The last time I had the question: how is it actually possible that the most human question about human beings, life, and death \u2014 that the answer to it is not sought in anthroposophy by millions of people? And of course, there are several answers to this, but the most important thing is that we, as human beings in our time, have a kind of “theater mode.” Yes, we prefer to behave in such a way that we don\u2019t need to do anything and that we only have to watch. Watching is the most glorious thing there is. Especially when there are images. So, what is more beautiful than, for example, going to a movie in the theater, to a concert, or to a play? Perhaps even more glorious is when one can go to a beautiful place where there is a lot to look at and where the stomach is also so wonderfully nourished…<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Doing something belongs to work. If I have to prepare a meal, then that is already work; if I have to practice my profession, yes, then that is also work, and in the evening, when I am back home, yes, then I do not want to work again. Then I actually don\u2019t want to do anything. But I also don\u2019t want to be bored. I want to receive everything as a gift, and therefore I sit down and perhaps take my phone, or iPad, or television, or maybe I even have a conversation, maybe we play a game together or something like that. But doing something? No, that is not what I like to do. That is how one feels, and that is \u2014 one could say \u2014 a longing for theater. Dreaming is also something so wonderful. And when suffering then comes in life, when misery comes, and sorrow, suffering \u2014 yes, then one has to do something in order to overcome this suffering. That is difficult, that requires energy, and then, of course, the solution is, for example, mindfulness. It offers a wonderful solution because through it, I can once again take on a kind of theater stance. I can, for example, watch my breathing in an exercise, experience it, or I can observe my consciousness contents, but I do not need to become active, I do not need to do anything. And if that is the greatest longing of human beings, then anthroposophy simply cannot be popular. That is not something one wishes for. One does not want to become active; one wants to sit down and watch, and that is not possible in anthroposophy.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
And why would it be necessary to become active? After all, things work without this activity, don\u2019t they? We are already active enough during the day, do we then also have to become active again in our free time when we want to develop ourselves? Yes, I don\u2019t quite understand that. I do understand it, but somehow, I also don\u2019t, because if one has the desire to learn to play the piano, then one also has to do something \u2014 even if most students perhaps do not practice, but then they also do not progress. If one wants to learn something, one must become active. But that is the difficulty with anthroposophy: that one should become active in inner development \u2014 that has to do with our time. If we look back to earlier times, it was really still the case that externally, perhaps, much had to be done, but inwardly, it was much more a matter of devotion that one had to have, and this devotion is, in a certain sense, a kind of passivity.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
When we look at our consciousness content, then we actually take a step back and observe what is going on inside us. In doing so, one actually frees oneself from it in a certain sense and does not suffer so much from oneself as one does when one is in it. So, a solution to suffering would be to take a step back to the inner observer and observe the consciousness content, and then, by making this something objective, we have to suffer less. That is the past, that was really possible, but in our time, we cannot get past the necessity of suffering if we do not learn to penetrate it with activity. In our time, it is precisely inner activity that leads to happiness. The highest happiness cannot be had if one is passive \u2014 that ultimately leads to a kind of decay. We must discover that one truly becomes happy through activity itself. And yes, one can say that \u2014 I say it \u2014but in the end, a human being must experience it for themselves.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Anthroposophy has an aura of activity around it. One actually cannot do anything with anthroposophy if one does not want to become inwardly active. And then there is something else: when one searches for the meaning of life, one also seeks a certain kind of knowledge. One is not satisfied simply stepping back and observing oneself and then suffering less \u2014 not even if one can thereby sink into great calm. Knowledge about what life is, what death is, what a human being is \u2014 that is not there. And that is what anthroposophy brings. Rudolf Steiner, who brought anthroposophy, gave it the name “anthroposophy” after he had worked for many years in theosophy. And in lectures, he then explained what he actually meant by the word: that one can find the divine through wisdom \u2014 that is theosophy, for which one must rise far above oneself. But one can also find the human being through wisdom \u2014 the wisdom that is embodied in human beings. And that is anthroposophy \u2014 that is human wisdom.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
