Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

The Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of Paul
GA 142

28 December 1912, Cologne

Lecture I

We stand today, as it were, at the starting-point of the foundation of the Anthroposophical Society in the narrower sense, and we should take this opportunity of once more reminding ourselves of the importance and significance of our cause. It is true that what the Anthroposophical Society wishes to be for the newer culture should not in principle differentiate it from that which we have always carried on in our circle under the name of theosophy. But perhaps this giving of a new name may nevertheless remind us of the earnestness and dignity with which we intend to work in our spiritual movement, and it is with this point in view that I have chosen the title of this course of lectures. At the very outset of our anthroposophical cause we shall speak on a subject which is capable of indicating in manifold ways the remarkable importance of our spiritual movement for the civilisation of the present day.

Many people might be surprised to find two such apparently widely different spiritual streams brought together, as the great Eastern poem of the Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of one who was so closely connected with the founding of Christianity, the Apostle Paul. We can best recognise the nearness of these two spiritual streams to one another if, by way of introduction, we indicate how at the present day, is to be found, on the one hand, that which appertains to the great Bhagavad Gita poem, and on the other the Paulinism which originated with the beginning of Christianity.

Certainly much in the spiritual life of our present time differs from what it was even a comparatively short time ago, but it is just that very difference that makes a spiritual movement such as Anthroposophy so necessary.

Let us reflect how a comparatively short time ago if a man concerned himself with the spiritual life of his own times he had in reality, as I have shown in my Basle and Munich courses, to study three periods of a thousand years each; one pre-Christian period of a thousand years, and two other millennia, the sum of which is not yet quite completed; two thousand years permeated and saturated with the spiritual stream of Christianity. What might such a man have said only a short time ago when contemplating the spiritual life of mankind when, as we have said, there was no question of a theosophical, or anthroposophical movement as we now understand it? He might have said: “At the present time something is making itself prominently felt which can only be sought for in the thousand years preceding the Christian era.” For only during the last thousand years before the Christian era does one find individual men of personal importance in spiritual life. However great and powerful and mighty much in the spiritual streams of earlier times may appear to us, yet persons and individuals do not stand out from that which underlies those streams. Let us just glance back at what we reckon in not too restricted a sense, as the last thousand years before the Christian era. Let us glance back at the old Egyptian or the Chaldean-Babylonian spiritual stream; there we survey a continuity so to speak, a connected spiritual life. Only in the Greek spiritual life do we find individuals as such standing out as entirely spiritual and living. Great, mighty teachings, a mighty outlook into the space of the Cosmos; all this we find in the old Egyptian and Chaldean-Babylonian times, but only in Greece do we begin to look to separate personalities, to a Socrates or Pericles, a Phidias, a Plato, an Aristotle. Personality, as such, begins to be marked. That is the peculiarity of the spiritual life of the last three thousand years; and I do not only mean the remarkable personalities themselves, but rather the impression made by the spiritual life upon each separate individuality, upon each personality. In these last three thousand years it has become a question of personality, if we may say so; and the fact that separate individuals now feel the need of taking part in the spiritual life, find inner comfort, hope, peace, inward bliss and security, in the various spiritual movements, gives these their significance. And since, until a comparatively short time ago, we were only interested in history inasmuch as it proceeded from one personality to another, we got no really clear understanding of what occurred before the last three thousand years. The history, for which alone we had, till recently, any understanding, began with Greece, and during the transition from the first to the second thousand years, occurred what is connected with the great Being, Christ Jesus. During the first thousand years that which we owe to Greece is predominant, and those Grecian times tower forth in a particular way. At the beginning of them stand the Mysteries. That which flowed forth from these, as we have often described, passed over into the Greek poets, philosophers and artists in every domain. For if we wish rightly to understand AEschylus, Sophocles, Euripides we must seek the source for such understanding in that which flowed out of the Mysteries. If we wish to understand Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, we must seek the source of their philosophies in the Mysteries, not to speak of such a towering figure as that of Heraclitus. You may read of him in my book, Christianity as Mystical Fact, how entirely he depended upon the Mysteries.

Then in the second thousand years we see the Christian impulse pouring into spiritual development, gradually absorbing the Greek and uniting itself with it. The whole of the second thousand years passed in such a way that the powerful Christ-impulse united itself with all that came over from Greece as living tradition and life. So we see Greek wisdom, Greek feeling, and Greek art slowly and gradually uniting organically with the Christ-impulse. Thus the second thousand years ran its course. Then in the third thousand years begins the cultivation of the personality. We may say that we can see in the third thousand years how differently the Greek influence is felt. We see it when we consider such artists as Raphael, Michael Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci. No longer does the Greek influence work on together with Christianity in the third thousand years, as it did in the culture of the second; not as something historically great, not as something contemplated externally was Greek influence felt during the second thousand years. But in the third thousand we have to turn of set purpose to the Greek. We see how Leonardo da Vinci, Michael Angelo and Raphael allowed themselves to be influenced by the great works of art then being discovered; we see the Greek influence being more and more consciously absorbed. It was absorbed unconsciously during the second thousand years, but in the third millennium it was taken up more and more consciously. An example of how consciously this Greek influence was being recognised in the eyes of the world is to be found in the figure of the philosopher, Thomas Aquinas; and how he was compelled to unite what flowed out from Christian philosophy with the philosophy of Aristotle. Here the Greek influence was absorbed consciously and united with Christianity in a philosophic form; as in the case of Raphael, Michael Angelo and Leonardo da Vinci, in the form of art. This whole train of thought rises higher through spiritual life, and even takes the form of a certain religious opposition in the cases of Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Notwithstanding all this, we find everywhere Greek ideas and conceptions, especially about nature, cropping up again; there is a conscious absorption of the Greek influence, but this does not go back beyond the Greek age. In every soul, not only in the more learned or more highly educated, but in every soul down to the simplest, a spiritual life is spread abroad and lives in them, in which the Greek and Christian influences are consciously united. From the University down to the peasant's cottage Greek ideas are to be found united with Christianity.

Now in the nineteenth century something peculiar appeared, something which requires Anthroposophy to explain it. There we see in one single example what mighty forces are at play. When the wonderful poem of the Bhagavad Gita first became known in Europe, certain important thinkers were enraptured by the greatness of the poem, by its profound contents; and it should never be forgotten that such a thoughtful spirit as William von Humboldt, when he became acquainted with it, said that it was the most profoundly philosophical poem that had ever come under his notice; and he made the beautiful remark, that it was worth while to have been allowed to grow as old as he to be enabled to become acquainted with the Bhagavad Gita, the great spiritual song that sounds forth from the primeval holy times of Eastern antiquity. What a wonderful thing it is that slowly, although perhaps not attractive as yet to large circles, so much of Eastern antiquity was poured out into the nineteenth century by means of the Bhagavad Gita. For this is not like other writings that came over from the ancient East which ever proclaim Eastern thoughts and feelings from this or that standpoint. In the Bhagavad Gita we are confronted with something of which we may say that it is the united flow of all the different points of view of Eastern thought, feeling and perception. That is what makes it of such significance.

Now let us turn back to old India. Apart from other less important things, we find there, in the first place, three shades, if we may so call them, of spiritual streams flowing forth from the old Indian pre-historic times. That spiritual stream which we meet with in the earliest Vedas and which developed further in the later Vedantic poems, is one quite definite one—we will describe it presently—it is, if we may say so, a one-sided yet quite distinct spiritual stream. We then meet with a second spiritual stream in the Sankhya philosophy, which again goes in a definite spiritual direction; and, lastly, we meet a third shade of the Eastern spiritual stream in Yoga. Here we have the three most remarkable oriental spiritual streams placed before our souls. The Vedas, Sankhya, and Yoga.

The Sankhya system of Kapila, the Yoga philosophy of Patanjali and the Vedas are spiritual streams of definite colouring, which, because of this definite colouring, are to a certain extent one-sided, and which are great because of their one-sidedness. In the Bhagavad Gita we have the harmonious inter-penetration of all three spiritual streams. What the Veda philosophy has to give is to be found shining forth in the Bhagavad Gita; what the Yoga of Patanjali has to give mankind we find again in the Bhagavad Gita; and what the Sankhya of Kapila has to give we find there too. Moreover, we do not find these as a conglomeration, but as three parts flowing harmoniously into one organism, as if they originally belonged together. The greatness of the Bhagavad Gita lies in the comprehensiveness of its description of how this oriental spiritual life receives its tributaries from the Vedas on the one side, on another from the Sankhya philosophy of Kapila, and again on a third side from the Yoga of Patanjali.

We shall now briefly characterise what each of these spiritual streams has to give us.

The Veda stream is most emphatically a philosophy of unity, it is the most spiritual monism that could be thought of; the Veda philosophy which is consolidated in the Vedanta is a spiritual monism. If we wish to understand the Veda philosophy, we must, in the first place, keep clearly before our souls the fact that this philosophy is based upon the thought that man can find something deeper within his own self, and that what he first realises in ordinary life is a kind of expression or imprint of this self of his; that man can develop, and that his development will draw up the depths of the actual self more and more from the foundations of his soul. A higher self rests as though asleep in man, and this higher self is not that of which the present-day man is directly aware, but that which works within him, and to which he must develop himself. When man some day attains to that which lives within him as “self,” he will then realise, according to the Veda-philosophy, that this “self” is one with the all-embracing self of the world, that he does not only rest with his self within the all-embracing World-Self, but that he himself is one with it. So much is he one with this World-Self that he is in two-fold manner related to it. In some way similar to our physical in-breathing and out-breathing does the Vedantist picture the relationship of the human self to the World-Self Just as one draws in a breath and breathes it out again, while outside there is the universal air and within us only the small portion of it that we have drawn in so outside us we have the universal, all-embracing, all-pervading Self that lives and moves in all things, and this we breathe in when we yield ourselves to the contemplation of the spiritual Self of the World. Spiritually one breathes it in with every perception that one gets of this Self, one breathes it in with all that one draws into one's soul. All knowledge, all thinking, all perception is spiritual breathing; and that which we, as a portion of the world-Self, draw into our souls (which portion remains organically united to the whole), that is Atman, the Breath, which, as regards ourselves, is as the portion of air that we breathe in, which cannot be distinguished from the general atmosphere. So is Atman in us, which cannot be distinguished from that which is the all-ruling Self of the World. Just as we breathe out physically, so there is a devotion of the soul through which the best that is in it goes forth in the form of prayer and sacrifice to this Self. Brahman is like the spiritual out-breathing. Atman and Brahman, like in-breathing and out-breathing, make us sharers in the all-ruling World-Self. What we find in the Vedantas is a monistic spiritual philosophy, which is at the same time a religion; and the blossom and fruit of Vedantism lie in that which so blesses man, that most complete and in the highest degree satisfying feeling of unity with the universal Self powerfully weaving through the world. Vedantism treats of this connection of mankind with the unity of the world, of the fact of man's being within a part of the whole great spiritual cosmos. We cannot say the Veda-Word, because Veda means Word, but the Word-Veda as given is itself breathed forth, according to the Vedantic conception, from the all-ruling unitary Being, and the human soul can take it into itself as the highest expression of knowledge. In accepting the Veda-Word the best part of the all-mighty “Self” is taken in, the consciousness of the connection between the individual human self and this all-mighty World-Self is attained. What the Veda speaks is the God-Word which is creative, and this is born again in human knowledge, and so leads it side by side with the creative principle which lives and weaves throughout the world. Therefore, that which was written in the Vedas was valued as the Divine Word, and he who succeeded in mastering them was considered as being a possessor of the Divine Word. The Divine Word had come spiritually into the world and was to be found in the Veda-Books; those who mastered these books took part in the creative principle of the World.

