by Sven Ove Hansson, Uppsala
[Conceptus XXV (1991), No. 64, pp. 37-49.]
The below, by the undersigned (Nordwall)
commented article by Hansson can be found at a number of sites at internet,
in Swedish, English and German. It is written by one of the main founders
in 1982 of the Swedish section of CSICOP,
who also has written several works on what he considers to be pseudoscience.
Summary of comment
The paper "Is Anthroposophy Science"
by a Sven-Ove Hansson, published in 1991, is analysed.
1. The anthroposophical road to knowledge
Steiner emphasized that he was doing "science" [Wissenschaft]. He interchangeably called his undertaking "occult science" [Geheimwissenschaft], "Divine Science" [göttliche Wissenschaft] and - most commonly - "spiritual science" [Geisteswissenschaft].  Spiritual science "would speak of the non-sensible in the same spirit in which Natural Science speaks of the sensible".  It works by developing in the individual an ability to see directly into spiritual reality ("clairvoyance" [Hellsehen]). The process of acquiring this ability is called "initiation" [Einweihung].  Steiner has provided fairly detailed guidelines for the first stages of the initiation process. Some individuals have, according to Steiner, a personality that facilitates the development of clairvoyance.
"There are children who look up with reverent awe [heilige Scheu] to certain venerated persons. Their reverence for these people forbids them, even in the deepest depths of their hearts, to admit any thought of criticism or opposition ... Many occult pupils [Geheimschüler] come from the ranks of such children." COMMENT:
The quote  makes it stand out as if Steiner thought it was important for students of spiritual science to be reverent to persons; implicitly himself in the case of anthroposophy, which is one of the main arguments of the article. That is not correct. What Steiner points to in the context quoted is something quite else, that Hansson leaves out.
The context, from which Hansson takes his 'quote', is the first chapter of Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. The chapter discusses the 'Conditions' for starting to understand more deeper layers of reality. The full textual context, out of which the quote is peeled out is:
Steiner (not quoted by Hansson):As can be seen from the context, what Steiner describes is how a sense of veneration in childhood, which in childhood naturally is directed at concrete people, but also may be nature, later, in adult life is the best basis for in adult years developing the veneration for truth and knowledge that is one of the basic conditions for investigating and exploring reality in a deeper sense.
It is based on the simple experience, that nature, as little as people, not reveals its deeper secrets and nature to you in more than an external way, if you immediately start by intellectually analysing, criticizing and speculating about the way it appears to you.
What comes to expression in Steiner's argumentation is the view that only through a balanced and many-sided relation to nature and reality in a broad sense, just as with people, will it reveal its deeper nature to you.
Anthroposophy argues that this, beyond an external observing, thinking, analytical and experimental relation to it, also necessitates that you develop a sensitive artistic and practical relation to it, including deepening this relation through a conscious disciplining of your relation to your experiences through an inner meditative digestion of them, and based on and developing a devotion to life and a love for nature and other people.
Against this strife, Hansson argues
rhetorically because such a path of knowledge pointed to by anthroposophy
to develop a balanced human relation to and understanding of reality in
deeper sense is not primarily, only in a secondary sense experimental
and intellectually analytical.
What Steiner describes already in the first chapter of Knowledge of Higher Worlds is shown in its essence by another quote from it:
"... Whoever, therefore, wishes to become a student of higher knowledge must assiduously cultivate this inner life of devotion. Everywhere in his environment and his experiences he must seek motives of admiration and homage. If I meet a man and blame him for his shortcomings, I rob myself of power to attain higher knowledge; but if I try to enter lovingly into his merits, I gather such power."What is necessary to understand the world and man in a deeper sense is to develop a humility, veneration and love for the world we live in. What the chapter describes in a sensitive way is this necessity as the basic precondition for developing a "higher [deeper] knowledge" of it.
"If we do not develop within ourselves this deeply rooted feeling that there is something higher than ourselves, we shall never find the strength to evolve to something higher. The initiate has only acquired the strength to lift his head to the heights of knowledge by guiding his heart to the depths of veneration and devotion. The heights of the spirit can only be climbed by passing through the portals of humility ...Also, while quote  is taken from the beginning of the book [p. 24, see notes below], the directly following statement quoted by Hansson  refers to a much later part of the book [p. 63 ff, see notes below], with Hansson skipping the description of the very long way between the first cultivation of some basic soul qualities through a number of stages, over developing inner calm and cultivating attention in a number of directions, only then doing more specific observational exercises, related to the mineral world, the plant world, the world of animals and the world of man.
