Donate books to help fund our work. Learn more→

The Rudolf Steiner Archive

a project of Steiner Online Library, a public charity

Wonders of the World, Ordeals of the Soul, Revelations of the Spirit
GA 129

23 August 1911, Munich

6. The ego-nature and the human form. Dionysos and his band of followers.

We have devoted much attention in these lectures to a subject that arose out of the dramatic performances which preceded them, but it is a subject which is intimately bound up with the aim we have set before us in this year's Cycle. I am referring to the world of the Greek gods and the form it took. Since our actual subject is ‘Wonders of the World, Ordeals of the Soul and Revelations of the Spirit’, why should we have spent so much time talking about the world of the Greek gods? The reason is that such a study can provide—as well as much else—the basis we need for a spiritual-scientific study of the world. I have pointed out that the concept of nature and natural existence which is generally accepted today was quite unknown to the ancient Greek. If we call to mind what the thought and feeling of ancient Greece was really like, we find there no chemical, physical, biological laws as we understand them today. What lit up in the soul of the ancient Greek, what was enkindled in the spirit of this marvellous Greek civilisation when the eye (clairvoyant or otherwise) was directed upon the wonders of the world, presented itself to them as a kind of knowledge, a kind of wisdom; but for us it is the marvellous structure of their world of gods. Anyone who looks upon this world as having no inner coherence, which is the usual attitude, knows nothing of what it is trying to express. This world of the Greek gods, in its wisdom-filled structure, is actually the Greek reply to the question ‘What is the response of the human soul to wonders of the world?’ The Greek response to the riddle of the world was not a law of nature as we understand it, but the shaping forth of some group or other of divine beings or divine forces. Hence in these wonderful clues we have followed up in the last few lectures, and which we sometimes found so astonishing, but which, pieced together, give us the world of the Greek gods, we cannot help seeing the equivalent of our own dry-as-dust, prosaic, abstract wisdom. And if we want to make real progress in Spiritual Science we must acquire a feeling that it is possible to think and feel in an entirely different manner from the modern way.

But when in the last lecture we were considering the figure of Dionysos, our attention was drawn to yet another thing. While the rest of the gods represent what was reflected in the soul of the Greek when he tried to understand the wonders of the world, we found that in the figure of Dionysos the Greek has concealed what we might call the inherent contradiction of life, and we shall get no further unless we give some thought to this aspect. Abstract logic, abstract intellectual thinking, is always trying to discover inconsistencies in higher world-conceptions, and then to say, ‘This world-conception is full of inconsistencies, it cannot therefore be accepted as valid.’ The truth is, however, that life is full of contradictions, indeed nothing new, no development would be possible unless contradiction lay in the very nature of things. For why is the world different today from what it was yesterday? Why does anything become, why does not everything remain as it was? It is because yesterday there was a self-contradictory element in the state of things, and today's new state has arisen through the realisation of yesterday's contradiction and its overcoming. No one who sees things as they really are can say, ‘Falsehood is detected by proving contradiction’ ... for contradiction is inherent in reality. What would the human soul be like if it were free from contradictions? Whenever we look back at the course of our life we see that it has been activated by contradictions. If at some later date we are more perfect than we were earlier, it has come about because we have got rid of our earlier condition, because we have discovered our earlier state to be in contradiction to our own inner nature, and thus have called forth a reality of our own inner being in contradiction to what was. Contradiction is everywhere at the basis of all beings. Particularly when we study the entire man, the four-fold man, as we are accustomed to treat of him in the light of occultism, do we find this contradiction, a contradiction which addresses itself not only to our reason, to our philosophy, but to our hearts, to our whole soul-nature.

We must constantly remind ourselves of the fundamental basis of our Spiritual Science, that man as he stands before us consists of physical body, ether body, astral body and ego. Our being consists of these four members. Let us look at them as they meet us to begin with on the physical plane, in the physical world. We will for the present ignore the question as to how the human being appears to clairvoyant sight, we will just ask how the four members of the human being appear to physical eyes, for the physical world. Let us begin with the innermost member of the human being, the ego, which as you know we regard as the youngest—or better call it ‘the ego- bearer’. The outstanding characteristic of this human ego occurs at once to anyone who studies the world with even a little intelligence. However widely we search, we shall never find this ego by the exercise of our physical senses, by exercising our faculties for knowledge of the physical world. It is not visible to our eyes, nor in any way perceptible to any faculty for acquiring knowledge of the outer world. Hence when we meet another man, if we only try to study him physically, with purely physical instruments, if we do not enlist the help of the clairvoyant eye, we can never observe his ego. We go about among men, but with organs of perception for the outer world we do not see their egos. If anyone thinks he can see egos he is utterly deceiving himself. With physical faculties for acquiring knowledge of external things we cannot observe the ego as such; we can only contemplate its manifestation through the organs of the physical body. A man may be inwardly a thoroughly untruthful person, but so long as he does not utter the lie so that it passes over into the external world, we cannot see it in his ego, because egos cannot be observed with external physical instruments. Thus, however far we go in investigating with the forces of physical knowledge, we only encounter this ego once. Although we know quite well that there are many egos upon the Earth, only one of them is to be perceived, and that is our own. In the physical world, or for physical instruments of knowledge, each man has only one opportunity of perceiving the ego, that is his own ego. So that we may say that the peculiarity of this youngest and highest member of the human being is that its existence, its reality, is capable of being perceived in one example only, in ourselves. The egos of all other men are hidden from us within their bodily sheaths.

From this ego, as the innermost, as the youngest, but also the highest member of the human being, let us now turn to the outermost member, to the physical body. As you know from things I have written or said on various occasions in recent years, the physical body can only be known in its true inner being to clairvoyant consciousness. To ordinary consciousness, to the physically based powers of physical knowledge, the physical body manifests itself only as maya or illusion. When we meet a man, what we see as his physical body is maya, illusion. But there are as many instances of this illusion of a physical body as there are men to be met with on Earth. And in this respect—as maya—our own body is just like that of other men. Thus there is a great difference between the perception of our own ego, of which only one example is given, and the perception of human physical bodies, of which we have as many examples as the people we know on Earth. We only learn to know the ego when we direct our physical faculty of knowledge upon ourselves. We have to look into ourselves with the power of knowledge which we have acquired upon the physical plane if we wish to learn to know our ego.

I should perhaps add, because there is so much unclear thinking, that what I mean by the ego which we perceive with our physical powers of knowledge belongs entirely to the physical world. It would be idle nonsense to say that what a man's normal faculties find within him as his ego ever belongs to any other world than the physical. If anyone were to consider the ego, observed not with clairvoyant but with normal faculties, as belonging to any other world than that of the physical plane, he would be making a mistake. In the higher worlds things look quite different; the ego too for clairvoyant consciousness is something very different from what man finds within him in normal consciousness. We must not think of the ego of which ordinary psychology and ordinary science speak as belonging to anything but the physical plane; only we are looking at it from within, and because we stand within it, as it were, because we do not confront it from the outside, we are able to say: ‘Admittedly we learn to know this ego upon the physical plane only, but we do at least learn to know it in its own inner being, by direct knowledge, whereas what we know of the physical body, of which we see so many specimens in the world, is only maya.’ For as soon as the faculty of clairvoyance is turned upon the physical body it dissolves like a cloud, vanishes away, reveals itself as maya. And if we wish to get to know the physical body in its true form we have to rise, not just to the astral plane but to the highest region of Spirit- land, to Devachan; thus a clairvoyance of a very high order is needed if we wish to learn to know the physical body in its true form. Here below, in the physical world, the physical body has only a quite illusionary stamp, and it is this counterfeit image that we see when we look at this physical body from outside. Thus these two members of the human organism, the highest and the lowest, show a very remarkable contrast. Here in the physical world we see the human physical organism as maya—that is to say, it is not at all in accordance with our inmost being; but the ego we see here in the physical world is in its physical manifestation quite in keeping with our inmost being. Please take note of that, it is an extremely important fact. Let me put it in another way, half symbolically, and yet with all the seriousness which the reality demands. Half symbolically ... yes, but this pictorial approach has a fulness about it which comes nearer to expressing the truth than any abstract concepts.

Half symbolically then, but also half seriously, I ask how we have to think of Adam and Eve in Paradise before the Fall. We know that according to the Bible they were unable to see each other's outer physical bodies before the Fall, and that when they did begin to see them they were ashamed. That is the expression of a most profound mystery. The Old Testament tells why Adam and Eve were ashamed of their bodies after the Fall. It indicates that before the Fall the bodies they had were more or less spiritual bodies, bodies only accessible to clairvoyant consciousness, bodies of quite different appearance from physical bodies, bodies which expressed the ego in its true form. We see that even the Bible recognises that quite a different bodily form, one only perceptible to clairvoyant vision, was really fitted to the deepest being of man, and that the external physical body we have today actually does not measure up at all to the inner being of man. What then did Adam and Eve feel when their relation to each other was no longer one in which they did not see their physical bodies, but on the contrary, one in which they did see them? They felt that they had fallen into matter, that, out of a world to which they had formerly belonged, denser matter than had been theirs formerly had been instilled into them. They felt that man with his physical body had been transplanted into a world to which, if the true nature of his ego is taken into account, he does not belong. No more striking expression could be found to mark how little the outer expression of his being, the sensible reality, really measures up to the divine ego than this being overcome by shame.

But we can look at the matter from another aspect, which throws quite a different light upon it. If man had not descended into his physical body, had not taken into himself the denser matter, he would not have been able to acquire his ego-consciousness, or in terms of the Greek mind, he would not have been able to participate in the Dionysos forces. That also was felt by the Greeks. They felt that the ego of man as it lives on the physical plane has within it not only those forces of a higher spiritual, super-sensible world which it had had before the Fall, and which stream into it out of the spiritual worlds above, but that it is also dependent upon forces which come from quite another side, from the opposite direction. We know that before man had acquired his present ego-consciousness it was normal for him to have a clairvoyant consciousness. But this clairvoyant consciousness was a pictorial one, a dreamlike one, it was not a consciousness lit up by any real intellectual light; man only acquired that later. This old clairvoyant consciousness had to be lost to man in order that a new ego-consciousness could arise. To this end the old form of the ego, the old Dionysos Zagreus had to be destroyed.

