The way of initiation  (translated) E-Book

by Rudolf Steiner

• Herausgeber: David De Angelis
• Kategorie: Ratgeber
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

In this practical age and because of the many various claims of the day, it is but natural that people, who hear of transcendentalism should at once ask the question: "How may we for ourselves know the truth of such statements?" Indeed, it is noticeable, as a characteristic of the majority, that they will accept nothing on faith, or mere "authority," but wish rather to rely entirely upon their own judgment. Therefore, when a mystic undertakes to explain something of the super physical nature of man, and of the destiny of the human soul and spirit before birth and after death, he is at once confronted with that fundamental demand. Such doctrine, they seem to think is important only when you have shown them the way by which they may convince themselves of its truth.

Leseprobe

CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. THE SUPERPHYSICAL WORLD AND ITS GNOSIS

CHAPTER 2. HOW TO ATTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE HIGHER WORLDS

CHAPTER 3. THE PATH OF DISCIPLESHIP

CHAPTER 4. PROBATION

CHAPTER 5. ENLIGHTENMENT

CHAPTER 6. INITIATION

CHAPTER 7. THE HIGHER EDUCATION OF THE SOUL

CHAPTER 8. THE CONDITIONS OF DISCIPLESHIP

CHAPTER 1. THE SUPERPHYSICAL WORLD AND ITS GNOSIS

In this practical age and because of the various claims of the day, it is natural that people who hear about transcendentalism immediately ask the question: "How can we know for ourselves the truth of such claims?" Indeed, it is characteristic of the majority that they do not accept anything by faith, or by mere 'authority', but rather wish to rely entirely on their own judgement. Therefore, when a mystic undertakes to explain something of the superphysical nature of man, and the fate of the human soul and spirit before birth and after death, he is immediately confronted with this fundamental question. This doctrine, they seem to think, is only important when you have shown them the way in which they can be convinced of its truth.

This critical enquiry is entirely justified; and no true mystic or occultist would dispute its correctness, yet it is unfortunate that among many of those who make this claim there exists a feeling of scepticism or antagonism towards the mystic or any attempt on his part to explain something occult. This feeling becomes particularly pronounced when the mystic intimates how the truths he has described can be attained. For they say: 'Everything that is true can be proved; therefore, prove to us what you assert'. They demand that truth be something clear and simple, something that an ordinary intellect can comprehend. "Surely," they add, "this knowledge cannot be the possession of a chosen few, to whom it is given by special revelation." And in this way the true messenger of transcendental truth is often faced with people who reject him, because - unlike the scientist, for example - he cannot produce evidence for his claims of a nature that can be understood. Again, there are those who cautiously reject any information about the super-physical because it does not seem reasonable to them. So they are partially content, claiming that we cannot know anything about what lies beyond birth or death, or about what cannot be perceived through our five ordinary physical senses.

These are just a few of the arguments and criticisms that the messenger of a spiritual philosophy is confronted with today; but they are similar to all those that make up the keynote of our time, and he who places himself at the service of a spiritual movement must clearly recognise this condition.

For his part, the mystic is aware that his knowledge rests on superphysical facts; which for him are just as tangible, for example, as those that form the basis of the experiences and observations described by a traveller in Africa or any foreign land. To the mystic applies what Annie Besant said in her textbook 'Death and After?

"An experienced African explorer would worry very little about criticism of his report from people who had never been there; he could recount what he had seen, describe the animals whose habits he had studied, sketch the country he had passed through, summarise its products and characteristics. If he were contradicted, mocked, put down, by inexperienced critics, he would neither be irritated nor distressed, but would simply leave them alone. Ignorance cannot convince knowledge with repeated assertions of its nescience. The opinion of a hundred people on a subject of which they are completely ignorant carries no more weight than the opinion of a single one. Evidence is strengthened by many willing witnesses, each testifying to his own knowledge of a fact, but nothing multiplied a thousand times remains nothing'.