Anthroposophy describes how it first is necessary to systematically develop a mastery of one's own thinking, will and feelings, and how to equally repeatedly and systematically develop an openness and positivity to the world.
Only then is it possible to conduct systematic exercises leading also in time to clairvoyance in a first step as a transformation of thinking, spiritual "hearing" in a second step, and spiritual "tasting" in a third step.
A closer look at the basic steps
in the anthroposophical road to knowledge as depicted in "Knowledge of
Higher Worlds" shows that Hansson's description of it seriously misrepresents
and distorts it, depriving his description of its value in any more than
a superficial rhetorical sense.
"First look at the things as keenly and as intently as you possibly can; then only let the feeling which expands to life, and the thought which arises in the soul, take possession of you." (Italic and bold by this commentator. S.N.)It shows that what the original argues against is too much and early intellectualizing speculation about the experience, not thinking about it as such:
"It should be emphasized that the student must never lose himself in speculations on the meaning of one thing or another. Such intellectualizing will only draw him away from the right road. He should look out on the world with keen, healthy senses and quickened power of observation, and then give himself up to the feeling that arises within him. He should not try to make out, through intellectual speculation, the meaning of things, but rather allow the things to disclose themselves.
"We must say to ourselves: our thinking ceases, and our head becomes the scene of the influence [Wirken] of the higher hierarchies." When he has acquired knowledge in this way, the clairvoyant "will in doing so have experienced the proof, and nothing more can be achieved by any added proof from outside". 
What  is an expression of, is the view of the philosophical tradition of objective idealism and conceptual realism (more), that thoughts basically are objective realities (Platonic perspective, Aristotelean perspective) and that is is possible to develop such a relation to the objective world of thoughts that they think themselves objectively in us. The view of Steiner was that these objective world thoughts were an expression of the activities of high 'spiritual beings', by some described as a hierarchy of beings and by the philosopher Hegel called "The world spirit".
That 'world thoughts' 'think themselves' in man is something that also takes place, not only in philosophical reasoning, but also in pure mathematics. It is not a description of something that primarily is or has the character of 'religious revelation', but of a thinking that has been developed to achieving such a degree of objectivity in relation to the world, that what comes to expression as the world we experience as an external world outside ourselves also can 'think itself' as 'world thoughts' in our own thinking.
 is taken from the first chapter of 'Occult Science - an outline' describing "The character of the science of the occult" (with the word 'occult' not being in principle 'hidden', but in the sense of 'not immediately obvious').
Someone following only the extremely
short and distorted way described by Hansson, if trying to develop thinking
in such a way that it becomes objective in the deeper sense of being in
accordance with the world that we experience, would probably not develop
an objective understanding of reality in the way Steiner refers to as a
proof in itself of being objective.
The clairvoyant will gain access to knowledge that is unavailable to the uninitiated. As one example, he will transcend the limits of historical science, and sense "past events in their eternal character".  In particular, he will be able to read the so-called Akasha chronicle. This is not a chronicle in the ordinary sense of a historical text. Instead, it consists in the supersensual traces of past events.
"Those who are initiated into the reading of such a living script, will be able to look back into a much more distant past than what is related by external history [åussere Geschichte]; and they are also able - through immediate spiritual perception [unmittelbare geistige Wahrnehmung] - to give a much more reliable account of the subject-matter of this history than what it is itself capable of." Steiner was a frequent reader of the Akasha chronicle. Significant portions of his voluminous writings consist of exhaustive accounts of historical events. He provided details about Atlantis and other lost civilizations. He corrected the Gospels, revealed the secrets of ancient Egyptian priests, etc. All this he had learnt from the Akasha chronicle.
Steiner also taught many other branches of knowledge, such as agriculture, medicine and education. His source of knowledge was always the same: His own clairvoyant visions. (bold/italic by this commentator)
"And what different initiates can report on history and prehistory will be essentially in agreement [im wesentlichen in Übereinstimmung]. Indeed all occult schools have such a history and prehistory. And we have here, since thousands of years, such complete agreement [volle Übereinstimmung] that the agreement to be found between the external historians of a single century cannot be compared to it. In all times and all places the initiates relate essentially the same." This standpoint may be somewhat surprising, considering the wide variety of occult teachings that are competing for our souls. And of course, Steiner could not deny that contradictory doctrines are being promoted as true, occult knowledge. But this was only because some practitioners of clairvoyance made mistakes. True occult knowledge was the same for everyone that was able to attain it. "Divergencies exist only so long as men try to approach the highest truths by arbitrary ways, instead of by a pathway that is scientifically sure." 