We had before us yesterday the impressive picture of how this came about—of how in the language of Greek mythology the elder Dionysos was dismembered by the Titans, and emerged again later as the younger Dionysos, that is, as our present ego-consciousness, the consciousness which has come about in human evolution as the achievement of time. But in order to bring about the birth of the younger Dionysos the human mother, Semele, has to play her part. The figure of Semele furnishes another example of the unerring wisdom of Greek feeling for the true wonders of the world.

A necessary condition for the coming into existence of this younger human ego was that the old clairvoyant consciousness had to die out, had to sink below the horizon of consciousness. Anyone who knew that—and those who built up Greek mythology did know it—said to himself: ‘Once upon a time the human soul was endowed with a clairvoyant consciousness which looked up into a world full of spiritual beings and spiritual deeds, into a world in which the human being was still a fellow-citizen. But in course of time man has withdrawn from this spiritual world, and has become a quite different being, a being permeated by an ego.’ What would happen to a man of today if, without his having undergone any preparation, any kind of esoteric training, suddenly, in a moment, there were to stand before him, instead of the physical world as it appears to physical eyes and physical ears, the world that was there for the old clairvoyant consciousness? Let us imagine that, by some miracle or other, instead of the world which displays itself to him in the star-strewn heavens, in the rising and the setting of the sun, in mountain and cloud, in minerals, plants and animals, suddenly the world of old Atlantis were to stand before a normal human consciousness of today ... the man would be shattered, so dreadful, so alarming, would seem the world which is nevertheless all around us; for this world is there behind everything, it is all around us ... but it is covered over by the world of our ego. There is a world around us which would fill the man of today with fear, would shatter him with terror, if he were suddenly confronted by it. But the ancient Greek felt this too. That is also implicit in the wonderful, wisdom-filled form of the Dionysos saga. Dionysos had to come from another direction from that of the world-wonders in which the ancient Greek consciousness had placed Zeus and the other figures of the upper gods ... the ancient Greek felt that in what constituted the world of men there lived something different from what lived in the gods of Zeus's world.

That the world in which we live has a heterogeneous constituent was felt too by the Greek. He felt that an element is included in our physical human existence that is certainly not present in the super-sensible world. Hence the younger Dionysos, macrocosmic representative of our modern ego-consciousness, could not be like the elder Dionysos, a son of Persephone and Zeus, but he had to be a son of an earthly mother—he was the son of Semele and Zeus. But we must bear in mind what the Greek consciousness added in the further development of this saga. It was brought about through the machinations of Hera that Semele saw Zeus in his true form, not as the old Atlantean hero, but as he now is. That could only happen by means of clairvoyant consciousness. What then does it mean that Semele was to see Zeus for a moment as he now is? It simply means that Semele became for a moment clairvoyant. She was destroyed by flame because she saw Zeus in the flames of the astral world. Semele bears witness to this human tragedy, a tragedy which would immediately come about if man, unprepared, were to enter clairvoyantly the spiritual
world.

Hidden somewhere or other in the world of the Greek tales, all the truths about the wonders of the world are to be found. We find secreted there how Dionysos, the macrocosmic representative of the ego—the ego which no man endowed with normal consciousness can see in more than one exemplar—derives from a being of the physical world; that, so to say, what only meets the eye for normal physical consciousness as a maya was embodied in Dionysos; in other words, we see how Dionysos had to participate in the great Illusion, in maya. Today when we discuss the wonders of the world in our prosaic, dry-as-dust way, we speak of physical, chemical, biological laws. The Greek used splendid pictures which really penetrate far deeper into those wonders than our laws that only skim the surface. This is true of the whole world of Greek legend and Greek mythology.

Thus we see as if in a mighty occult script, the question arising out of this Greek myth. If this essential human ego is to manifest in a bodily form, can we expect to see it in the human form we have in the physical world? No, for this form is maya, it is not at all a manifestation of the real ego, it is truly of such a nature that the real egos in Adam and Eve were right to be ashamed of it. What we as men are confronted by today is in fact a real contradiction, and the Greek felt that too. Although it has often been said, very superficially, that he only paid attention to the outer beauties of Nature, even the Greek felt the self-contradiction in the external human form. He was not a naturalist in the sense in which modern man believes he was, but he felt profoundly that the human form as it walks the Earth today is a compromise, from no aspect does it show itself to be what in reality it ought to be. Suppose for a moment that the human form had only arisen under the influence of physical, etheric and astral bodies, suppose that no ego had entered into this human form, then it would have been fashioned as it was when it came over from the previous embodiments of our Earth, as it came over from Saturn, Sun and Moon. Then the human form would be different from what it actually is. If the Earth had not endowed man with the ego, men would be walking about with quite different-looking physical forms. Secretly, in the depths of his soul, the ancient Greek wondered what the human form would look like if earthly men today were ego-less, if men had not participated in the blessings bestowed by the Earth, had not participated in the coming into existence of the ego, had not taken Dionysos into themselves! If there were among us on the Earth men who had developed purely under the influence of the forces of physical, etheric and astral bodies, he wondered what they would look like. And the Greek—uplifted, inspired by the spirit, and moved by unutterable depth of feeling—even put to himself the corresponding question: ‘If there were only the ego, if the ego had not been drawn into the physical, etheric and astral bodies, how would it be formed?’

It would not have a physical body such as it has now, it would have a spiritual body that would be quite different from our external human body. But this spirit-body exists only for a clairvoyant consciousness, it is nowhere to be seen in the physical world. What, then, really is the man who actually walks about the earth? He is neither the ego-less man, purely under the influence of astral, etheric and physical bodies, nor is he the ego-man, but a compromise between the two, something coming about as the result of a combination of both. The man we see before us is a composite being. The Greeks felt this and they said to themselves: ‘Since Dionysos, the younger Dionysos, is really the first teacher of intellectual civilisation, we must imagine him as not yet in a body which has already been subjected to the influence of the ego, for it is through the effect of the Dionysos civilisation that man has first to acquire the intellectual ego. Therefore Dionysos must be represented as this human ego still outside the human body.’ So when the Greeks depicted the procession of Dionysos, which I have called a march of civilisation, they could only accurately represent it on the basis that the essential ego of Dionysos had not yet entered the human body, but was just on the point of doing so; they could only imagine that Dionysos and all his followers had the kind of bodies which would inevitably come about if there were no egos in them, if their bodies were under the influence of forces emanating only from the physical, etheric and astral bodies. They said to themselves: ‘Dionysos and his rout should not look like the man of today, whose bodies are the combined result of the invisible ego and the visible body, but the invisible ego should hover as an aura over the bodily form and the body should be so fashioned as would inevitably come about under the sole influence of physical, etheric and astral bodies, that is, as a man would inevitably be formed if he had continued to develop the forces he had brought over from the Moon without taking in the Earth ego.’

Because the Greek soul has given a graphic answer to this world-riddle quite in accordance with the truth, it has portrayed in the figure of Dionysos, and particularly in the figures of those who constituted his band of followers, human figures who have the ego outside them, and whose own external forms really show only the forces of physical, etheric and astral bodies. These are the satyrs and Sileni who follow Dionysos on his travels, that wonderful creation of picture forms which comes to us from Greek thought. That is what man would look like if we were able to separate the composite form into its component parts. Imagine for a moment that by some kind of magic the physical, etheric and astral bodies of a man could be so treated that the invisible, super-sensible body of the ego could be torn out of him, then he would turn into a figure resembling those who followed in the train of Dionysos.

But the Greeks in their admirable mythology have also drawn attention to something else. We know that the ego has only gradually drawn into the human form, that in the time of Atlantis it was not yet within the body. What then, were these Atlantean bodies like? In the satyrs and the fauns and in Pan, as we shall see later, Greek fantasy and Greek intuition has elaborated pictures of the average Atlantean. Under present Earth conditions such human forms can of course no longer arise. The figures of the satyrs and the fauns and the whole rout of Dionysos represented those stragglers who had most closely retained the ancient Atlantean form. Dionysos had to take with him on his travels the very men who bore the least trace of the ego within them, because he was to become the ego's first teacher.

We see then that the Greeks represented in this train of Dionysos the forms of average Atlantean men. Atlantean men were so formed that they did not have skeletons such as men have today. The human body has become more solid; it was much softer in Atlantean times. For this reason it was incapable of preservation, and the geology, the palaeontology, of today will be hard put to it to find any trace of the real Atlantean man. But a geology, a palaeontology, of quite a different kind has preserved the Atlantean man for us! It is not in the geological strata of the earth that we have to delve if we wish to know the man of prehistoric times, the man whose higher corporeality was still outside the physical body. To burrow in the earth is quite absurd; in the earth we shall never find traces of prehistoric man which are anything but decadent. But in the strata of human spiritual life, in the strata of spiritual geology which have been preserved for us in the wonderful Greek mythology, there we shall find the normal, average, Atlantean man, just as in the geological strata of the earth we find snail shells and mussel shells. Let us study the configuration of the fauns, of Pan and of Silenus; it is there that we have the spiritual fossils which lead us to the Earth's prehistoric humanity. Therein we see how the ancient Greek consciousness had an answer to wonders of the world which today may be dubbed sentimental, dreamy, fantastic, but which nevertheless was imbued with a kind of science more profound than our modern abstract, prosaic, intellectual science. There are today many Darwinian and anti-Darwinian hypotheses as to what prehistoric man looked like. The Greeks set this world-riddle before us in a way that can satisfy the soul. Neither Haeckelism nor any other branch of Darwinism, nor the excavations of geology, tell us anything about the outward appearance of prehistoric man, but Greek mythology has supplied the answer to this question for us by its representations of the rout of Dionysos in its plastic art.

