Angels E-Book

Rudolf Steiner

• Herausgeber: Rudolf Steiner Press
• Kategorie: Ratgeber
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013

Seitenzahl: 302

Beschreibung

Religious and spiritual writings have always made reference to beings from the spiritual hierarchies, especially those known in Christian tradition as Angels. These spirits are the closest to human beings and act as our invisible guides and companions. They influence the life of the individual as well as the evolution of humanity and the cosmos.From his own clairvoyant vision Rudolf Steiner confirmed the existence of such spiritual beings, and showed how modern minds could gain access to their world. As he explains in these inspiring lectures, it is important for us to understand and cooperate with the work of the Angels today as this is crucial for the further development of humanity.

Leseprobe

RUDOLF STEINER (1861-1925) called his spiritual philosophy ‘anthroposophy’, meaning ‘wisdom of the human being’. As a highly developed seer, he based his work on direct knowledge and perception of spiritual dimensions. He initiated a modern and universal ‘science of spirit’, accessible to anyone willing to exercise clear and unprejudiced thinking.

From his spiritual investigations Steiner provided suggestions for the renewal of many activities, including education (both general and special), agriculture, medicine, economics, architecture, science, philosophy, religion and the arts. Today there are thousands of schools, clinics, farms and other organizations involved in practical work based on his principles. His many published works feature his research into the spiritual nature of the human being, the evolution of the world and humanity, and methods of personal development. Steiner wrote some 30 books and delivered over 6,000 lectures across Europe. In 1924 he founded the General Anthroposophical Society, which today has branches throughout the world.

Angels

Selected lectures by

Rudolf Steiner

Translated by Anna Meuss

RUDOLF STEINER PRESS

Compiled and edited by Wolf-Ulrich Kliinker

Rudolf Steiner PressHillside House, The SquareForest Row, East SussexRH18 5ES

www.rudolfsteinerpress.com

Published by Rudolf Steiner Press 2012

Originally published in German under the title Vom Wirken der Engel undanderer hierarchischer Wesenheiten by Verlag Freies Geistesleben,Stuttgart, in 1991

© Verlag Freies Geistesleben 1991This translation © Rudolf Steiner Press 1996

All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the priorpermission of the publishers

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN 978 185584 273 1

Cover by Andrew MorganTypeset by DP Photosetting, Aylesbury, Bucks.

Contents

Introduction by Wolf-Ulrich Klünker(English by Matthew Barton, edited by Anna Meuss)

I SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND HUMAN INDIVIDUALITY

1 The Work of the Angel in our Astral BodyZurich, 9 October 1918(English by Pauline Wehrle, edited by Anna Meuss)

2 Three Encounters between the Human Soul andSpirits of the UniverseBerlin, 20 February 1917

3 The Shaping of our Destiny in Sleep and in theWaking StateBern, 6 April 1923

4 The Human Being’s Relationship to his Angeland to the Higher HierarchiesOslo, 27 November 1921

II SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES IN HUMAN EVOLUTION

1 Angels, Spirits of Nations, Spirits of the TimesOslo, 7 June 1910

2 The Michael Impulse and the Mystery of GolgothaDornach, 18 May 1913(English by Johanna Collis)

3 Spiritual Entities Seen through the AgesDornach, 4 January 1924

III SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AS COSMIC REALITY

1 The Third and Second HierarchiesHelsingfors, 6 April 1912

2 The First Hierarchy and the Divine TrinityHelsingfors, 7 April 1912

3 Future Jupiter ExistenceDomach, 3 January 1915(English by Pauline Wehrle, revised by Johanna Collis and Anna Meuss)

Notes

Sources of the Lectures

Further reading

Publisher’s Note

Introduction

by Wolf-Ulrich Klünker

In Divisiones Naturae (categories of nature), the chief work of the ninth-century Irish philosopher Johannes Scotus Erigena, we find the interesting statement: ‘It is not without reason that we may believe and recognise that the incarnation of the Word of God is of as much service to the Angels as it is to man. To man it brought salvation and self-regeneration, to the Angels understanding and knowledge’.1 The ‘incarnation of the Word of God’—that is to say, Christ becoming man—has significance for both human beings and Angels. Erigena took this as self-evident. Our modern age, in contrast, sees Christ only in reference to humanity. In the ninth century it was obviously possible for people to understand the connection between themselves and the Angels in a quite different way. In the passage quoted above it is clear that Christ brought salvation to a fallen humanity, which, as a result, regained the possibility of freedom. The Angels, on the other hand, were neither redeemed nor restored to their original nature, but gained a different and higher form of knowledge.