In order to establish that anthroposophical knowledge is intersubjective it is not sufficient merely to declare that some visions are true and some are mistaken. In addition, a method is required for deciding whether a particular vision is true or not. If such a method can be specified, and if it yields the same result for everyone who uses it, then intersubjectivity has been secured.
Steiner did in fact provide such a method. To avoid making mistakes, and to ensure that his visions were true, the prospective clairvoyant should take advice from a teacher. "You let a teacher transmit to you what has been achieved for humanity by inspired forerunners [inspirierte Vorgänger]".  In a very clarifying passage he said:
"One who, without first turning his attention to some of the essential facts of the supersensible world, merely does 'exercises' with the idea of gaining entrance there, will find in it a vague and confusing chaos. Man finds his way into that world - to begin with, as it were, naively - by learning to understand its essential features. Then he can gain a clear idea of how - leaving his 'naive' stage behind him - he will himself attain, in full consciousness, to the experiences which have been related to him." SOME COMMENTS:
1. This argument does not distinguish between observations of the spiritual phenomena and observations of natural phenomena formerly completely unknown to the observer, using the normal sense organs of the human being. In both cases the experience will stand out as chaotic and in need of guidance by those having done similar observations before for you to understand it.
In relation to the natural world that we are born into, the basic guidance takes place during childhood, later followed by elementary school, high school, college and university. Without this guidance, especially during the first time of childhood, man would be more or less handicapped in life. In relation to the phenomena of the soul and the more purely spiritual world, man, without a similar guidance, would be similarly handicapped.
First learning from others to understand the reality we are born into and experience as children is the deeper basis and context for everything that we later in life naively think of and call "intersubjectivity". That Hansson does not seem to realize this when arguing about intersubjectivity may stand out as surprising. It also stands out as surprising that the editor or editors of of the allegedly philosophical journal in which the article was published in 1991 accepted this type of argumentation.
In a later edited publication of the article (2003), Hansson however seems to have realized the superficiality of his argumentation on this points, and comments on it by adding a comment similar to that of this commentator.
2. It was also Steiner's expressed view that it would be completely possible for people to develop what he summarized as 'anthroposophy', completely independently of having been aware of 'anthroposophy' as developed by Steiner before. He only thought that would take longer time, having to do it without guidance.
3. In the article on science at http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Science.htm I have tried to map out some of the basic roots of anthroposophy in the philosophical tradition in relation to basic ontology, showing how the four/five basic ontological traditions ('atoms', 'elements', 'numbers' and 'concepts' as the ultimate reality) relate to the sense organism of man. The article is an academic study, done for Prof Håkan Thörnebom at the Institution for the Philosophy of Science at the University of Gothenburg in 1980.)
The article shows that anthroposophy is rooted in the idealistic tradition in philosophy, with Plato and Aristotle as two of its most outstanding representatives, in a similar way that what today is called natural science is rooted in a materialistic tradition in philosophy, leading back through history to among other Democritus and Pythagoras in antiquity, as two central representatives of its basic pillars; that of a physicalistic world view and mathematics as the central method of describing it.
As for a number of the phenomena that Steiner summarized the experience of, by using concepts like 'ether body', astral body' and ego-organization', the concepts in question are possible to understand in relation to the Aristotelean(-Platonic) tradition, out of which the idealistic tradition in philosophy, and anthroposophy, have developed.
In the Aristotelean tradition, the concepts 'vegetative soul', 'animal soul', and 'rational soul' are used to describe the basic nature of life processes, soul processes and rational thinking in man.
In anthroposophy, these concepts are developed further, described with terms connecting to the historical context during the end of the 19th century, and based not only on thinking about, but spiritually observing the deeper nature of that, for which Aristotle 2.100 years earlier had used the concepts 'vegetative soul', 'animal soul' and 'rational soul'.
This effort to connect to the historical context and spiritual tradition during the end of the 19th century made anthroposophy use the partly more developed concept of 'etheric body' for what Aristotle had called 'vegetative soul', and 'astral body' ('body of star forces') for what Aristotle had called 'animal soul'.
The concept 'ego-organization' much constitutes a developed description of that for which Aristotle used the concept 'rational soul'.
