen, durch seine Affekte und Triebe, oder auch durch die Sache selber, vollständig in die Sache einzudringen, in das, was er um sich hat, so daß er sich nicht hineinbegibt in den Eindruck, sondern ihm gegenübertritt mit dem, was er ist. Er lernt zum Beispiel das Pflanzenreich kennen: er kann das Pflanzenreich bewundern, aber er bringt seine Emotionen dem Pflanzenreiche entgegen und kann deshalb nicht in die Untergründe des Pflanzenreiches eindringen. Tamas ist da, wenn der Mensch ganz hingegeben ist dem Leben seiner Leiblichkeit, stumpf und apathisch ist demjenigen gegenüber, was um ihn ist, so stumpf und apathisch, wie wir einem anderen Bewußstsein gegenüber hier auf dem physischen Plan sind. Wir wissen nichts von dem Bewußtsein eines Hundes, eines Pferdes, solange wir auf dem physischen Plan verweilen, auch nicht einmal von dem Bewußtsein eines anderen Menschen. Da ist der Mensch im allgemeinen stumpf, da zieht er sich sozusagen in seine eigene Leiblichkeit zurück, da ist er in Tamaseindrücken. Der Mensch muß allmählich so stumpf werden der physischen Welt gegenüber, damit er die geistigen Welten hellsehend aufnehmen kann. So werden sich uns die Begriffe von Sattva, Rajas, Tamas am besten ergeben. In der äußeren Natur wäre ein Rajaseindruck der Eindruck einer mäßig hellen Fläche, nicht in heller Farbe, sondern etwa grün, eine gleichmäßig grüne Nuance. Eine dunkle Fläche mit dunklen Farben wäre ein Tamaseindruck. Da, wo der Mensch in die äußerste Finsternis des Weltenraumes hinausschaut, bringt er es, selbst wenn sich ihm der herrliche Anblick des freien Himmelsgewölbes darbietet, zu nichts anderem als zu der blauen, fast Tamasfarbe. Durchdringen wir uns mit den Empfindungen, die diese Ideenbestimmungen darbieten, dann können wir sie auf alles, was uns umgibt, anwenden, nicht nur in dem einen oder anderen Gebiete. Tatsächlich sind diese Ideen umfassend. Und das bedeutet für den Inder der Bhagavad Gita-Zeit nicht nur ein gewisses Verständnis der Außenwelt selber, sondern auch ein gewisses Beleben des menschlichen Innenkernes: Bescheid zu wissen über die Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamasnatur der Umgebung.

Der Inder empfand ungefähr in der folgenden Weise. Durch einen Vergleich will ich das klarmachen: Nehmen wir an, ein einfacher, primitiver Mensch vom Lande sieht um sich herum die Natur, die Schönheit der Morgenröte, die Schönheit der Sonne, der Sterne, all dessen, was er eben sehen kann, aber er denkt nicht darüber nach, er macht sich keine Vorstellungen und Begriffe der Welt; gleichsam im innigsten Einklang mit dem, was ihn umgibt, lebt er dahin. Wenn er anfängt sich zu unterscheiden mit seiner Seele von dem, was ihn umgibt, wenn er anfängt sich als Eigenwesen zu empfinden, dann muß er das dadurch erreichen, daß er durch Vorstellungen von der Umgebung verstehen lernt seine Umgebung, daß er lernt sich abzusondern von der Umgebung. Es ist immer eine Art von Ergreifen der Wirklichkeit des eigenen Wesens, wenn man objektiv die Umgebung hinstellt. Der Inder der Bhagavad Gita-Zeit sagte: Solange man nicht durchschaut Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamaszustände der Umgebung, solange lebt man noch in seiner Umgebung, solange ist man in seinem Eigenwesen nicht selbständig da, solange ist man verbunden mit der Umgebung, solange hat man sich nicht ergriffen in seinem Eigenwesen. Wenn aber einem die Umgebung so objektiv wird, daß man sie überall verfolgt: das ist ein Sattvazustand, das ist ein Rajaszustand, und das ist ein Tamaszustand, dann wird man auch von ihr freier und immer freier und daher selbständiger in seinem Wesen. Daher ist es ein Mittel zum Selbständigwerden, in aller äußeren Natur, in allem, was außerhalb des Geistes und der menschlichen Seele lebt, diese drei Zustände kennenzulernen. Ein Mittel, den Zustand des Selbstbewußtseins herbeizuführen, ist, zu begreifen in allem, was uns umgibt, Sattva, Rajas, Tamas. Und im Grunde genommen kommt es dem Krishna darauf an, frei zu bekommen des Arjuna Seele von dem, was den Arjuna gerade in der entsprechenden Zeit umgibt. «Sieh einmal an», so will Krishna klarmachen, «was da alles lebt auf dem blutigen Schlachtfelde, wo Brüder den Brüdern gegenüberstehen. Du fühlst dich mit alle dem verbunden, verschmolzen und dazugehörig. Lerne erkennen, daß alles, was da draußen ist, sich abspielt in Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamaszuständen. Dadurch wirst du dich davon abheben, unterscheiden, dadurch wirst du wissen, daß du nicht mit deinem höchsten Selbst dazugehörst, dadurch wirst du dein besonderes, von allem abgesondertes Wesen in dir erleben, du wirst den Geist in dir erleben.»

Das gehört wieder zu den Schönheiten der kompositionellen Steigerung der Bhagavad Gita, daß wir am Anfange eingeführt werden, um mehr abstrakte Begriffe zu erfahren, daß diese abstrakten Begriffe aber immer lebendiger und lebendiger werden und sich auf den verschiedensten Gebieten in Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamasbegriffen lebendig gestalten, und dann die Absonderung des Seelenwesens von Arjuna sich gleichsam vor unserem geistigen Auge vollzieht. So erklärt Krishna dem Arjuna, man müßte loskommen von alledem, was in diesen drei Zuständen verläuft, loskommen von alledem, worin sonst die Menschen verschlungen und verwoben sind. Sattvamenschen gibt es, die sind mit dem Dasein so verwoben, daß sie an demjenigen hängen, was sie aus der Umwelt ziehen an glückbringender Seligkeit. Diese Sattvamenschen durcheilen die Welt so, daß sie durch ihre glückliche Seligkeit saugen können aus allen Dingen, was sie selig macht. Rajasmenschen sind Menschen, die fleißig sind, Taten tun, aber sie tun diese Taten, weil eine gute Tat oder diese oder jene Tat diese oder jene Folgen hat; sie hängen an den Folgen der Tat, sie hängen an der Tatenlust, das heißt an dem Eindruck, den die Tat macht. Die Tamasmenschen hängen an der Nachlässigkeit, Bequemlichkeit, Faulheit; sie wollen eigentlich nichts tun. — So teilen sich die Menschen, und diejenigen Menschen, die mit ihrem Geiste, mit ihrer Seele verwoben sind in die äußeren Zustände, gehören zu einer dieser Gruppen. Aber du sollst einen Einblick erhalten in das anbrechende Zeitalter des Selbstbewußtseins, du sollst absondern lernen deine Seele, du sollst weder ein Sattvamensch, noch ein Rajasmensch, noch ein Tamasmensch sein. — Dadurch ist der Krishna in der Bhagavad Gita der große Lehrer des menschlichen selbständigen Ich, daß er so vorführt die Absonderung des Ich von den Zuständen der Umgebung. Und auch gewisse Seelenbetätigungen erklärt der Krishna dem Arjuna, nach den Zuständen Sattva, Rajas und Tamas verlaufend. Wenn aber der Mensch seinen Glauben hinauflenkt zu demjenigen, was die schöpferischen Gottwesen der Welt sind, so ist er ein Sattvamensch. Aber gerade in der damaligen Zeit, in welcher die Bhagavad Gita entstand, gab es Menschen, die gewissermaßen gar nichts wußten von den führenden göttlich-geistigen Wesenheiten, die ganz hingen an den sogenannten Naturgeistern, an jenen Geistern, die hinter den unmittelbaren Naturwesenheiten stehen: das sind die Rajasmenschen, die nur bis zu den Naturgeistern kommen. Die Tamasmenschen sind diejenigen, die in ihrer Weltkenntnis kommen zu dem, was man gespenstisch nennen kann, das dem Materiellen in seiner Geistigkeit am nächsten steht.