The mystic's view of his own situation is expressed here. He hears the objections that are raised on all sides, but knows that for himself he has no need to contest them. He realises that his certain knowledge is criticised by those who have not had his experience, that he is in the position of a mathematician who has discovered a truth that cannot lose its value even if a thousand voices are raised in opposition.

Then again the objection of the sceptics will arise: "Mathematical truths can be proved by anyone," they will say, "and although you may have really found something, we will only accept it when we have learned its truth through our own investigation." They are then right to consider themselves in the right, for it is clear to them that anyone who acquires the necessary knowledge can prove a mathematical truth, whereas the experiences professed by the mystic, if true, depend on the special faculties of a chosen few mystics, in whom one is supposed to believe blindly.

For the one who rightly considers this objection, all justification for doubt immediately vanishes; and the mystic can here use the logical reasoning of the sceptics themselves, emphasising the truth that the path to Higher Knowledge is open to anyone who acquires for himself the faculties with which he can prove the spiritual truths claimed here. The mystic asserts nothing that his opponents would not also be compelled to assert, if only they fully understood their own claims. They do, however, in making an assertion, often make an assertion that is a direct contradiction of that assertion.

Sceptics are rarely willing to acquire the necessary faculties to verify the mystic's claims, but prefer to judge him on the spur of the moment, regardless of their lack of qualification. The sincere mystic tells them: "I do not claim to be 'chosen' in the sense you mean. I have simply developed in myself some of the additional senses of man to acquire the faculties through which it is possible to speak glimpses into the superphysical regions. These senses are dormant in you and every other person, until they are developed, (as is necessary with the more obvious senses and faculties in a child's growth). Yet her opponents reply, "You must prove your truths to us as we are now!" This at once appears a difficult task, because they have not conformed to the need to develop the powers dormant in them, they are not yet willing to do so, and yet they insist that he give them proofs; nor do they see that this is exactly as if a farmer at his plough demanded from the mathematician the proof of a complicated problem, without his undergoing the effort of learning mathematics.

This mixed mental condition seems to be so general and its solution so simple that one almost hesitates to talk about it. Yet it points to an illusion under which millions of people continue to live at present. When it is explained to them, they always agree in theory, since it is as clear as the fact that two and two make four, but in practice they always act in contradiction. Error has become second nature to many; they indulge in it without realising that they do so without wishing to be convinced of its error; just as they set themselves against other laws that they should and would at all times recognise as embodying a simpler principle of nature, if only they would give it impartial consideration. No matter whether the mystic of today moves among the thinking craftsmen or in a more educated circle, wherever he goes he encounters the same prejudice, the same self-contradiction. It is found in popular lectures, in newspapers and magazines, and even in the most learned works or treatises.

Here we must clearly recognise that we are dealing with a consensus of opinion that amounts to a sign of the times, which we cannot simply declare incompetent, nor treat as a criticism that is perhaps correct but unjust. We must understand that this prejudice against higher truths lies deep within the very being of our age. We must clearly understand that the great achievements, the immense progress that marks our time, necessarily encourages this condition. The 19th century, especially in this respect, had a dark side to its marvellous achievements. Its greatness was based on discoveries in the outside world and the conquest of natural forces for technical and industrial purposes. These successes could only be achieved through the use of the mind directed towards material results.

The civilisation of our times is the result of training our senses and that part of our mind that deals with the world of the senses. Almost every step we take in today's crowded markets shows us how much we owe to this training. And it is under the influence of these blessings of civilisation that the habits of thought, prevalent among our fellow human beings, have been developed. They continue to adhere to the senses and the mind, for it is through these that they have become great. Men were taught to train themselves to admit nothing as true except those things that were presented to them by their senses or intellect. And nothing is more apt to claim for itself the only valid testimony, the only absolute authority, than the mind or the senses. If a man has acquired through them a certain degree of culture, he is henceforth accustomed to subject everything to their consideration, everything to their criticism. And yet in another sphere, in the field of social life, we find a similar trait. The man of the 19th century insisted, in the fullest sense of the word, on absolute freedom of personality and repudiated any authority in the social commonwealth. He strove to build the community in such a way that the full independence, the self-chosen vocation of each individual was ensured without interference. In this way, it became habitual for him to consider everything from the point of view of the average individual.