That it is necessary to go all the way back to the birth of Western civilization in Greek antiquity to understand in some depth the origin and nature of anthroposophy in relation to what today is called natural science, points to one of the reasons for the difficulty to understand it out of present day 20th and 21st century cultural context, dominated by a natural scientific tradition of the last centuries as the mirror to the idealistic tradition, represented by anthroposophy.
It also makes the problem and cultural
conflict understandable, that develops and faces you, when trying to understand
anthroposophy out of a 20th or 21th century perspective, without understanding
the deeper historical and broader philosophical origin of the problem and
In ever more developing anthroposophy separate from the theosophical tradition from 1909-10, he in the foreword to a later (5th-7th) edition of "Knowledge of Higher Worlds ..." in 1914, some 10 years after the first edition writes, updating the foreword to the work, writes, contradicting Hansson's description, based on the 1918 edition of the work:
"In connection with a great deal not described in this book I had to explain at that time [1904, this commentator] that it could be learned by oral communication. Much of what this referred to has since been published. But these allusions perhaps did not wholly exclude the possibility of erroneous ideas in the reader's mind. It might be possible, for instance, to imagine that something much more vital in the personal relations between the seeker for spiritual schooling and this or that teacher than is intended.In 1991 in a seemingly philosophical journal publishing a broad rhetorical criticism of "The anthroposophical road to knowledge" and anthroposophy as developed by Steiner, one might have expected Hansson, when discussing and arguing about such a central problem as intersubjectivity in research, to have done some more thorough investigation of Steiner's view of it, and noted his own erroneous description of Steiner's view on the relation between student and teacher in spiritual research, when developing anthroposophy separate from theosophy.
It points to a degree of superficiality
in the literature research, upon which Hansson bases his article, not normally
expected from allegedly scientific papers in philosophical journals.
However, this particular form of intersubjectivity gives rise to at least two further epistemological problems:
(1) Since there are different occult forerunners with different teachings, how do we (intersubjectively) find out which are the genuine ones?Steiner does not seem to have tried to solve any of these two problems. In the absence of satisfactory solutions, Steiner's intersubjectivity consists in the subjection to an authority whose superior access to knowledge is merely stipulated. This is intersubjectivity, but an authoritarian form of intersubjectivity.
It is not true that 'Steiner's intersubjectivity consists in the subjection to an authority whose superior access to knowledge is merely 'stipulated'. That noone after Steiner has ever demonstrably reached the heights of Rudolf Steiner since his death does not make his writings and lectures into an infallible doctrine. (There also exist different later representatives of anthroposophy, who have developed some of the abilities, developed and used by Steiner. They however seldom publish their experiences, as Steiner did.)
Instead it was Steiner's own expressed understanding and view, repeatedly pointing it out in lectures he held, that his observations and descriptions of the spiritual world not in his view were infallible and expressing his wish for people to think for themselves and correct him if they could point to well founded reasons for doing it.
That for example took place in relation to his discussion of coloured shadows during his 'First Science Course' to teachers at the first Waldorf School in Stuttgart around 1920, where a following discussion and demonstration showed that Steiner was incorrect in his in one of the lectures expressed view that coloured shadows had an objective reality in a way, that not was demonstrable on the basis of normal visual observation.
That coloured shadows were objective in the sense described by Steiner in the lecture was however also the view of one of the great physicist of the 19th century, who discussed the phenomenon, and may be one of the sources of Steiner's view on the issue.
As to point 1, the problem of coming to judgements about the reliability and validity of what different people state regarding spiritual contexts is far more complex than indicated by the formulation by Hansson.
It is correct that Steiner not explicitly and in detail described specific, generally applicable criteria for determining which statements as such about spiritual contexts are reliable and valid and which are not, equally developed as the ones developed to judge the reliability and validity of research results acquired through external experimentation to investigate properties of matter, space and time.
As with statements in natural science, there however are a number of factors supporting the forming of a judgement of the reliability of statements regarding spiritual issues.
Some are "internal", others are "external". To the internal ones belong internal consistency, and intersubjectivity in the same sense as in natural science.
To the external ones, applicable when the spiritual scientific statements concern properties of matter, time and space, belong experimental tests and considerations.
At http://www.thebee.se/SCIENCE/Science.htm this author discusses the epistemological and ontological roots of "spiritual science" in relation to "natural science", pointing to their complementary character, necessitating partly different criteria for judging the reliability and validity of statements in "natural science" and "spiritual science".