Sankhya philosophy is different. When one first meets with this, as it has come down to us through tradition, we find in it exactly the opposite of the teaching of the Unity. If we wish to compare the Sankhya philosophy to anything, we may compare it to the philosophy of Leibnitz. It is a pluralistic philosophy. The several souls mentioned therein—human souls and the souls of Gods—are not traced back by the Sankhya philosophy to unitary source, but are taken as single souls existing, so to speak, from Eternity; or, at any rate, their origin is not traced back to Unity. The plurality of souls is what we find in the Sankhya philosophy. The independence of each individual soul carrying on its development in the world enclosed within its own being, is sharply accentuated; and in contrast to the plurality of souls is that which in the Sankhya philosophy is called the Prakriti element. We cannot well describe this by the modern word “matter,” for that has a materialistic meaning. But in Sankhya philosophy we do not mean to convey this with the “substantial” which is in contrast to the multiplicity of souls, and which again is not derived from a common source. In the first place, we have multiplicity of souls, and then that which we may call the material basis, which, like a primeval flood, streams through the world, through space and time, and out of which souls take the elements for their outer existence. Souls must clothe themselves in this material element, which, again, is not to be traced back to unity with the souls themselves. And so it is in the Sankhya philosophy that we principally find this material element, carefully studied. Attention is not so much directed to the individual soul; this is taken as something real that is there, confined in and united with this material basis, and which takes the most varied forms within it, and thus shows itself outwardly in many different forms. A soul clothes itself with this original material element, that may be thought of like the individual soul itself as coming from Eternity. The soul nature expresses itself through this material basic element, and in so doing it takes on many different forms, and it is in particular the study of these material forms that we find in the Sankhya philosophy. Here we have, in the first place, so to speak, the original form of this material element as a sort of spiritual primeval stream, into which the soul is first immersed. Thus if we were to glance back at the first stages of evolution, we should find there the undifferentiated material elements and immersed therein, the plurality of the souls which are to evolve further. What, therefore, we first find as Form, as yet undifferentiated from the unity of the primal stream, is the spiritual substance itself that lies at the starting-point of evolution. The first thing that then emerges, with which the soul can as yet clothe itself individually, is Budhi. So that when we picture to ourselves a soul clothed with the primal flood-substance, externally this soul is not to be distinguished from the universal moving and weaving element of the primeval flood. Inasmuch as the soul does not only enwrap itself in this first being of the universal billowing primal flood but also in that which first proceeds from this, in so far does it clothe itself in Budhi. The third element that forms itself out of the whole and through which the soul can then become more and more individual, is Ahamkara. This consists of lower and lower forms of the primeval substance. So that we have the primeval substance, the first form of which is Budhi, and its second form which is Ahamkara. The next form to that is Manas, then comes the form which consists of the organs of the senses; this is followed by the form of the finer elements, and the last form consists of the elements of the substances which we have in our physical surroundings. This is the line of evolution according to Sankhya philosophy. Above is the most super-sensible element, a primeval spiritual flow, which, growing ever denser and denser, descends to that which surrounds us in the coarser elements out of which the coarse human body is also constructed. Between these are the substances of which, for instance, our sense organs are woven, and the finer elements of which is woven our etheric or life-body. It must be carefully noticed that according to the Sankhya philosophy, all these are sheaths of the soul. Even that which springs from the first primeval flood is a sheath for the soul; the soul is at first within that; and when the Sankhya philosopher studies Budhi, Ahamkara, Manas, the senses, the finer and the coarser elements, he understands thereby the increasingly dense sheaths within which the soul expresses itself.

We must clearly understand that the manner in which the philosophy of the Vedas and the Sankhya philosophy are presented to us is only possible because they were composed in that ancient time when an old clairvoyance still existed, at any rate, to a certain extent. The Vedas and the contents of the Sankhya philosophy came into existence in different ways. The Vedas depend throughout on a primeval inspiration which was still a natural possession of primeval man; they were given to man, so to speak, without his having done anything to deserve them, except that with his whole being he prepared himself to receive into his inner depths that divine inspiration that came of itself to him, and to receive it quietly and calmly. Sankhya philosophy was formed in a different way. That process was something like the learning of our present day, only that this is not permeated by clairvoyance as the former then was. The Veda philosophy consisted of clairvoyant knowledge, inspiration given as by grace from above. Sankhya philosophy consisted of knowledge sought for as we seek it now, but sought for by people to whom clairvoyance was still accessible. This is why the Sankhya philosophy leaves the actual soul-element undisturbed, so to say. It admits that souls can impress themselves in that which one can study as the super-sensible outer forms, but it particularly studies the outer forms, which appear as the clothing of those souls. Hence we find a complete system of the forms we meet with in the world, just as in our own science we find a number of facts about nature; only that in Sankhya philosophy observation extends to a clairvoyant observation of facts. Sankhya philosophy is a science, which although obtained by clairvoyance, is nevertheless a science of outer forms that does not extend into the sphere of the soul: the soul-nature remains in a sense undisturbed by these studies. He who devotes himself to the Vedas feels absolutely that his religious life is one with the life of wisdom; but Sankhya philosophy is a science, it is a perception of the forms into which the soul impresses itself. Nevertheless, it is quite possible for the disciples of the Sankhya philosophy to feel a religious devotion of the soul for their philosophy. The way in which the soul element is organised into forms-not the soul element itself, but the form it takes-is followed up in the Sankhya philosophy. It defines the way in which the soul, more or less, preserves its individuality or else is more immersed in the material. It has to do with the soul element which is, it is true, beneath the surface, but which, within the material forms, still preserves itself as soul. A soul element thus disguised in outer form, but which reveals itself as soul, dwells in the Sattva element. A soul element immersed in form, but which is, so to say, entangled in it and cannot emerge from it, dwells in the Tamas-element; and that in which, more or less, the soul element and its outer expression in form, are, to a certain extent, balanced, dwells in the Rajas-element. Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, the three Gunas, pertain to the essential characteristics of what we know as Sankhya philosophy.

Quite different, again, is that spiritual stream which comes down to us as Yoga. That appeals directly to the soul-element itself and seeks ways and means of grasping the human soul in direct spiritual life, so that it rises from the point which it has attained in the world to higher and higher stages of soul-being. Thus Sankhya is a contemplation of the sheaths of the soul, and Yoga the guidance of the soul to higher and ever higher stages of inner experience. To devote oneself to Yoga means a gradual awakening of the higher forces of the soul so that it experiences something not to be found in everyday life, which opens the door to higher and higher stages of existence.

Yoga is therefore the path to the spiritual worlds, the path to the liberation of the soul from outer forms, the path to an independent life of the soul within itself. Yoga is the other side of the Sankhya philosophy. Yoga acquired its great importance when that inspiration, which was given as a blessing from above and which inspired the Vedas, was no longer able to come down. Yoga had to be made use of by those souls who, belonging to a later epoch of mankind, could no longer receive anything by direct revelation, but were obliged to work their way up to the heights of spiritual existence from the lower stages. Thus in the old primal Indian times we have three sharply-defined streams, the Vedas, the Sankhaya, and the Yoga, and today we are called upon once more to unite these spiritual streams, so to say, by bringing them to the surface in the way proper for our own age, from the foundations of the soul and from the depths of the Cosmos.

You may find all three streams again in our Spiritual Science. If you read what I have tried to place before you in the first chapters of my Occult Science about the human constitution, about sleeping and waking, life and death, you will find there what in our present-day sense we may call Sankhya philosophy. Then read what is there said about the evolution of the world from Saturn down to our own time, and you have the Veda-philosophy expressed for our own age; while, if you read the last chapters, which deal with human evolution, you have Yoga expressed for our own age. Our age must in an organised way unite that which radiates across to us in three so sharply-defined spiritual streams from old India in the Veda-philosophy, the Sankhya philosophy, and Yoga. For that reason our age must study the wonderful poem of the Bhagavad Gita, which, in a deeply poetical manner, represents, as it were, a union of these three streams; our own age must be deeply moved by the Bhagavad Gita. We should seek something akin to our own spiritual strivings in the deeper contents of the Bhagavad Gita. Our spiritual streams do not only concern themselves with the older ones as a whole, but also in detail. You will have recognised that in my Occult Science an attempt has been made to produce the things out of themselves. Nowhere do we depend on history. Nowhere can one who really understands what is said find in any assertion about Saturn, Sun, and Moon, that things are related from historical sources; they are simply drawn forth from the matter itself. Yet, strange to say, that which bears the stamp of our own time corresponds in striking places with what resounds down to us out of the old ages. Only one little proof shall be given. We read in the Vedas in a particular place, about cosmic development, which can be expressed in words somewhat like the following: “Darkness was enwrapt in darkness in the primal beginning, all was indistinguishable flood-essence. Then arose a mighty void, that was everywhere permeated with warmth.” I now ask you to remember the result of our study of the evolution of Saturn, in which the substance of Saturn is spoken of as a warmth-substance, and you will feel the harmony between the so-called “Newest thing in Occult Science,” and what is said in the Vedas. The next passage runs: “Then first arose the Will, the first seed of Thought, the connection between the Existent and the Non-existent, ... and this connection was found in the Will ...” And remember what was said in the new mode of expression about the Spirits of Will. In all we have to say at the present time, we are not seeking to prove a concord with the old; the harmony comes of itself, because truth was sought for there and is again being sought for on our own ground

Now in the Bhagavad Gita we find, as it were, the poetical glorification of the three spiritual streams just described. The great teachings that Krishna himself communicated to Arjuna are brought to our notice at an important moment of the world's history—of importance for that far-distant age. The moment is significant, because it is the time when the old blood-ties were loosening. In all that is to be said in these lectures about the Bhagavad Gita you must remember what has again and again been emphasised: that ties of blood, racial attachment and kinship, were of quite special significance in primeval times, and only grew less strong by degrees. Remember all that is said in my pamphlet, The Occult Significance of Blood. When these blood-ties begin to loosen, on account of that loosening, the great struggle began which is described in the Mahabharata, and of which the Bhagavad Gita is an episode. We see there how the descendants of two brothers, and hence, blood relations, separate on account of their spiritual tendencies how that which, through the blood, would formerly have given them the same points of view, now takes different paths; and how, therefore, the conflict then arises, for conflict must arise when the ties of blood also lose their significance as a help for clairvoyant perception; and with this separation begins the later spiritual development.. For those to whom the old blood-ties no longer were of significance, Krishna came as a great teacher. He was to be the teacher of the new age lifted out of the old blood-ties. How he became the teacher we shall describe tomorrow; but it may now be said, as the whole Bhagavad Gita shows us, that Krishna absorbed the three spiritual streams into his teaching and communicated them to his pupil as an organised unity.

How must this pupil appear to us? He looks up on the one side to his father, and on the other side to his father's brother the children of the two brothers are now no longer to be together, they are to separate now a different spiritual stream is to take possession of the one line and the other. Arjuna's soul is filled with the question: how will it be when that which was held together by the ties of blood is no longer there? How can the soul take part in spiritual life if that life no longer flows as it formerly did under the influence of the old blood-tie? It seems to Arjuna as if everything must come to an end. The purport of the great teachings of Krishna, however, is to show that this will not be the case, that it all will be different. Krishna now shows his pupil—who is to live through the time of transition from one epoch to another, that the soul, if it is to become harmonious, must take in something of all these three spiritual streams. We find the Vedistic unity interpreted in the right way in the teachings of Krishna, as well as the principles of the Sankhya teaching and the principles of Yoga. For what is it that actually lies behind all that we are about to learn from the Bhagavad Gita? The revelations of Krishna are somewhat to this effect: There is a creative Cosmic Word, itself containing the creative principle. As the sound produced by man when he speaks undulates and moves and lives through the air, so does the Word surge and weave and live in all things, and create and order all existence. Thus the Veda principle breathes through all things. This can be taken up by human perception into the human soul-life. There is a supreme, weaving Creative-Word, and there is an echo of this supreme, weaving Creative-Word in the Vedistic documents. The Word is the creative principle of the World; in the Vedas it is revealed. That is one part of the Krishna teaching. The human soul is capable of understanding how the Word lives on, in the different forms of existence. Human knowledge learns the laws of existence by grasping how the separate forms of being express, with the regularity of a fixed law, that which is soul and spirit. The teachings about the forms in the world, of the laws which shape existence, of cosmic laws and their manner of working, is the Sankhya philosophy, the other side of the Krishna teaching. Just as Krishna made clear to his pupil that behind all existence is the creative cosmic Word, so also he made clear to him that human knowledge can recognise the separate forms, and therefore can grasp the cosmic laws. The cosmic Word, the cosmic laws as echoed in the Vedas, and in Sankhya, were revealed by Krishna to his pupil. And he also spoke to him about the path that leads the individual pupil to the heights where he can once again share in the knowledge of the cosmic Word. Thus Krishna also spoke of Yoga. Threefold is the teaching of Krishna: it teaches of the Word, of the Law and of reverent devotion to the Spirit.

The Word, the Law, and Devotion are the three streams by means of which the soul can carry out its development.