The connection between the Angels and ourselvesWhat, then, is the difference which Erigena points to, between the Angels and ourselves? It is immediately clear that Angels have knowledge and understanding whereas we are in need of salvation and regeneration. The event which leads to our redemption serves to broaden and enrich the understanding and knowledge of Angels. We are not redeemed and regenerated only in the realm of our understanding and spiritual nature, but also in our bodies and souls. Christ’s incarnation renews us in body, soul and spirit and we are able to recover from sickness, from entanglements at soul level and lack of perception. Only the latter applies in the case of the Angels. In the angelic world—and this is the first, salient, feature of the relationship between the Angels and ourselves—changes that may take shape at the physical or soul level in humans appear only at the level of perception, of the spirit. To gain access to angelic regions we need to learn to transpose human experience into spiritual phenomena. The realm of spirit is the only reality known to Angels. In this respect we are different from, yet also united with, Angels: we are different because we do not dwell solely in a realm of knowledge and understanding, but we are the same in so far as everything we experience in body and soul can become spiritual reality in angelic regions.

Johannes Scotus Erigena refers to this in the following passage: ‘God lives only within human and angelic nature, through which alone a perception of truth may be vouchsafed. We should not consider these two natures to be like two houses, but like a single house built of two spiritual materials.’2 ‘Nature’ in this context signifies ‘essence’. The difference between the two is made clear; yet it is also apparent that they are related to each other; they are ‘neighbours’. They live in ‘a single house’, so that they meet all the time. Their proximity lies in the fact that they both perceive truth and can therefore gain knowledge and understanding. Nevertheless they are not identical in nature; Erigena describes them as ‘two spiritual (intelligibiles) materials’. The human being has capacities of mental and spiritual perception like the Angel. But these appear in another form in him since he also has a body and a soul.

Some 250 years after Erigena, Alanus ab Insulis, a teacher in the School of Chartres in the twelfth century, described the difference between Angels and human beings in more detail. In Quoniam Homines he showed that we are not, by nature, equal to Angels in our understanding and perception, but can become so: ‘Tradition has it that in time to come belief will be superseded by knowledge, by certain perception. Understanding will no longer be obscure and indistinct as it is in our times.’ He then clarified what he meant by ‘knowledge’ (sci-entia): ‘Knowledge is perception of the truth of things with inner accord, recognising their origins and causes.’3 The indication is that human faculties of perception will change and that belief will be superseded by knowledge—an unheard-of assertion that was no doubt deeply shocking to the late twelfth-century attitude of mind, founded as it was so thoroughly on belief. For Alanus, this new faculty of perception would be ‘certain’ and therefore ‘science’, a term to be taken in a wider sense than we usually do today. It would be marked by ‘inner accord’ with what is perceived and by insight into its ‘origins and causes’. This goes back to Aristotle. The human being would inwardly unite himself with the object of his perception, grasping it not only as it presents itself, but also in its origin and evolution. Alanus implies quite clearly that we shall be equal to the Angels when we achieve this mode of perception, suggesting a connection between the evolution of our faculties and our relationship to the higher hierarchies.

Knowing the AngelsTwo generations later Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) made reference to the Gospel of Matthew (22, 30) with the words: ‘To man is promised nothing less than equality with the Angels.’4 Thomas thus also looked forward to a future stage of human evolution when we will have attained both the understanding and the mode of existence of Angels. He continued: ‘The philosophers have taught that man’s greatest happiness consists in thinking the beings that are separated from matter.’5 ‘Beings separated from matter’ (substantiae separatae a materia) was the term used in philosophy for Angels, since they have no direct connection with the material world.