We must come to feel that Greek mythology really provides a serious answer to questions about the wonders of the world, and then we shall be able to enter into it ever more deeply. It is only someone who does not understand what underlies these things who can say, ‘I can't accept that interpretation, it is too far fetched.’ Anyone who knows the whole story in all its ramifications, besides knowing the true development of man as revealed by the Akasha Chronicle, knows that there is nothing fantastic, nothing sentimental in what is being put before you today as Spiritual Science. The fancifulness, the sentimentality, lies in the abstract, empirical science of today, which imagines that it can dig up from the strata of the physical earth something that is not there, and can make a study of that while it ignores the wondrous script of spiritual geology which comes before us, to the rescue of human wisdom and its evolution, in the impressive mythology of ancient Greece.

Sechster Vortrag

Es ist in diesen Vorträgen vielfach Rücksicht genommen worden auf etwas, was sich ja aus unseren den Vorträgen vorausgeschickten Bühnenaufführungen ergeben hat, was aber auch in einem inneren Zusammenhang steht mit dem Ziele, das gerade dem diesjährigen Vortragszyklus gesetzt ist. Es ist Rücksicht genommen worden auf die Gestaltung der griechischen Götterwelt. Und wenn wir uns kurz vor die Seele führen: warum haben wir denn eigentlich, da wir uns aufklären wollen über Weltenwunder, Seelenprüfungen und Geistesoffenbarungen, so viel von dieser griechischen Götterwelt gesprochen? — da können wir uns die Antwort geben, daß wir uns unter manch anderem gerade durch eine solche Betrachtung eine für die geisteswissenschaftliche Weltbetrachtung notwendige Unterlage verschaffen können. Wir haben es ja erwähnt, daß jenen Begriff von Natur und Naturdasein, den wir heute als unseren modernen Begriff haben, der alte Grieche gar nicht hatte. Chemische Gesetze, physikalische, biologische Gesetze in unserem heutigen Sinn würden wir, wenn wir uns das alte Griechenland vor Augen führen, wie es wirklich war in seinem Denken und Empfinden, niemals dort antreffen. Was aufglänzte in der Seele des alten Griechen, was sich entzündete in dem Geiste dieser wunderbaren griechischen Kultur, wenn das Auge - sei es das physische, sei es das hellseherische Auge — hinausgerichtet wurde zu den Weltenwundern, was sich da gestaltete als eine Art von Wissen, von Weisheit, so kann es eben nicht anders charakterisiert werden als mit der wunderbaren Gestaltung der griechischen Götterwelt. Derjenige, der sich diese Götterwelt ansieht, so wie sie gewöhnlich angesehen wird, ohne inneren Zusammenhang, der weiß in Wahrheit nichts von dem, was sie eigentlich will. Diese griechische Götterwelt ist eben in ihrer weisheitsvollen Ausgestaltung nichts Geringeres als die Antwort, wie der Grieche sie geben konnte auf die Frage: Was vermag in der menschlichen Seele aufzuglänzen, wenn diese menschliche Seele die Weltenwunder schaut? — Nicht mit einem Naturgesetz in unserem heutigen Sinn hat die alte Griechenseele geantwortet auf die Weltenrätsel und Weltenwunder, sondern mit der Ausgestaltung irgendeines Teiles der göttlichen Wesenheiten oder göttlichen Kräfte. Daher dürfen wir gar nichts anderes tun, als in jenen wunderbaren Fäden, denen wir nachgegangen sind und die sich uns ja zuweilen in den letzten Vorträgen in frappierender Weise gezeigt haben, die alles zusammenfügen, was diese griechische Götterwelt darbietet, wirklich das Äquivalent für unsere so trockene, nüchterne, abstrakte Weisheit suchen. Und wenn wir in der Geisteswissenschaft wahrhaft vorrücken wollen, so müssen wir uns ein Gefühl, eine Empfindung dafür aneignen, daß man eben in noch ganz anderer Art über die Weltenwunder denken und empfinden kann, als es die neuere, die moderne Weisheit tut.

Wir haben aber in dem letzten Vortrage dadurch, daß wir die Gestalt des Dionysos uns vor Augen geführt haben, bereits auf etwas anderes noch hingewiesen. Stellte sich uns die übrige Götterwelt als das dar, was in der Seele des Griechen aufglänzte, wenn er sich die Weltenwunder klarmachen wollte, so tritt uns in der Dionysosgestalt etwas entgegen, in das der alte Grieche hineingeheimnißt hat, was wir im umfassendsten Sinne nennen können den Lebenswiderspruch. Und man kommt nicht aus, ohne den Blick auf diesen Lebenswiderspruch zu wenden. Die abstrakte Logik, das abstrakte, intellektuelle Denken wird immer darauf ausgehen, gerade in den höheren Weltanschauungen Widersprüche zu entdecken, um dann zu sagen: Diese Weltanschauung ist ja voller Widersprüche, also kann sie nicht gelten. - Die Sache ist aber so, daß in der Tat das Leben, das lebendige Gefüge unserer Weltenwunder überall durchzogen ist von dem Widerspruche, ja daß überhaupt in der Welt ein Werden gar nicht möglich wäre, wenn nicht in allen Dingen auf dem Grunde ihres Wesens der Widerspruch ruhte. Denn warum ist denn die Welt heute anders als gestern, warum wird denn etwas, warum bleibt denn nicht alles, wie es war? Weil in der Gestaltung der Dinge gestern ein Widerspruch gegen sich selbst vorhanden war und durch die Realisierung dieses Widerspruches, durch die Austreibung desselben aus der gestrigen Gestaltung die heutige entstanden ist. Wer die Dinge, wie sie wirklich sind, betrachtet, der darf gar nicht sagen: durch den Nachweis von Widersprüchen zeigen wir die Unwahrheiten auf. - Denn in den Wirklichkeiten ruhen die Widersprüche. Wie wäre es in der menschlichen Seele, wenn sie widerspruchsfrei wäre? All unser Leben, wenn wir von irgendeinem Zeitpunkte zurückblicken, hat sich in Widersprüchen bewegt. Wenn wir in einem späteren Zeitpunkte vollkommener sind als in einem früheren, so kommt das davon her, daß wir den früheren Zustand weggeschafft haben, ihn widersprechend gefunden haben unserem eigenen inneren Wesen, daß wir also im Widerspruche mit dem, was war, eine Realität unseres eigenen inneren Seins hervorgerufen haben. Überall auf dem Grunde aller Wesenheiten ist der Widerspruch. Diesen Widerspruch aber finden wir insbesondere — und zwar so, daß er nicht nur zu unserem Verstande, zu unserer Philosophie, sondern zu unserem Herzen, zu unserer ganzen seelischen Wesenheit spricht —, wenn wir in unserem geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne den vollständigen Menschen betrachten, den viergliedrigen Menschen, so wie wir durch die okkulten Tatsachen gewohnt sind, ihn zu betrachten.

Es muß uns ja immer wieder dieses Grundgerüst unserer Geisteswissenschaft vor die Seele treten, daß wir den Menschen, so wie er vor uns steht, in der Tat zusammengesetzt aus physischem Leib, Ätherleib, Astralleib und seinem Ich betrachten. Aus diesen vier Gliedern besteht unsere menschliche Wesenheit. Schauen wir uns nun einmal diese vier Glieder des Menschen an, wie sie uns entgegentreten zunächst auf dem physischen Plan, in der physischen Welt. Wir wollen also jetzt für einen Augenblick absehen davon, wie sich die menschliche Wesenheit gegenüber dem hellseherischen Blick ausnimmt, wir wollen fragen: Wie stellen sich die vier Glieder der menschlichen Wesenheit für die physischen Augen, für die physische Welt dar? - Nehmen wir da zunächst das innerste Glied der menschlichen Wesenheit, das wir, wie Sie wissen, als das jüngste betrachten, das Ich oder besser gesagt den IchTräger. Die auffallendste Eigenschaft dieses menschlichen Ich tritt ja jedem sogleich vor die Seele, wenn er nur ein wenig verständig die Welt betrachtet. Was ist denn die auffälligste Eigenschaft dieses Menschen-Ich? Daß wir mit unserem äußeren Sinnesapparat, mit all dem, was wir überhaupt an Erkenntniskräften für die physische Welt haben, weit und breit herumgehen können in der Welt und niemals dieses Ich finden werden. Es ist nicht für unsere Augen sichtbar und für kein äußeres Erkenntnisvermögen irgendwie wahrnehmbar. Daher können wir auch, wenn wir uns einem anderen Menschen in der physischen Welt gegenüberstellen, wenn wir ihn nur physisch betrachten wollen, wenn wir nicht das hellseherische Auge zu Hilfe nehmen, an einem anderen Menschen dieses Ich niemals mit bloßen physischen Werkzeugen beobachten. Der Mensch steht vor uns, weist uns seine äußere Gestalt vor, sein Ich aber entzieht sich den physischen Erkenntniswerkzeugen. Wir gehen unter Menschen herum, die Iche sehen wir nicht mit äußeren Wahrnehmungsorganen. Wenn jemand glauben wollte, daß er Iche sehen könnte, so wäre das größtmögliche Täuschung. Daher können wir auch dieses Ich an sich mit äußeren physischen Erkenntniskräften nicht betrachten. Wir können nur die Äußerungen dieses Ich durch die Organe des physischen Leibes betrachten. Es kann ein Mensch ein ganz verlogenes Subjekt in seinem Innern sein, wenn er die Lüge nicht äußert, so daß es in die äußere physische Welt übertritt, seinem Ich können wir es mit äußeren physischen Werkzeugen nicht ansehen, weil das Ich überhaupt nicht mit äußeren physischen Werkzeugen wahrgenommen werden kann. Daher kommt es, daß uns überhaupt, soweit wir auch forschen mit äußeren physischen Erkenntniskräften, dieses Ich nur ein einziges Mal entgegentritt. Trotzdem wir ganz genau wissen, daß so viele Iche auf der Erde sind, tritt es uns doch für die Wahrnehmung nur einmal entgegen: nämlich als unser eigenes. In der physischen Welt oder für physische Erkenntniswerkzeuge gibt es für jeden Menschen nur eine einzige Möglichkeit, das Ich wahrzunehmen, und das ist sein eigenes. So daß wir sagen können: Das Ich, dieses jüngste und auch höchste Glied der menschlichen Wesenheit, hat die Eigentümlichkeit, daß wir es nur an einem Exemplar, an uns selber, in bezug auf sein Dasein, seine Realität wahrzunehmen vermögen. Für alle anderen Menschen verschließt es sich uns innerhalb ihrer Leibeshülle.