These three streams will for ever work upon the human soul in some way or another. Have we not just seen that modern Spiritual Science must seek for new expression of these three streams? But the ages differ one from the other, and in many different ways will that which is the threefold comprehension of the World be brought to human souls. Krishna speaks of the Cosmic Word, of the Creative Word, of the fashioning of existence, of the devotional deepening of the soul,—of Yoga. The same trinity meets us again in another form, only in a more concrete, more living way—in a Being who is Himself to be thought of as walking the Earth—the Incarnation of the Divine Creative Word! The Vedas came to mankind in an abstract form. The Divine Logos, of whom the Gospel of St. John speaks is the Living and Creative Word Itself! That which we find in the Sankhya philosophy, as the law to which the cosmic forms are subject, that, historically transposed into the old Hebrew revelation, is what St. Paul calls the Law. The third stream we find in St. Paul as Faith in the risen Christ. That which was Yoga in Krishna, in St. Paul was Faith, only in a more concrete form—Faith, that was to replace the Law. So the trinity, Veda, Sankhya and Yoga were as the redness of the dawn of that which later rose as sun. Veda appears again in the actual Being of Christ Himself now entering in a concrete, living way into historical evolution, not pouring Himself out abstractly into space and the distances of time, but living as a single Individual, as the Living Word. The Law meets us in the Sankhya philosophy, in that which shows us how the material basis, Prakriti, is developed even down to coarse substance. The Law reveals how the world came into existence, and how individual man develops within it. That is expressed in the old Hebrew revelation of the Law, in the dispensation of Moses. Inasmuch as St. Paul, on the one hand, refers to this Law of the old Hebrews, he is referring to the Sankhya philosophy; inasmuch as he refers to faith in the Risen One, he refers to the Sun of which the rosy dawn appeared in Yoga. Thus arises in a, special way that of which we find the first elements in Veda, Sankhya and Yoga. What we find in the Vedas appears in a new but now concrete form as the Living Word by Whom all things were made and without Whom nothing is made that was made, and Who, nevertheless, in the course of time, has become Flesh. Sankhya appears as the historical representation based on Law of how out of the world of the Elohim, emerged the world of phenomena, the world of coarse substances. Yoga transformed itself into that which, according to St. Paul, is expressed in the words; “Not I, but Christ in me,” that is to say when the Christ-force penetrates the soul and absorbs it, man rises to the heights of the divine.

Thus we see how, in a preparatory form, the coherent plan is present in world-history, how the Eastern teaching was a preparation, how it gives in more abstract form, as it were, that which, in a concrete form, we find so marvelously contained in the Pauline Christianity. We shall see that precisely by grasping the connection between the great poem of the Bhagavad Gita and the Epistles of St. Paul, the very deepest mysteries will reveal themselves concerning what we may call the ruling of the spiritual in the collective education of the human race. As something so new must also be felt in the new age, this newer age must extend beyond the time of Greece and must develop understanding for that which lies behind the thousand years immediately before Christ—for that which we find in the Vedas, Sankhya and Yoga. Just as Raphael in his art and Thomas Aquinas in his philosophy had to turn back to Greece, so shall we see how in our time, a conscious balance must be established between that which the present time is trying to acquire and that which lies further back than the Greek age, and stretches back to the depths of oriental antiquity. We can allow these depths of oriental antiquity to flow into our souls if we ponder over these different spiritual streams which are to be found within that wonderfully harmonious unity which Humboldt calls the greatest philosophical poem the Bhagavad Gita.

Erster Vortrag

Gewissermaßen stehen wir heute am Ausgangspunkt der Begründung der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft im engeren Sinne und dürfen gerade bei einer solchen Gelegenheit uns auch wieder erinnern der Wichtigkeit und Bedeutung unserer Sache. Zwar soll ja dasjenige, was die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft für die neuere Kultur sein will, sich durchaus nicht prinzipiell von dem unterscheiden, was wir hier innerhalb unserer Kreise als 'Theosophie immer getrieben haben. Aber vielleicht darf diese Hinzufügung eines neuen Namens doch unsere Seelen wiederum erinnern an den Ernst und die Würde, mit denen wir innerhalb unserer Geistesströmung arbeiten wollen, und von diesem Gesichtspunkt aus ist auch das Thema dieses Vortragszyklus gewählt worden. Ein Thema wollen wir besprechen im Ausgangspunkt unserer anthroposophischen Sache, welches in der mannigfaltigsten Weise geeignet sein wird, uns auf die Wichtigkeit und Bedeutsamkeit unserer geistigen Strömung für das Kulturleben der Gegenwart hinzuweisen.

Vielleicht hat es manchen überrascht, zusammengestellt zu finden zwei scheinbar recht weit voneinander liegende Geistesströmungen, wie sie ausgesprochen sind auf der einen Seite in dem großen morgenländischen Gedicht der Bhagavad Gita und auf der anderen Seite in den Briefen desjenigen, der der Begründung des Christentums so nahe steht: des Apostels Paulus. Wir werden am besten die Nähe dieser beiden Geistesstreömungen erkennen, wenn wir heute einleitend einmal darauf hinweisen, wie in unsere Gegenwart herein sich stellt auf der einen Seite dasjenige, was zusammenhängt mit der großen Bhagavad-Gita-Dichtung, und wie auf der anderen Seite hereinragt dasjenige, was im Ausgangspunkte des Christentums begründet war: der Paulinismus. Anders ist doch vieles im Geistesleben unserer Gegenwart, als es vor verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit noch war, und gerade dieses andere im Geistesleben der Gegenwart gegenüber dem Geistesleben einer noch vor kurzem sich abschließenden Vergangenheit macht so etwas notwendig, wie es die theosophische oder anthroposophische Geistesströmung ist.

Denken wir einmal, wie der Mensch einer verhältnismäßig noch kurz hinter uns liegenden Zeit dann, wenn er sich zu dem Geistesleben seiner Gegenwart aufschwang, es eigentlich, wie ich schon in meinem Basler und Münchner Vortragszyklus hervorhob, zu tun hatte mit drei Jahrtausenden, einem vorchristlichen Jahrtausend und zwei nicht ganz abgeschlossenen Jahrtausenden, die durchtränkt und durchströmt sind von der christlichen Geistesströmung. Was konnte sich der Mensch sagen, welcher noch vor kurzem, als man nicht reden konnte von der Berechtigung einer theosophischen oder anthroposophischen Geistesströmung, wie wir sie heute meinen, im Geistesleben der Menschheit drinnen stand? Er konnte sich sagen: In die Gegenwart ragt so eigentlich dasjenige herein, was gesucht werden kann höchstens in einem Jahrtausend, das der christlichen Zeitrechnung vorangegangen ist. Denn nicht früher als in diesem Jahrtausend der vorchristlichen Zeitrechnung beginnen sozusagen die einzelnen Menschen als Persönlichkeiten Bedeutung zu haben für das Geistesleben. So groß und gewaltig und gigantisch manches in den Geistesströmungen der früheren Zeiten uns herüberleuchtet: die Persönlichkeiten, die Individualitäten heben sich nicht ab von dem, was den Geistesströmungen zugrunde liegt. Sehen wir nur zurück auf das, was wir nicht so in engerem Sinne, wie wir es jetzt meinen, zu dem letzten Jahrtausend vor der christlichen Zeitrechnung zuzählen können, sehen wir auf die altägyptische oder chaldäisch-babylonische Geistesströmung zurück: wir überblicken sozusagen ein zusammenhängendes Geistesleben. Herausragend, so daß uns die Individualitäten als solche ganz geistig lebendig vor Augen treten, beginnt eigentlich erst die Sache im griechischen Geistesleben zu werden. Große, gewaltige Lehren, gewaltige Ausblicke weiter hinaus in die Weltenweiten finden wir im ägyptischen Zeitalter, im chaldäisch-babylonischen Zeitalter; in Griechenland beginnt erst die Sache so zu werden, daß wir hinblicken auf einzelne Persönlichkeiten, auf einen Sokrates oder Perikles, auf einen Phidias, auf einen Plato, auf einen Aristoteles. Die Persönlichkeit als solche tritt heraus. Das ist das Eigenartige des Geisteslebens der letzten drei Jahrtausende. Und ich meine nicht nur die bedeutenden Persönlichkeiten, sondern den Eindruck, den das Geistesleben auf jede einzelne Individualität, Persönlichkeit macht. Es kommt auf die Persönlichkeit in diesen drei Jahrtausenden an, wenn wir so sagen dürfen. Und die geistigen Strömungen haben dadurch Bedeutung, daß die Persönlichkeiten ein Bedürfnis haben, am geistigen Leben teilzunehmen, daß die Persönlichkeiten inneren Trost, Hoffnung, Frieden, innere Seligkeit, innere Sicherheit finden durch die geistigen Strömungen.

Und weil man sich vorzugsweise bis vor verhältnismäßig kurzer Zeit nur interessieren konnte für die Geschichte, insofern sie verlauft von Persönlichkeit zu Persönlichkeit, so hatte man kein so tiefes durchdringendes Verständnis für das, was vor den letzten drei Jahrtausenden lag. Mit dem Griechentum fing doch diejenige Geschichte an, für die man bis vor ganz kurzer Zeit allein Verständnis hatte, und hinein fiel dann an der Wende des ersten und zweiten Jahrtausends das, was sich anschließt an die große Wesenheit des Christus Jesus.

Im ersten Jahrtausend ragt herüber dasjenige, was uns das Griechentum gebracht hat. Und eigentümlich ragt es herüber, dieses Griechentum: am Ausgangspunkt desselben stehen die Mysterien. Was aus diesen herausgeflossen ist — wir haben es öfter dargestellt -, ging über auf die großen Dichter und Philosophen und Künstler auf allen Gebieten. Denn wollen wir in richtiger Weise Aischylos, Sophokles, Euripides verstehen, wir müssen die Quellen zu ihrem Verständnis suchen in dem, was aus den Mysterien geflossen ist. Wollen wir Sokrates, Plato, Aristoteles verstehen, wir müssen die Quellen zu ihrer Philosophie in den Mysterien suchen. Gar nicht zu sprechen von so überragenden Gestalten wie Heraklit. Von ihm können Sie in meinem Buch «Das Christentum als mystische Tatsache» sehen, wie er ganz fußt auf den Mysterien.

Dann sehen wir, wie mit dem zweiten Jahrtausend der christliche Impuls in die Geistesentwickelung hereinströmt, und wir sehen das zweite Jahrtausend so verlaufen, daß dieser Christus-Impuls sozusagen nach und nach das Griechentum aufnimmt, sich mit ihm vereinigt. Das ganze zweite Jahrtausend verläuft so, daß der gewaltige Christus-Impuls sich vereinigt mit dem, was vom Griechentum in lebendiger Tradition und in lebendigem Leben überhaupt herübergekommen ist. So daß wir sehen, wie ganz langsam und allmählich griechische Weisheit, griechisches Fühlen, griechisches Künstlertum sich organisch verbindet mit dem Christus-Impuls. Das ist der Verlauf des zweiten Jahrtausends.

Dann beginnt das dritte Jahrtausend der Persönlichkeitskultur. Wir dürfen sagen, wir sehen in diesem dritten Jahrtausend, wie in anderer Weise das Griechentum herüberwirkt. Wir sehen es, wenn wir etwa Künstler betrachten wie Raffael, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Nicht mehr so lebt das Griechentum im dritten Jahrtausend mit dem Christentum weiter fort, wie in der Kultur des zweiten. Nicht wie eine historische Größe, wie etwas, das man äußerlich betrachtet hat, nahm man im zweiten Jahrtausend das Griechentum auf; im dritten Jahrtausend müssen die Menschen sich direkt hinwenden zum Griechentum. Wir sehen, wie Leonardo, Michelangelo und Raffael die großen, wieder zutage tretenden Kunstwerke auf sich wirken lassen, wie das Griechentum in immer bewußterer Weise aufgenommen wird. Unbewußt war es aufgenommen worden im zweiten Jahrtausend, bewußter und immer bewußter wird es im dritten Jahrtausend aufgenommen.

Wir sehen, wie in die Weltanschauung bewußt dieses Griechentum aufgenommen wird, zum Beispiel an der Philosophengestalt des Thomas von Aquino, wie er genötigt ist, das, was aus der christlichen Philosophie fließt, zusammenzubringen mit der Philosophie des Aristoteles. Das Griechentum wird auch da bewußt aufgenommen, so daß hier zusammenfließen in bewußter Weise Griechentum und Christentum in philosophischer Form, wie bei Raffael, Michelangelo und Leonardo in künstlerischer Form. Und dieser ganze Zug geht durch das Geistesleben weiter herauf, auch als eine gewisse religiöse Gegnerschaft eintritt bei Giordano Bruno, bei Galilei. Wir finden trotz alledem überall, daß griechische Ideen und Begriffe, namentlich in bezug auf Naturanschauung, wieder auftauchen: ein bewußtes Aufsaugen des Griechentums!