The importance of this statement becomes clear when we consider a further passage from the same text: ‘In the realms which are separated from matter, the one who thinks is not different from what is thought.’6 Thomas here refers to a statement in Aristotle’s De Anima (book of the soul). The ‘realms which are separated from matter’ are angelic realms of existence, in which the process of perception and the object of perception cannot be distinguished: there is no separation between thinking subject and the object thought. Referring this passage back to the statement about ‘man’s greatest happiness’, which consists in perceiving and thinking of angelic realms, we arrive at the following: when we attain knowledge and understanding of these realms, we enter a domain in which we become one with the object of perception. Knowledge of the Angels leads us therefore to being Angel-like ourselves. Knowledge and mode of existence here become one. To put it another way: when we develop to the point where we perceive in thought the essential nature of Angels, they are no longer an ‘outer’ object of understanding—we are transformed to be like unto the Angels. We become one with the Angels to the degree in which we learn to perceive and know them. This is, of course, only true in respect of our perceptive, spiritual existence; in our body and soul existence we remain different from the Angels, who are unembodied.

How can we attain angelic perception? In his Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas offers three possible answers to this question, based on three different approaches in the history of philosophy. First he describes the position of Platonism: ‘Plato holds that non-material beings are not only perceived and recognised by us, but that they also are what we first encounter. He asserts that the non-material, self-perpetuating forms which he names “ideas” are the true constituents of our spirit: it is for this reason that they are the first to be perceived by us, through their own original existence. According to him the soul directs its perception towards material things because the spirit is interfused with mental concepts and sensory perception. Therefore the more the spirit is purified, the more it will grasp the non-material, spiritual world.’7

This is how Thomas Aquinas characterizes the Platonic view at the point of contact between human and Angel spirit. He points out that Plato sees the ‘non-material beings’—in other words, the Angels—as the original and ultimate object of human knowledge. But since the human spirit is not pure, mingled as it is with sensory perception and earthly concepts, we cannot perceive higher beings as a matter of course. When the mind and spirit frees itself from such earth-bound concerns, however, it may perceive these beings with the greatest clarity. It is clear that Plato hardly makes any distinction between human spirit and Angel. If we succeed in freeing ourselves from earthly perceptions and mental concepts, we can, in this view, perceive the angelic spirit as being of the same nature as ourselves, recognising in it our own ideal form of existence.

Thomas then wrote of the position taken by Aristotle: ‘But according to Aristotle, who better substantiates our own experience, the human mind and spirit has a natural inclination towards the essence of material things. It therefore perceives nothing without having mental concepts about it. Thus it is clear that we cannot gain knowledge of non-material beings—who do not come under sensory perception and mental concepts—by the mode of knowledge which is innate in us.’8 Thomas’s summary of the Aristotelian position is therefore as follows: under earthly circumstances and conditions we can only gain knowledge through sensory perceptions of worldly things and from this develop mental concepts, for example as memories. We then reflect on such sensory impressions and concepts, deriving our knowledge from them. In earthly existence we have, in this view, a certain kind of knowledge which cannot serve us in the perception of higher beings; for these do not inhabit the world perceptible to the senses, nor are they accessible to our concepts. It is apparent that Thomas inclined more to the Aristotelian position. He believed the human spirit to be differently structured from the Angel spirit and therefore having separate and independent existence in regard to it. This means, however, that initially Angels are beyond the reach of human perception.

Finally, Thomas Aquinas sets beside these views the tenets of the twelfth-century Arab philosopher Averroes, commentator on Aristotle, who was a very significant figure in the Christendom of the Middle Ages. The position taken by Averroes could be seen as a third possibility for viewing the relationship between human spirit and Angel, and was indeed adopted by many thinkers of the time. Yet to Thomas it seemed dangerous: ‘Averroes has asserted that it is possible, in this life, to perceive the beings separated from matter if one such being connects or becomes united with us; he terms such a being an “active spirit”. Being a spiritual being the “active spirit” can of course perceive other spiritual beings. When it unites fully with us, so that we perceive fully through it, we can also perceive the beings separated from matter.’9 The implications of this position are as follows: we do not attain to individual spiritual existence by means of such development, but partake of a cosmic angelic spirit. Such an angelic spirit is naturally in a position to recognise other angelic spirits. In this view we do not perceive the Angels in our capacity as human spirits, but by becoming Angels in spirit. We would then only perceive higher beings by forfeiting our individual human spirit. The position of Averroes is noticeably similar to that of Plato, though it originates in Aristotle.