Also auch in bezug auf das religiöse Fühlen sind die Menschen einzuteilen in Sattvamenschen, Rajasmenschen und Tamasmenschen. Wir würden in unserer Zeit sagen können, wenn wir diese Begriffe anwenden wollen auf das religiöse Gefühl: Die zur Anthroposophie strebenden Menschen sind Sattvamenschen — ohne Schmeichelei —. Diejenigen Menschen, welche einem äußeren Glauben anhängen, sind Rajasmenschen. Und die, welche entweder materiell oder spirituell nur Körperhaftes glauben, die Materialisten und Spiritisten, sind Tamasgläubige. Der Spiritist fordert ja nicht geistige Wesenheiten, an die er glauben will. Er will ja gewiß an Geister schon glauben, aber er will nicht zu ihnen heraufgehen, er will, daß sie zu ihm herunterkommen, sie sollen klopfen, weil man Klopfen mit physischen Ohren hören kann, sie sollen in Lichtwolken erscheinen, weil man Lichtwolken mit physischen Augen sehen kann; das heißt, sie sollen nicht geistig, sondern materiell ausgestattet sein. In einer gewissen bewußten Weise sind solche Menschen Tamasmenschen. Das ist ganz im Sinne der Tamasmenschen der Krishnazeit. Es gibt auch unbewußte Tamasmenschen: Das sind diejenigen, die materialistische Denker sind, die ableugnen alles Geistige unserer Zeit. Eine materialistische Versammlung redet sich heute ein, daß sie aus Logik am Materialismus festhält. Das ist aber eine Täuschung. Materialisten sind Leute, die nicht aus logischen Gründen, sondern aus Furcht vor dem Geiste Materialisten sind. Aus Ängstlichkeit vor dem Geiste leugnen sie den Geist, weil eben die Logik der unbewußten Seele sie dazu zwingt, die zwar hinaufdringt, aber nicht durch die Pforte des Geistes schreiten kann. Die Furcht vor dem Geiste ist es, und derjenige, welcher die Wirklichkeit überschaut, sieht in einer materialistischen Versammlung, daß jeder Materialist in den Untergründen seiner Seele Furcht vor dem Geiste hat. Materialismus ist nicht Logik, sondern ist Feigheit gegenüber dem Geiste. Und das, was er ausspinnt, ist nichts anderes als das Opiat, um diese Furcht zu betäuben. In Wirklichkeit sitzt jedem Materialisten Ahriman im Genick, der Bringer der Furcht. Es ist eine groteske, aber eine gründlich ernste Wahrheit, die man, wenn man irgendwo in eine materialistische Versammlung geht, erkennt. Wozu ist eine solche Versammlung in Wahrheit einberufen? Die Maya ist, daß die Leute reden von Weltanschauungen. In Wirklichkeit ist sie da, um Ahriman, um den Teufel wirklich zu beschwören, um Ahriman in ihre Gemächer hineinzulocken.

Dieselbe Einteilung in bezug auf die Bekenntnisse gibt auch Krishna dem Arjuna, aber auch in bezug auf die Art, sich praktisch im Gebet zu den Göttern zu verhalten. Man kann des Menschen Seelenverfassung immer nach diesen drei Zuständen charakterisieren. Die Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamasmenschen unterscheiden sich ganz beträchtlich in bezug auf die Art, wie sie zu ihren Göttern stehen. Die Tamasmenschen sind diejenigen, welche Priester sind, deren Priestertum aber aus einer Art von Gewohnheit hervorgeht, die ihr Amt haben, aber keinen lebendigen Zusammenhang mit der geistigen Welt, die daher Aum und Aum und Aum wiederholen, weil eben dies zunächst aus der Dumpfheit, aus dem Tamaszustande des Gemütes hervorströmt. Die Aum-Sager, das sind die Tamasmenschen auf dem Gebiete des Gebetes; sie strömen ihr Subjektives aus in dem Aum. Die Rajasmenschen sind diejenigen, welche hinschauen auf die Umwelt und schon eine Empfindung haben, daß diese Umwelt wie etwas zu ihnen selbst Gehöriges werde, daß diese Umwelt als mit ihnen verwandt verehrt werden müsse. Es sind die Menschen des «Tat», die Menschen, die das «Das», das Weltenall als mit sich verwandt anbeten. Die Sattvamenschen sind diejenigen, die einen Blick haben dafür, daß, was im Inneren lebt, eins ist mit dem, was in aller Welt uns umgibt. Es sind die Menschen, die in ihrem Gebet den Sinn des «Sat», des All-Seins haben, des All-Seins und Eins-Seins außen und innen, die den Sinn haben für das Eins-Sein des Ojektiven und Subjektiven. Daß derjenige, der wirklich frei werden will mit seiner Seele, der weder in der einen noch in der anderen Beziehung bloß ein Sattva-, Rajasoder Tamasmensch sein will, diese Zustände in sich selbst so verwandeln muß, daß er sie wie ein Kleid an sich trägt, aber darüber mit seinem eigentlichen Selbst herauswächst: das ist es, wovon Krishna sagt, daß es erreicht werden muß. Das ist es ja auch, was Krishna anregen muß als der Schöpfer des Selbstbewußtseins.

So steht Krishna vor Arjuna, ihn lehrend: Betrachte alle Zustäinde der Welt, betrachte sie mit dem, was dem Menschen das Höchste und Tiefste ist, aber werde vom Höchsten und Tiefsten der drei Zustände frei, werde in deinem Selbst ein dich selbst Ergreifender, lerne erkennen, daß du leben kannst, ohne daß du dich fühlst mit Rajas, Tamas oder Sattva verbunden, lerne! — Das mußte man lernen dazumal, das war ein Anbrechen der Morgenröte, das Selbst frei zu bekommen.

Aber auch auf diesem Gebiete ist dasjenige, was dazumal äußerste Anstrengung sein mußte, heute auf der Straße zu finden. Und daß es auf der Straße zu finden ist, ist vielfach die Tragik des heutigen Lebens. Heute sind die Seelen nur zu häufig, die in der Welt stehen und sich in der Seele verbohren und keinen Zusammenhang finden mit der Außenwelt, die in den Gefühlen und Empfindungen, in ihren inneren Erlebnissen einsame Seelen sind, die weder sich verbunden fühlen mit einem Tamas-, Sattva- oder Rajaszustand, noch frei davon sind, die eigentlich in die Welt hineingeworfen sind wie ein verzweifelt sich drehendes Rad. Diese Menschen, die in sich nur leben und die Welt nicht verstehen können, die unglücklich sind, weil sie mit ihrer Seele ganz abgesondert sind von allem äußeren Dasein, sie stellen die Schattenseite jener Frucht dar, die Krishna bei Arjuna und allen seinen Zeitgenossen und Nachfolgern ausbilden mußte. Dasjenige, was höchstes Streben werden mußte für Arjuna, für viele heutige Menschen ist es höchstes Leid geworden. So ändern sich die aufeinanderfolgenden Zeitalter. Und heute müssen wir sagen: Wir stehen am Ende desjenigen Zeitalters, das eingeleitet wurde damals, als die Bhagavad Gita-Zeit war. Damit ist etwas sehr Bedeutsames für unsere Empfindung gesagt. Es ist aber auch damit gesagt, daß gerade so wie in der Bhagavad Gita-Zeit diejenigen, die das Selbstbewußtsein suchten, hören sollten, was Krishna dem Arjuna sagte — jene, die heute das Heil ihrer Seele suchen und die am Ende dieses Selbstbewußtseinszeitalters so dastehen, daß dieses Selbstbewußtsein in ihnen bis zur Krankhaftigkeit gesteigert ist, hören sollten auf dasjenige, was wiederum hinführt zu einem Verständnis der drei äußeren Zustände. Was aber führt zu einem Verständnis dieser äußeren Zustände hin?

Setzen wir ein paar Vorstellungen noch voraus, bevor wir diese Fragen beantworten. Fragen wir noch: Was will denn Krishna in der Realität sein für den Arjuna, für den Menschen, der sich in seiner Zeit richtig stellt zu den äußeren Zuständen? Was sagt Krishna in einer wunderbaren Weise, mit aller göttlichen Ungeschminktheit und göttlichen Ungeniertheit? Mit wirklicher göttlicher Unbefangenheit und Ungeniertheit enthüllt Krishna, was er sein will bis zu dieser Zeit.

Wie konnte man denn leben in seiner Seele? Wir haben es dargestellt, wie ein bildhaftes Bewußtsein die Seelen durchhellte, wie darüber schwebte gleichsam, was heute das Selbstbewußtsein ist, das damals die Menschen anstreben mußten und das heute auf der Straße zu finden ist. Fassen wir den Seelenzustand von dazumal, wie er war, bevor Krishna das neue Zeitalter eingeleitet hat, ins Auge. In dem bildhaften Bewußtsein lebten die Seelen innerhalb der Welt, so daß diese nicht klare Begriffe und Ideen hervorrief in den Seelen, sondern Bilder wie die heutigen Traumbilder. Ein gewisses bildhaftes Bewußtsein war die unterste Region des Seelenlebens, die von der oberen Region, von der Region des Schlafbewußtseins aus erhellt wurde durch die Inspiration. So war es mit diesen Seelen, und dann stiegen sie auf in die entsprechenden anderen Zustände. Und dieses Hinaufleben nannte man — und das ist der konkrete Begriff — das Sich-Einleben in Brahma.