Aber weiter als bis zum Griechentum geht es nicht zurück. Und in allen Seelen, nicht bloß etwa in den gelehrten oder höher gebildeten Menschen, sondern in allen Seelen bis zu dem einfachsten Menschen breitet sich aus, lebt ein solches Geistesleben, in das bewußt das Griechentum und Christentum zusammengeflossen sind. Von der Universität bis in die Bauernhütte hinein werden mit den Begriffen aufgenommen griechische mit christlichen Vorstellungen.

Da tritt etwas Eigentümliches im 19. Jahrhundert ein, etwas, das auszugestalten und auszuführen im Grunde genommen erst Theosophie oder Anthroposophie berufen ist. Da schen wir an einer einzelnen Erscheinung, was sich Gewaltiges abspielt. Als zuerst bekannt wird die wunderbare Dichtung der Bhagavad Gita in Europa, da finden sich hingerissen von der Größe dieser Dichtung, hingerissen von dem tiefsinnigen Gehalte bedeutende Geister. Und unvergeßlich mag es bleiben, daß ein so tiefer Geist wie Wilhelm von Humboldt, als er mit ihr bekannt wurde, sagen konnte, das sei die tiefste philosophische Dichtung, die ihm vor Augen gekommen. Und den schönen Ausspruch konnte er tun, daß es sich gelohnt habe, so alt zu werden wie er, weil er noch habe kennenlernen können die Bhagavad Gita, den großen Geistessang, der herübertönt aus uralt heiligem, orientalischem Altertum.

Und wie schön ist es, daß sich langsam, wenn auch noch nicht . weite Kreise ziehend, im 19.Jahrhundert eingegossen hat gerade von der Bhagavad Gita aus vieles von orientalischem Altertum. Denn diese Bhagavad Gita ist ja nicht so wie andere Schriftwerke, die aus dem orientalischen Altertum herüberragen. Andere Schriftwerke verkündigen uns immer morgenländisches Denken und Fühlen von diesem oder jenem Gesichtspunkt aus. In der Bhagavad Gita aber tritt uns etwas entgegen, von dem wir sagen können: es ist der Zusammenfluß aller verschiedenen Richtungen und Gesichtspunkte morgenländischen Denkens und Empfindens und Fühlens. Das ist das Bedeutsame der Bhagavad Gita.

Sehen wir einmal hinunter ins alte Indien. Da finden wir, wenn wir Unbedeutenderes aus dem Auge lassen, zunächst heraufragend aus grauer indischer Vorzeit drei sozusagen nuancierte Geistesströmungen. Diejenige Geistesströmung, die uns entgegentritt schon in den ersten Veden und die dann in den späteren vedischen Dichtungen ihre weitere Ausbildung erfahren hat, das ist eine ganz bestimmte Geistesströmung — wir werden sie gleich charakterisieren -, es ist, wenn wir so sagen dürfen, eine einseitige, aber ganz bestimmte Geistesströmung. Dann tritt uns entgegen eine zweite Geistesströmung in der Sankhyaphilosophie, wiederum eine bestimmte Geistesrichtung, und endlich tritt uns entgegen eine dritte Nuance morgenländischer Geistesströmung in Yoga. Damit haben wir die drei bedeutendsten morgenländischen Geistesströmungen hingestellt vor unsere Seele, die Veden-, Sankhya- und Yogaströmung. Was uns da als Sankhyasystem des Kapila auftritt, was uns in der Yogaphilosophie des Patanjali und in den Veden entgegentritt, das sind Geistesströmungen von bestimmter Nuance, Geistesströmungen, die, weil sie diese bestimmte Nuance haben, gewissermaßen einseitig sind, und die gerade in ihrer Einseitigkeit ihre Größe haben.

In der Bhagavad Gita haben wir die harmonische Durchdringung aller drei Geistesströmungen. Was die Vedenphilosophie zu sagen hatte, wir finden es wiederum aus der Bhagavad Gita entgegenglänzen; was der Yoga des Patanjali dem Menschen zu geben hatte, wir finden es wiederum in der Bhagavad Gita; was der Sankhya des Kapila zu geben hatte, wir finden es in der Bhagavad Gita. Und wir finden es nicht etwa so, daß es uns wie ein Konglomerat entgegentritt, sondern so, daf} sie wie drei Glieder harmonisch zu einem Organismus zusammenfließen, als ob sie ursprünglich zusammengehörten. Das ist die Größe der Bhagavad Gita, daß sie in so umfassender Weise schildert, wie dieses morgenländische Geistesleben seine Zuflüsse erhält auf der einen Seite von den Veden, auf der anderen von der Sankhyaphilosophie des Kapila und auf der dritten Seite von dem Yoga des Patanjali.

Zunächst soll kurz charakterisiert werden, was jede einzelne dieser drei Geistesströmungen uns geben kann.

Die Vedenströmung ist im ausgesprochensten Sinne eine Einheitsphilosophie, der spirituellste Monismus, der gedacht werden kann. Monismus, spiritueller Monismus, das ist die Vedenphilosophie, die dann ihren Ausbau erhält im Vedanta. Wenn wir die Vedenphilosophie verstehen wollen, dann müssen wir uns zunächst vor die Seele halten, daß diese Vedenphilosophie davon ausgeht, daß der Mensch in sich selber ein Tiefstes findet, das sein eigentliches Selbst ist, und daß dasjenige, was er zunächst erfaßt im gewöhnlichen Leben, eine Art Ausdruck oder Abdruck dieses seines Selbstes ist, daß der Mensch sich entwickeln kann und daß seine Entwickelung immer mehr und mehr die Tiefen des eigentlichen Selbstes herausholt aus den Untergründen der Seele. Es ruht also wie schlummernd ein höheres Selbst in dem Menschen und dieses höhere Selbst ist nicht das, was der Mensch der Gegenwart unmittelbar weiß, aber was in ihm arbeitet, zu dem er sich hinentwickelt. Wenn der Mensch einmal erreicht haben wird das, was in ihm als Selbst lebt, dann wird er gewahr werden, nach der Vedenphilosophie, daß dieses Selbst eins ist mit dem allumfassenden Selbst der Welt überhaupt, daß er mit seinem Selbst durchaus nicht nur in diesem allumfassenden Weltenselbst ruht, sondern eins ist mit diesem Weltenselbst. Und er ist so eins mit diesem Weltenselbst, daß er in zweifacher Weise mit seinem Wesen sich zu diesem Weltenselbst verhält. Wie inman physisch aus- und einatmet, so etwa, müssen wir sagen, stellt sich der Vedantist das Verhältnis des menschlichen Selbstes zum Weltenselbst vor. Wie man einatmet und ausatmet, und wie draußen die allgemeine Luft ist und im Inneren das Stück Luft, das wir eingeatmet haben, so hat man draußen das allgemeine umfassende, durch alles lebende und webende Selbst und atmet es ein, wenn man hingegeben ist der Betrachtung des spirituellen Selbstes der Welt. Man atmet es geistig ein mit jeder Empfindung, die man von diesem Selbst hat, man atmet es ein mit allem, was man hereinbekommt in seine Seele. Alle Erkenntnis, alles Wissen, alles Denken und Empfinden ist geistiges Atmen. Und das, was wir also wie ein Stück des Weltenselbstes — was aber organisch mit diesem Weltenselbst verbunden bleibt - in unsere Seele hereinbekommen, das ist Atman: das Atmen, das in bezug auf uns selber so ist wie das Stück Luft, das wir einatmen und das nicht unterschieden werden kann von der allgemeinen Luft. So ist Atman in uns, kann aber nicht unterschieden werden von dem, was das allwaltende Selbst der Welt ist. Und wie wir ausatmen physisch, so gibt es eine Andacht der Seele, durch die sie ihr Bestes, was sie hat, gebetartig und opfernd hinwendet zu diesem Selbst. Das ist wie das geistige Ausatmen: Brahman. Atman und Brahman, wie Ein- und Ausatmen, macht uns zu Teilnehmern an dem allwaltenden Weltenselbst.

Eine monistisch-spirituelle Philosophie, die zugleich Religion ist, tritt uns im Vedentum entgegen. Und die Blüte und Frucht dieses Vedentums ist jene den Menschen so beseligende, so im Innersten und im Höchsten beruhigende Empfindung des Einsseins mit dem allgemeinen, weltdurchwaltenden und -durchwebenden Selbst, mit der einheitlichen Wesenheit der Welt. Von diesem Zusammenhang des Menschen mit der Einheit der Welt, von diesem Drinnenstehen des Menschen im ganzen großen spirituellen Kosmos handelt das Vedentum, handelt - wir können nicht sagen das Vedenwort, denn Veda ist schon Wort -, handelt das Wort Veda, das gegeben ist, das selber ausgehaucht ist nach vedischer Vorstellung von dem allwaltenden Einheitswesen und das die Menschenseele als höchste Ausgestaltung der Erkenntnis in sich aufnehmen kann.

Mit der Aufnahme des Vedenwortes wird aufgenommen des allwaltenden Selbstes bester Teil, wird errungen das Bewußtsein des Zusammenhanges des einzelnen Menschenselbstes mit diesem allwaltenden Weltenselbst. Was Veda sagt, ist das Gotteswort, das schöpferisch ist und das wiedergeboren wird in der menschlichen Erkenntnis, so die menschliche Erkenntnis zusammenführend mit dem schöpferischen, die Welt durchlebenden und durchwebenden Prinzip. Daher galt das, was in den Veden geschrieben war, als göttliches Wort, und derjenige, der sie durchdrang, als Besitzer des göttlichen Wortes. Das göttliche Wort war in spiritueller Weise in die Welt gekommen und lag vor in den Vedenbüchern. Diejenigen, die diese Bücher durchdrangen, nahmen teil am schöpferischen Prinzip der Welt.

Anders ist die Sache bei der Sankhyaphilosophie. Wenn diese zunächst an uns herantritt, wie sie überliefert ist, so haben wir in ihr gerade das Gegenteil einer Einheitslehre gegeben. Wenn wir die Sankhyaphilosophie vergleichen wollen, so können wir sie vergleichen mit der Philosophie des Leibniz. Die Sankhyaphilosophie ist eine pluralistische Philosophie. Die einzelnen Seelen, die uns entgegentreten, Menschenseelen und Götterseelen, sie werden von der Sankhyaphilosophie nicht verfolgt zu einem einheitlichen Quell, sondern werden hingenommen als einzelne, sozusagen von Ewigkeit bestehende Seelen oder wenigstens als Seelen, nach deren Ausgangspunkt von einer Einheit nicht gesucht wird. Der Pluralismus der Seelen tritt uns entgegen in der Sankhyaphilosophie. Scharf betont wird die Selbständigkeit jeder einzelnen Seele, die da ihre Entwickelung führt in der Welt abgeschlossen für sich in ihrem Sein und Wesen.

Und gegenüber steht dem Pluralismus der Seelen dasjenige, was man in der Sankhyaphilosophie das prakritische Element nennt. Wir können es nicht gut mit dem modernen Wort Materie bezeichnen, weil dieses Wort materialistisch gemeint ist. Das ist aber in der Sankhyaphilosophie nicht gemeint mit dem Substantiellen, das gegenübersteht der Vielheit der Seelen und das wiederum nicht auf eine Einheit zurückgeführt wird.

Wir haben zunächst die Vielheit der Seelen und das, was wir nennen können die materielle Basis, gleichsam wie eine die Welt räumlich und zeitlich durchströmende Urflut, aus der die Seelen die Elemente zum äußeren Dasein nehmen. Umkleiden müssen sich die Seelen mit diesem materiellen Elemente, das nicht auf eine Einheit mit den Seelen selber zurückgeführt wird.

Und so ist es in der Sankhyaphilosophie, daß hauptsächlich dieses materielle Element, sorgfältig studiert, uns entgegentritt. Nicht so sehr wird der Blick auf die einzelne Seele gelenkt in der Sankhyaphilosophie. Die einzelne Seele wird hingenommen als etwas, was real da ist, was verstrickt und verknüpft ist mit der materiellen Basis und was innerhalb dieser materiellen Basis die verschiedensten Formen annimmt und dadurch sich nach außen in verschiedenen Formen zeigt. Eine Seele umkleidet sich mit dem materiellen Grundelement, das sozusagen wie die einzelne Seele von Ewigkeit her gedacht wird. Es drückt sich aus in diesem materiellen Grundelement das Seelische. Dadurch nimmt dieses Seelische die verschiedenen Formen an. Und das Studium dieser materiellen Formen ist es insbesondere, was uns in der Sankhyaphilosophie entgegentritt.