Spiritual self-knowledge and knowledge of the AngelsThomas Aquinas refuted the views of Averroes at great length. He believed that we should perceive the Angels by means of applied thinking, rather than through some convergence with a cosmic Angel spirit which ‘has been conjectured by some people’. Thomas spoke of developing a perception of spiritual beings through the ‘speculative sciences’; these may lead to recognition of higher spirits by way of self-knowledge. Building on the views of Aristotle, he came to the conclusion that the study and knowledge of the human soul was a sure foundation for perceiving higher spirits. ‘For by gaining knowledge of itself, our soul also attains knowledge, to some degree, of the unembodied spirits, in so far as this is possible: it does not perceive them directly and completely, but only through its own self-perception.’10

The human spirit is not, according to this view, identical with the Angels; it is, rather, human and individual. That is why we cannot ‘perceive them directly and completely’. The human soul can draw near to the Angels by gaining spiritual self-knowledge. One could add that the human spirit resides within the human soul and is therefore differently constituted from the Angel spirit which does not inhabit either a soul or body. The spirit can only become individualised through uniting with a body and soul.

According to Thomas, we should develop individuality of spirit; for him, this was quite different from overcoming earthly conditions and uniting with the angelic spirit. He believed that the right way forward for perceiving higher beings was to develop a ‘science of the soul’, by means of which we can know ourselves spiritually. He saw this standpoint of the individuality of the human spirit as being in the Aristotelian tradition. He was opposed to the views of Averroes because they related perception of Angels to cosmic rather than individual human spirituality. Again drawing on Aristotle, he spoke of a way of knowledge composed of two elements: the human spirit’s self-knowledge within the soul, and, founded upon it, the perception of higher spiritual beings.

Such a conception was ahead of its time. In the Middle Ages only the first hints existed of any attempt to develop a ‘science of the soul’ and approach the higher hierarchies through active thinking. It was not until the advent of anthroposophical spiritual science that this could be continued and expanded. Rudolf Steiner’s accounts of the higher hierarchies invariably presuppose the spiritual individuality of human beings—without, however, losing sight of the fact that we are not yet spiritually individual, but can become so through self-development. As such, the views of Rudolf Steiner on the Angel hierarchies follow on from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. Yet there is no directly continued, philologically proven tradition at work here; it is rather a spiritual inheritance which has resurfaced in quite new and different historical circumstances.

The human being is capable of emancipating himself from the sphere of cosmic spirituality; he can become independent in spirit. However, by so doing he risks losing his awareness of spiritual reality. This is, in actual fact, what has happened; through our emancipation and development towards independence we have grown distant from the higher hierarchies. We cannot usefully bridge this separation by attempting to re-establish old forms of relationship, which would endanger our spiritual independence. It was Rudolf Steiner’s concern to show ways in which we can know ourselves spiritually and so develop spiritual individuality, thus establishing a quite new relationship to the angelic sphere of reality.

New ways of approaching the AngelsTraditions of belief or theology cannot help us if we are to attain knowledge of the reality of higher beings through spiritual self-development and independence. Adherence to any such tradition would hinder our spiritual freedom, as would any categorized teaching or doctrine about the higher hierarchies. Although Rudolf Steiner occasionally made reference to the fifth-century teachings of Dionysius the Areopagite on the hierarchies, he never made them the basis of his descriptions. He would sometimes use the same terms as Dionysius for distinguishing different realms of higher beings—three hierarchies, each consisting of three orders— but his approach was very different and he did not generally use the Dionysian terminology.