Heute von einer Menschenseele verlangen, sie solle sich einleben in Brahma, heute von einer Menschenseele das verlangen, die in westlichen Ländern lebt, das ist ein Anachronismus, ein Unding. Man könnte mit demselben Recht von einem Menschen, der auf der halben Höhe eines Berges steht, verlangen, er solle auf dieselbe Weise hinaufkommen wie einer, der noch unten im Tale steht. Mit demselben Recht könnte man das verlangen, wie wenn man heute eine abendländische Seele morgenländische Übungen machen läßt und sie eingehen läßt in Brahma. Dazu muß man auf dem Bilderbewußtseinsstandpunkte stehen, auf dem in einer gewissen Weise heute noch bestimmte Morgenländer stehen. Wer Abendländer ist, der hat das, was die Bhagavad Gita-Menschen beim Heraufsteigen in Brahma fanden, die Gefühle, die der Morgenländer haben kann beim Eingehen in Brahma, schon in seinen Begriffen und Ideen. Es ist wirklich wahr: noch würde Shankaracharya die Ideenwelt von Solovieff, Hegel und Fichte als den Anfang des Hinaufsteigens in Brahma vorführen seinen ihn verehrenden Schülern. Es kommt nicht auf den Inhalt, sondern auf die Mühe des Weges an. Wir müssen uns vor allem versetzen in jene Seelen, die dieses Heraufsteigen zu Brahma anstrebten.

Das charakterisiert Krishna nun sehr schön, indem er auf ein Hauptmerkmal dieses Hinaufsteigens hinweist. Man muß eine ganz andere Geistes- und Seelenkonstitution voraussetzen, wenn man die Seelen der Bhagavad Gita-Zeit begreifen will. Da ist alles passiv, da ist ein Sich-Aussetzen der Bilderwelt, da ist alles wie ein SichHingeben an die strömende Bilderwelt. Man vergleiche damit unsere ganz andersartige gewöhnliche Welt. Uns hilft die Hingabe nichts, um zum Verständnis zu kommen. Allerdings gibt es viele Menschen, die am Zurückgebliebenen noch hängen, die nicht heraufkommen wollen bis zu dem, was in unserer Zeit geschehen muß. Aber das muß für unser Zeitalter geschehen: wir müssen uns anstrengen, aktiv tätig sein, um die Begriffe und Ideen von der Umwelt zu bekommen. Daß dies fehlt, ist ja die Misere unserer Erziehung! Wir müssen unsere Kinder dahin erziehen, daß sie dabei sind bei der Bildung ihrer Begriffe von der Umwelt. Aktiver muß heute die Seele sein als damals, in der Zeit vor der Entstehung der Bhagavad Gita. So können wir es aufschreiben:

Bhagavad Gita-Zeit = Aufsteigen zu Brahma in der Passivität der Seele.

Intellektuelle Zeit - unsere Zeit = Aktives Sich-Hinaufleben in die höheren Welten.

Was mußte also Krishna sagen, indem er einleiten will das neue Zeitalter, in dem allmählich beginnen soll das aktive Erarbeiten des Weltverständnisses? Er mußte sagen: Ich muß kommen, ich muß dir, dem Ich-Menschen, eine Gabe geben, die dich anregt, aktiv zu sein. — Würde das alles wie bisher passiv geblieben sein, wäre dieses SichHingeben an die Welt ein Verstricktsein geblieben, so wäre das neue Zeitalter nicht angebrochen. Alles das, was in der Zeit vor der Bhagavad Gita-Zeit zusammenhängt mit dem Eindringen der Seele in die geistigen Welten, nennt Krishna Hingabe. Alles ist Hingabe an Brahma. Alles das vergleicht er mit einem Weiiblichen im Menschen. Dasjenige, was das Selbst im Menschen ist, das Tätige, Aktive, was das Selbstbewußtsein erzeugen soll, was von innen ausstrahlt als der Quell des Selbstbewußtseins, das da kommen soll, nennt Krishna das Männliche im Menschen. Was der Mensch in Brahma erreichen kann, muß von ihm, dem Krishna, befruchtet werden. Das sagt Krishna dem Arjuna, gleichsam die Lehre gibt er dem Arjuna: Brahmamenschen waren die Menschen bisher alle. Brahma ist alles dasjenige, was sich ausbreitet als der Mutterschoß der ganzen Welt. Ich aber bin der Vater, der kommt in die Welt, um den Mutterschoß zu befruchten. Und dasjenige, was dadurch entsteht, ist das Selbstbewußtsein, das fortwirken soll in den Menschen und zu allen Menschen kommen muß. Das wird mit aller Deutlichkeit auseinandergesetzt. Wie Vater und Mutter verhalten sich Krishna und Brahma in der Welt. Und was stiften sie? Sie stiften miteinander dasjenige, was der Mensch haben muß im weiteren Verlauf seiner Evolution: das Selbstbewußtsein, jenes Selbstbewußtsein, welches macht, daß der Mensch als Einzelwesen immer vollkommener und vollkommener werden kann. Ganz und gar hat es das Krishna-Bekenntnis mit dem einzelnen Menschen, mit dem individuellen Menschen zu tun. Restlose Hingabe an die Krishna-Lehre bedeutet Streben nach Vervollkommnung des einzelnen Menschen. Wie kann diese Vervollkommnung aber nur erreicht werden? Sie kann so nur erreicht werden, daß dieses individuelle Selbstbewußtsein, diese Gabe des Krishna, herauskommt durch Ablösen, durch das Ablösen des Selbstes von alledem, was mit den äußeren Zuständen behaftet ist. Lenken Sie den Blick hin auf diesen Grundnerv der Krishna-Lehre, darauf, daß die Krishna-Lehre dem Menschen die Anweisung gibt, alles äußerlich in den Zuständen Lebende liegen zu lassen, frei zu werden von allem «Tat», von allem, was abläuft als das Leben in seinen verschiedenen Zuständen, und sich zu ergreifen nur in dem Selbst, um dieses Selbst immer weiter und weiter zu höherer Vervollkommnung zu tragen. Lenken Sie den Blick hin darauf, daß abhängt die Vervollkommnung davon, daß der Mensch hinter sich läßt alle äußeren Konfigurationen der Dinge, daß er sich schält aus dem ganzen Außenleben heraus, daß er frei wird und in sich immer belebter wird. Selbstbewußtseinsstreben als die Lehre des Krishna ergibt sich dadurch, daß der Mensch sich losreißt von seiner Umgebung, nicht mehr frägt, was draußen sich vervollkommnet, sondern wie er sich vervollkommnen soll.

Krishna, das heißt der Geist, der durch Krishna wirkt, erschien ja nun wiederum in dem Lukas-Jesusknaben aus der nathanischen Linie des Hauses David. In dieser Persönlichkeit war also im Grunde alles dasjenige, was an Impulsen vorhanden war zur Verselbständigung im Menschen, zum Loslösen von der äußeren Wirklichkeit. Was wollte denn der Krishna oder, sagen wir, diese nicht in die Menschheitsevolution eingetretene Seele, die im Krishna wirkte und dann im Jesusknaben des Lukas, was wollte sie eigentlich? Sie hat es erleben müssen, daß sie einstmals draußen bleiben mußte aus der Menschheitsentwickelung, weil der Gegner gekommen war, der Luzifer, der gesagt hat: «Eure Augen werden geöffnet werden, und ihr werdet unterscheiden das Gute und Böse und werdet sein wie Gott.» Im alten indischen Sinne trat Luzifer vor die Menschen und sagte: Ihr werdet sein wie die Götter und werdet finden können die Sattva-, Rajas-, Tamaszustände in der Welt. — Luzifer hat die Menschen hingewiesen auf die Außenwelt. So mußten die Menschen kennenlernen auf Anstiften des Luzifer das Außen, so mußten sie durch die Evolution hindurchgehen bis in die Christus-Zeit hinein. Da kam derjenige, der damals zurückgewichen war vor Luzifer, in Krishna und im Lukas-Jesusknaben. In zwei Etappen lehrte er nun dasjenige, was von der einen Seite her der Gegenpol sein sollte gegen die LuziferLehre des Paradieses. Er hat die Augen euch öffnen wollen für die Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamaszustände. Schließt die Augen vor den Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamaszuständen: dann werdet ihr euch als Menschen, als selbstbewußte Menschen finden. — So tritt für uns die Imagination auf: auf der einen Seite die Imagination des Paradieses, wo Luzifer der Menschen Augen öffnet für die Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamaszustände, und sich eine Weile zurückzieht derjenige, welcher der Gegner des Luzifer ist. Dann machen die Menschen eine Entwickelung durch und kommen an den Punkt, wo ihnen in zwei Etappen eine andere Lehre vom Selbstbewußtsein entgegenkommt, aber so, daß sie die Augen schließen sollen vor den Sattva-, Rajas- und Tamaszuständen. Beides sind einseitige Lehren. Wäre nur dageblieben der Krishna-Jesus-Einfluß, dasjenige, was im Jesusknaben des Lukas lebte, dann wäre nur die eine Einseitigkeit zu der anderen gekommen, dann hätte der Mensch Abschied genommen von allem, was ihn umgibt, er hätte alles Interesse auch an der äußeren Entwickelung verloren, dann hätte jeder nur seine eigene Vervollkommnung auf der Erde gesucht. Streben nach Vervollkommnung ist recht, aber das Streben, erkauft durch Interesselosigkeit an der ganzen Menschheit, ist eine Einseitigkeit, wie das Luziferische eine Einseitigkeit war. Daher trat das Allumfassende entgegen, der Christus-Impuls, die höhere Synthese beider Einseitigkeiten. In der Person des Lukas-Jesusknaben selber lebte drei Jahre hindurch der ChristusImpuls, der in die Menschheit kam, um diese beiden Einseitigkeiten zusammenzubringen. Durch die beiden Einseitigkeiten wäre die Menschheit in die Schwachheit und Sünde gekommen: durch den Luzifer wäre sie verurteilt zum einseitigen Leben in den äußeren Zuständen Sattva, Rajas, Tamas; durch den Krishna sollte sie für die andere Einseitigkeit erzogen werden: die Augen zu schließen und nur die eigene Vollkommenheit zu suchen. Der Christus nahm auf sich die Sünde, er gab den Menschen dasjenige, was die beiden Einseitigkeiten ausgleicht. Er nahm auf sich die Versündigung des Selbstbewußstseins, das die Augen schließen wollte gegenüber der Außenwelt; er nahm auf sich die Sünde des Krishna und aller, die Krishnas Sünde begehen wollten. Er nahm auf sich die Luzifer-Sünde und aller, die sie begehen wollten, indem sie nur einseitig den Blick auf Sattva, Rajas und Tamas geheftet hielten. Indem er die Einseitigkeiten auf sich nimmt, gibt er den Menschen die Möglichkeit, allmählich wieder einen Zusammenklang zu finden zwischen Innenund Außenwelt, in welchem Zusammenklang allein das Heil der Menschen zu finden ist.