Da haben wir zunächst sozusagen die ursprünglichste Form dieses materiellen Elementes wie eine Art von geistiger Urflut, in die die Seele zuerst untertaucht. Wenn wir also den Blick hinlenken würden auf die Anfangsstadien der Evolution, so hätten wir gleichsam ein Undifferenziertes des materiellen Elementes und, untertauchend, die Vielheit der Seelen, um weitere Evolutionen durchzumachen. Das erste also, was uns als Form entgegentritt, sich noch nicht herausdifferenzierend aus dem Einheitlichen der Urflut, das ist die spirituelle Substanz selber, die im Ausgangspunkt der Evolution liegt.

Das Nächste, was dann heraustritt, womit die Seele sich individuell schon umkleiden kann, ist die Buddhi. Wenn wir uns also denken eine Seele umkleidet mit der Urflutsubstanz, so unterscheidet sich diese Seelenaußerung noch nicht von dem allgemein wogenden Element der Urflut. Indem sich die Seele nicht nur hüllt in dieses erste Dasein der allgemein wogenden Urflut, sondern in das, was als nächstes hervorgehen kann, kann sie sich hüllen in die Buddhi.

Das dritte Element, das sich herausformt, wodurch dann die Seelen immer individueller und individueller werden können, ist Ahamkara. Das sind immer niedrigere und niedrigere Gestaltungen der Urmaterie. Wir haben also die Urmaterie, deren nächste Form, die Buddhi und wiederum eine nächste Form, Ahamkara. Eine nächste Form ist Manas, eine nächste Form sind die Sinnesorgane, eine nächste Form die feineren Elemente und die letzte Form die stofflichen Elemente, die wir in der physischen Umgebung haben.

So haben wir sozusagen eine Evolutionslinie im Sinne der Sankhyaphilosophie. Oben ist das übersinnlichste Element einer spirituellen Urflut, und immer mehr und mehr sich verdichtend geht es bis zu dem, was wir um uns haben in den groben Elementen, aus denen auch der grobe menschliche Leib auferbaut ist. Zwischendrinnen sind die Substanzen, aus denen zum Beispiel unsere Sinnesorgane gewoben sind, und die feineren Elemente, aus denen unser Äther- oder Lebensleib gewoben ist. Wohlgemerkt, das alles sind Hüllen der Seele im Sinne der Sankhyaphilosophie. Schon das, was der ersten Urflut entstammt, ist Hülle der Seele. Die Seele ist da erst wieder drinnen. Und wenn der Sankhyaphilosoph studiert die Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas, die Sinne, die feineren und gröberen Elemente, so meint er damit die immer dichteren Hüllen, in denen die Seele sich zum Ausdruck bringt.

Wir müssen uns klar sein darüber, daß so, wie uns die Vedenphilosophie und so, wie uns die Sankhyaphilosophie entgegentritt, sie uns nur entgegentreten können, weil sie ausgestaltet sind in jenen alten Zeiten, in denen es noch ein uraltes Hellsehen gegeben hat, wenigstens bis zu einem gewissen Grade.

Und auf verschiedene Weise sind zustandegekommen die Veden und der Inhalt der Sankhyaphilosophie. Die Veden beruhen durchaus auf einer ursprünglichen, noch wie eine Naturanlage in der Urmenschheit vorhandenen Inspiration, waren eingegeben, ohne daß sozusagen der Mensch etwas anderes dazu tat, als daß er sich vorbereitete in seiner ganzen Wesenheit, die von selbst kommende göttliche Inspiration ruhig und gelassen in seinem Inneren zu empfangen.

Anders war es bei der Ausbildung der Sankhyaphilosophie. Da ging es schon sozusagen ähnlich zu, wie es bei unserem heutigen Lernen zugeht, nur daß dieses letztere nicht durchdrungen ist von Hellsichtigkeit. Dazumal war es durchdrungen von Hellsichtigkeit. Es war hellsichtige Wissenschaft, Inspiration, wie durch Gnade von oben gegeben: Vedenphilosophie. Wissenschaft, die gesucht wurde wie wir heute Wissenschaft suchen, aber eben gesucht wurde von Leuten, denen noch zugänglich war Hellsichtigkeit, das war die Sankhyaphilosophie.

Daher läßt die Sankhyaphilosophie auch sozusagen unberührt das eigentlich seelische Element. Sie sagt: In dem, was man studieren kann in den übersinnlichen äußeren Formen, da prägen sich die Seelen aus; aber studieren tun wir die äußeren Formen, die Formen, die uns so entgegentreten, daß sich die Seelen in die Formen kleiden. Daher finden wir ein ausgebildetes System von Formen, wie sie uns entgegentreten in der Welt — wie wir in unserer Wissenschaft eine Summe von Naturtatsachen finden -, nur daß in der Sankhyaphilosophie geschaut wird bis zur übersinnlichen Anschauung der Tatsachen. Sankhyaphilosophie ist eine Wissenschaft, die, obwohl sie errungen worden ist durch Hellsichtigkeit, doch eine Wissenschaft von den äußeren Formen bleibt, die nicht vordringt bis zum Seelischen selbst. Das Seelische bleibt in gewisser Weise vom Studium unberührt. Der, der den Veden hingegeben ist, fühlt durchaus sein religiöses Leben mit dem Weisheitsleben eins. Sankhyaphilosophie ist Wissenschaft, ist Erkenntnis der Formen, in denen die Seele sich ausprägt. Und daneben kann durchaus bestehen bei den Anhängern ein religiöses Hingeben der Seele neben der Sankhyaphilosophie. Und wie dann dieses Seelische sich eingliedert in die Formen - nicht das Seelische selbst, aber wie es sich eingliedert -, das wird verfolgt in der Sankhyaphilosophie.

Wie die Seele sich mehr ihre eigene Selbständigkeit wahrt oder mehr untertaucht in die Materie, das wird unterschieden in der Sankhyaphilosophie. Man hat es zu tun mit Seelischem, das zwar untertaucht, aber in den materiellen Formen als Seelisches sich wahrt. Ein Seelisches, das so in die äußere Form untergetaucht ist, aber sich als Seelisches ankündigt, sich offenbart, lebt in dem Sattvaelement. Ein Seelisches, das in die Form untertaucht, aber sozusagen überwuchert wird von der Form, nicht aufkommt gegenüber der Form, lebt im Tamaselement. Und das, bei dem das Seelische dem Äußeren der Form gewissermaßen das Gleichgewicht hält, lebt im Rajaselement. Sattva, Rajas, Tamas, die drei Gunas, gehören zur wesentlichen Charakteristik dessen, was wir Sankhyaphilosophie nennen.

Anders wiederum ist jene Geistesströmung, die zu uns herüberspricht als der Yoga. Er geht auf das Seelische selbst, unmittelbar auf dieses Seelische und sucht Mittel und Wege, die menschliche Seele zu ergreifen im unmittelbaren geistigen Leben, so daß die Seele aufsteigt von dem Punkt, wo sie steht in der Welt, zu immer höheren und höheren Stufen seelischen Seins. So ist Sankhya die Betrachtung der Hüllen der Seele, und Yoga die Anleitung des Seelischen zu höheren und immer höheren Stufen inneren Erlebens. Die Hingabe an den Yoga ist daher ein allmähliches Erwecken der höheren Kräfte der Seele, so daß die Seele sich hineinlebt in etwas, in dem sie im alltäglichen Leben nicht steht und das ihr immer höhere und höhere Stufen des Seins erschließen kann. Yoga ist daher der Weg in die geistigen Welten, der Weg zur Befreiung der Seele von den äußeren Formen, der Weg zum selbständigen Seelenleben in seinem Inneren. Die andere Seite der Sankhyaphilosophie ist der Yoga. Yoga bekam seine große Bedeutung, als jene wie durch eine Gnade von oben kommende Inspiration, die die Veden noch inspiriert hat, nicht mehr da sein konnte. Der Yoga mußte angewendet werden von denjenigen Seelen, die, einer späteren Menschheitsepoche angehörig, nichts mehr von selbst geoffenbart erhielten, sondern die sich hinaufarbeiten mußten zu den Höhen des geistigen Seins von den unteren Stufen her.

So treten uns in uralter indischer Zeit entgegen drei scharf nuancierte Geistesströmungen: die Veden, die Sankhya- und die Yogaströmung. Und wir sind heute dazu aufgerufen, diese geistigen Strömungen sozusagen wiederum miteinander zu verbinden, indem wir sie für unser Zeitalter in der richtigen Weise heraufholen aus den Untergründen der Seelen- und Weltentiefen.

Sie können alle drei Strömungen auch in unserer Geisteswissenschaft wiederfinden. Lesen Sie das nach, was ich versuchte darzustellen in meiner «Geheimwissenschaft, in den ersten Kapiteln über die menschliche Konstitution, über Schlafen und Wachen, über Leben und Tod, dann haben Sie das, was wir im heutigen Sinne nennen können Sankhyaphilosophie. Lesen Sie dann, was über die Weltenevolution gesagt ist von Saturn bis zu unserer Zeit, dann haben Sie die Vedenphilosophie für unsere Zeit ausgeprägt. Und lesen Sie die letzten Kapitel, wo es sich um die menschliche Entwickelung handelt, dann haben Sie den Yoga für unsere Zeit ausgeprägt. Unsere Zeit muß in einer organischen Weise verbinden das, was uns so als drei scharf nuancierte Geistesströmungen vom alten Indertum herüberleuchtet als die Vedenphilosophie, die Sankhyaphilosophie und Yoga.

Daher muß aber auch die wunderbare Dichtung Bhagavad Gita, welche in dichterisch tiefer Weise wie einen Zusammenschluß der drei Richtungen enthält, gerade unsere Zeit in tiefster Weise berühren. Und wir müssen etwas suchen wie eine Kongenialität unseres eigenen Geistesstrebens zu dem tieferen Gehalt der Bhagavad Gita. Es berühren sich nicht nur im großen und ganzen unsere heutigen Geistesströme mit den älteren Geistesströmen, sondern auch im einzelnen.

Sie werden erkannt haben, daß in meiner «Geheimwissenschaft» der Versuch gemacht wird, die Dinge ganz aus sich selber herauszuholen. Nirgends ist an ein Historisches angelehnt. Von keiner Behauptung über Saturn, Sonne und Mond kann derjenige, der das, was gesagt ist, wirklich versteht, finden, daß irgendwo aus historischen Mitteilungen die Dinge gesagt worden wären; aus der Sache selbst sind sie herausgeholt. Aber wie eigentümlich: das, was das Gepräge unserer Zeit trägt, klingt doch zusammen an entscheidenden Stellen mit dem, was uns aus alten Zeiten herübertönt. Davon nur eine kleine Probe: Wir lesen in den Veden an einer bestimmten Stelle über die kosmische Entwickelung, was sich etwa in die folgenden Worte kleiden läßt: Dunkel war in Dunkel gehüllt im Urbeginn, eine ununterscheidbare Flut war dieses alles. Es entstand eine gewaltige Leere, die durchdrungen war überall von Wärme. — Und nun bitte ich Sie, sich zu erinnern, was über die Konstitution des Saturn aus der Sache selbst heraufgeholt worden ist, wo von der Substanz des Saturn als einer Wärmesubstanz gesprochen wird, und fühlen Sie das Zusammenklingen dieses sozusagen Neuesten in der Geheimwissenschaft mit dem, was da in den Veden gesagt wird. Die nächste Stelle heißt: Dann entsprang zuerst der Wille, der des Denkens erster Same war, der Zusammenhang des Seienden mit dem Nichtseienden. Und diesen Zusammenhang fanden sie in dem Willen. — Und erinnern Sie sich, wie in Neuprägung gesprochen wird von den Geistern des Willens. Bei alle dem, was wir in der Gegenwart zu sagen haben, ist nicht der Anklang an das Alte gesucht, sondern ergibt sich der Zusammenklang ganz von selbst, weil Wahrheit dort gesucht worden ist und Wahrheit wiederum auf unserem eigenen Boden gesucht wird.

Und nun tritt uns entgegen in der Bhagavad Gita gleichsam die poetische Verherrlichung der drei eben charakterisierten Geistesströmungen. Im bedeutsamen Momente der Weltgeschichte bedeutsam für jene alte Zeit -—, da wird uns entgegengebracht die große Lehre, die Krishna selbst dem Arjuna übermittelt. Der Moment ist bedeutsam, weil er der Moment ist, in dem die alten Blutsbande sich lockern. Sie müssen sich bei all dem, was nunmehr gesagt werden soll in diesen Vorträgen über die Bhagavad Gita, erinnern an das, was immer und immer betont worden ist: wie Blutsbande, Rassenzusammengehörigkeit, Stammeszusammengehörigkeit in uralten Zeiten eine ganz besondere Bedeutung hatten und erst nach und nach zurücktraten. Erinnern Sie sich an alles das, was in meiner Schrift gesagt wird: «Blut ist ein ganz besonderer Saft.»