Rudolf Steiner’s descriptions do not form a doctrine; this would be antagonistic to a new knowledge of the Angels based on our spiritual individuality. They illumine a path rather than asserting a truth. It is apparent, however, that our ordinary thinking is not capable of attaining angelic reality; it needs to be transformed in order to do so. This is possible when it is activated in spiritual self-knowledge. Such self-knowledge is different and individual in each and every person; and the thinking which serves it remains individual when it reaches out to attain knowledge of other spiritual beings. This is the reason why doctrines of the higher hierarchies no longer have any place. The individuality of self-knowledge must pass over into this thought-illumined realm of spiritual reality. Thomas Aquinas’ description of the unity of thinking and object in the realm of the higher hierarchies can be understood in the same way.

A second foundation and safeguard for the independence of human knowledge in the realm of higher hierarchies is that thinking which attains to the sphere of the Angels must always be self-aware. It cannot give its full attention only to the realm or object of its focus but must also retain conscious awareness of its own activity. Activity and object of perception belong indivisibly together in the realm of higher beings. If our thinking is directed only to the object of knowledge we can achieve merely an image of the higher hierarchies rather than their full reality. If, however, we simultaneously consider and include in our perception the activated power of our thinking in each moment, the image can become reality. Finally, we also become aware of a significant characteristic of spiritual self-knowledge—the fact that it is in a continual process of development. We do not know ourselves spiritually as we are, but as we evolve. Thinking that enters the realm of the Angels perceives itself as being in continual evolution.

Until our present time the conscious human mind could not gain access to the higher hierarchies by means of thinking. It is really only since the advent of the modern age that we have gradually begun to develop spiritual independence. A necessary part of this development has been our loss of awareness of the higher beings. If this had not occurred we would not have been able to stand upon our own two feet in our perception and knowledge; we would have continued to experience ourselves as spiritually dependent on the Angels— as was the case in the early Middle Ages. The fact that it is, in our day, increasingly difficult to experience their reality can be seen as a necessary step on the path towards ultimately perceiving them in independence of spirit. Rudolf Steiner’s perception of the hierarchies comes to us at a moment in the development of human thinking when it begins to be possible once more to gain access to the reality of the sphere of the Angels.

To sum up, we need to consider our own thinking in two ways when seeking knowledge of the angelic realm: our thinking must always be aware of itself; it must also be capable of grasping the significance of its own transformation throughout human spiritual evolution. A person who has become spiritually independent has a different relationship to the Angels than was possible in an older form of consciousness. At the same time the reality of the Angel realm has altered for human beings; for in the domain of higher beings, thinking and the object of thought cannot be separated from one another.

From finished creation to creative powerWe have seen how the connection between humanity and the higher hierarchies has altered as the human mind and spirit evolved. Strictly speaking, we can no longer talk of a relationship between humanity and higher beings, but only of one formed between them and an individual person. The reality of the hierarchies is now, and will be in the future, founded on spiritual individuality. In regard to the Angel, the individual person, like the whole of humanity, is involved in continual evolution and development. Such evolution and movement allows nothing to remain still or finished and is the distinct characteristic of spiritual reality. In this perspective everything is seen in a process of becoming rather than in a state of completion. We must see ourselves, too, as developing rather than finished spiritual beings; only then can we draw near to the higher hierarchies. The task of our new capacity for knowledge is to complete the transition from perceiving what has become, what is finished creation, to knowing the world as a process of becoming. Then we can also begin to perceive what is actively at work as the origin and source of both. Such a source could also be described as a power working invisibly behind the finished world.

Initially, our human consciousness is aware only of this finished world. Through our senses we perceive phenomena which appear definite and complete; both in the realms of nature and in our social conditions we encounter apparently immutable facts and circumstances. We observe things as they are, not as they may become. We even tend to observe ourselves and others as we are at present rather than looking for as yet undeveloped potential. However, we can only grow conscious of spiritual reality by shifting our perception from finished to developing creation. Spiritual self-knowledge becomes possible only when we become aware of our own spiritual evolution. Then we can free ourselves from a widespread and tenacious dependence on the past without rejecting it wholesale; our past can become the foundation for what we may become in the future. Much the same would apply to our relationship to other human beings and to the world of nature.