And he always said that perhaps it would be best if the name were regularly changed so that it does not become worn out, so that it does not become something worn out where one gets bored and says, “Yes, I already know what that is.” Of course, hardly anyone knows what that is. Human wisdom, anthroposophy \u2014 one really has to become active in order to learn to see through oneself as a human being.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
So, inwardly, there are actually two boundaries that one has. On the one hand, one would rather do nothing. So, the effort one has to make to study human wisdom is not so pleasant. And on the other hand, there is the need for knowledge. That must be there. One must have a longing to know more about the human being than what science can give us. And then it depends on realizing that this knowledge actually means nothing if it is not experienced. One can have an enormous amount of knowledge and yet still not be wise.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
And anthroposophy teaches \u2014 that will come later, but I anticipate it now \u2014anthroposophy teaches that what we absorb as knowledge, we only have during our lifetime, and that after death, it drifts away from us in a short time. So, this human wisdom actually carries a kind of demand with it: it actually demands that what we take in as knowledge, we fully unite with our experience. Activity and wisdom \u2014 those are the two great foundations of anthroposophy. And wisdom is then a spiritual wisdom that leads us much, much further into the essence of the human being than external knowledge ever can.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is a treasure in life when one finds this human wisdom, this anthroposophy, and can become enthusiastic about it so that it is no longer difficult to become active. Yes, that is what I wanted to say to you today, and I want to end my speech with a quote from Rudolf Steiner, which clearly shows that this necessity for activity is really a great problem for us human beings, and that has not diminished in a century. It has become much, much stronger because our longing for theatrical pleasure has been satisfied. We can have it in the evening at any time. We can have it all day long. We know the young people who are busy with their devices all day long \u2014 they have found a way to console themselves, to overcome their boredom, their hopelessness, by becoming more and more passive.\u00a0 And one would really wish that the youth would find the activity of anthroposophy. Here is the quote, it comes from a lecture series: \u201cSpiritual Forces at Work in the Coexistence of the Older and Younger Generation.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\u201d There is anthroposophical literature, and it makes the claim that one should think actively. Most can only think passively and believe that thinking actively is not possible. One can neither sleep nor intellectually dream in doing so. One must join in, one must set thinking into motion; in the moment when one does that, one joins in. There, what I would like to call modern clairvoyance ceases to be something wonderful. That this still appears as something particularly wonderful comes from the fact that people do not yet want to develop the energy to bring activity into thinking.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is often despairing in this regard. One sometimes feels, when one places this demand for activity on thinking, that the person concerned feels as if he were a man lying in the roadside ditch, not moving his hands and legs, not even opening his eyelids, and being asked by a passerby: \u2018Why are you so sad?\u2019 \u2013 He answered: \u2018Because I do not want to do anything.\u2019 \u2013 The questioner was astonished at this, for the one lying there apparently had not been doing anything for a long time already. But he wanted to do even *more* \u2018nothing\u2019! Then the questioner said: \u2018Yes, but you are really doing nothing!\u2019 \u2013 To which he got the reply: \u2018I do have to go along with the rotation of the earth, and I would like not to do even that.\u2019<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
I hope next week to go further into the question: Why do not millions of people find solace in anthroposophy? And I will then discuss more the external side.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The last time I had the question: how is it actually possible that the most human question about human beings, life, and death \u2014 that the answer to it is not sought in anthroposophy by millions of people? And of course, there are several answers to this, but the most important thing is that we, as human beings in our time, have a kind of “theater mode.” Yes, we prefer to behave in such a way that we don\u2019t need to do anything and that we only have to watch.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":5081,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5101","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-ongecategoriseerd"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5101","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5101"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5101\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5116,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5101\/revisions\/5116"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5081"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5101"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5101"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/miekemosmuller.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5101"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}