Let us continue with karma and reincarnation as Rudolf Steiner made it understandable for us in his book Theosophy.What is special about it is that he always tried to make clear that the spiritual can really be followed by thinking, that one can understand it, that one does not need to be clairvoyant for it, but that – as he sometimes calls it – the healthy human intellect is there for that purpose and is spiritually sufficient to understand a spiritual science that has been perceived by a clairvoyant. And he actually gives, in the book Theosophy, and as an example in the chapter on reincarnation and karma – there he bears witness to the fact that it is so. What one actually notices, if one reads very concentratedly and precisely what he has written, then one notices that thinking shifts to another level. Although it remains intellectual thinking, it quietly becomes something else. And if this shift does not take place – yes, then one reads in such a way – then one can, as they say, read diagonally – like: one, two, three, hop – then one reads it superficially, and that which Rudolf Steiner writes is not to be taken as proof of the reality of reincarnation and karma. But if one takes part in this slight shift, then in the course of the text it becomes clear – it really seems to shine through – this spiritual reality; it becomes clear that here, through these words, through these concepts, through this sequence of thoughts, it is proven that the human being is a reincarnating being. And in the previous two videos on this topic, I first described the beginning – that Rudolf Steiner poses as a kind of question: whether it might not be possible that the world, too, has a memory. That not only human beings are the ones who can remember all sorts of things, but that also the world, which we change through our actions, that this world has a memory. And that at some point the facts will reappear and must be balanced out. That is a question – he does not immediately answer it with “yes,” but it is a wonderful idea. And one feels, if one reads it in the way I meant, then one feels that one enters another mode of thinking when one wants to regard such a question as a possibility. For then one no longer has only that which is known to us – our own memory capacity – but one imagines that in the world, which is for us more or less spiritless, soulless, that in this world there could be something like something soulful, something spiritual, that could remember our deeds.

One does not yet need to believe this at all, but the imagination alone brings one into another level of thinking. And in the second section Rudolf Steiner then described memory in more detail – that it is not a card file, but that it is something whereby every time one searches for an event in memory, one re-forms the representations. And then he describes afterward that what we think, feel, and do in life is above all there so that we transform all these details into capacities. And these capacities are, through the soul – which is a mediator between the physical and the spiritual – the soul adds these capacities to the spirit. And the spirit gathers these capacities for the post-mortal and for a new incarnation. There, one perhaps already has a bit more difficulty, because something is presented as a truth that cannot be proven by ordinary investigation.

There one must trust the spiritual investigator, the spiritual researcher, and one must go along with his sequence of thoughts. But if one does that, and does not immediately raise all sorts of objections or read diagonally, too quickly – if one really thinks along with concentration, then one acquires a certain feeling. And this feeling is a first proof for the existence of the spiritual within thinking. And then the sequence of thoughts continues, and then it becomes really very interesting, and actually, one could experience great joy in shaping one’s thinking in such a way that it can follow this sequence of thoughts. For then Rudolf Steiner says that the human being – humanity, the being “human” – that this is something general, and that all human beings in this sense belong to the same species, namely: human. And the form of the human being – that reproduces itself through hereditary reproduction. So the physical form, the physical human shape, comes again and again by the fact that humans reproduce. So one knows: the human form does not arise suddenly from itself, but to come into being it needs father and mother. And this father and this mother also in turn needed a father and mother, and so on. That is of course self-evident, but still good to rethink quite exactly once again. And then Rudolf Steiner says: that is not the only thing through which a human being is a human being. For human beings differ from one another much, much more strongly than is the case in other species. When one looks at an animal species, one sees, of course, differences due to hereditary disposition, but these differences never become as enormously large as one sees in human beings. Even when brothers and sisters are compared who were born in the same circumstances, from the same ancestors, one already sees great differences. That could still be explained to some extent by Mendel’s laws and by DNA. But what one cannot explain is the biography. This biography shows an infinite variety. And then comes the thought that this diversity is as great as the differences between animal species. That one must consider more deeply. If one reads it diagonally, one can sweep it off the table. But if one lets it affect oneself, then one actually can’t anymore. For then one sees how truly great the differences between biographies are. And Steiner himself then says: yes, of course one can expect that people who deal a lot with animals will say that animals of the same species also differ greatly among themselves and have different lives. But that is flatness in thinking when one says that. For when we compare two people – yes, the difference is so incredibly great, and the details are so different. And then, of course, one can say: yes, but that comes from external influences, and so on. Think about it – then one sees: that is an impossibility. The biography must come from an ancestor. Not a physical ancestor is meant then. But just as the human form can only exist because there are ancestors, so too can the human biography only exist because there are ancestors. And that, says Rudolf Steiner, are in the case of human beings the previous incarnations. That is – it is shockingly clear – that that must indeed be so. And I remember: the first time I read it, I had already heard from people around me that anthroposophists believe in reincarnation, and that didn’t really mean anything to me. But then I read this chapter in the book Theosophy – yes, then it became clear; intellectual logic can actually raise no objection against it. Only if one does not go along with this slight shift that thinking makes when it must raise itself from ordinary sensory thinking – because one reads this – to pure spiritual thinking. And when one then delves into this, something difficult also arises: namely, when one compares this – as a physical human being, one has ancestors, and these are other individualities than oneself. As a spiritual human being, one also has ancestors – these are the previous incarnations – but that is always the same individuality that returns. And that could give a strong feeling of loneliness. For in spirit, one is actually always again with oneself through one’s ancestors, and not in a surrounding. That was, for me, when I began with the novels about worldviews and studied the theme of monadism, a theme for a novel on monadism – that then became House without Windows – never translated into German. And there we then find a woman who stands in the world in such a way that she inwardly knows quite clearly that she lives in a house without windows to the outside. And what is then actually the possibility? That the individuality, which indeed has ancestors, but then finds out that the ancestors are always myself – what is then the possibility to get out of this enclosedness? Is there something that makes it possible that I, even though I find myself again and again in my ancestors, still feel myself in a community when I look back at that which has now shaped this biography? This possibility does of course exist. And I only want to speak the word that applies to it now. For what is it that dissolves this lonely enclosedness in oneself? What force breaks out from the house and leads into the house itself? That is love.

Perhaps more about that next time.