We then need to make the further transition from a perception of processes of becoming to perception of the power and forces which cause and are at work within them. This means that one becomes aware of a spiritual individuality in oneself, the source and power which brings about one’s own spiritual development. Such a transition, accomplished through oneself as a spiritual being, opens doors for us to the realms of the higher hierarchies, which are at work within the world we inhabit.

These two forms of transition are not as easy to accomplish as one might imagine. We are all bound up with the finished world through the force of deep-seated habit. We invariably tend to perceive facts rather than processes This can have catastrophic results in our relationship to nature. A factual thinking which relates only to what is already present can only come into play when something has ‘occurred’; it cannot appraise future potential. In the realm of interpersonal relationships, such thinking becomes increasingly problematic. If we take account only of another person or a group as they appear to us in the present, not as they might become, we very soon have to face a breakdown in social relations. This is most obvious in the field of education, although it holds good for all areas of life. Education that recognizes only a child’s present attributes and not his or her capacity for future development is doomed to failure.

Through practice one can gradually learn to perceive the reality of processes of becoming. This provides the basis for ultimate recognition of the forces at work within them. I would like, in conclusion, to clarify this second transition by a further reference taken from the work of Thomas Aquinas, one which also sheds light on our relationship with the Angels. In his Summation of Theology, Thomas asks how we should imagine the Angels’ relationship to space. One answer is: ‘It has been said that the Angel can, in certain respects, be present at a physical location by directing its power towards it ... a non-physical being which through its power has contact with a physical thing, holds it and is not held by it... therefore it is said that the Angel resides at a physical location as upholder, not as one upheld.’12

The Angel, then, is not present at a particular place in a spatial sense, but by directing its power towards this place. Its power ‘holds’ the things of that place; this does not mean ‘holding fast to’, but rather a spiritual configuring of the place with the help of the things present in it. The Angel ‘holds’ a particular place by using its power to configure and uphold it. In contrast, objects perceived by the senses are ‘held’ rather than ‘holding’. They are dependent on location, which determines their appearance and constitution. One can observe this in the dependence of a plant on its habitat. The Angels, on the other hand, are not determined by, but determine the place of their activity. In contrast to all physical things, the Angel is ‘not circumscribed (by space) ... but encompasses it.’13 We can glean from this passage how we might pass from a defined and ‘finished’ perception of nature to an awareness of its ‘becoming’ and ultimately of the creative power at work within it.

The lectures selected for this volumeThe three sections of this book deal with three spheres of activity of higher beings: human individuality, human evolution and cosmic reality. Some of the lecture titles were taken from the Complete Edition of the works of Rudolf Steiner, others were newly formulated. This selection cannot claim to represent all aspects of the higher hierarchies addressed by Rudolf Steiner; each section, nevertheless, tries to illuminate as broad a spectrum as possible within the given theme. Some lectures are taken from series of lectures whose overall content determines the particular perspective. In such a case, as also with individual lectures, it is the complete context and the whole view which is important, rather than isolated statements. The reader will therefore need to find his way to an understanding of the whole direction and context of each separate lecture. The lectures taken from a series were selected so as to allow such an understanding without presupposing familiarity with the whole series.

The practice of comprehending a complete context rather than isolated statements is an essential one: it is not an additional activity, separate from ‘normal’ reading, but fundamental to understanding. What is decisive in this process is the initial intention of keeping the context in mind; this enables one to have a different kind of understanding than is possible by simply connecting separate statements as one goes along. It is less important whether one gains an immediate insight into the context or not; this is likely only to be a question of time, as with all meditative practice. Many passages which might appear problematic in isolation can be understood within their context. Many apparent ‘contradictions’ between statements in different lectures, for example, will be resolved by reference to the varying perspectives they offer. The intricate realms of reality of the higher hierarchies cannot be illumined by individual definitive statements.