Gehen wir jetzt von dem Ich als dem innersten, als dem jüngsten, aber auch höchsten Gliede der menschlichen Wesenheit zu dem äußersten, zum physischen Leib. Der physische Leib ist, wie Sie ja auch aus den verschiedenen sowohl gedruckten wie mündlichen Äußerungen der letzten Jahre wissen, seiner wahren inneren Wesenheit nach selbstverständlich nur für ein hellseherisches Bewußtsein erkennbar. Dem äußeren Bewußtsein, den Kräften der physischen Welt, den physischen Erkenntniskräften des Menschen zeigt sich der physische Leib nur als die äußere Maja oder Illusion. Dasjenige, was wir vor uns haben am Menschen als seinen physischen Leib, ist äußere Maja, Illusion. Aber diese Illusion des physischen Leibes zeigt sich uns in so vielen Exemplaren, als wir überhaupt Menschen auf der Erde antreffen können. Und unser eigener physischer Leib zeigt sich in dieser Beziehung, insofern er Maja ist, vollständig gleichgeartet mit den physischen Leibern der anderen Menschen. Nun ist ein großer Unterschied zwischen der Wahrnehmung unseres eigenen Ich, das uns in dem einen Exemplar gegeben ist, und der Wahrnehmung der physischen Menschenleiber, die uns in so vielen Exemplaren gegeben sind, als wir Menschen auf der Erde kennen. Das Ich lernen wir nur dann kennen, wenn wir in uns selber das physische Erkennen richten. Wir müssen in uns schauen mit unserer auf dem physischen Plane erworbenen Erkenntniskraft, wenn wir unser Ich erkennen lernen wollen. Es darf hier vielleicht eingeschaltet werden, weil ja in dieser Beziehung manchmal sogar bei Denkern Unklarheit herrscht, daß das, was hier gemeint ist, was von unserem Ich mit physischen Erkenntniskräften wahrgenommen ist, durchaus der physischen Welt angehört. Es wäre ein völliger Unsinn, zu sagen, daß das, was jemals ein Mensch mit den normalen Fähigkeiten in seinem Innern als sein Ich findet, zu einer anderen Welt als zur physischen gehört. Wenn jemand das Ich, das nicht hellseherisch, sondern mit den normalen Fähigkeiten betrachtet wird, zu einer anderen Welt zählen wollte als zu der Welt des physischen Planes, so würde er sich einem gewaltigen Irrtume hingeben. Die Dinge schauen in den höheren Welten ganz anders aus für das höhere Bewußtsein; auch das Ich ist für die hellseherische Betrachtung ein anderes als das, welches man im Innern antrifft mit normalem Bewußtsein. Von diesem Ich, von dem die äußere Psychologie redet und alle äußere Wissenschaft, dürfen wir nichts anderes glauben, als daß es etwas ist, was zum physischen Plane gehört. Aber wir schauen es von innen an, und weil wir so gleichsam in diesem Ich stehen, weil wir es von innen anschauen, ihm nicht äußerlich gegenüberstehen, können wir sagen: dieses Ich lernen wir allerdings nur auf dem physischen Plan, aber da wenigstens seiner inneren Wesenheit nach durch die unmittelbaren Erkenntniskräfte kennen. Das aber, was der äußere physische Leib ist, den wir in soundso vielen Exemplaren sehen in der Welt, das lernen wir nur als Maja kennen, denn in dem Augenblicke, wo das hellseherische Vermögen, wo die Hellsichtigkeit sich dem physischen Leibe entgegenstellt, löst sich dieser physische Leib wie ein Nebel auf, zerstiebt er und zeigt sich als eine Maja. Und wir müssen hinaufgehen, wenn wir den physischen Leib in seiner wahren Gestalt erkennen wollen, nicht etwa bloß zum Astralplan, sondern in die höchsten Gebiete des geistigen Landes, des Devachanplanes, so daß ein hohes Hellsehen dazu notwendig ist, wenn wir den physischen Leib in seiner wahren Gestalt wirklich kennenlernen wollen. Hier unten in der physischen Welt hat dieser physische Leib nur ein ganz illusionäres Nachbild, und dieses Nachbild sehen wir, wenn wir uns von außen diesem physischen Leibe gegenüberstellen. So haben wir eine höchst merkwürdige, widerspruchsvolle Tatsache gegeben, wenn wir diese zwei Glieder des menschlichen Organismus, das niederste und das höchste, ins Auge fassen. Den menschlichen physischen Organismus sehen wir als Maja hier unten in der physischen Welt, das heißt wir sehen ihn so, daß er ganz und gar nicht angemessen ist unserer innersten Wesenheit. Das Ich aber sehen wir hier unten in der physischen Welt so, wie es als physisches Wesen sehr wohl angemessen ist unserer inneren Wesenheit. Ich bitte Sie, das wohl zu beachten, das ist eine außerordentlich wichtige Tatsache.

Ich möchte Ihnen halb bildlich, aber doch mit dem tiefsten Ernste der Realität, von einer anderen Seite her diese höchst merkwürdige Tatsache charakterisieren. Halb bildlich, aber so, daß diese halb bildliche Art durch ihre Fülle mehr geeignet ist, die Wahrheit dieser Sache auszudrücken, als abstrakte Begriffe es können. Wie müssen wir denn denken - wenn ich jetzt halb bildlich, halb tief im Ernste sprechen darf -, daß Adam und Eva im Paradiese vor dem Sündenfalle waren? Wir wissen ja, daß erzählt wird, daß Adam und Eva vor dem Sündenfalle so waren, daß sie ihre äußeren physischen Leiber gegenseitig nicht sehen konnten. Und als sie sie sahen, da schämten sie sich dieser physischen Leiber. Damit ist etwas ungeheuer Tiefes, ein tiefes Mysterium ausgedrückt. Es ist in der Bibel im Alten Testamente angedeutet, warum nach dem Sündenfalle Adam und Eva sich ihrer Leiber schämten. Es ist angedeutet, daß der frühere Leib, den Adam und Eva vor dem Sündenfall gehabt haben, mehr oder weniger ein geistiger Leib war, also ein solcher, der nur einem hellseherischen Bewußtsein zugänglich gewesen wäre, der ganz anders ausgesehen hätte als ein physischer Menschenleib, der die Wesenheit des Ich in seiner wahren Gestalt ausgedrückt hätte. So müssen wir sagen: auch die Bibel weiß, daß eine ganz andere Leibesgestaltung, allerdings eine solche, die nur für einen hellseherischen Blick wahrnehmbar wäre, angemessen wäre der tiefsten Wesenheit des Menschen, und daß dieser äußere physische Leib, wie wir ihn heute an uns tragen, eigentlich durchaus nicht angemessen ist der inneren Wesenheit des Menschen. Was haben denn Adam und Eva gefühlt, als sie nicht mehr so zueinander standen, daß sie den physischen Leib nicht sahen, sondern so, daß sie ihn sahen? Daß sie heruntergefallen waren aus einer Welt, der sie früher angehört hatten, in die Materie, daß ihnen gleichsam imprägniert worden ist dichtere Materie, als sie früher gehabt haben. Gefühlt haben sie, daß der Mensch versetzt ist mit seinem physischen Leibe in eine Welt, der er eigentlich, wenn die wirkliche Wesenheit seines Ich in Betracht gezogen wird, gar nicht angehört. Es gibt keinen treffenderen Ausdruck als das Belegen dieser Tatsache mit dem Überkommen durch das Schamgefühl, das Sichschämen des Menschen darüber, wie wenig der äußere Ausdruck seiner Wesenheit, die sinnliche Wirklichkeit, dem göttlichen Ich eigentlich angemessen ist.

Betrachten wir aber dieselbe Sache von einer anderen Seite, dann stellt sie sich ganz anders dar. Dann stellt sie sich so dar, daß der Mensch, wenn er nicht heruntergestiegen wäre in seinen physischen Leib, nicht die dichtere Materie sich eingegliedert hätte, nicht zu seinem Ich-Bewußtsein hätte kommen können - oder in dem Sinne des griechischen Bewußtseins gesprochen, wie wir das gestern getan haben: daß er nicht der Dionysoskräfte hätte teilhaft werden können. — Sehen Sie, das fühlte wiederum der Grieche. Der Grieche fühlte, daß das Ich des Menschen, wie es auf dem physischen Plane lebt, nicht nur jene Kräfte einer höheren, geistigen übersinnlichen Welt in sich hat, die es gehabt hat vor dem Sündenfall, die in es einströmen, wenn wir so sagen wollen, aus den oberen geistigen Welten, sondern er fühlte, daß dieses Ich angewiesen ist auch noch auf Kräfte, die von einer ganz anderen Seite, von der entgegengesetzten Seite herstammen.

Wir wissen ja, daß der Mensch vor seinem gegenwärtigen IchBewußtsein normalerweise ein hellseherisches Bewußtsein gehabt hat. In alten Zeiten hat der Mensch ein hellseherisches Bewußtsein gehabt. Aber dieses hellseherische Bewußtsein war ein bildhaftes, traumhaftes, kein von einem wirklichen intellektuellen Lichte durchleuchtetes Bewußtsein. Das hat der Mensch erst später erlangt. Dieses alte hellseherische Bewußtsein mußte für den Menschen verlorengehen, damit ein neues Ich-Bewußtsein auftreten konnte. Dazu aber war notwendig, daß die alte Ich-Form, der alte Dionysos Zagreus, zugrunde ging. Wir haben dieses grandiose Bild gestern vor unsere Seele hingestellt, wie das alte hellseherische Bewußtsein zugrunde gegangen ist — im Sinne der griechischen Mythologie gesprochen -, wie der alte Dionysos Zagreus von den Titanen zerrissen wurde und wieder auftauchte in der späteren Zeit der jüngere Dionysos: das heißt unser heutiges Ich-Bewußtsein, das ein Produkt der Zeitbildung in der Menschheitsentwickelung ist. Aber notwendig war, daß an der Produktion des jüngeren Dionysos Semele, die menschliche Mutter, teilgenommen hat. Und an der Gestalt der Semele zeigt wiederum die griechische Seele, wie sicher und weisheitsvoll sie empfunden hat gegenüber den wahren Weltenwundern.