This same individuality is also useful in the quest for knowledge on the spiritual plane, because the higher powers that lie dormant in the soul can be developed by one person in this direction and by another in that. One will make more progress, another less. But when they develop these powers, and value them, men begin to differentiate. Then the advanced pupil must be given more right to speak on the subject, or to act in a certain way, than another who is less advanced. This is more essential in matters of the higher realm than on the plane of the senses and the mind, where experiences are more similar.

It is also noted that the current formation of the social commonwealth has contributed to a revolt against the higher powers of man. According to the mystic, civilisation during the 19th century moved entirely along physical lines; and men became accustomed to moving only on the physical plane and feeling at home. Higher powers are only developed on planes higher than the physical, and the knowledge that these faculties bring is therefore unknown to the physical man. One only has to attend mass meetings to be convinced of the fact that speakers are totally incapable of thinking any thoughts except those that relate to the physical plane, the world of the senses. This can also be seen through the leading journalists in our newspapers and magazines; and, indeed, on all sides one can observe the fiercest and most complete denial of anything that cannot be seen with the eyes, or felt with the hands, or understood by the average mind. We do not condemn this attitude because it denotes a necessary stage in the development of humanity. Without pride and the prejudices of the mind and senses, we would never have achieved our great achievements in material life, nor would we have been able to give personality a certain measure of elasticity: nor can we hope that many ideals, which must be founded on man's desire for freedom and the affirmation of personality, can yet be realised.

But this dark side of a purely materialistic civilisation has deeply affected the whole being of modern man. To prove this, it is not necessary to refer to the obvious facts already mentioned; it would be easy to demonstrate, with a few examples (much underestimated, especially today), how deeply rooted in the mind of modern man is this adherence to the testimony of the senses, or of the average intelligence. And it is precisely these things that point to the need for a renewal of the spiritual life.

The strong response evoked by Babel and Professor Friedrich Delitzsch's theory of the Bible fully justifies a reference to its author's method of thinking as a sign of the times. Professor Delitzsch has demonstrated the relationship of certain Old Testament traditions to the Babylonian accounts of Creation, and this fact, coming from such a source and in such a form, has been understood by many who would otherwise have ignored such matters. It has led many to reconsider the so-called idea of Revelation. They ask: "How is it possible to accept the idea that the content of the Old Testament was revealed by God, when we find very similar conceptions among decidedly pagan nations?" This problem cannot be further discussed here. Delitzsch found many opponents who feared that the very foundations of religion had been shaken through his exposition. He defended himself in a pamphlet, Babel and the Bible, a retrospective and a forecast. Here we will only refer to a single statement in the pamphlet. It is important, because it reveals an eminent scientist's view of man's position on transcendental truths. And today countless other people think and feel just like Delitzsch. The statement offers an excellent opportunity for us to discover what is the innermost conviction of our contemporaries, expressed quite freely and thus in its truest form.

Delitzsch addresses those who reproach him for a somewhat liberal use of the term 'Revelation', and who would like to consider it as 'a kind of old priestly wisdom' that 'has nothing to do with the layman', making this response.

"For my part, I am of the opinion that while our children or ourselves are instructed in school or church about Revelation, we not only have the right, but it is our duty, to think independently about these profound questions, which also have, like them, an eminently practical side, if only we could avoid giving our children 'evasive' answers. Precisely for this reason, it will be gratifying for many truth-seekers when the dogma of Israel's special 'choice' has been brought into the light of a broader historical perspective, through the combination of Babylonian, Assyrian and Old Testament research .... For the rest, it would seem to me that the only logical thing would be for the Church and the School to be satisfied, as far as the entire past history of the world and mankind is concerned, with the belief in an Almighty Creator of Heaven and Earth, and for these Old Testament narratives to be classified by themselves under some title as 'Ancient Hebrew Myths'".