Aber eine Entwickelung, die begonnen hat, kann nicht sogleich auslaufen. Die Entwickelung zum Selbstbewußtsein, die begonnen hat mit dem Krishna, ist weiter gegangen, in gleicher Weise das Selbstbewußtsein immer steigernd, immer mehr und mehr die Entfremdung von der Außenwelt hervorrufend. Diese Entwickelung hat die Tendenz, weiter und weiter zu gehen auch in unserer Zeit. Zur Zeit, als der Krishna-Impuls vom Lukas-Jesusknaben aufgenommen worden ist, war die Menschheit gerade in dieser Entwickelung darinnen, das Selbstbewußtsein immer mehr noch zu steigern, sich der Außenwelt immer mehr noch zu entfremden. Das war dasjenige, was die Menschen erfuhren, welche die Johannestaufe im Jordan empfingen. Sie sahen, wie das Selbstbewußtsein auf dem Wege ist, immer stärker und stärker zu werden. Daher verstanden sie den Täufer, als er zu ihnen davon sprach: Ändert den Sinn, wandelt nicht nur in der Krishna-Bahn. — Wenn er auch nicht das Wort gebrauchte: wir können diese Bahn, die damals eingeschlagen worden ist, die Jesus-Bahn nennen, wenn wir okkultistisch sprechen wollen. Und diese bloße JesusBahn ist tatsächlich durch die Jahrhunderte immer weiter und weiter gegangen; denn auf vielen Gebieten des menschlichen Kulturlebens in den Jahrhunderten, die auf die Begründung des Christentums folgten, war nur eine Anlehnung an Jesus vorhanden, nicht an den Christus, der in dem Jesus drei Jahre lebte, von der Johannestaufe an bis zum Mysterium von Golgatha. Eine jede Entwickelungslinie aber treibt sich bis zu einer gewissen Spannung. Immer mehr wurde diese Sehnsucht nach individueller Vervollkommnung dahin getrieben, daß die Menschen in einer gewissen Weise ins Tragische gerieten, sich immer mehr und mehr von der Göttlichkeit der Natur, von der Außenwelt entfremdeten. Heute haben wir ja vielfach dieses Tragische der Entfremdung von der Umgebung so, daß viele Seelen unter uns herumgehen, die nicht mehr viel von ihr verstehen. Deshalb muß gerade in unserer Zeit das Verständnis des Christus-Impulses einschlagen: die Christus-Bahn muß zur Jesus-Bahn hinzukommen. Es war die Bahn des einseitigen Vervollkommnungsstrebens zu stark geworden. In unserer Zeit erst ist sie so, daß die Menschen in vieler Beziehung ganz fern stehen der Göttlichkeit der Umgebung. Weil, wenn irgendeine Richtung auftritt, sie sich sogleich überspannt, und die Sehnsucht nach dem Gegenteil erwacht, fühlen in unserer Zeit viele Seelen, wie wenig der Mensch heute aus dem gesteigerten Selbstbewußtsein herauskommen kann. Das erzeugt den Drang, die Göttlichkeit der Außenwelt zu erkennen. Und in unserer Zeit ist es so, daß gerade solche Seelen das durch die wahre Anthroposophie geöffnete Verständnis des Christus-Impulses suchen werden, des Christus-Impulses, der nicht bloß die einseitige Vervollkommnung der einzelnen Menschenseele will, sondern der ganzen Menschheit, der dem ganzen Menschheitsprozeß angehört. Den Christus-Impuls verstehen heißt nicht bloß streben nach Vervollkommnung, sondern auch in sich aufnehmen etwas, was wirklich getroffen wird mit dem Pauluswort: «Nicht ich, sondern der Christus in mir.» «Ich», das ist das Krishna-Wort; «Nicht ich, sondern der Christus in mir» ist das Wort des christlichen Impulses. So sehen wir, wie eine jegliche menschliche Geistesströmung ihre gewisse Berechtigung hat. Niemand kann sich denken, daß der Krishna-Impuls hätte ausbleiben können, aber niemand sollte jemals daran denken, daß einmal eine menschliche Geistesströmung in ihrer Einseitigkeit eine Vollberechtigung habe. Die beiden Einseitigkeiten, die luziferische und die KrishnaStrömung, mußten im höheren Sinne ihre Einheit finden in der Christus-Strömung.

Derjenige, der in wirklich anthroposophischem Sinne verstehen will das, was heute walten muß als notwendiger Impuls der weiteren Entwickelung der Menschheit, der muß in Anthroposophie das Instrument sehen, das hineinleuchten kann in alle Religionen. Auch in diesem Zyklus versuchten wir zu zeigen, wie die menschliche Evolution weiterschreitet und die einzelnen Strömungen ihren Zufluß zu dieser gemeinsamen Evolution senden. Ein dilettantisches Beginnen wäre es, wenn jemand das, was im Christentum sich findet, wiederfinden wollte im Krishnatum. So betrachtet, versteht man diese Dinge erst, versteht erst, was es heißt, Einheit zu suchen in allen Religionen. Man kann das auch auf andere Weise. Man kann immer wieder deklamieren: In allen Religionen ist dieselbe Grundwesenheit enthalten. — Das würde das gleiche bedeuten wie: dieselbe Grundwesenheit ist in der Wurzel, in dem Stamm, in den Blättern, in den Blüten, in den Staubgefäßen und in der Frucht enthalten. — Das ist wahr, aber das ist eine abstrakte Wahrheit. Es ist nicht geistreicher, als wenn man sagt: Was braucht man Unterschiede? Salz, Pfeffer, Essig, Milch steht doch alles auf dem Tisch, alles ist eins, denn alles ist Stoff. — Da merkt man nur das Abstrakte, Unzulängliche einer solchen Betrachtungsweise. Das merkt man aber nicht sogleich auf dem Gebiete der Religionsvergleichung. Es geht nicht, so abstrakt das Chinesentum, das Brahmanentum, das Krishnatum, das Buddhatum, das Persertum, das Mohammedanertum und das Christentum zu vergleichen, zu sagen: Seht, überall dieselben Prinzipien, überall ein Erlöser! Die abstrakten Dinge kann man überall suchen: es ist dilettantisch, weil es unfruchtbar ist. Man kann für das Leben Gesellschaften, Vereine gründen, in denen man das Studium aller Religionen vorführt und das Studium dann so betreibt, wie wenn eben jemand sagen würde: Pfeffer, Salz, Essig und Öl seien eins, weil sie auf dem Tische stehen, weil sie alle Stoff sind. -— Darauf kommt es nicht an. Darauf kommt es an, daß man die Dinge in ihrer Wahrheit, in ihrer Wirklichkeit betrachtet. Einer Betrachtungsweise, die so weit zum okkulten Dilettantismus sich versteigt, daß sie immer wieder die Gleichheit aller Religionen deklamiert, kann es ja auch gleich sein, ob das, was im Christus-Impuls lebt, der Schwerpunkt ist in der Menschheitsentwickelung, oder ob das in irgendeinem Menschen, den man auf der Straße oder sonstwo auftreibt, wieder erscheint. Wer aber aus der Wahrheit heraus leben will, für den ist es ein Greuel, in Zusammenhang zu bringen irgend etwas anderes mit demjenigen Impuls in der Weltgeschichte, der mit dem Mysterium von Golgatha verknüpft ist und für den der Christus-Name aufbewahrt worden ist als das, was er in Wahrheit ist: der Mittelpunkt der Erdenevolution.