Was ist denn die Voraussetzung des jüngeren Dionysos oder, sagen wir, des jüngeren Menschen-Ich überhaupt? Damit dieses Ich hat kommen können, war notwendig, daß abgestorben war das alte hellseherische Bewußtsein, daß hinuntergezogen waren alle diejenigen Horizonte, die dieses alte hellseherische Bewußtsein hatte. Wer das weiß - und diejenigen wußten es, die die griechische Mythologie ausgebildet haben -, sagt sich: Da gab es einmal diese Menschenseele mit einem hellseherischen Bewußtsein, das da hinausblickte in eine Welt voll geistiger Wesenheiten und geistiger Tatsachen, in eine Welt, durch welche der Mensch noch Mitbürger war der höheren geistigen Welten. Der Mensch ist aber im Laufe der Zeit aus dieser geistigen Welt herausgetreten, er ist zu einem ganz anderen Wesen geworden, zu einem Wesen, das von einem Ich durchzogen ist. Was würde denn geschehen mit einem heutigen Menschen, wenn plötzlich ohne Vorbereitung durch irgendwelche esoterische Schulung statt der physischen Welt, wie sie sich dem physischen Auge und Ohr darstellt, in einem Momente vor dem Menschen stünde jene Welt, die für das alte hellseherische Bewußtsein da war? Nehmen wir an, es könnte durch irgendein Weltenwunder statt der Welt, die sich Ihnen zeigt, in dem sternbesäten Himmel, in der auf- und untergehenden Sonne, in Bergen und Nebeln, in Mineralien, Pflanzen und Tieren, plötzlich vor einem heutigen normalen Menschheitsbewußtsein die Welt des alten Atlantiers stehen. Nehmen wir das für den Augenblick hypothetisch an. Zerschmettert würde der Mensch werden, so furchtbar, so erschreckend wäre die Welt, die doch um uns herum ist, denn diese Welt ist im Grunde aller Dinge, ist ringsherum, ist da, aber sie ist zugedeckt durch die Welt unseres Ich. Wir können sagen, es ist eine Welt um uns, die den Menschen so, wie er heute ist, mit Angst und Schreck, mit zerschmetterndem Schreck durchsetzen würde, wenn er sie plötzlich vor sich hätte. Das aber fühlte noch eine alte griechische Seele. Das finden wir auch hineingelegt in jene weisheitsvolle, wunderbare Ausgestaltung der Dionysossage. Dionysos mußte von einer anderen Seite her kommen als von jener Seite der Weltenwunder, in welche das altgriechische Bewußtsein die Zeusgestalt und die anderen Gestalten der oberen Himmel versetzt hatte. Das fühlte der alte Grieche, daß in allem, was als Menschenwelt existiert, noch etwas anderes lebt, als was oben bei den Göttern der Zeuswelt lebt. Daß die Welt, auf der wir herumwandeln, noch eine andere substantielle Ingredienz hat, das fühlte der alte Grieche. Er fühlte - mit anderen Worten -, daß unserem physischen Menschendasein ein Element beigemischt ist, das nicht vorhanden ist oben in der übersinnlichen Welt zunächst. Daher konnte der jüngere Dionysos, der makrokosmische Repräsentant unseres neueren Ich-Bewußtseins, nicht etwa wie der alte Dionysos ein Sohn der Persephone und des Zeus sein, sondern er mußte ein Sohn der Semele sein, einer irdischen Mutter und des Zeus. Aber das müssen wir ins Auge fassen, was dann in der weiteren Ausgestaltung das griechische Bewußtsein an diese Sage angliedert: Es wurde durch die Machinationen der Hera herbeigeführt, daß Semele den Zeus in seiner wirklichen Gestalt sehen sollte, nicht als alten atlantischen Heros, sondern wie er jetzt ist. Das konnte nur geschehen durch hellseherisches Bewußtsein. Was besagt denn das eigentlich, daß Semele einen Moment den Zeus sehen sollte, wie er wirklich ist? Nichts anderes, als daß Semele einen Augenblick hellseherisch gemacht worden ist. Sie ging in den Flammen zugrunde, weil sie Zeus in den Flammen der astralischen Welt, das heißt hellseherisch, sah. Sie wurde wirklich zerschmettert, wie das heutige Ich-Bewußtsein des Menschen zerschmettert würde, wenn es plötzlich vor der astralen Welt stünde. Semele zeigt uns sozusagen diese Tragik des Menschen, die sich sofort einstellen würde, wenn der Mensch unvorbereitet hellseherisch vor die geistige Welt gestellt würde.

Alle die großen okkulten Tatsachen, alle die Wahrheiten über die Weltenwunder sehen wir an irgendeinem Orte in der griechischen Sagenwelt hineingeheimnißt. Wir sehen auch hineingeheimnißt, daß der Dionysos, der makrokosmische Repräsentant des Ich, das jeder Mensch mit normalem Bewußtsein nur in einem Exemplare sehen kann, abstammt von einer Wesenheit der physischen Welt, daß sozusagen das, was uns für das normale physische Auge nur als eine Maja entgegentritt, dem Dionysos einverleibt war, daß der Dionysos mit anderen Worten teilnehmen mußte an der großen Weltillusion, an der Maja. Wir sprechen, wenn wir heute im nüchternen, modernen, trockenen Sinne über die Weltenwunder sprechen, in physikalischen, biologischen, chemischen Gesetzen. Der Grieche sprach in grandiosen Bildern, und diese reichen wirklich viel weiter hinein in die Weltenwunder als unsere an der Oberfläche haftenbleibenden Gesetze. Das zeigt uns griechische Sage und griechischer Mythos allüberall.

Und so sehen wir denn auch wie mit einer mächtigen okkulten Schrift von diesem griechischen Mythos die Frage aufgeworfen: Ja, wenn wir ins Auge fassen dieses eigentliche menschliche Ich, wenn es sich offenbaren sollte in einer Leiblichkeit, dürfen wir dann die äußere uns gegebene, in der physischen Welt gegebene menschliche Leiblichkeit anschauen? Nein, denn diese ist Maja, ist gar nicht ein äußerer Ausdruck für das wirkliche Ich, ist wahrhaftig so geartet, daß das wirkliche Ich mit Recht in Adam und Eva sich schämte der äußeren Leibesgestalt. Das, was wir heute als Menschen vor uns haben, ist in der Tat ein wirklicher Widerspruch, und das empfand der Grieche, gerade der Grieche, von dem man oftmals mit großer Oberflächlichkeit gesagt hat, daß er das Auge nur auf die äußeren Schönheiten der Natur richtete. Gerade der Grieche empfand das Widerspruchsvolle der äußeren Menschengestalt. Der Grieche war nicht in dem Sinne ein Naturalist, wie die moderne Menschheit es glaubt, sondern der Grieche empfand tief, ganz tief, daß diese Menschengestalt des auf der Erde herumwandelnden Menschen ein Kompromiß ist. Sie zeigt sich nicht so, von keiner Seite her, wie sie eigentlich in Wirklichkeit sein sollte. Nehmen wir einmal an, diese Menschengestalt wäre nur entstanden unter dem Einfluß von physischem Leib, Ätherleib und astralischem Leib. Es wäre kein Ich eingezogen in diese Menschengestalt, es würde diese Menschengestalt sich auf der Erde nur so aufgebaut haben, wie der Mensch herübergekommen ist von den vorhergehenden Verkörperungen unserer Erde, von dem alten Saturn, der alten Sonne und dem alten Mond. Dann müßte diese Menschengestalt eine andere sein, als sie in Wirklichkeit ist. Wenn die Erde dem Menschen nicht das Ich gegeben hätte, dann würden auf unserer Erde Menschen herumwandeln, die als äußere physische Menschengestalt ganz anders ausschauten. In einer gewissen geheimnisvollen Weise stellte sich die alte Griechenseele diese Frage: Wie würde die Menschengestalt ausschauen, wenn heute ichlose Menschen auf der Erde wären, Menschen, die an den Segnungen der Erde, an der Ich-Werdung nicht teilgenommen hätten, die den Dionysos nicht in sich aufgenommen hätten? - Wenn solche Menschen auf der Erde unter uns herumwandeln würden, die nur unter dem Einfluß der Kräfte des physischen, des Äther- und des astralischen Leibes sich gebildet hätten, wie würde dann die Menschengestalt ausschauen?

Und auch die andere Frage legte sich die griechische Seele grandios geistreich mit innerstem, nicht aussprechbarem Gefühle vor: Wenn nun nichts anderes da wäre als das Ich, wenn dieses Ich nicht eingezogen wäre in den physischen, ätherischen und astralischen Leib, wie wäre denn dann dieses Ich gestaltet? - Dann wäre es nicht mit solch einem physischen Menschenleib, dann wäre dieses Ich gestaltet mit einem Geistleibe, der ganz anders wäre als der äußere Menschenleib. Dieser Geistleib aber, der ist nur für ein hellseherisches Bewußtsein vorhanden, der kann in der physischen Welt nirgends eigentlich aufgezeigt werden.