Als diese Blutsbande sich lockern, da tritt gerade durch diese Lockerung der große Kampf ein, der uns im Mahabharata geschildert wird, von dem die Bhagavad Gita eine Episode ist. Da sehen wir, wie zweier Brüder Nachkommen, also noch Blutsverwandte, sich scheiden in bezug auf ihre Geistesrichtungen, wie auseinandergeht dasjenige, was das Blut früher als einheitliche Anschauung gebracht hat; und deshalb ist der Kampf da, weil an dieser Scheide der Kampf entstehen muß, wo die Blutsbande auch ihre Bedeutung für die hellseherischen Erkenntnisse verlieren und mit dieser Scheidung die spätere geistige Formation eintritt. Für diejenigen, für welche die alten Blutsbande keine Bedeutung haben, tritt Krishna als großer Lehrer auf. Er muß der Lehrer sein des neuen, aus den alten Blutsbanden herausgehobenen Zeitalters. Wie er der Lehrer wird, wir werden es morgen charakterisieren. Aber das kann schon gesagt werden, was die ganze Bhagavad Gita uns zeigt, wie Krishna die drei nun charakterisierten Geistesströmungen in seine Lehre aufnimmt. In organischer Einheit vermittelt er sie seinem Schüler. Wie muß dieser Schüler vor uns stehen? Er sieht hinauf auf der einen Seite zum Vater und auf der anderen zu Vaters Bruder. Die Geschwisterkinder sollen sich jetzt nicht mehr nahestehen, sie sollen sich scheiden. Jetzt soll aber auch eine andere Geistesströmung die eine und die andere Linie ergreifen. Da regt sich in Arjuna die Seele: Wie soll es werden, wenn das, was durch die Blutsbande zusammengehalten wurde, nicht mehr da sein wird? Wie soll die Seele sich hineinstellen in das Geistesleben, wenn dieses Geistesleben nicht mehr so verfließen kann wie früher, unter dem Einfluß der alten Blutsbande? Daß alles in die Brüche gehen müßte, so kommt es dem Arjuna vor. Und daß es anders werden müsse, daß es nicht so geschehe, das ist der Inhalt der großen Krishna-Lehre.

Nun zeigt Krishna seinem Schüler, der von dem einen Zeitalter in das andere hinüberleben soll, wie die Seele aufnehmen muß, wenn sie harmonisch werden soll, etwas von allen drei Geistesströmungen. Sowohl die vedische Einheitslehre finden wir in der richtigen Weise in den Lehren des Krishna, wie das Wesentliche der Sankhyalehre, wie das Wesentliche des Yoga. Denn was eigentlich liegt hinter all dem, was wir da noch von der Bhagavad Gita kennenlernen werden? Da liegt die Verkündigung des Krishna etwa so: Ja, es gibt ein schöpferisches Weltenwort, welches das schöpferische Prinzip selber enthält. Wie der Laut des Menschen, wenn er spricht, die Luft durchwogt und durchwebt und durchlebt, so durchwogt und durchwebt und durchlebt es alle Dinge und schuf und ordnete das Sein. So weht das Vedenprinzip in allen Dingen. So kann es aufgenommen werden von menschlicher Erkenntnis im menschlichen Seelenleben. Es gibt ein waltendes, webendes Schöpfungswort, es gibt eine Wiedergabe des waltenden, webenden Schöpfungswortes in den vedischen Urkunden. Das Wort ist das Schöpferische der Welt; in den Veden offenbart es sich. Das ist der eine Teil der Krishna-Lehre.

Und die menschliche Seele ist in der Lage, zu verstehen, wie das Wort sich auslebt in den Formen des Seins. Es lernt die menschliche Erkenntnis die Gesetze des Seins kennen, indem diese menschliche Erkenntnis begreift, wie die einzelnen Formen des Seins gesetzmäfßig ausdrücken das Geistig-Seelische. Die Lehre von den Formen der Welt, von den gesetzmäßigen Gestaltungen des Seins, vom Weltengesetz und seiner Wirkungsweise, das ist die Sankhyaphilosophie, die andere Seite der Krishna-Lehre. Und ebenso wie Krishna seinem Schüler klar macht, daß hinter allem Sein das schöpferische Weltenwort ist, so macht er ihm klar, daß die menschliche Erkenntnis die einzelnen Formen erkennen kann, also die Weltgesetze in sich aufnehmen kann. Weltenwort, Weltengesetz, in den Veden wiedergegeben, im Sankhya: das offenbart Krishna seinem Schüler.

Und auch über den Weg spricht er ihm, der den einzelnen Schüler hinaufführt in die Höhe, wo er wiederum teilhaftig werden kann der Erkenntnis des Weltenwortes. Auch vom Yoga spricht also Krishna. Dreifach ist die Lehre des Krishna: sie ist die Lehre vom Wort, vom Gesetz, von der andächtigen Hingabe an den Geist.

Wort, Gesetz und Andacht, das sind die drei Ströme, durch die die Seele ihre Entwickelung durchmachen kann. Diese drei Ströme, sie werden immerdar auf die menschliche Seele in irgend einer Weise wirken. Haben wir doch eben gesehen, wie die neuere Geisteswissenschaft suchen muß in neu geprägter Weise diese drei Ströme. Aber die Zeitalter sind verschieden und in der verschiedensten Weise wird das, was also die dreigestaltige Weltauffassung ist, an die Menschenseele herangebracht. Der Krishna spricht vom Weltenwort, von dem Schöpfungswort, von der Gestaltung des Seins, von der andächtigen Vertiefung der Seele, von Yoga.

In anderer Form tritt uns dieselbe Dreiheit wieder entgegen, nur in einer konkreteren, in einer lebendigeren Weise, in einem Wesen selber, das über die Erde wandelnd gedacht wird, verkörpernd das göttliche Schöpfungswort. Die Veden: abstrakt herangekommen an die Menschheit. Der göttliche Logos, von dem uns das JohannesEvangelium spricht: lebendig und das schöpferische Wort selber! Und das, was uns in der Sankhyaphilosophie als die gesetzmäßige Erfassung der Weltenformen entgegentritt: ins Historische umgesetzt in der althebräischen Offenbarung ist es das, was Paulus das Gesetz nennt. Und als Glaube an den auferstandenen Christus tritt uns das Dritte bei Paulus entgegen. Was bei Krishna der Yoga ist, ist bei Paulus, nur ins Konkrete übertragen, der Glaube, der an die Stelle des Gesetzes treten soll.

So ist wie die Morgenröte dessen, was später als Sonne aufging, die Dreiheit: Veda, Sankhya und Yoga. Veda taucht wiederum auf in dem unmittelbaren Wesen des Christus selber, jetzt konkret lebendig eintretend in die geschichtliche Entwickelung, nicht abstrakt sich ergießend in die Raumes- und Zeitenweiten, sondern als einzelne Individualität, als das lebendige Wort. Das Gesetz tritt uns auf in der Sankhyaphilosophie in demjenigen, was uns zeigt, wie die materielle Basis, das Prakritische, sich ausgestaltet, bis herunter zum groben Stoffe. Das Gesetz offenbart, wie die Welt geworden ist und wie die einzelnen Menschen sich innerhalb dieser Welt ausgestalten. Das kommt zum Ausdruck in der althebräischen Gesetzeskunde, in all dem, was der Mosaismus ist. Insofern Paulus auf der einen Seite hinweist auf dieses Gesetz des hebräischen Altertums, weist er hin auf Sankhyaphilosophie; insofern er hinweist auf den Glauben an den Auferstandenen, zeigt er die Sonne dessen, wofür die Morgenröte in dem Yoga erschienen ist.

So ersteht in eigenartiger Weise das, was in den ersten Elementen uns entgegentritt als Veda, Sankhya und Yoga. Was als Veda uns entgegentritt, das erscheint in einer neuen, aber jetzt konkreten Gestalt als das lebendige Wort, aus dem alles geschaffen ist und ohne das nichts geschaffen ist von dem, was geworden ist, und das doch im Laufe der Zeit Fleisch geworden ist. Sankhya erscheint als die historische Darstellung, als die gesetzmäflige Darstellung dessen, wie aus der Welt der Elohim die Erscheinungswelt geworden ist, die Welt der groben Stofflichkeit. Der Yoga verwandelt sich in das, was bei Paulus zu dem Wort: «Nicht ich, sondern der Christus in mir» geworden ist; das heißt, daß, wenn die Christus-Kraft die Seele durchdringt und aufnimmt, der Mensch zu der Höhe der Gottheit aufsteigt.

So sehen wir, wie doch der einheitliche Plan in der Weltgeschichte vorhanden ist, wie vorbereitend das Orientalische dasteht, wie es gleichsam in abstrakteren Formen das gibt, was in konkreteren Formen uns im paulinischen Christentum so merkwürdig entgegentritt. Wir werden sehen, daß gerade durch die Erfassung des Zusammenhanges der großen Dichtung der Bhagavad Gita mit den Paulinischen Briefen sich uns die allertiefsten Geheimnisse dessen enthüllen werden, was man nennen kann das Walten der Geistigkeit in der gesamten Erziehung des menschlichen Geschlechtes. Weil man ein solches Neue in der neuen Zeit fühlen muß, mußte diese neuere Zeit hinausgehen über das bloße Griechentum und Verstandnis entwickeln für das, was hinter dem ersten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend liegt, was uns da entgegentritt als Veda, Sankhya und Yoga. Und so wie Raffael in der Kunst, Thomas von Aquino in der Philosophie zum Griechentum sich zurückwenden mußten, so werden wir sehen, wie in unserer Zeit ein bewußter Ausgleich entstehen muß zwischen dem, was die Gegenwart erreichen will und dem, was weiter zurückliegt als das Griechentum, was hineinreicht in die Tiefen des orientalischen Altertums. Wir können diese Tiefen des orientalischen Altertums durchaus an unsere Seele heranrücken lassen, wenn wir jene verschiedenen Geistesströmungen in der wunderbar harmonischen Einheit betrachten, in der sie uns entgegentreten, in der, wie Humboldt sagt, größten philosophischen Dichtung, in der Bhagavad Gita.

First Lecture

In a sense, we stand today at the starting point of the founding of the Anthroposophical Society in the narrower sense, and on such an occasion we may well remind ourselves once again of the importance and significance of our cause. Admittedly, what the Anthroposophical Society aims to be for the new culture is not fundamentally different from what we have always pursued within our circles as 'theosophy'. But perhaps the addition of a new name may remind our souls once again of the seriousness and dignity with which we want to work within our spiritual stream, and it is from this point of view that the theme of this lecture cycle has been chosen. We want to discuss a topic that is at the starting point of our anthroposophical endeavor and that will be suitable in the most diverse ways to point out the importance and significance of our spiritual stream for the cultural life of the present.

Some may have been surprised to find two seemingly very different spiritual currents brought together, as expressed on the one hand in the great Eastern poem of the Bhagavad Gita and on the other in the letters of the man who was so closely involved in the founding of Christianity: the Apostle Paul. We will best recognize the closeness of these two spiritual currents if we begin by pointing out how, on the one hand, what is connected with the great Bhagavad Gita poetry has entered our present age, and how, on the other hand, what was founded at the beginning of Christianity, namely Paulinism, protrudes into it. Much is different in the spiritual life of our time than it was a relatively short time ago, and it is precisely this difference between the spiritual life of the present and that of the recent past that makes something like the theosophical or anthroposophical spiritual current necessary.