In diesen Vorträgen versuchte ich Ihnen ein Bild zu geben an einem besonderen Beispiel, versuchte ich an diesem Beispiel zu zeigen, wie der gegenwärtige Okkultismus erstrebt, Licht zu werfen auf die verschiedenen Geistesströmungen, die im Verlaufe der Menschheitsevolution aufgetreten sind, die jede einen berechtigten Angriffspunkt haben, die man aber so unterscheiden muß, wie man den Stengel vom grünen Blatt, das grüne Blatt vom gefärbten Blumenblatt unterscheiden muß, obwohl alle diese zusammen wieder eine Einheit bedeuten. Wenn man mit diesem wahrhaft modernen Okkultismus versucht, selber mit seiner Seele einzudringen in dasjenige, was in den verschiedenen Strömungen in die Menschheit geflossen ist, dann erkennt man, daß wahrhaftig die einzelnen Religionsbekenntnisse nichts dabei verlieren, nichts an Größe, nichts an Erhabenheit. Welche erhabene Größe ist uns in der Gestalt des Krishna entgegengetreten auch da, wo wir ihn nur im Sinne der konkreten Erfassung der Menschheitsevolution in diese Menschheitsevolution hineinzustellen versuchten! Es ist eine jede solche Betrachtung, die man nur skizzenhaft geben kann, unvollkommen genug, gewiß recht, recht unvollkommen. Sie können aber versichert sein, niemand ist mehr überzeugt von der Unvollkommenheit dessen, was hier wiederum gegeben wurde, als der, welcher sich erlaubte, hier vor Ihnen zu sprechen. Aber was angestrebt worden ist, das ist, Ihnen ein wenig zu zeigen, wie wahre Betrachtung der einzelnen Geistesströmungen der Menschheit zu geschehen hat. Gerade an einem uns fern stehenden Geistesprodukt, an der Bhagavad Gita, versuchte ich anzuknüpfen, um zu zeigen, wie der abendländische Mensch schon empfinden und fühlen kann, was er dem Krishna verdankt, was Krishna heute noch als Nachwirkung bedeutet für sein Aufstreben in der Welt. Aber auf der anderen Seite muß die Geistesrichtung, die hier vertreten wird, verlangen, daß man liebevoll auf die Selbsteigenheit einer jeden Strömung ganz konkret eingehe. Das hat eine gewisse Unbequemlichkeit, denn das bringt einem die bescheidene Idee nur allzunahe, wie wenig man doch eigentlich in diese Tiefen eindringt. Und es folgt die andere Idee allerdings auch in unserer Seele: daß wir immer weiter streben müssen. Beides Unbequemlichkeiten! Diejenige Geistesströmung, die hier Anthroposophie genannt wird, sie macht vielen Seelen — dazu ist sie verurteilt — gewisse Unbequemlichkeiten. Sie verlangt ein energisches Eintreten in die konkreten Tatsachen des Weltengeschehens, zugleich aber auch, daß man sich in seiner Seele sagt: Ich kann ja zu Höherem kommen, ich will auch dahin kommen, aber ich habe doch nur immer einen Standpunkt erreicht, ich muß immer weiter und weiter streben. Niemals ein Ende!

So war es ja immer mit einer gewissen Unbequemlichkeit verknüpft, zu derjenigen Geistesströmung zu gehören, welche durch uns versucht, in das, was man anthroposophisches Leben nennt, sich hineinzustellen. Unbequem war es ja, daß man gar bei uns streben lernen sollte, lernen soll, um endlich dahin zu kommen, immer tiefer und tiefer in die heiligen Geheimnisse hineinzuschauen. Aber wir konnten nicht aufwarten mit etwas so Bequemem, das sich ergeben würde, wenn wir irgendeinen Sohn oder auch eine Tochter genommen hätten und sie vorgeführt und gesagt hätten: Ihr braucht nur warten: in diesem Sohn oder in dieser "Tochter wird das Heil physisch verkörpert erscheinen. — Das konnten wir nicht, das ging wirklich nicht, denn wir mußten wahr sein. Und doch, für den, der die Sache durchschaut, ist schließlich alles das, was da zuletzt zutage getreten ist, nur die letzte, groteske Konsequenz jener dilettantischen Religionsvergleicherei, die sich auch so bequem hinstellen läßt, und die immer mit der Selbstverständlichkeit auftritt, mit der äußersten Trivialität auftritt: Alle Religionen enthalten dasselbe!

Die letzten Wochen und Monate haben immerhin gezeigt — und daß ich vor Ihnen hier sprechen konnte über ein so bedeutungsvolles Thema, hat es neu gezeigt —, daß sich eben doch ein Kreis von Menschen findet in der Gegenwart, wenn es darauf ankommt, die spirituellen Wahrheiten zu suchen. Uns wird es auf nichts anderes ankommen, als diese spirituellen Wahrheiten zu vertreten. Ob nun viele oder alle von uns abfallen, das wird nichts ändern an der Art, wie man die spirituellen Wahrheiten hier vertritt. Die heilige Verpflichtung zur Wahrheit, sie wird die Strömung, von welcher aus auch dieser Zyklus gehalten worden ist, leiten und lenken. Und wer mitmachen will, muß es tun unter den Bedingungen, die nun einmal notwendig geworden sind. Bequemer ist es allerdings, in anderer Weise zu verfahren, nicht so einzugehen auf die andere Seite, wie wir es tun, indem wir wirklich aufmerksam machen auf alles, wie es in der Realität ist. Aber das gehört ja eben auch schon zur Wahrheitsverpflichtung. Einfacher ist es, den Menschen mitzuteilen die Gleichheit der Religionen, die Einheit der Religionen, den Menschen zu verkünden, daß sie warten sollen, bis sich ein Heiland verkörpert, den man vorbestimmt, den man nicht aus sich selbst, sondern auf Autorität hin anerkennen soll. Das aber werden die menschlichen Seelen der Gegenwart selber zu entscheiden haben, inwieweit die reine Hingabe an das Streben nach Wahrhaftigkeit eine geistige Strömung tragen und halten kann. Es mußte schon einmal in unserer Zeit zu jener scharfen Scheidung kommen, die dadurch eingetreten ist, daß die Präsidentin sich zuletzt soweit selber demaskiert hat, diejenigen, die nichts weiter wollten, als für das Wahre, Echte in der Menschheitsevolution aus Wahrhaftigkeit einzutreten, als Jesuiten zu bezeichnen. Es ist ja dieses auch eine bequeme Art gewesen, sich zu scheiden, aber es ist die äußere Dokumentierung gewesen des Arbeitens mit objektiver Unwahrheit. Daß bei uns nicht in einer einseitigen Ideenrichtung gearbeitet worden ist, das möge Ihnen auch dieser Vortragszyklus wieder-., um gezeigt haben, der Gegenwart, Vergangenheit und Vorvergangenheit beherzigt, um den wahrhaftigen einzigen Grundimpuls der Menschheitsevolution zeigen zu können. So darf ich wohl auch hier sagen, wie es mich selber, der ich diesen Zyklus habe halten dürfen, mit tiefster Befriedigung erfüllt, daß Hoffnung vorhanden ist — und daß Sie hier sitzen, ist ein Beweis dafür —, noch Menschenseelen zu finden, welche den Trieb, die Neigung, die Hinlenkung haben zu dem, was auch auf übersinnlichem Gebiete mit nichts anderem arbeitet als mit der bloßen ehrlichen Wahrhaftigkeit.

Ich muß schon dieses Schlußwort noch anfügen an den Vortragszyklus, weil es im Grunde doch notwendig ist in Anbetracht alles dessen, was uns entgegengetreten ist im Laufe der Zeit bis zu dem Zeitpunkte, wo man uns aus der Theosophischen Gesellschaft ausgeschlossen hat. In Anbetracht alles dessen, was uns getan worden ist und was jetzt in zahlreichen Broschüren in sein Gegenteil verkehrt wird, mußte ich dies zum Ausdruck bringen, obwohl mich die Besprechung dieser Dinge immer außerordentlich schmerzhaft berührt. Aber es ist notwendig, daß diejenigen, die mit uns arbeiten wollen, wissen, daß wir zu unserer Devise haben: unbedingtes, bescheidenes, aber ehrliches Wahrheitsstreben hinauf in die höheren Welten.

Ninth Lecture

The final passages of the Bhagavad Gita are permeated with sensations and feelings that are imbued with the concepts of sattva, rajas, and tamas. In these final passages of the Bhagavad Gita, the entire perceptive faculty must be attuned to understanding the things that confront us in terms of the ideas of rajas, sattva, and tamas. In the previous lecture, I attempted to describe these three important concepts with the help of experiences from the present. However, anyone who undertakes the Bhagavad Gita and immerses themselves in it must be aware that since the time when the Bhagavad Gita was written, the concepts have shifted somewhat. Nevertheless, it would not have been right to characterize the concepts of sattva, rajas, and tamas purely from the literal translations of the Bhagavad Gita, for the simple reason that our sensations are different from theirs and we cannot appropriate sensations that are completely different from our own. If one wanted to characterize them in this way, one would be characterizing the unknown with the unknown.