Point 2, formulated by Hansson,
has the same character as the question of who came first, the egg or the
hen. As such, it stands out as surprising to find in an article purporting
to be a serious philosophical article discussing the nature of anthroposophy
as spiritual science.
One might have expected anthroposophy, as practised today, to be based mainly on clairvoyant visions by its contemporary practitioners (i.e., visions certified by their agreement with the teachings of Steiner). In practice, however, only a very small part of what anthroposophists believe in has this basis. Instead, Steiner's books and (stenographically recorded) lectures are the dominating source of anthroposophical doctrine.
It would be wrong, however, to denounce this practice as contrary to Steiner's methodology. If one accepts one's own visions only when they are in accord with the teachings of a "forerunner", then nothing could be more natural than accepting these teachings even when one has not had any corresponding visions. Indeed, this is exactly what Steiner adviced those of us to do, "who cannot or do not desire to tread the path into the supersensible world". 
There is an obvious parallel between this short cut to anthroposophical knowledge and the normal way of learning science at schools and universities. We do not learn mechanics by meticulously repeating the experiments of Galilei or the observations of Tycho Brahe. We learn ancient Egyptian history without trying to decipher hieroglyphs, etc. Instead, we learn from "forerunners", whose results are summarized in textbooks.
But in spite of the similarity there are at least two important differences. One of them concerns the attitude to critical thinking. In the teaching of ordinary science, the official ideal is to inspire the student to think critically. In anthroposophy, the ideal is to help him suppress critical thinking. This applies not only to the practice of clairvoyance, but also to the secondary acquisition of occult knowledge:
"If such truths are communicated to you, then they will by their own force arouse inspiration in the soul. However, if you want to partake in such inspiration, you must try not to receive these insights [Ertkenntnisse] in a sober-minded and intellectual way [nüchtern und verstandesmässig], but to let the exaltation of the ideas bring you to all emotional experiences that are at all possible." 
Developing observational capacities before intellectually analysing the experiences in relation to the soul- and spiritual world does not mean that intellectual analysis has no place in anthroposophical research, only that it is necessary to postpone it somewhat in relation to developing observational capacities, to give the observations the possibility to mature and stabilize somewhat before analysing them.
For one example of many possible examples of an analysis of anthroposophy, an analysis of it from an epistemological and ontological perspective in relation to a general concept of science, and the way it has developed as natural science during especially the last centuries, see the earlier mentioned paper "What is Science?".
For an example of how an analysis of the understanding of the (double) nature of time, implicit in anthroposophy, as also in Aristotle's analysis of the nature of causality, that casts a possible light on such contemporary issues as the nature and development of the European Union, 70 years after the death of Steiner, see here.
For an analysis of the nature of the cell cycle of eucharyote cells (the subject of one of the Nobel prizes in 2001), and one aspect of the meaning of one of many - at first sight surprising - suggestions by Steiner; that cell biology in Waldorf schools be taught from a "cosmological" perspective, see here.
That such types of analysis not is extensively common in anthroposophical contexts points to one degree of reality basis for Hansson's criticism of anthroposophy, as it has developed during the now almost 80 years after the death of Steiner.
It is however not supported by Hansson's
distorted, superficial and mainly rhetorical description of the way Steiner
describes the preconditions for and nature of spiritual research, but has,
in the view of this author, much more complex causes.
In anthroposophy, however, there are strict limits to what information should be accessible to non-initiates. The disciple's physical senses hide from him "things which, if he were unprepared, would throw him into utter disarray; the sight of them would be more than he could endure. The pupil [Geheimschüler] must be able to endure this sight."  It is "a natural law among all Initiates" not to reveal any information to those of us who are not prepared for it. 
"You my flatter him, you may torment him: nothing can induce him to divulge anything which he knows should not be divulged to you because at your present stage of development you do not understand how to prepare in your soul a worthy reception for this mystery [Geheimnis]." COMMENT:
The whole of anthroposophy with and after 1904 (the time from which quote 24 and 25 are taken) up to Steiner's death in 1925 and afterwards up to the present contradicts this thesis of Hansson (see foreword to the 5th edition of "Knowledge of Higher Worlds, How is it attained?", published 10 years after the first edition, quoted above). The quote, used by Hansson, is taken from a time when Steiner still was mainly working within the theosophical tradition during his first years as a public spiritual scientist.