Let us consider how, in a time relatively close to us, when they turned their attention to the spiritual life of their present, they actually had to deal with three millennia, one pre-Christian millennium and two not quite completed millennia, which are saturated and permeated by the Christian spiritual current, as I already emphasized in my series of lectures in Basel and Munich. What could people say to themselves who, not long ago, when it was impossible to speak of the legitimacy of a theosophical or anthroposophical spiritual current as we understand it today, were still part of the spiritual life of humanity? They could say to themselves: What is actually emerging in the present can at best be sought in the millennium that preceded the Christian era. For it was not until this millennium of the pre-Christian era that individual human beings began, so to speak, to have significance for spiritual life as personalities. However great, powerful, and gigantic some things in the spiritual currents of earlier times may appear to us, the personalities, the individualities, do not stand out from what underlies the spiritual currents. If we look back at what we cannot count in the strict sense as belonging to the last millennium before the Christian era, if we look back at the ancient Egyptian or Chaldean-Babylonian spiritual currents, we see, so to speak, a coherent spiritual life. It is only in Greek spiritual life that things begin to take shape in such a way that individualities appear before us as spiritually alive. We find great, powerful teachings and powerful insights into the wider world in the Egyptian and Chaldean-Babylonian eras; in Greece, things only begin to take shape in such a way that we look at individual personalities, at a Socrates or Pericles, at a Phidias, at a Plato, at an Aristotle. The personality as such emerges. This is the peculiarity of the spiritual life of the last three millennia. And I do not mean only the significant personalities, but the impression that spiritual life makes on each individual personality. It is the personality that matters in these three millennia, if we may say so. And the spiritual currents are significant because personalities have a need to participate in spiritual life, because personalities find inner comfort, hope, peace, inner bliss, and inner security through the spiritual currents.

And because, until relatively recently, people were primarily interested in history insofar as it unfolded from personality to personality, they did not have a deep, penetrating understanding of what lay before the last three millennia. Greek culture marked the beginning of the history that, until very recently, was the only one we understood, and then, at the turn of the first and second millennia, came what followed the great being of Christ Jesus.

In the first millennium, what Greek culture brought us stands out. And this Greek culture stands out in a peculiar way: at its starting point are the mysteries. What flowed out of these—we have described this often—passed on to the great poets, philosophers, and artists in all fields. For if we want to understand Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides in the right way, we must seek the sources for their understanding in what flowed out of the mysteries. If we want to understand Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, we must seek the sources of their philosophy in the mysteries. Not to mention such outstanding figures as Heraclitus. In my book Christianity as Mystical Fact, you can see how he is entirely based on the mysteries.

Then we see how, with the second millennium, the Christian impulse flows into spiritual development, and we see the second millennium unfold in such a way that this Christ impulse gradually takes up Greek culture and unites with it. The entire second millennium proceeds in such a way that the powerful Christ impulse unites with what has come down from Greek culture in living tradition and in living life in general. So we see how, very slowly and gradually, Greek wisdom, Greek feeling, Greek artistry organically unite with the Christ impulse. That is the course of the second millennium.

Then the third millennium of personality culture begins. We can say that in this third millennium we see how Greek culture continues to have an effect in a different way. We see this when we look at artists such as Raphael, Michelangelo, and Leonardo da Vinci. In the third millennium, Greek culture no longer lives on with Christianity as it did in the culture of the second millennium. In the second millennium, Greek culture was not accepted as a historical entity, as something to be viewed from the outside; in the third millennium, people must turn directly to Greek culture. We see how Leonardo, Michelangelo, and Raphael let the great works of art that are reemerging have an effect on them, how Greek culture is being accepted in an increasingly conscious way. It was absorbed unconsciously in the second millennium, and it is being absorbed more and more consciously in the third millennium.

We see how Greek culture is consciously absorbed into the worldview, for example in the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who is compelled to reconcile what flows from Christian philosophy with the philosophy of Aristotle. Greek culture is also consciously absorbed there, so that Greek culture and Christianity flow together in a conscious way in philosophical form, as in Raphael, Michelangelo, and Leonardo in artistic form. And this whole trend continues to rise through intellectual life, even as a certain religious opposition arises in Giordano Bruno and Galileo. Despite all this, we find everywhere that Greek ideas and concepts, especially in relation to the view of nature, reappear: a conscious absorption of Greek culture!

But it cannot go back further than Greek culture. And in all souls, not only in learned or highly educated people, but in all souls, even the simplest, there is a spiritual life in which Greek culture and Christianity have consciously merged. From the university to the peasant's hut, Greek and Christian ideas are being absorbed.

Something peculiar occurs in the 19th century, something that, in essence, only theosophy or anthroposophy is called upon to develop and carry out. We see in a single phenomenon what is happening on a tremendous scale. When the wonderful poetry of the Bhagavad Gita first became known in Europe, important minds were enthralled by the greatness of this poetry and its profound content. And it may remain unforgettable that a mind as profound as Wilhelm von Humboldt, when he became acquainted with it, was able to say that it was the most profound philosophical poetry he had ever encountered. And he was able to make the beautiful statement that it had been worth growing as old as he was because he had been able to get to know the Bhagavad Gita, the great song of the spirit that echoes down from ancient, sacred, Oriental antiquity.

And how wonderful it is that, slowly but surely, much of Oriental antiquity found its way into the 19th century, albeit not yet on a wide scale, precisely from the Bhagavad Gita. For this Bhagavad Gita is not like other writings that have come down to us from Oriental antiquity. Other writings always proclaim to us Eastern thinking and feeling from this or that point of view. In the Bhagavad Gita, however, we encounter something of which we can say: it is the confluence of all the different directions and points of view of Eastern thinking, perception, and feeling. That is the significance of the Bhagavad Gita.

Let us take a look at ancient India. If we disregard the less significant aspects, we find three distinct spiritual currents rising up from the gray Indian past. The spiritual current that confronts us already in the first Vedas and which then underwent further development in later Vedic writings is a very specific spiritual current — we will characterize it in a moment — it is, if we may say so, a one-sided but very specific spiritual current. Then we encounter a second spiritual current in Sankhya philosophy, again a specific spiritual direction, and finally we encounter a third nuance of Eastern spiritual currents in yoga. We have thus placed before our soul the three most significant Eastern spiritual currents: the Vedic, Sankhya, and yoga currents. What appears to us as Kapila's Sankhya system, what we encounter in Patanjali's yoga philosophy and in the Vedas, are currents of thought with a certain nuance, currents of thought which, because they have this particular nuance, are in a sense one-sided, and it is precisely in their one-sidedness that their greatness lies.

In the Bhagavad Gita, we find the harmonious interpenetration of all three currents of consciousness. What the Vedic philosophy had to say, we find shining forth again in the Bhagavad Gita; what Patanjali's yoga had to give to human beings, we find again in the Bhagavad Gita; what Kapila's Sankhya had to give, we find in the Bhagavad Gita. And we do not find it as a conglomeration, but rather as three limbs flowing harmoniously into one organism, as if they originally belonged together. This is the greatness of the Bhagavad Gita, that it describes in such a comprehensive way how this Eastern spiritual life receives its influences on the one hand from the Vedas, on the other from the Sankhya philosophy of Kapila, and on the third side from the yoga of Patanjali.

First, let us briefly characterize what each of these three spiritual currents can give us.

The Vedic current is, in the most pronounced sense, a philosophy of unity, the most spiritual monism that can be conceived. Monism, spiritual monism, that is the Vedic philosophy, which then finds its development in Vedanta. If we want to understand Vedic philosophy, we must first bear in mind that this Vedic philosophy assumes that human beings find within themselves a deepest core that is their true self, and that what they initially perceive in ordinary life is a kind of expression or imprint of this self, that human beings can develop and that their development brings out more and more of the depths of their actual self from the depths of the soul. Thus, a higher self lies dormant in human beings, and this higher self is not what human beings immediately know in the present, but what works within them, toward which they are developing. Once human beings have attained what lives within them as the self, they will become aware, according to Vedic philosophy, that this self is one with the all-encompassing self of the world as a whole, that they do not merely rest with their self in this all-encompassing world self, but are one with this world self. And he is so one with this world-self that he relates to this world-self in two ways with his being. Just as one physically breathes in and out, so, we must say, the Vedantist imagines the relationship of the human self to the world-self. Just as one breathes in and out, and just as the general air is outside and the piece of air we have breathed in is inside, so one has outside the general, all-encompassing Self that lives and weaves through everything, and one breathes it in when one is devoted to contemplating the spiritual Self of the world. One breathes it in spiritually with every sensation one has of this self, one breathes it in with everything one takes into one's soul. All knowledge, all thinking and feeling is spiritual breathing. And what we thus receive into our soul as a piece of the world itself—but which remains organically connected to this world itself—is Atman: the breathing that is to us what the piece of air we breathe in is to us, and which cannot be distinguished from the general air. Thus, Atman is within us, but cannot be distinguished from what is the all-pervading Self of the world. And just as we exhale physically, there is a devotion of the soul through which it turns its best, what it has, in a prayer-like and sacrificial manner toward this Self. This is like spiritual exhalation: Brahman. Atman and Brahman, like inhalation and exhalation, make us participants in the all-pervading world itself.

A monistic-spiritual philosophy that is at the same time a religion confronts us in Vedanta. And the blossom and fruit of this Vedanta is that feeling of oneness with the universal, world-pervading and world-interweaving Self, with the unified essence of the world, which is so blissful for human beings and so calming in their innermost being and in the highest sense. Vedanta deals with this connection between man and the unity of the world, with this standing within the whole great spiritual cosmos. We cannot say that the word Veda is the Veda, for Veda is already a word. The word Veda is given, it is itself breathed out, according to the Vedic conception, by the all-powerful unity, and it can be taken up by the human soul as the highest form of knowledge.

With the acceptance of the word Veda, the best part of the omnipresent Self is accepted, and the awareness of the connection between the individual human self and this omnipresent world self is attained. What the Vedas say is the word of God, which is creative and is reborn in human knowledge, thus bringing human knowledge together with the creative principle that permeates and interweaves the world. Therefore, what was written in the Vedas was considered the word of God, and those who understood it were considered possessors of the divine word. The divine word had come into the world in a spiritual way and was contained in the Vedic books. Those who penetrated these books participated in the creative principle of the world.

The situation is different in Sankhya philosophy. When we first encounter it as it has been handed down, we find in it precisely the opposite of a doctrine of unity. If we want to compare Sankhya philosophy, we can compare it with the philosophy of Leibniz. Sankhya philosophy is a pluralistic philosophy. The individual souls that we encounter, human souls and divine souls, are not traced back by Sankhya philosophy to a single source, but are accepted as individual souls that have existed, so to speak, from eternity, or at least as souls whose point of origin is not sought in a unity. The pluralism of souls confronts us in Sankhya philosophy. The independence of each individual soul, which carries out its development in the world, closed in on itself in its being and essence, is sharply emphasized.

And opposed to the pluralism of souls is what is called the prakritic element in Sankhya philosophy. We cannot describe it well with the modern word “matter,” because this word has a materialistic meaning. However, in Sankhya philosophy, this is not meant to refer to the substantial, which stands in opposition to the multiplicity of souls and which, in turn, cannot be traced back to a unity.

First, we have the multiplicity of souls and what we might call the material basis, like a primordial flood flowing through the world in space and time, from which the souls take the elements for their external existence. The souls must clothe themselves with these material elements, which cannot be traced back to a unity with the souls themselves.

And so it is in Sankhya philosophy that it is mainly this material element, carefully studied, that confronts us. In Sankhya philosophy, attention is not so much directed toward the individual soul. The individual soul is accepted as something that is real, that is entangled and linked with the material basis and that takes on the most diverse forms within this material basis and thereby manifests itself outwardly in various forms. A soul envelops itself with the material basic element, which is thought of, as it were, as the individual soul from eternity. The soul expresses itself in this material basic element. Through this, the soul takes on various forms. And it is the study of these material forms in particular that confronts us in Sankhya philosophy.

First, we have, so to speak, the most original form of this material element, like a kind of spiritual primordial flood into which the soul first submerges. If we were to turn our gaze to the initial stages of evolution, we would see, as it were, an undifferentiated material element and, submerging into it, the multiplicity of souls undergoing further evolution. So the first thing that confronts us as a form, not yet differentiated from the unity of the primordial flood, is the spiritual substance itself, which lies at the starting point of evolution.

The next thing that emerges, with which the soul can already individually clothe itself, is the Buddhi. So when we think of a soul clothed in the substance of the primordial flood, this expression of the soul does not yet differ from the generally undulating element of the primordial flood. By not only enveloping itself in this first existence of the generally undulating primordial flood, but also in what can emerge next, the soul can envelop itself in the Buddhi.

The third element that emerges, through which the souls can then become more and more individual, is Ahamkara. These are ever lower and lower formations of the primordial matter. So we have the primordial matter, its next form, the Buddhi, and then another form, Ahamkara. The next form is Manas, the next form is the sense organs, the next form is the finer elements, and the last form is the material elements that we have in the physical environment.

So we have, so to speak, a line of evolution in the sense of Sankhya philosophy. At the top is the most supersensible element of a spiritual primordial flood, and as it becomes more and more condensed, it descends to what we have around us in the gross elements, from which the gross human body is also built up. In between are the substances from which, for example, our sense organs are woven, and the finer elements from which our etheric or life body is woven. Mind you, all of these are shells of the soul in the sense of Sankhya philosophy. Even that which originates from the first primordial flood is a shell of the soul. The soul is only inside again. And when the Sankhya philosopher studies Buddhi, Ahamkara, Manas, the senses, the finer and coarser elements, he means the increasingly dense shells in which the soul expresses itself.