You will find, for example, that in relation to food, the concepts we developed in the previous lecture are slightly shifted in the Bhagavad Gita, because everything that applies to plant-based nutrition for people today applied to Indians in relation to the nutrition that Krishna calls mild, gentle nutrition, while the Rajas food, which we characterized as mineral food, as is correct for people today — salt, for example, gives the character of Rajas food — was described by Indians at the time of the Bhagavad Gita as sour and pungent. And Tamas food is essentially meat food for our organization. The Indians used this term to describe food that in our time cannot really be considered food at all, but which nevertheless gives a good idea of how different people were back then: the Indians referred to rotten, stale, and smelly food as tamas food. For our present incarnation, we would no longer be able to describe this as tamas food, because the organization of the human being has changed down to the physical level.

Thus, in order to better understand these basic feelings of the Bhagavad Gita about sattva, rajas, and tamas, we must reflect on our own circumstances. And when we then engage with what sattva actually is, it is best to start with the most obvious concept of sattva: a sattva person is someone who, in our time, is able to devote themselves to a realization that is as profound as a realization of the mineral kingdom today. For the Indian, a sattvic person was not someone who had this kind of insight, but someone who was understanding, wise in the ordinary sense, and went through the world with their head and heart. Someone who accepts what the world offers them without bias or prejudice, someone who goes through life in such a way that they accompany their entire journey with an understanding of the world, absorbing the light of concepts and ideas, the light of feelings and sensations that emanates from all the beauty and glory of the world. someone who avoids all that is ugly in the world, who develops themselves in the right way, someone who does this in relation to the physical world is a sattva person. In the inanimate realm, for example, a sattva impression is the impression of a surface that is not too bright, illuminated in such a way that we can distinguish the details of the colors in their true brightness, while still being brightly colored. Such a surface would be the sattva impression of the outside world. The rajas impression is one in which the human being is prevented in a certain way, by his own emotions, by his affects and drives, or even by the thing itself, from completely penetrating into the thing, into what surrounds him, so that he does not enter into the impression, but confronts it with what he is. For example, they get to know the plant kingdom: they can admire the plant kingdom, but they bring their emotions to bear on the plant kingdom and therefore cannot penetrate into the depths of the plant kingdom. Tamas is present when a person is completely devoted to the life of his physical body, dull and apathetic toward what is around him, as dull and apathetic as we are toward another consciousness here on the physical plane. We know nothing of the consciousness of a dog or a horse as long as we remain on the physical plane, not even of the consciousness of another human being. Here, human beings are generally dull, retreating, so to speak, into their own physical bodies, immersed in Tamas impressions. Human beings must gradually become so dull to the physical world that they can perceive the spiritual worlds with clairvoyance. This is how the concepts of sattva, rajas, and tamas will best reveal themselves to us. In the outer nature, a rajas impression would be the impression of a moderately bright surface, not in a bright color, but rather green, an even green hue. A dark surface with dark colors would be a tamas impression. When humans look out into the outer darkness of space, even if the magnificent sight of the open sky presents itself to them, they can perceive nothing but the blue, almost tamas color. If we permeate ourselves with the sensations presented by these conceptual definitions, we can apply them to everything that surrounds us, not just in one area or another. In fact, these ideas are comprehensive. And for the Indian of the Bhagavad Gita period, this means not only a certain understanding of the external world itself, but also a certain enlivening of the human inner core: knowing about the sattva, rajas, and tamas nature of the environment.

The Indian felt something like this. Let me clarify this with a comparison: Let us assume that a simple, primitive person from the countryside sees nature around him, the beauty of the dawn, the beauty of the sun, the stars, everything he can see, but he does not think about it, he does not form ideas or concepts of the world; he lives in intimate harmony with his surroundings. When he begins to distinguish himself with his soul from what surrounds him, when he begins to feel himself as a separate being, he must achieve this by learning to understand his surroundings through ideas about them, by learning to separate himself from his surroundings. It is always a kind of grasping of the reality of one's own being when one objectively posits one's surroundings. The Indians of the Bhagavad Gita period said: As long as one does not see through the sattva, rajas, and tamas states of one's environment, one still lives in one's environment, one is not independent in one's own being, one is connected to one's environment, one has not grasped one's own being. But when your surroundings become so objective that you can observe them everywhere: this is a sattva state, this is a rajas state, and this is a tamas state, then you also become freer and freer from them and therefore more independent in your being. Therefore, it is a means of becoming independent, in all of external nature, in everything that lives outside the mind and the human soul, to get to know these three states. A means of bringing about the state of self-awareness is to understand sattva, rajas, and tamas in everything that surrounds us. And basically, Krishna wants to free Arjuna's soul from what surrounds Arjuna at that particular moment. “Look,” Krishna wants to make clear, “at all that is living on the bloody battlefield, where brothers stand opposite brothers. You feel connected to all of it, merged with it and belonging to it. Learn to recognize that everything out there is happening in sattva, rajas, and tamas states. By doing so, you will set yourself apart, you will know that you do not belong with your highest self, you will experience your special being within you, separate from everything else, you will experience the spirit within you.”

This is another of the beauties of the compositional intensification of the Bhagavad Gita, that we are introduced at the beginning to more abstract concepts, but that these abstract concepts become more and more vivid and come to life in the most diverse areas in Sattva, rajas, and tamas concepts, and then the separation of the soul from Arjuna takes place before our mind's eye, as it were. Krishna explains to Arjuna that one must detach oneself from everything that occurs in these three states, detach oneself from everything in which people are otherwise entangled and interwoven. There are sattva people who are so entangled in existence that they cling to what they draw from their environment in the form of blissful happiness. These sattva people rush through the world so that they can suck out of everything that makes them happy through their blissful happiness. Rajas people are people who are diligent, who do deeds, but they do these deeds because a good deed or this or that deed has this or that consequence; they cling to the consequences of the deed, they cling to the desire to do deeds, that is, to the impression that the deed makes. Tamas people are attached to carelessness, comfort, laziness; they don't really want to do anything. — This is how people are divided, and those people who are interwoven with their spirit, with their soul, in external conditions belong to one of these groups. But you should gain insight into the dawning age of self-awareness, you should learn to separate your soul, you should be neither a sattva person, nor a rajas person, nor a tamas person. — This is why Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita is the great teacher of the independent human ego, because he demonstrates the separation of the ego from the conditions of the environment. Krishna also explains certain soul activities to Arjuna according to the states of sattva, rajas, and tamas. But when a person directs his faith toward what the creative divine beings of the world are, he is a sattvic person. But precisely at the time when the Bhagavad Gita was written, there were people who knew nothing about the leading divine-spiritual beings and who were completely attached to the so-called nature spirits, those spirits that stand behind the immediate natural beings: these are the Rajas people, who only reach as far as the nature spirits. The tamas people are those who, in their knowledge of the world, come to what can be called ghostly, which is closest to the material in its spirituality.

So, in terms of religious feeling, people can also be divided into sattva people, rajas people, and tamas people. In our time, if we want to apply these terms to religious feeling, we could say that people who strive toward anthroposophy are sattva people—without flattery. Those who adhere to an external faith are Rajas people. And those who believe only in the physical, either materially or spiritually, the materialists and spiritualists, are Tamas believers. The spiritualist does not demand spiritual beings in whom he wants to believe. They certainly want to believe in spirits, but they do not want to go up to them; they want them to come down to them, to knock, because knocking can be heard with physical ears, to appear in clouds of light, because clouds of light can be seen with physical eyes; that is, they should not be spiritually but materially equipped. In a certain conscious way, such people are tamas people. This is entirely in keeping with the tamas people of the Krishna era. There are also unconscious tamas people: these are those who are materialistic thinkers, who deny everything spiritual in our time. A materialistic assembly today convinces itself that it adheres to materialism out of logic. But this is a deception. Materialists are people who are materialists not for logical reasons, but out of fear of the spirit. Out of fear of the spirit, they deny the spirit, because the logic of the unconscious soul compels them to do so, even though it pushes upward but cannot pass through the gate of the spirit. It is fear of the spirit, and anyone who sees reality clearly can see in a materialistic gathering that every materialist has a fear of the spirit in the depths of his soul. Materialism is not logic, but cowardice in the face of the spirit. And what it spins out is nothing more than an opiate to numb this fear. In reality, every materialist has Ahriman, the bringer of fear, sitting on his neck. It is a grotesque but thoroughly serious truth that one recognizes when one goes to a materialistic gathering anywhere. What is the real purpose of such a gathering? The Maya is that people talk about worldviews. In reality, it is there to truly summon Ahriman, the devil, to lure Ahriman into their chambers.

Krishna gives Arjuna the same classification with regard to creeds, but also with regard to the way of behaving in prayer to the gods. One can always characterize the soul state of human beings according to these three conditions. Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas people differ considerably in the way they relate to their gods. The Tamas people are those who are priests, but whose priesthood arises from a kind of habit; they have their office but no living connection with the spiritual world, and therefore repeat Aum and Aum and Aum, because this flows forth from the dullness, from the Tamas state of mind. The Aum-sayers are the Tamas people in the realm of prayer; they pour out their subjectivity in the Aum. The Rajas people are those who look at the environment and already have a feeling that this environment is becoming something that belongs to them, that this environment must be revered as related to them. They are the people of “tat,” the people who worship “that,” the universe, as related to themselves. The sattva people are those who have an insight into the fact that what lives within is one with what surrounds us in the whole world. They are people who, in their prayer, have a sense of “sat,” of all-being, of all-being and oneness outside and inside, who have a sense of the oneness of the objective and the subjective. That those who truly want to become free with their soul, who do not want to be merely a sattva, rajas, or tamas person in either one relationship or the other, must transform these states within themselves so that they wear them like a garment, but grow out of them with their true self: this is what Krishna says must be achieved. This is also what Krishna must inspire as the creator of self-consciousness.