In fact, Rudolf Steiner’s descriptions of higher beings can encourage us to extend our focused consciousness, enlarge it to a contextual understanding. The first step in this process would involve re-reading a lecture many times, allowing a gap between each reading during which one would recall its content in quiet contemplation. Then one could continue by building up an inner picture of the relationship between two lectures in the same section of this volume. Later on one might attempt to do this with all the lectures in one section. Having done this with the three separate sections of the book, one might finally relate these sections to each other. Anyone who would also like to occupy himself with the ‘whole’ context of Rudolf Steiner’s observations on the hierarchies should refer especially to Occult Science—an Outline14 and Spiritual Guidance of the Individual and Humanity.15 The latter deals particularly with the theme of spiritual hierarchies and human individuality while the former is more concerned with the themes addressed in sections 2 and 3 of this volume—spiritual hierarchies in human evolution and spiritual hierarchies as cosmic reality.

I. SPIRITUAL HIERARCHIES AND HUMAN INDIVIDUALITY

1. The Work of the Angel in our Astral Body

Zurich, 9 October 1918

Anthroposophical understanding of the spirit must be a leaven, a real power in life, and not merely a theoretical view of life. It can really only fulfil its mission if we develop the inner powers that allow it to come fully alive in us. Connecting with the anthroposophical conception of the spirit we become custodians, as it were, of quite specific, significant processes in human evolution.

Whatever their view of the world, people are generally convinced that thoughts and ideas have no place in it, except as the contents of their own souls. People who hold such views believe that thoughts and ideas as ideals are only embodied in the world to the extent that a person succeeds in implementing them by his physical actions.

The anthroposophical approach asks us to accept that thoughts and ideas must also find other ways of coming to realization. Recognition of this essential principle implies that anthroposophists must play their part in watching out for the signs of the times. A great deal is happening all the time in world evolution; and it falls to human beings, particularly those of our own time, to acquire real understanding of the world events in which they are involved.

We know that with individual human beings account must be taken of their stage of development as well as external events around them. Just think, putting it very crudely, that events are now happening around individuals who are 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 or 70 years of age. No one in their senses would expect the same reaction from 5-, 10-, 20-, 50- and 70-year-olds. The way people may be expected to react to their environment can only be determined by taking account of their stage of development. Everyone will admit this to be true in the individual case.

Just as there are definite stages in individual development, with the nature of our powers and faculties different in childhood, mid-life and old age, so are the powers and faculties humanity has as a whole always changing in the course of evolution.

Failing to take note of the fact that the character of twentieth-century humanity differs from that of humanity in the fifteenth century, let alone before and at the time of the Mystery of Golgotha, is to sleep through the process of world evolution. One of the greatest defects, one of the principal sources of error and confusion in our time, is the failure to take note of this, thinking in terms of abstract generalization of individuals or of humanity, with no need to know that humanity is in a process of evolution.

The question is, how can we gain fuller insight into these things? As you know, we have often spoken of one important phase in human evolution. The Graeco-Latin period of civilisation, from the eighth century bc to approximately the fifteenth century, was the period when the intellectual or mind soul evolved. Development of the spiritual soul has been in progress from the fifteenth century, a factor in human evolution that concerns our own time in particular. We know that the paramount factor in human evolution from the fifteenth century to the beginning of the fourth millennium is the spiritual soul.

In a true science of the spirit we must never stop at generalizations and abstractions. Always and in all places we must endeavour to grasp the real situation. Abstractions will at most satisfy our curiosity in the ordinary sense of the word. To make the science of the spirit the leaven and essential power in our life we must be profoundly serious rather than curious, and not stop at such abstractions. It is both true and important that living in the age of the spiritual soul we must take special account of its development; but we must not stop there.

To gain a clear conception of these things we must above all consider the nature of man himself in greater detail. In terms of the science of the spirit, the aspects of the human being, from above down, are ego, astral body, ether body—which I have more recently also called the body of generative forces— and physical body. The ego is the only one of these in which we live and function in soul and spirit. It has been given to us through Earth evolution and the Spirits of Form who direct it. Essentially everything that enters into conscious awareness does so through the ego. If the ego did not evolve in a way that allows it to remain connected with the outside world—even just indirectly, through the astral, ether and physical bodies— we would have as little conscious awareness as we have during sleep. It is the ego which connects us with our environment; the astral body is the legacy of the Old Moon evolution that preceded Earth evolution, the ether body of Old Sun evolution, the physical body, in its first rudiments, of Old Saturn evolution.

If you study the description of these bodies in Occult Science—An Outline,14