Was ist dann eigentlich der Mensch, der nun wirklich herumwandelt auf der Erde? Er ist weder der ichlose Mensch, der nur unter dem Einfluß des astralischen Leibes, des Ätherleibes, des physischen Leibes steht, noch ist er der Ich-Mensch, sondern ein Kompromiß von beiden, ein Resultierendes, etwas was durch die Zusammenmischung dieser beiden besteht. Ein Kompositum ist der Mensch, so wie er äußerlich vor uns herumwandelt. Das haben die alten Griechen empfunden, als sie sich sagten: Wenn Dionysos, und zwar der jüngere Dionysos, der wirkliche erste Lehrer der intellektuellen Kultur ist, so müssen wir ja von ihm voraussetzen, daß er noch nicht in einem menschlichen Leibe war, der schon unter dem Einfluß des Ich gestanden hat, denn der Mensch mußte ja das intellektualistische Ich erst durch den Einfluß der Dionysoskultur erhalten. Dionysos muß also dieses Menschen-Ich noch repräsentieren außerhalb des physischen Menschenleibes. So konnte sich sachgemäß das griechische Bewußtsein von Dionysos und von jenem Zug, den ich charakterisierte als den Kulturzug des Dionysos über die Erde hin, nur vorstellen, daß des Dionysos eigentliches Ich noch nicht in den menschlichen Leib eingezogen war, sondern just an dem Punkt stand einzuziehen, daß aber in der Tat Dionysos und alle diejenigen, die zu ihm gehörten, solche Menschenleiber hatten, wie sie entstehen müßten, wenn kein Ich in dem Menschenleib darinnen wäre, wenn der menschliche Leib nur unter dem Einfluß der Kräfte des physischen Leibes, des Ätherleibes und des astralischen Leibes stünde. Die Frage beantwortete sich der alte Grieche: Wie müssen die Leute des Dionysoszuges ausgesehen haben? - Sie konnten nicht ausgesehen haben wie Menschen der heutigen Zeit, deren Leib ein Kompositum ist, von dem unsichtbaren Ich-Leib und dem äußeren Leib zusammengesetzt, sondern so mußten sie sein, daß das Ich unsichtbar als Aura die Leiblichkeit umschwebte, diese Leiblichkeit aber sich so gebildet hatte, wie sie sich eben bilden mußte unter dem Einfluß der Kräfte des physischen Leibes, Ätherleibes und Astralleibes, das heißt, wie sich ein Mensch auf der Erde hätte bilden müssen, der mit den Kräften der menschlichen Natur von dem alten Monde herübergekommen wäre und sich auf der Erde weiter entwickelt hätte, ohne daß das Erden-Ich in ihn hineingezogen wäre.

Und deshalb, weil sich die Griechenseele ganz sachgemäß dieses Weltenwunder beantwortet hat, bildhaft, stellt diese Griechenseele wirklich in der Gestalt des Dionysos selber - und namentlich in der Gestalt derjenigen, die als Gefolge des Dionysos aufgestellt werden — solche Menschengestalten hin, die das Ich außer sich haben und die in der Gestalt, die sie äußerlich darstellen, wirklich nichts anderes zeigen als die Kräfte des physischen, des ätherischen und des astralischen Leibes. Das sind die Silenen, die Satyre, die dem Dionysos folgen auf seinem Zuge, jene merkwürdigen Gestalten der Satyrn, der Silenen in dieser ganz bildlichen Ausgestaltung, wie es sich die Griechen gedacht haben. So würde der Mensch ausschauen, wenn wir auseinanderreißen könnten dasjenige, was ein Kompositum ist. Denken Sie sich einmal, es könnte durch irgendein Zaubermittel bei einem Menschen, der vor uns steht, der physische Leib, der Ätherleib und astralische Leib so behandelt werden, daß wir ihm den unsichtbaren übersinnlichen eigentlichen Leib des Ich ausreißen. Dann würde aus dem Menschen eine Gestalt, wie sie diejenigen Personen hatten, die dem Dionysos auf seinem Zuge folgten.

Dann aber haben die Griechen in ihrer wunderbaren Mythologie noch etwas anderes hingestellt. Wir wissen ja, daß das Ich nach und nach in die Menschengestalt hineingezogen ist, daß noch in der alten atlantischen Zeit dieses Ich nicht im menschlichen Leibe war. Wie müssen wir uns daher vorstellen, daß die atlantischen Leiber waren? Die griechische Phantasie und die griechische Intuition haben in wunderbarer Weise ausgestaltet die Bilder des gewöhnlichen normalen atlantischen Durchschnittsmenschen in den Satyrn und in den Faunen und im Pan, wie wir später sehen werden. Unter den gegenwärtigen Erdenverhältnissen können solche Menschengestalten natürlich nicht entstehen, und solche Menschengestalten, wie die Satyre, die Faune und überhaupt das ganze Gefolge des Dionysos, bestand aus jenen Nachzüglern der atlantischen Menschen, die noch am treuesten bewahrt hatten die alte Menschengestalt der Atlantier. Dionysos mußte gerade diese Menschen, die noch am wenigsten vom Ich innerlich hatten, auf seinem Zug mitnehmen, weil er der erste Lehrer des Ich werden sollte.

Da sehen wir, daß die Griechen mit diesem Zuge des Dionysos die Gestalten der alten atlantischen Durchschnittsmenschen hingestellt hatten. Sie waren allerdings so gestaltet, daß sie mit einem solchen festen Knochengerüst wie die heutigen Menschen nicht ausgestattet waren. Der menschliche Leib hat sich vertestigt; in der alten atlantischen Zeit war die Menschengestalt, wenn ich mich so ausdrücken darf, noch weicher. Daher konnten diese atlantischen Leiber auch nicht aufbewahrt werden, und die heutige Geologie, die Paläontologie wird schwerlich irgendwelche Überreste von den wirklichen atlantischen Menschen finden. Aber es gibt eine andere Geologie, eine andere Paläontologie, welche uns die atlantischen Menschen aufbewahrt hat: das ist die griechische Mythe. Und man sollte nicht in den geologischen Schichten der Erde graben, wenn man die Menschen der Vorzeit kennenlernen will, die ihre höheren Leiblichkeiten noch außer dem physischen Leib hatten. Man tut damit etwas vollständig Absurdes, wenn man in den geologischen Schichten der Erde nachgräbt. Da wird man niemals etwas anderes finden als dekadente Produkte dieser vorgeschichtlichen Menschen. Aber in den Schichten des menschlichen Geisteslebens, namentlich in der geist-geologischen Schichte, welche uns in der wunderbaren griechischen Mythologie erhalten geblieben ist, finden wir, eingeschlossen wie die Schnecken- und Muschelschalen in den geologischen Schichten der Erde, den alten normalen atlantischen Durchschnittsmenschen. Studieren wir die Konfiguration der Faune, des Pans und des Silens, dann erhalten wir jene geist-geologischen Überreste, die uns wirklich in die Vormenschheit der Erde führen. Damit sehen wir, wie in einer Art, die man heute meinetwillen schwärmerisch, träumerisch, phantastisch nennen kann, dennoch das alte griechische Bewußtsein Weltenwunder mit einer tieferen Wissenschaftlichkeit löste als unsere heutige abstrakte, äußere, nüchterne Verstandeswissenschaft. Wie die Menschen der Vorzeit ausgesehen haben, das wird heute in unzähligen, einander widersprechenden darwinistischen und antidarwinistischen Hypothesen konstruiert. Dieses Weltenwunder - in einer Weise, die unsere Seele befriedigen kann - hat das alte Griechentum vor uns hingestellt. Nicht der Haeckelismus, nicht ein anderer Zweig des Darwinismus, nicht die geologischen Nachgrabungen in der äußeren physischen Welt geben Antwort auf die Frage nach der äußeren physischen Gestalt des Vormenschen unserer Erde, sondern dieses Weltenwunder löst uns der griechische Mythos, indem er uns plastisch das Gefolge des Dionysos hinstellt. Davon müssen wir uns eine Empfindung, ein Gefühl verschaffen, daß uns diese griechische Mythologie tatsächlich ernste Antworten auf Fragen nach den Weltenwundern gibt. Dann können wir diesen Mythos immer mehr und mehr vertiefen, und nur derjenige, der von diesen Dingen nicht den wahren Grund versteht, kann auf eine solche Ausgestaltung des Mythos das Wort anwenden: Legt ihr nicht aus, so legt ihr etwas unter. - Wer den Zusammenhang in allen Details und dazu die wirkliche Entwickelung des Menschen kennt, wie sie sich aus der Akasha-Chronik ergibt, der weiß, daß Phantasie, daß Schwärmerei nicht auf seiten der Geisteswissenschaft, des Okkultismus ist, nicht in dem liegt, was heute vor Ihnen ausgesprochen worden ist. Phantastik, Schwärmerei, Träumerei ist in der abstrakten empirischen und Verstandeswissenschaft, welche glaubt, aus den physischen Schichten der Erde heute das noch ausgraben und studieren zu können, was nicht in ihnen sein kann, und welche es übersieht, diejenige Geist-Geologie zu studieren, die mit so wunderbaren Buchstaben zum Heile der Entwickelung der Menschenweisheit in der grandiosen Mythologie der Griechen noch vor uns steht.

Sixth Lecture

In these lectures, much consideration has been given to something that emerged from the stage performances that preceded them, but which also has an inner connection with the goal that has been set for this year's lecture series. Consideration has been given to the structure of the Greek pantheon. And if we ask ourselves: why, since we want to enlighten ourselves about the wonders of the world, trials of the soul, and revelations of the spirit, have we spoken so much about the Greek pantheon? — we can answer that, among other things, it is precisely through such consideration that we can provide ourselves with a foundation necessary for a spiritual scientific view of the world. We have already mentioned that the ancient Greeks did not have the concept of nature and natural existence that we have today. If we imagine ancient Greece as it really was in terms of its thinking and feeling, we would never find chemical, physical, or biological laws in the sense that we understand them today. What shone in the soul of the ancient Greek, what ignited in the spirit of this wonderful Greek culture when the eye — whether physical or clairvoyant — was directed toward the wonders of the world, what took shape there as a kind of knowledge, of wisdom, can only be characterized by the wonderful creation of the Greek world of gods. Anyone who looks at this world of gods as it is usually viewed, without any inner connection, knows nothing in truth about what it actually wants. In its wise design, this Greek world of gods is nothing less than the answer the Greeks could give to the question: What can shine in the human soul when this human soul beholds the wonders of the world? The ancient Greek soul did not answer the riddles and wonders of the world with a natural law in our present sense, but with the elaboration of some part of the divine beings or divine powers. Therefore, we can do nothing else but seek the equivalent of our dry, sober, abstract wisdom in those wonderful threads that we have followed and that have sometimes revealed themselves to us in a striking way in the last lectures, threads that hold together everything that the Greek world of gods presents. And if we truly want to advance in spiritual science, we must acquire a feeling, a sense that it is possible to think and feel about the wonders of the world in a completely different way than the newer, modern wisdom does.