Thus Krishna stands before Arjuna, teaching him: Consider all the states of the world, consider them with what is highest and lowest in man, but become free from the highest and lowest of the three states, become in your self one who grasps yourself, learn to recognize that you can live without feeling connected to Rajas, Tamas, or Sattva, learn! — That was what had to be learned back then, it was the dawn of a new day, to free the self.

But even in this area, what must have been an extreme effort back then can be found on the streets today. And the fact that it can be found on the streets is in many ways the tragedy of modern life. Today, souls are all too often standing in the world and becoming entrenched in the soul, unable to find any connection with the outside world, lonely souls in their feelings and sensations, in their inner experiences, who feel neither connected to a tamas, sattva, or rajas state, nor free from them, who are actually thrown into the world like a wheel spinning desperately. These people, who live only within themselves and cannot understand the world, who are unhappy because they are completely separated from all external existence with their souls, represent the shadow side of the fruit that Krishna had to develop in Arjuna and all his contemporaries and followers. What had to become the highest aspiration for Arjuna has become the highest suffering for many people today. Thus the successive ages change. And today we must say: We are at the end of the age that was ushered in at the time of the Bhagavad Gita. This says something very significant for our perception. But it also says that just as in the time of the Bhagavad Gita, those who sought self-awareness should listen to what Krishna said to Arjuna — those who today seek the salvation of their souls and who, at the end of this age of self-consciousness, find themselves in a state where this self-consciousness has been heightened to the point of morbidity, should listen to that which leads to an understanding of the three outer states. But what leads to an understanding of these outer states?

Let us assume a few things before we answer these questions. Let us ask: What does Krishna really want to be for Arjuna, for the person who, in his time, takes the right stance toward the external states? What does Krishna say in a wonderful way, with all divine unvarnishedness and divine uninhibitedness? With real divine impartiality and uninhibitedness, Krishna reveals what he wants to be up to this point in time.

How could one live in one's soul? We have described how a pictorial consciousness illuminated the souls, how what we today call self-consciousness hovered above them, which people had to strive for at that time and which can be found on the streets today. Let us consider the state of the soul at that time, before Krishna ushered in the new age. In pictorial consciousness, souls lived within the world in such a way that it did not give rise to clear concepts and ideas in the souls, but rather to images like the dream images of today. A certain pictorial consciousness was the lowest region of soul life, which was illuminated from above by inspiration from the region of sleep consciousness. This was the case with these souls, and then they ascended to the corresponding other states. And this upward life was called — and this is the concrete term — settling into Brahma.

To demand today that a human soul should settle into Brahma, to demand this today of a human soul living in Western countries, is an anachronism, an absurdity. One might just as well demand of a person standing halfway up a mountain that he should climb to the top in the same way as someone still standing down in the valley. One could demand this with the same right as if one were to make a Western soul perform Eastern exercises today and let it enter into Brahma. To do this, one must stand at the level of pictorial consciousness at which certain Easterners still stand today in a certain way. Westerners already have in their concepts and ideas what the people of the Bhagavad Gita found when they ascended into Brahma, the feelings that Easterners can have when they enter Brahma. It is really true: Shankaracharya would still present the world of ideas of Solovieff, Hegel, and Fichte to his admiring disciples as the beginning of the ascent into Brahma. It is not the content that matters, but the effort of the path. Above all, we must put ourselves in the souls of those who aspired to this ascent to Brahma.

Krishna characterizes this very nicely by pointing out a key feature of this ascent. One must assume a completely different mental and spiritual constitution if one wants to understand the souls of the Bhagavad Gita period. Everything there is passive, there is a surrender to the world of images, everything is like a surrendering to the flowing world of images. Compare this with our very different ordinary world. Devotion does not help us to understand. However, there are many people who still cling to the past, who do not want to rise up to what must happen in our time. But this must happen in our age: we must make an effort, be actively engaged in order to obtain concepts and ideas from the environment. The fact that this is lacking is the misery of our education! We must educate our children to be involved in the formation of their concepts of the environment. Today, the soul must be more active than it was in the time before the Bhagavad Gita came into being. We can write it down like this:

Bhagavad Gita era = ascension to Brahma in the passivity of the soul.

Intellectual era – our era = actively living oneself up into the higher worlds.

So what did Krishna have to say as he sought to usher in the new age in which the active development of an understanding of the world was to gradually begin? He had to say: I must come, I must give you, the ego-human being, a gift that will inspire you to be active. If everything had remained passive as before, this surrender to the world would have remained an entanglement, and the new age would not have dawned. Krishna calls everything that is connected with the soul's entry into the spiritual worlds in the time before the Bhagavad Gita devotion. Everything is devotion to Brahma. He compares all this to the feminine principle in human beings. That which is the self in man, the active, the active, that which is supposed to generate self-consciousness, that which radiates from within as the source of self-consciousness, that which is to come, Krishna calls the masculine in man. What man can achieve in Brahma must be fertilized by him, Krishna. Krishna tells Arjuna this, imparting his teaching to him: All human beings have been Brahma-men until now. Brahma is everything that spreads out as the womb of the whole world. But I am the father who comes into the world to fertilize the womb. And what arises from this is self-consciousness, which is to continue working in human beings and must come to all human beings. This is explained with great clarity. Krishna and Brahma behave like father and mother in the world. And what do they create? Together they create what human beings must have in the further course of their evolution: self-consciousness, that self-consciousness which enables human beings as individual beings to become more and more perfect. The Krishna creed has everything to do with the individual human being, with the individual human being. Complete devotion to the Krishna teachings means striving for the perfection of the individual human being. But how can this perfection be achieved? It can only be achieved by allowing this individual self-awareness, this gift of Krishna, to emerge through detachment, through the detachment of the self from everything that is connected with external conditions. Direct your attention to this fundamental nerve of Krishna's teaching, to the fact that Krishna's teaching instructs human beings to leave behind everything that lives in external conditions, to become free from all “doing,” from everything that happens as life in its various states, and to grasp only the self in order to carry this self further and further toward higher perfection. Direct your attention to the fact that perfection depends on man leaving behind all external configurations of things, peeling himself away from his entire external life, becoming free and increasingly animated within himself. The striving for self-awareness as the teaching of Krishna arises from the fact that man breaks away from his surroundings and no longer asks what is being perfected outside, but how he himself is to be perfected.

Krishna, that is, the spirit working through Krishna, now appeared again in the boy Jesus of Luke, from the Nathan line of the House of David. In this personality, therefore, was basically everything that was present in the way of impulses for becoming independent in human beings, for detaching oneself from external reality. What did Krishna want, or, let us say, this soul that had not entered into human evolution, which worked in Krishna and then in the boy Jesus of Luke, what did it actually want? It had to experience that it once had to remain outside human evolution because the adversary had come, Lucifer, who said: “Your eyes will be opened, and you will distinguish between good and evil, and you will be like God.” In the ancient Indian sense, Lucifer stood before the people and said: You will be like the gods and will be able to find the sattva, rajas, and tamas states in the world. Lucifer pointed the people to the outer world. Thus, at Lucifer's instigation, the people had to get to know the outer world; they had to go through evolution until the time of Christ. Then came the one who had recoiled from Lucifer at that time, in Krishna and in the child Jesus of Luke. In two stages, he now taught what was to be the counterpole to Lucifer's teaching of paradise. He wanted to open your eyes to the sattva, rajas, and tamas states. Close your eyes to the sattva, rajas, and tamas states, and you will find yourselves as human beings, as self-conscious human beings. This is how imagination appears to us: on the one hand, the imagination of paradise, where Lucifer opens people's eyes to the sattva, rajas, and tamas states, and the opponent of Lucifer withdraws for a while. Then human beings undergo a development and come to the point where, in two stages, they encounter another teaching about self-consciousness, but in such a way that they must close their eyes to the sattva, rajas, and tamas states. Both are one-sided teachings. If only the Krishna-Jesus influence had remained, that which lived in the child Jesus of Luke, then one one-sidedness would have followed the other, and human beings would have said farewell to everything around them. They would have lost all interest in external development, and everyone would have sought only their own perfection on earth. The striving for perfection is right, but striving that is bought with indifference to the whole of humanity is one-sided, just as the Luciferic was one-sided. Therefore, the all-encompassing, the Christ impulse, the higher synthesis of both one-sidednesses, came into being. In the person of the boy Jesus of Luke, the Christ impulse lived for three years, coming into humanity to bring these two one-sidednesses together. Through these two one-sidednesses, humanity would have fallen into weakness and sin: through Lucifer, it would have been condemned to a one-sided life in the outer states of sattva, rajas, and tamas; through Krishna, it would have been educated for the other one-sidedness: to close its eyes and seek only its own perfection. Christ took upon himself sin; he gave humanity that which balances the two one-sidednesses. He took upon himself the sin of self-consciousness, which wanted to close its eyes to the outside world; he took upon himself the sin of Krishna and of all who wanted to commit Krishna's sin. He took upon himself the sin of Lucifer and of all those who wanted to commit it by fixing their gaze one-sidedly on sattva, rajas, and tamas. By taking the one-sidedness upon himself, he gives human beings the opportunity to gradually find harmony again between the inner and outer worlds, in which harmony alone the salvation of human beings can be found.