Developing anthroposophy out of and separate from theosophical context, he in a lecture 1916 specifically expressed the view, contradicting Hansson's thesis, that it was necessary to make public what formerly had been withheld to a greater public. That has also taken place in anthroposophy, with next to nothing except the personal phone bills of Steiner today having been published of his work and as descriptions of his doings in all sorts of contexts.
'For Steiner's overall view and long term strife, see
Steiner (published essay in 1916):
"We are living in an age when supersensible knowledge can no longer remain the secret possession of a few. No, it must become the common property of all, in whom the meaning of life within this age is stirring as a very condition of their soul's existence. In the unconscious depths of the souls of men this need is already working, far more widespread than many people dream. And it will grow, more and more insistently, to the demand that the science of the Supersensible shall be treated on a like footing with the science of Nature."In harmony with the basic strife of anthroposophy, to in full make it accessible to anyone interested in it, except for publishing basically all not only written works, but also the transcripts of basically all lectures (public as well as originally not public membership lectures, except mainly duplications of lectures), a large and increasing number of them are also available online on the internet, at Elib.com
It indicates that what Hansson writes
mainly is pure rhetoric, coming from confusing anthroposophy with theosophy
at the beginning of the 20th century and incomplete study of the issues
he argues about.
3. Testable predictions
"The results of spiritual science do not in any instance contradict the factual research of natural science. In all cases, when you look impartially at the relation between the two, something quite different will appear for our epoch. It turns out that this factual research steers for the goal of being brought, in not too distant time, into full harmony with what spiritual science must, from its supersensible sources, establish for certain areas". In other words, conventional science is bound to gradually rediscover the truths already discovered by spiritual science.
Steiner did not accept empirical science as a judge of anthroposophy.
Much of anthroposophy however concerns soul- and spiritual phenomena, that cannot be tested empirically in any other full sense than to develop the observational capacities necessary to directly observe the phenomena described by Steiner. In this sense, the same holds for anthroposophy as for other psychological or epistemological disciplines. The phenomena concerned are not primarily of an external spatial-temporal nature.
Hansson then discusses three cases that he considers to be proofs that Steiner was wrong in a number of his basic predictions on the future development of natural science.
The examples described by Hansson
For comments on the three examples argued about by Hansson, come back to this page in some time for an updated version of it, including the comments.
 In what follows, Steiner will be quoted in English translation. Translations published by the anthroposophical movement will be used when available. The German original of some key words will be given in square brackets.
The following abbreviations will be used for the most frequently quoted writings by Steiner:
 Geheimw, p. 4. (Occult p. 27)
 Wie erlangt, p. 61. (Knowledge p. 77)
 Wie erlangt, pp. 4-5. (Knowledge pp. 22-23.)
 Wie erlangt, p. 6. (Knowledge p. 24)
 Wie erlangt, pp. 47 ff. (Knowledge pp. 63 ff.)
[ 8] Wie erlangt, pp. 32-33. (Knowledge p. 49)
 Rudolf Steiner, Meditation und Konzentration. Die drei Arten des Hellsehens, Dornach 1935, p. 33.
 Geheimw, p. 10. (Occult p. 31)
 Wie erlangt, p. 159. (Knowledge p. 170)
 Wie erlangt, p. 148. (Knowledge p. 160)
 Akasha, p. 2-3.
 Akasha, p. 3.
 Wie erlangt, p. 32. (Knowledge p. 49)
 Akasha, p. 3.
 Geheimw, pp. 14-15. (Occult p. 33)
 Stufen, p. 65.
 Geheimw, p. 21. (Occult p. 37)
 Stufen, p. 69.
 Wie erlangt, p. X. (Knowledge pp. 15-16.)
 Wie erlangt, p. 58. (Knowledge p. 74)
 Wie erlangt, p. 3. (Knowledge, p. 21)
 Wie erlangt, pp. 3-4. (Knowledge, pp. 21-22)
 Akasha, p. 227.
 Rudolf Steiner, Das Karma des Materialismus, Berliner Vortrage, gehalten im August und September 1917, Berlin 1922, pp. 2:14-15.
 Ibid., p. 2:16.
 Rudolf Steiner, "Uber Gesundheit und Krankheit", lectures held in 1922 and 1923, quoted from franz Stratmann, Zum Einfluss der Anthroposophie in der Medzin, München 1988, p. 39.
Appendix: [omitted] texts of quotations in original German
Comments by Sune
Nordwall, Stockholm, Sweden.