Yes, the previous time I spoke about inner resistances that one can have against something like anthroposophy because one cannot remain passive if one wants to take anthroposophy as the meaning of life. Then one must indeed begin to read, to study, and to meditate, and there is something in the human soul that resists this. These are inner counterforces that we carry within us, and yes, a person does not simply become aware of this, but this makes the study of human wisdom not so attractive.

But of course, there are also external facts that ensure that anthroposophy is not directly accessible to millions of people, and this has to do with the fact that it has now become an institution with many departments. And this institution and its departments are mostly well known in the world and carry the face of anthroposophy, or so it seems.

So, for example, if one were to hear from a friend: “Take a look at anthroposophy,” then immediately a whole chain of opinions and judgments arises, which have to do with the fact that anthroposophy outwardly has taken on a certain face.

We must imagine: Rudolf Steiner lived at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, and his activity was primarily until 1925, and then he died. Then other people, successors, took over the administration of the entire institution. But Rudolf Steiner was an initiate, and the successors were not yet, and so it can happen—and this is, of course, mostly the case—that what originally radiated from the society changes. And now it is not at all my intention to judge this negatively, because it is probably not even possible otherwise, but one must be willing to acknowledge that this happens.

If the impulse that was given at that time flowed through Rudolf Steiner, and the person who carried it is no longer on earth, then the successors must be able to grasp the spiritual impulse and carry it forward unchanged. But it does not work that way. People have their own nature, and this is usually much stronger than the spiritual impulse, and so what was originally there gradually changes—while, originally, it was probably not entirely as it actually could have been.

This simply has to do with our human imperfection, and so we live in the 21st century in a situation in which there is also such an institution, the General Anthroposophical Society in Dornach, with national societies. These exist, and one could go there to get to know anthroposophy. But then one naturally comes into contact with what it has become, and whether one then so easily finds what it originally meant and what it actually wants to express as a spiritual impulse—that is the question.

For just as we have an incredible amount of difficulty when we meet people in looking behind the face to see who they really are, so with an institution, this is an almost impossible task. So, one could be fortunate if anthroposophy appears in one’s life without the institutions being too dominant, so that one can directly approach what it actually has to say before the institutional aspect takes hold.

And yes, it is naturally a certain group of people who feel drawn to it, and it is often not so much the content that attracts them, but rather the entire institutional aspect that is present. And this leads to certain people feeling at home there, and while it is actually meant that everyone should feel comfortable there, if one is of a different nature, then it often happens that one feels repelled. Either because one cannot develop any sympathy oneself or because one feels that no sympathy flows towards oneself, that there may even be resistance, that one is different and actually does not belong.

Of course, I know that, ideally, it is not meant that way, but I say it again: On earth, everything takes its course, and once a path is deeply ingrained, it is not easy to get out of it. So that is part of my own answer to the question: Why do millions of people not find anthroposophy?

Of course, by now, there are Waldorf schools and Rudolf Steiner schools all over the world. There, a little bit of anthroposophy shines into the world because the educational method of Waldorf education is so fundamentally different from all other pedagogical institutions. That it is no longer so spiritual and no longer so carried by the spiritual as it was originally meant to be—that, of course, is also self-evident.

So, there are still radiations of anthroposophy in the world where there are Waldorf schools. There are all sorts of other initiatives that can be found all over the world. But that is not what I mean when I ask: Why do millions of people not gain access to anthroposophy?

That has to do with the fact that the true face of anthroposophy is no longer visible through all the institutional aspects. And that when a person seeks the meaning of life—which is, of course, a summary of much more than just “meaning”—when a person searches for that, then, I think, they simultaneously seek a place where they feel received, where they can take in what is there together with others.

In my opinion, this has not yet really been achieved, and that is also because anthroposophy is a path of knowledge and not primarily a path of love, although it actually is that as well. This is a great and difficult problem, and I have lived with, how shall I say, a kind of sorrow ever since I have known anthroposophy, because what Rudolf Steiner himself considered possible has not happened.

Namely, that all over the world, there would be people who seek anthroposophy and who also find it. Now, of course, one can suffer from this, and one can do one’s part to help a little in ensuring that the other anthroposophy appears.

But we have the great problem that it is already completely formed. What Rudolf Steiner absolutely did not want for children was that concepts would be absorbed in such a way that they could no longer grow. He did not want children to absorb concepts in a way that fixes them permanently. He wanted it to be done so that throughout their entire lives, they would have concepts that can expand and develop.

This should absolutely also be the case with anthroposophy itself. It must not be restricted by an institution; it must be alive. It must be such that every person who seeks it can also find it and become happy from it. That suffering also comes—that, of course, is also the case.

But that this power, which anthroposophy carries within itself, really becomes effective—that is essential. And yes, in the following videos, I will try to do my part to make anthroposophy better known as a path of knowledge.

But at the same time, it has always been the case for me that knowledge and love cannot exist without each other. I do not believe in knowledge that is not received with love—that will never truly be knowledge. And I also do not believe in love without wisdom.

It is the sentence from the Gospel of John, in the chapter on the washing of the feet, where Christ says: “Whoever receives the one whom I send receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.”

In this sentence lies the principle of knowledge, love, and action—Spirit, Son, and Father. And I cannot imagine anthroposophy if this sentence is not a kind of guiding principle, making one feel: Anthroposophy cannot exist if it is not a path of knowledge. One must want to study.

But knowledge that is not carried by love can never become spiritual knowledge. And when true spiritual knowledge arises in a person, they learn to live in such a way that they come to know the principle of love as action—that one learns to fulfill the active in life, carried by knowledge and filled with love.