But a development that has begun cannot come to an end immediately. The development toward self-consciousness that began with Krishna has continued, increasing self-consciousness in the same way, causing more and more alienation from the outer world. This development has a tendency to continue further and further in our time as well. At the time when the Krishna impulse was taken up by the boy Jesus of Luke, humanity was in the midst of this development, increasing its self-consciousness more and more and becoming more and more alienated from the outer world. This was what the people who received John's baptism in the Jordan experienced. They saw how self-consciousness was becoming stronger and stronger. That is why they understood the Baptist when he spoke to them: Change your minds, do not just follow the Krishna path. — Even though he did not use the words: we can call this path that was taken at that time the Jesus path, if we want to speak occultistically. And this mere Jesus path has indeed continued further and further through the centuries; for in many areas of human cultural life in the centuries that followed the founding of Christianity, there was only an adherence to Jesus, not to the Christ who lived in Jesus for three years, from the baptism of John to the mystery of Golgotha. But every line of development drives itself to a certain tension. This longing for individual perfection was driven further and further until people in a certain way fell into tragedy, becoming more and more alienated from the divinity of nature, from the outer world. Today we have this tragedy of alienation from our surroundings in many ways, so that many souls among us walk around who no longer understand much about it. That is why the understanding of the Christ impulse must strike home in our time: the Christ path must be added to the Jesus path. The path of one-sided striving for perfection had become too strong. In our time, it is such that people are in many ways completely alienated from the divinity of their surroundings. Because whenever a new direction emerges, it immediately becomes exaggerated, and a longing for the opposite awakens. In our time, many souls feel how little human beings can escape from their heightened self-consciousness. This creates the urge to recognize the divinity of the outer world. And in our time, it is precisely such souls who will seek the understanding of the Christ impulse opened up by true anthroposophy, the Christ impulse that does not merely seek the one-sided perfection of the individual human soul, but of the whole of humanity, which belongs to the whole human process. Understanding the Christ impulse does not mean merely striving for perfection, but also taking into oneself something that is truly expressed in Paul's words: “Not I, but Christ in me.” “I” is the word of Krishna; “Not I, but Christ in me” is the word of the Christian impulse. Thus we see how every human spiritual current has its certain justification. No one can imagine that the Krishna impulse could have failed to appear, but no one should ever think that a human spiritual current could ever be fully justified in its one-sidedness. The two one-sidednesses, the Luciferic and the Krishna currents, had to find their unity in the higher sense in the Christ current.

Those who want to understand in a truly anthroposophical sense what must prevail today as a necessary impulse for the further development of humanity must see in anthroposophy the instrument that can shine light into all religions. In this cycle, too, we have tried to show how human evolution progresses and how the individual currents contribute to this common evolution. It would be amateurish to try to find in Krishnaism what is found in Christianity. Viewed in this way, one understands these things for the first time, one understands what it means to seek unity in all religions. One can also do this in another way. One can repeatedly declare: All religions contain the same fundamental essence. — That would mean the same thing as saying that the same fundamental essence is contained in the root, in the trunk, in the leaves, in the flowers, in the stamens, and in the fruit. — That is true, but it is an abstract truth. It is no more insightful than saying: Why do we need differences? Salt, pepper, vinegar, milk are all on the table, everything is one, because everything is matter. — Here one notices only the abstract, inadequate nature of such a view. But one does not notice this immediately in the field of comparative religion. It is not possible to compare Chinese, Brahmanism, Krishnaism, Buddhism, Persianism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity in such an abstract way and say: Look, everywhere the same principles, everywhere a savior! Abstract things can be sought everywhere: it is amateurish because it is fruitless. One can found societies and associations for life in which the study of all religions is presented and then pursued as if someone were to say: pepper, salt, vinegar, and oil are one because they are on the table, because they are all substances. That is not the point. The point is to look at things in their truth, in their reality. A way of looking at things that goes so far into occult dilettantism that it repeatedly proclaims the equality of all religions, doesn't really care whether what lives in the Christ impulse is the focus of human development or whether it reappears in some person you find on the street or somewhere else. But for those who want to live out of truth, it is an abomination to connect anything else with that impulse in world history which is linked to the mystery of Golgotha and for which the name Christ has been preserved as what it truly is: the center of Earth's evolution.

In these lectures, I have tried to give you a picture using a special example, I have tried to show how present-day occultism strives to shed light on the various spiritual currents that have arisen in the course of human evolution, each of which has a legitimate point of attack, but which must be distinguished in the same way that one must distinguish the stem from the green leaf, the green leaf from the colored petal, even though all of these together again form a unity. When one attempts with this truly modern occultism to penetrate with one's own soul into that which has flowed into humanity in the various currents, then one recognizes that the individual religious confessions truly lose nothing, nothing in greatness, nothing in sublimity. What sublime greatness has come to meet us in the figure of Krishna, even where we have only attempted to place him in this human evolution in the sense of a concrete grasp of human evolution! Any such consideration, which can only be given in outline, is imperfect enough, certainly quite imperfect. But you can be assured that no one is more convinced of the imperfection of what has been presented here than the one who has taken the liberty of speaking to you. But what has been attempted is to show you a little of how true consideration of the individual spiritual currents of humanity must take place. I have tried to take up a spiritual product that is very distant from us, the Bhagavad Gita, in order to show how Western man can already sense and feel what he owes to Krishna, what Krishna still means today as an aftereffect for his striving in the world. But on the other hand, the spiritual direction represented here must demand that we lovingly address the uniqueness of each current in a very concrete way. This is somewhat uncomfortable, because it brings us too close to the humble realization of how little we actually penetrate these depths. And yet another idea follows in our soul: that we must always strive further. Both are inconveniences! The spiritual current called anthroposophy causes certain inconveniences for many souls — it is doomed to do so. It demands that we energetically engage with the concrete facts of world events, but at the same time that we say to ourselves: I can attain something higher, I want to attain it, but I have only ever reached a certain point, I must strive further and further. There is no end!

Thus, it has always been associated with a certain inconvenience to belong to the spiritual current that attempts, through us, to enter into what is called anthroposophical life. It was inconvenient that one should learn to strive, to learn, in order to finally arrive at seeing ever deeper and deeper into the sacred mysteries. But we could not offer something so comfortable, which would have resulted if we had taken any son or daughter and presented them and said: You only need to wait: in this son or in this daughter, salvation will appear physically embodied. We could not do that, it was really not possible, because we had to be true. And yet, for those who see through the matter, everything that has finally come to light is only the last, grotesque consequence of that amateurish comparison of religions, which is so convenient to put forward and which always appears with the self-evidence and extreme triviality of “All religions contain the same thing!”

The last few weeks and months have shown—and the fact that I was able to speak to you here about such a meaningful topic has shown this anew—that there is indeed a circle of people in the present who are seeking spiritual truths when it matters. Nothing else will matter to us but to represent these spiritual truths. Whether many or all of us fall away will not change the way spiritual truths are represented here. The sacred obligation to truth will guide and direct the current from which this cycle has been sustained. And those who wish to participate must do so under the conditions that have become necessary. It is more convenient, however, to proceed in a different way, not to engage with the other side as we do, by really drawing attention to everything as it is in reality. But that is also part of the commitment to truth. It is easier to tell people about the equality of religions, the unity of religions, to proclaim to people that they should wait until a savior incarnates, one who is predestined, whom one should not recognize from oneself but on the basis of authority. But it will be up to the human souls of the present to decide for themselves to what extent pure devotion to the pursuit of truth can carry and sustain a spiritual current. It was inevitable that in our time this sharp division would come about, which occurred when the president finally unmasked herself by calling those who wanted nothing more than to stand up for the true and genuine in human evolution out of truthfulness Jesuits. This was also a convenient way of separating oneself, but it was the external documentation of working with objective untruth. This series of lectures has shown you once again that we have not worked in a one-sided direction of ideas, but have taken the present, the past, and the past before the past to heart in order to be able to show the true, unique basic impulse of human evolution. So I can also say here that it fills me, who has been allowed to give this series of lectures, with the deepest satisfaction that there is hope—and your presence here is proof of that—that there are still human souls to be found who have the urge, the inclination, the inclination toward that which, even in the supersensible realm, works with nothing other than sheer honest truthfulness.

I must add these concluding words to the lecture cycle because they are necessary in view of everything that has happened to us over the course of time up to the moment when we were expelled from the Theosophical Society. In view of everything that has been done to us and what is now being turned into its opposite in numerous brochures, I felt compelled to express this, although discussing these things always causes me great pain. But it is necessary that those who want to work with us know that our motto is: unconditional, modest, but honest striving for truth up into the higher worlds.