However, in the last lecture, by bringing the figure of Dionysus before our eyes, we already pointed to something else. If the rest of the world of gods appeared to us as what shone in the soul of the Greek when he wanted to understand the wonders of the world, then in the figure of Dionysus we encounter something into which the ancient Greek has mystified what we can call, in the most comprehensive sense, the contradiction of life. And we cannot avoid turning our gaze to this contradiction of life. Abstract logic, abstract, intellectual thinking will always seek to discover contradictions in higher worldviews in order to then say: This worldview is full of contradictions, therefore it cannot be valid. But the fact is that life, the living fabric of our world wonders, is indeed permeated everywhere by contradiction, and that in fact, becoming would not be possible at all in the world if contradiction did not lie at the heart of all things. For why is the world today different from yesterday, why does something become, why does not everything remain as it was? Because yesterday there was a contradiction within the structure of things, and today's structure arose through the realization of this contradiction, through its expulsion from yesterday's structure. Those who look at things as they really are cannot say: by proving contradictions, we reveal untruths. For contradictions lie at the heart of reality. What would it be like if the human soul were free of contradictions? When we look back from any point in time, our whole life has been marked by contradictions. If we are more perfect at a later point in time than at an earlier one, this is because we have eliminated the earlier state, found it to be contrary to our own inner nature, and thus, in contradiction to what was, have brought about a reality of our own inner being. Contradiction is at the root of all beings. But we find this contradiction in particular — and in such a way that it speaks not only to our intellect, to our philosophy, but to our heart, to our entire soul being — when we consider the complete human being in our spiritual scientific sense, the fourfold human being, as we are accustomed to considering him through occult facts.

We must always keep in mind the basic framework of our spiritual science, that we view the human being as he stands before us as indeed composed of a physical body, an etheric body, an astral body, and his I. These four members constitute our human being. Let us now look at these four members of the human being as they appear to us first on the physical plane, in the physical world. Let us now disregard for a moment how the human being appears to clairvoyant vision, and ask ourselves: How do the four members of the human being appear to the physical eyes, to the physical world? Let us take first the innermost member of the human being, which, as you know, we consider to be the youngest, the I, or rather the I-bearer. The most striking characteristic of this human I immediately strikes everyone who looks at the world with even a little understanding. What is the most striking characteristic of this human I? It is that with our external sensory apparatus, with all the powers of cognition we have for the physical world, we can go far and wide in the world and never find this I. It is not visible to our eyes and cannot be perceived in any way by our external faculties of cognition. Therefore, when we encounter another human being in the physical world, when we want to observe them only physically, without resorting to clairvoyance, we can never observe this I in another human being with mere physical tools. The human being stands before us, presenting his outer form to us, but his I eludes the physical instruments of cognition. We walk among people, but we do not see their I with our outer organs of perception. If anyone wanted to believe that he could see I, that would be the greatest possible deception. Therefore, we cannot observe this I in itself with our external physical powers of cognition. We can only observe the expressions of this I through the organs of the physical body. A person can be a completely dishonest subject within themselves if they do not express their dishonesty so that it passes into the external physical world. We cannot see this with external physical tools because the I cannot be perceived with external physical tools at all. This is why, no matter how much we investigate with our external physical powers of cognition, this ego only ever appears to us once. Even though we know very well that there are many egos on earth, it only ever appears to our perception once: namely, as our own. In the physical world, or for physical instruments of knowledge, there is only one possibility for each human being to perceive the I, and that is his own. So we can say: The I, this youngest and also highest member of the human being, has the peculiarity that we can only perceive it in one instance, in ourselves, in relation to its existence, its reality. For all other people, it remains hidden from us within their physical shell.

Let us now move from the I as the innermost, the youngest, but also the highest member of the human being to the outermost, the physical body. As you know from various printed and oral statements made in recent years, the physical body, according to its true inner nature, is of course only recognizable to clairvoyant consciousness. To the outer consciousness, to the forces of the physical world, to the physical powers of cognition of human beings, the physical body appears only as the outer Maya or illusion. What we have before us in human beings as their physical body is outer Maya, illusion. But this illusion of the physical body appears to us in as many copies as we can encounter human beings on Earth. And our own physical body, insofar as it is Maya, appears in this relationship to be completely identical with the physical bodies of other human beings. Now there is a great difference between the perception of our own I, which is given to us in one instance, and the perception of the physical human bodies, which are given to us in as many instances as we know human beings on earth. We only get to know the I when we direct physical cognition within ourselves. We must look within ourselves with the power of knowledge acquired on the physical plane if we want to learn to recognize our I. It may be necessary to interject here, because even thinkers are sometimes unclear in this regard, that what is meant here, what is perceived by our I with physical powers of knowledge, belongs entirely to the physical world. It would be complete nonsense to say that what a human being with normal abilities finds within himself as his I belongs to a world other than the physical world. If someone wanted to classify the I, which is not viewed clairvoyantly but with normal abilities, as belonging to a world other than the physical plane, he would be committing a grave error. Things look completely different in the higher worlds to the higher consciousness; even the self is different to clairvoyant observation than it is to normal consciousness. We must believe nothing else about this self, of which external psychology and all external science speak, than that it is something that belongs to the physical plane. But we look at it from within, and because we stand, as it were, within this I, because we look at it from within and do not stand outside it, we can say: we learn this I only on the physical plane, but at least we know it in its inner essence through our immediate powers of cognition. But what the outer physical body is, which we see in so many copies in the world, we know only as Maya, for at the moment when the clairvoyant faculty, when clairvoyance, confronts the physical body, this physical body dissolves like a mist, shatters, and reveals itself as Maya. And if we want to recognize the physical body in its true form, we must ascend, not merely to the astral plane, but to the highest regions of the spiritual realm, the Devachan plane, so that a high degree of clairvoyance is necessary if we really want to get to know the physical body in its true form. Here below in the physical world, this physical body has only a completely illusory afterimage, and it is this afterimage that we see when we stand outside and look at this physical body. Thus we are faced with a most remarkable and contradictory fact when we consider these two members of the human organism, the lowest and the highest. We see the human physical organism as Maya here below in the physical world, that is, we see it as completely inappropriate to our innermost being. But we see the I here below in the physical world as a physical being that is very much in keeping with our inner being. I ask you to note this carefully, for it is an extremely important fact.

I would like to characterize this highly remarkable fact from another angle, half figuratively, but with the deepest seriousness of reality. Half figuratively, but in such a way that this half-figurative manner, through its richness, is more suitable for expressing the truth of this matter than abstract concepts can be. How are we to think—if I may speak half figuratively, half deeply serious—that Adam and Eve were in paradise before the Fall? We know, of course, that it is said that Adam and Eve were such before the Fall that they could not see each other's outer physical bodies. And when they saw them, they were ashamed of these physical bodies. This expresses something tremendously profound, a deep mystery. The Old Testament hints at why Adam and Eve were ashamed of their bodies after the Fall. It is hinted that the former body that Adam and Eve had before the Fall was more or less a spiritual body, that is, one that would have been accessible only to clairvoyant consciousness, which would have looked completely different from a physical human body, which would have expressed the essence of the I in its true form. So we must say: even the Bible knows that a completely different bodily form, albeit one that would only be perceptible to clairvoyant vision, would be appropriate to the deepest essence of the human being, and that this outer physical body, as we carry it today, is actually not at all appropriate to the inner essence of the human being. What did Adam and Eve feel when they no longer stood before each other in such a way that they did not see the physical body, but in such a way that they did see it? That they had fallen down from a world to which they had previously belonged, into matter, that they had been impregnated, as it were, with denser matter than they had previously had. They felt that the human being had been transferred with his physical body into a world to which he did not actually belong, when the real essence of his ego was taken into consideration. There is no more apt expression for this fact than the feeling of shame that comes over people, their embarrassment at how little the outer expression of their being, their sensory reality, is actually appropriate to the divine I.

But if we look at the same thing from another angle, it appears quite different. Then it appears that if man had not descended into his physical body, had not incorporated the denser matter, he could not have attained his ego-consciousness — or, to put it in the terms of Greek consciousness, as we did yesterday, he could not have participated in the Dionysian forces. You see, this is what the Greeks felt. The Greeks felt that the human ego, as it lives on the physical plane, not only has within itself the forces of a higher, spiritual, supersensible world that it had before the Fall, which flow into it, so to speak, from the higher spiritual worlds, but they felt that this ego is also dependent on forces that come from a completely different side, from the opposite side.

We know that before its present ego-consciousness, human beings normally had clairvoyant consciousness. In ancient times, human beings had clairvoyant consciousness. But this clairvoyant consciousness was pictorial, dreamlike, not illuminated by real intellectual light. Human beings only attained this later. This old clairvoyant consciousness had to be lost to human beings so that a new ego consciousness could emerge. For this to happen, however, it was necessary for the old ego form, the old Dionysus Zagreus, to perish. Yesterday we presented this grandiose image to our souls of how the old clairvoyant consciousness perished — in the sense of Greek mythology — how the old Dionysus Zagreus was torn apart by the Titans and reappeared in later times as the younger Dionysus: that is, our present ego-consciousness, which is a product of the formation of time in human evolution. But it was necessary that Semele, the human mother, participated in the production of the younger Dionysus. And in the figure of Semele, the Greek soul shows once again how confident and wise it felt toward the true wonders of the world.