We must be clear that the way the Vedic philosophy and the Sankhya philosophy appear to us, they can only appear to us because they were developed in those ancient times when there was still a form of ancient clairvoyance, at least to a certain extent.

And in various ways, the Vedas and the content of Sankhya philosophy came into being. The Vedas are based entirely on an original inspiration that still existed as a natural predisposition in primitive humanity. They were inspired without humans doing anything other than preparing themselves in their entire being to receive the divine inspiration that came of its own accord, calmly and serenely within themselves.

The development of Sankhya philosophy was different. It was similar to our learning today, except that the latter is not imbued with clairvoyance. At that time, it was permeated by clairvoyance. It was clairvoyant science, inspiration, as if given by grace from above: Vedic philosophy. Science that was sought after as we seek science today, but sought after by people who still had access to clairvoyance—that was Sankhya philosophy.

Therefore, Sankhya philosophy leaves the actual soul element untouched, so to speak. It says: In what can be studied in the supersensible outer forms, the souls are imprinted; but we study the outer forms, the forms that confront us in such a way that the souls clothe themselves in the forms. That is why we find a developed system of forms as they appear to us in the world — just as we find a sum of natural facts in our science — except that in Sankhya philosophy, we look until we reach a supersensible perception of the facts. Sankhya philosophy is a science which, although it has been attained through clairvoyance, nevertheless remains a science of external forms that does not penetrate to the soul itself. The soul remains, in a certain sense, untouched by study. Those who are devoted to the Vedas feel that their religious life is completely one with the life of wisdom. Sankhya philosophy is science, it is knowledge of the forms in which the soul manifests itself. And alongside this, the followers may well have a religious devotion of the soul in addition to Sankhya philosophy. And how this soul integrates itself into the forms—not the soul itself, but how it integrates itself—is pursued in Sankhya philosophy.

Sankhya philosophy distinguishes between the soul preserving its own independence or submerging itself more into matter. We are dealing with something spiritual that submerges itself but preserves itself as spiritual in material forms. A spiritual entity that has submerged itself in the outer form in this way but announces itself as spiritual, reveals itself, lives in the sattva element. A spiritual entity that submerges itself in form but is, so to speak, overgrown by form, does not emerge in relation to form, lives in the tamas element. And that in which the soul maintains a balance with the exterior of the form lives in the rajas element. Sattva, rajas, tamas, the three gunas, belong to the essential characteristics of what we call Sankhya philosophy.

Different again is the spiritual current that speaks to us as yoga. It goes to the soul itself, directly to this soul, and seeks ways and means to grasp the human soul in immediate spiritual life, so that the soul rises from the point where it stands in the world to ever higher and higher levels of soul existence. Thus, Sankhya is the contemplation of the soul's shells, and yoga is the guidance of the soul to higher and ever higher levels of inner experience. Devotion to yoga is therefore a gradual awakening of the higher powers of the soul, so that the soul lives itself into something in which it does not stand in everyday life and which can open up ever higher and higher levels of being to it. Yoga is therefore the path to the spiritual worlds, the path to the liberation of the soul from external forms, the path to an independent soul life within. The other side of Sankhya philosophy is yoga. Yoga gained its great significance when the inspiration that had inspired the Vedas, as if coming from above, was no longer available. Yoga had to be applied by those souls who, belonging to a later epoch of humanity, no longer received anything revealed to them, but had to work their way up to the heights of spiritual being from the lower levels.

Thus, in ancient Indian times, we encounter three sharply differentiated spiritual currents: the Vedas, the Sankhya and the Yoga currents. And today we are called upon to reconnect these spiritual currents, so to speak, by bringing them up from the depths of the soul and the world in the right way for our age.

You can find all three currents in our spiritual science. Read what I tried to describe in my “Secret Science,” in the first chapters on the human constitution, on sleeping and waking, on life and death, and you will have what we can call Sankhya philosophy in today's sense. Then read what is said about the evolution of the world from Saturn to our time, and you will have the Vedic philosophy for our time. And read the last chapters, which deal with human development, and you will have the yoga for our time. Our time must organically connect what shines down on us from ancient India as three sharply nuanced spiritual currents: the Vedic philosophy, the Sankhya philosophy, and yoga.

Therefore, the wonderful poem Bhagavad Gita, which in a poetically profound way contains a synthesis of the three directions, must touch our time in the deepest way. And we must seek something like a congeniality between our own spiritual striving and the deeper content of the Bhagavad Gita. Not only do our present spiritual currents touch the older spiritual currents in general, but also in detail.

You will have recognized that in my “Secret Science” an attempt is made to extract things entirely from themselves. Nowhere is there any reference to history. No one who truly understands what is said can find in historical accounts that the things said about Saturn, the sun, and the moon have ever been said; they are taken from the things themselves. But how peculiar: that which bears the stamp of our time nevertheless resonates in decisive places with that which echoes to us from ancient times. Here is just a small sample: In the Vedas, at a certain point, we read about cosmic development, which can be summarized in the following words: Darkness was shrouded in darkness in the beginning, and all was an indistinguishable flood. A vast emptiness arose, permeated everywhere by warmth. — And now I ask you to remember what has been gleaned from the matter itself about the constitution of Saturn, where the substance of Saturn is spoken of as a substance of warmth, and feel the harmony between this, so to speak, newest discovery in esoteric science and what is said in the Vedas. The next passage reads: Then the will arose first, which was the first seed of thought, the connection between being and non-being. And they found this connection in the will. — And remember how, in the new formulation, there is talk of the spirits of the will. In everything we have to say in the present, we are not seeking to echo the old, but the harmony arises quite naturally because truth has been sought there and truth is again being sought on our own ground.

And now, in the Bhagavad Gita, we encounter, as it were, the poetic glorification of the three spiritual currents just characterized. At a significant moment in world history, significant for that ancient time, we are presented with the great teaching that Krishna himself imparted to Arjuna. The moment is significant because it is the moment when the old blood ties are loosening. In everything that is now to be said in these lectures on the Bhagavad Gita, you must remember what has been emphasized over and over again: how blood ties, racial solidarity, and tribal solidarity had a very special meaning in ancient times and only gradually receded. Remember everything that is said in my writing: “Blood is a very special fluid.”

When these blood ties loosen, it is precisely through this loosening that the great battle described in the Mahabharata, of which the Bhagavad Gita is an episode, begins. There we see how the descendants of two brothers, who are still blood relatives, divide in terms of their spiritual orientations, how that which the blood had previously brought together as a unified view falls apart; and that is why the battle is there, because at this point of division the battle must arise, where the blood ties also lose their meaning for clairvoyant knowledge and with this division the later spiritual formation takes place. For those for whom the old blood ties have no meaning, Krishna appears as a great teacher. He must be the teacher of the new age that has emerged from the old blood ties. How he becomes the teacher, we will characterize tomorrow. But we can already say what the entire Bhagavad Gita shows us, how Krishna incorporates the three spiritual currents now characterized into his teaching. He imparts them to his disciple in organic unity. How must this disciple stand before us? He looks up on one side to his father and on the other to his father's brother. The siblings should no longer be close to each other; they should separate. But now another spiritual current should take hold of one line and the other. Arjuna's soul is stirred: What will happen when the bonds of blood that held everything together are no longer there? How can the soul find its place in spiritual life when this spiritual life can no longer flow as it did before, under the influence of the old bonds of blood? It seems to Arjuna that everything must fall apart. And that things must be different, that this must not happen, is the content of Krishna's great teaching.

Now Krishna shows his disciple, who is to live from one age into another, how the soul must take in something of all three spiritual currents if it is to become harmonious. We find the Vedic doctrine of unity correctly expressed in Krishna's teachings, as well as the essence of the Sankhya doctrine and the essence of yoga. For what actually lies behind all that we are yet to learn from the Bhagavad Gita? Krishna's proclamation is something like this: Yes, there is a creative word of the world which contains the creative principle itself. Just as the sound of a person's voice, when they speak, wafts through the air, interweaves it, and lives through it, so it wafts through all things, interweaves them, and lives through them, creating and ordering existence. Thus, the Vedic principle blows in all things. Thus, it can be taken up by human knowledge in human soul life. There is a ruling, weaving word of creation, and there is a reproduction of the ruling, weaving word of creation in the Vedic documents. The word is the creative force of the world; it reveals itself in the Vedas. That is one part of Krishna's teaching.

And the human soul is able to understand how the word lives out in the forms of being. Human knowledge learns the laws of being by understanding how the individual forms of being express the spiritual and soul nature in accordance with the laws. The teaching about the forms of the world, about the lawful structures of being, about the law of the world and its mode of operation, that is the Sankhya philosophy, the other side of Krishna's teaching. And just as Krishna makes it clear to his disciple that behind all being is the creative word of the world, so he makes it clear to him that human knowledge can recognize the individual forms, that is, can take in the laws of the world. The word of the world, the law of the world, reproduced in the Vedas, in Sankhya: this is what Krishna reveals to his disciple.

And he also speaks to him about the path that leads the individual disciple upward, where he can once again participate in the knowledge of the world word. Krishna also speaks of yoga. The teaching of Krishna is threefold: it is the teaching of the word, of the law, and of devotional surrender to the spirit.

Word, law, and devotion are the three streams through which the soul can undergo its development. These three streams will always act upon the human soul in some way. We have just seen how the newer spiritual science must seek these three streams in a newly defined way. But the ages are different, and what is the threefold world view is brought to the human soul in the most diverse ways. Krishna speaks of the world word, of the word of creation, of the shaping of being, of the devotional deepening of the soul, of yoga.

In another form, the same trinity appears to us again, only in a more concrete, more living way, in a being itself that is thought of as walking on earth, embodying the divine word of creation. The Vedas: abstractly brought to humanity. The divine Logos, of which the Gospel of John speaks: alive and the creative word itself! And what we encounter in Sankhya philosophy as the lawful understanding of the forms of the world: translated into history in the ancient Hebrew revelation, it is what Paul calls the law. And as faith in the risen Christ, the third element appears to us in Paul. What yoga is for Krishna is, for Paul, only translated into concrete terms, the faith that is to take the place of the law.

Thus, like the dawn of what later rose as the sun, there is the trinity: Veda, Sankhya, and Yoga. Veda reappears in the immediate essence of Christ himself, now entering concrete life in historical development, not pouring abstractly into the expanses of space and time, but as a single individuality, as the living Word. The law appears to us in Sankhya philosophy in that which shows us how the material basis, the Prakrit, develops down to the gross substance. The law reveals how the world came into being and how individual human beings develop within this world. This is expressed in ancient Hebrew jurisprudence, in all that is Mosaic law. Insofar as Paul points to this law of Hebrew antiquity, he points to Sankhya philosophy; insofar as he points to faith in the risen one, he shows the sun of that for which the dawn appeared in yoga.

Thus, in a peculiar way, what confronts us in the first elements as Veda, Sankhya, and Yoga arises. What confronts us as Veda appears in a new but now concrete form as the living Word from which everything is created and without which nothing of what has become is created, and yet which has become flesh in the course of time. Sankhya appears as the historical representation, as the lawful representation of how the world of the Elohim became the world of appearances, the world of gross materiality. Yoga is transformed into what Paul called “not I, but Christ in me”; that is, when the power of Christ permeates and absorbs the soul, man ascends to the heights of divinity.

Thus we see how the unified plan is present in world history, how the Oriental stands as a preparation, how what we encounter in more concrete forms in Pauline Christianity is already present in more abstract forms. We will see that it is precisely through grasping the connection between the great poetry of the Bhagavad Gita and the Pauline epistles that the deepest mysteries of what can be called the working of spirituality in the entire education of the human race will be revealed to us. Because we need to feel something so new in this new age, this newer age had to go beyond mere Greek culture and develop an understanding of what lies behind the first pre-Christian millennium, what we encounter there in the form of the Vedas, Sankhya, and yoga. And just as Raphael in art and Thomas Aquinas in philosophy had to turn back to Greek culture, so we will see how in our time a conscious balance must arise between what the present wants to achieve and what lies further back than Greek culture, reaching into the depths of Oriental antiquity. We can certainly allow these depths of Oriental antiquity to touch our souls if we consider the various intellectual currents in the wonderfully harmonious unity in which they confront us, in what Humboldt calls the greatest philosophical poem, the Bhagavad Gita.