What is the prerequisite for the younger Dionysus, or, let us say, for the younger human ego in general? In order for this ego to come into being, it was necessary for the old clairvoyant consciousness to die and for all the horizons that this old clairvoyant consciousness had to be pulled down. Those who know this — and those who developed Greek mythology knew it — say to themselves: Once upon a time there was this human soul with a clairvoyant consciousness that looked out into a world full of spiritual beings and spiritual facts, into a world in which human beings were still citizens of the higher spiritual worlds. But in the course of time, human beings stepped out of this spiritual world and became completely different beings, beings permeated by an ego. What would happen to a person today if, suddenly and without any preparation through esoteric training, instead of the physical world as it appears to the physical eye and ear, the world that existed for the ancient clairvoyant consciousness appeared before them in a single moment? Let us assume that, through some miracle of the world, instead of the world that presents itself to you in the starry sky, in the rising and setting sun, in mountains and mists, in minerals, plants, and animals, the world of the ancient Atlanteans suddenly appeared before the normal consciousness of modern humanity. Let us assume this hypothetically for a moment. Human beings would be shattered, so terrible, so frightening would be the world that is around us, for this world is the basis of all things, it is all around us, it is there, but it is covered by the world of our ego. We can say that there is a world around us that would fill human beings as they are today with fear and terror, with shattering horror, if they suddenly found themselves face to face with it. But this was something that the ancient Greek soul still felt. We find this also embedded in the wise and wonderful elaboration of the Dionysus legend. Dionysus had to come from a different side than that of the wonders of the world, into which the ancient Greek consciousness had placed the figure of Zeus and the other figures of the upper heavens. The ancient Greek felt that in everything that exists as the human world, there is something else living besides what lives above with the gods of the world of Zeus. The ancient Greeks felt that the world in which we live has another substantial ingredient. In other words, they felt that our physical human existence is mixed with an element that does not initially exist in the supersensible world above. Therefore, the younger Dionysus, the macrocosmic representative of our newer ego consciousness, could not be a son of Persephone and Zeus, like the old Dionysus, but had to be a son of Semele, an earthly mother, and Zeus. But we must consider what the Greek consciousness then added to this legend in its further development: it was brought about by the machinations of Hera that Semele should see Zeus in his true form, not as an ancient Atlantean hero, but as he is now. This could only happen through clairvoyant consciousness. What does it actually mean that Semele was allowed to see Zeus as he really is for a moment? Nothing other than that Semele was made clairvoyant for a moment. She perished in the flames because she saw Zeus in the flames of the astral world, that is, clairvoyantly. She was truly shattered, just as the present-day ego-consciousness of human beings would be shattered if it were suddenly confronted with the astral world. Semele shows us, so to speak, the tragedy of human beings that would immediately ensue if they were unprepared and suddenly confronted with the spiritual world through clairvoyance.

All the great occult facts, all the truths about the wonders of the world, we see hidden in some place in Greek mythology. We also see hidden there that Dionysus, the macrocosmic representative of the I, which every human being with normal consciousness can see only in one instance, descends from a being of the physical world, that what appears to us as a mere illusion to the normal physical eye was, so to speak, incorporated into Dionysus, that Dionysus, in other words, had to participate in the great world illusion, in the illusion. When we speak today in a sober, modern, dry sense about the wonders of the world, we speak in terms of physical, biological, and chemical laws. The Greeks spoke in grandiose images, and these really reach much further into the wonders of the world than our laws, which remain stuck on the surface. Greek legends and myths show us this everywhere.

And so we see how this Greek myth raises the question, as if in powerful occult writing: Yes, if we contemplate this true human self, if it should reveal itself in physical form, may we then look at the external human physicality given to us in the physical world? No, because this is Maya, it is not at all an external expression of the real self, it is truly such that the real self was rightly ashamed of its external physical form in Adam and Eve. What we have before us today as human beings is indeed a real contradiction, and this was felt by the Greeks, precisely the Greeks, of whom it has often been said with great superficiality that they focused only on the external beauties of nature. It was precisely the Greeks who felt the contradiction in the external human form. The Greeks were not naturalists in the sense that modern humanity believes, but rather they felt deeply, very deeply, that this human form of the human being walking around on Earth is a compromise. It does not show itself from any side as it should actually be in reality. Let us assume that this human form had come into being solely under the influence of the physical body, the etheric body, and the astral body. No I would have entered this human form; it would have built itself up on Earth only in the way that human beings came over from the previous incarnations of our Earth, from the old Saturn, the old Sun, and the old Moon. Then this human form would have to be different from what it actually is. If the Earth had not given the I to human beings, then human beings would be walking around on our Earth who looked completely different in their outer physical form. In a certain mysterious way, the ancient Greek soul asked itself this question: What would the human form look like if there were people on Earth today who had no ego, people who had not participated in the blessings of the Earth, in the development of the ego, who had not taken Dionysus into themselves? If such people were walking among us on Earth, people who had been formed solely under the influence of the forces of the physical, etheric, and astral bodies, what would the human form look like?

And the Greek soul also posed the other question with magnificent wit and innermost, inexpressible feelings: If there were nothing else but the I, if this I had not entered into the physical, etheric, and astral bodies, what would this I be like? Then it would not be with such a physical human body; this I would be formed with a spiritual body that would be completely different from the outer human body. But this spiritual body is only available to clairvoyant consciousness; it cannot actually be shown anywhere in the physical world.

What, then, is the human being who actually walks around on earth? He is neither the ego-less human being who is only under the influence of the astral body, the etheric body, and the physical body, nor is he the ego-human being, but rather a compromise between the two, a resultant, something that exists through the mixture of these two. Human beings are composite beings, just as they appear to us outwardly. This is what the ancient Greeks felt when they said: If Dionysus, and indeed the younger Dionysus, is the real first teacher of intellectual culture, then we must assume that he was not yet in a human body that was already under the influence of the ego, for the human being had to acquire the intellectual ego through the influence of Dionysian culture. Dionysus must therefore still represent this human ego outside the physical human body. Thus, the Greek consciousness of Dionysus and of that trait which I characterized as the cultural trait of Dionysus on earth could only imagine that Dionysus's actual ego had not yet entered the human body, but was just about to enter it, but that in fact Dionysus and all those who belonged to him had human bodies such as they would have to be if there were no ego in the human body, if the human body were only under the influence of the forces of the physical body, the etheric body, and the astral body. The ancient Greeks answered the question: What must the people of Dionysus' procession have looked like? They could not have looked like people of today, whose bodies are a composite of the invisible ego body and the outer body, but they must have been such that the ego invisibly surrounded the physical body as an aura, but this physical body had formed as it had to form under the influence of the forces of the physical body, the etheric body, and the astral body, that is, as a human being would have had to form on earth who had come over from the old moon with the forces of human nature and had continued to develop on earth without the earth ego being drawn into him.

And because the Greek soul answered this wonder of the world in a completely appropriate manner, figuratively, this Greek soul really presents, in the form of Dionysus himself — and especially in the form of those who are presented as Dionysus's retinue — such human figures who have the ego outside themselves and who, in the form they outwardly represent, really show nothing else than the forces of the physical, etheric, and astral bodies. These are the Sileni, the satyrs who follow Dionysus on his journey, those strange figures of satyrs and Sileni in this very pictorial form, as the Greeks imagined them. This is what human beings would look like if we could tear apart that which is a composite. Imagine for a moment that, by some magical means, the physical body, the etheric body, and the astral body of a human being standing before us could be treated in such a way that we could tear out the invisible, supersensible, actual body of the ego. Then the human being would become a figure like those who followed Dionysus on his journey.

But then the Greeks added something else to their wonderful mythology. We know that the ego gradually entered into the human form, that even in the ancient Atlantean time this ego was not yet in the human body. How, then, are we to imagine the Atlantean bodies? Greek imagination and Greek intuition have wonderfully elaborated the images of the ordinary, normal Atlantean average human being in the satyrs, the fauns, and Pan, as we shall see later. Under present-day conditions on earth, such human forms cannot arise, of course, and such human forms as the satyrs, the fauns, and indeed the entire retinue of Dionysus consisted of those stragglers of the Atlantean people who had most faithfully preserved the old human form of the Atlanteans. Dionysus had to take precisely these people, who had the least inner ego, with him on his journey, because he was to become the first teacher of the ego.

We see here that the Greeks used this procession of Dionysus to represent the figures of the average ancient Atlanteans. They were, however, designed in such a way that they did not have the same solid bone structure as modern humans. The human body has become more rigid; in the old Atlantean time, the human form was, if I may express it thus, still softer. That is why these Atlantean bodies could not be preserved, and today's geology and paleontology will hardly find any remains of the real Atlantean people. But there is another geology, another paleontology, which has preserved the Atlantean people for us: Greek mythology. And one should not dig in the geological layers of the earth if one wants to learn about the people of ancient times, who still had their higher bodies outside the physical body. It is completely absurd to dig in the geological layers of the earth. There you will never find anything but the decadent products of these prehistoric people. But in the layers of human spiritual life, namely in the spiritual-geological layer that has been preserved for us in the wonderful Greek mythology, we find, enclosed like snail shells and mussel shells in the geological layers of the earth, the old normal average Atlantean human being. If we study the configuration of the fauns, the pans, and the silens, we obtain those spirit-geological remnants that truly lead us to the prehuman state of the earth. We see how, in a way that today we might call enthusiastic, dreamy, or fantastical, the ancient Greek consciousness nevertheless explained the wonders of the world with a deeper scientific understanding than our present-day abstract, external, sober intellectual science. What the people of ancient times looked like is today constructed in countless contradictory Darwinist and anti-Darwinist hypotheses. The ancient Greeks presented us with this wonder of the world in a way that can satisfy our soul. It is not Haeckelism, nor any other branch of Darwinism, nor geological excavations in the external physical world that provide answers to the question of the external physical form of the pre-human beings on our earth. Rather, Greek mythology solves this wonder of the world for us by vividly presenting the retinue of Dionysus. We must gain a sense, a feeling, that this Greek mythology actually provides serious answers to questions about the wonders of the world. Then we can delve deeper and deeper into this myth, and only those who do not understand the true reason for these things can apply the word to such a mythical interpretation: If you do not interpret, you suppress. Those who know the connection in all its details and, in addition, the real development of the human being as it emerges from the Akashic Chronicle, know that fantasy and enthusiasm are not to be found in spiritual science or occultism, nor in what has been said here today. Fantasy, enthusiasm, and dreaminess are to be found in abstract empirical and intellectual science, which believe that they can still dig up and study from the physical layers of the earth what cannot be found there, and which overlook the study of the spiritual geology that still stands before us in the magnificent mythology of the Greeks, written in such wonderful letters for the benefit of the development of human wisdom.