Man and nature's kingdoms in evolution

Man developed in the various stages of evolution by 'pushing down' and living by the grace of building on and using the other kingdoms of nature. Man rises in his development thanks to the lower kingdoms. Man therefore owes these lower kingdoms his development, and will redeem the kingdoms in his ascent during the future cycles and planetary stages.

For a spiritual scientific 'technical' understanding: this is related to the cycles of evolution at the levels of Conditions of Consciousness, Life and Form - see The two halves of an evolutionary cycle

For the evolution and appearance of the kingdoms on Earth, see Earth's seven epochs and beyond; for their redemption, see the Earth rounds perspective.

Aspects

• the symbol of the cross and its origin and meaning in the ancient Mysteries
  • the world soul is stretched/nailed/crucified on the world of matter in the form of a cross (Plato) - see coverage on Four kingdoms of nature
• Man owes his development to lower kingdoms, and will redeem them in his ascent. Man 'pushes' down the other kingdoms in the planetary stages, he rises in development thanks to the lower kingdoms. Man therefore owes these lower kingdoms his development, and will redeem the kingdoms in the next planetary stages. One can imagine this to happen
  • within one round (descent/ascent per CoF, see 1905-02-27-GA090B),
  • but also at the level of the CoL or rounds in one planetary stage (man redeems the lower kingdoms in the next CoL, see eg 1905-10-26-GA093a)
  • and last at the level of the planetary stages.
• see also Separation of Sun and Separation of Moon
  • before the separation of Sun and Moon from the Earth, Man carried the various forces and kingdoms in him, in order to become a self contained being he had to expel certain temperaments, passions and attributes of what lives in animals, plants. When Man formed his bones he expelled the mineral world (1908-09-13-GA106)
  • at the Separation of Sun, the plants turned completely around and again turned their blossom to the sun, so then onwards the blossom stretched upwards and the root downwards. (1906-07-06-GA094, see Separation of Sun#1906-07-06-GA094)
  • at the Separation of Moon, the animals only made a right-angle turn (1906-07-06-GA094)

Illustrations

Schema FMC00.149: gives a tabular synthesis showing the development of the Spectrum of elements and ethers and the development of our current Four kingdoms of nature as well as Man's developing Condition of Consciousness, see also Schema FMC00.583 on Man and nature's kingdoms in evolution

It shows how the plant and animal kingdoms evolved from the planetary stages of evolution: part of the development lagged behind and was not able to develop the next structural bodily principles, such as the astral on Old Moon, and the human 'I' on Earth.

Note: this schema has a Schema Commentary page, right click the schema number hyperlink to open in a new tab window.

Schema FMC00.583: shows two versions of the process of stratification that has led to the development of the current four kingdoms of nature in evolution. In each planetary stage of evolution, there is a segment of laggers that do not attain the full developmental potential or goal. This gives rise to, if one simplifies, a higher and lower kingdom, depending on whether the structural bodily principle (such as etheric, or astral) has been incorporated or not. This way, in each evolutionary stage a kingdom is pushed up - or down - by 'half'. Given the conditions in each planetary stage are vastly different (see left below), one should not imagine or reason about kingdoms or beings as they are in their current form. For example, on Old Saturn, Man was a physical seed in warmth. Furthermore, these schematics dramatically simplify the complete process, as Conditions of Life (CoL) and Form (CoF) with iterative recapitulations are not shown.

Within Earth's mineral CoL and physical CoF, the five epochs show (upper right) a recapitulation of all that preceded, which ultimately, after this long evolutionary pathway, results in the current physical kingdoms of nature we know. The last upper branch is the one whereby Man waited for the conditions to be right to incorporate the fourth structural bodily principle of the human 'I'. Souls that descended earlier into physical bodies under conditions that didn't allow to incorporate the human 'I', resulted in the various animal forms (see Schema FMC00.210 and variants), whereby the apes were last and hence closest to the human being. The animals were not able to separate from the astral group souls through the process of individuation, the way humanity does.

By the end of Earth evolution, current humanity will also split and divide into an upper and lower human kingdom, based on moral and spiritual maturity, which will lead to and make up two kingdoms on the next planetary stage of evolution Future Jupiter.

Schema FMC00.147: provides an overview to contemplate how the four kingdoms of nature on Earth originate in previous planetary stages of evolution.

Schema FMC00.147A provides a more detailed and explicit version with lecture and Schema references for further study

Schema FMC00.147B: is an older pivoted variant of Schema FMC00.147 that summarizes how Man owes everything to the spiritual hierarchies, how he has been created by them, and how they remained connected in his being.

Relate this to the roles of the hierarchies at a certain CoC in Schema FMC00.077A on Creation of solar system.

Schema FMC00.149A is a BBD depicting the planetary stages in evolution, and the origin of the kingdoms of nature as we know them now, listed below each planetary sphere.

Lecture coverage and references

1904-06-12-GA090A

(p173)

1904-06-13-GA090A

(p176)

1904-12-25-GA090A

(p464)

1905-01-19-GA090B

(p328) 1905-02-27-GA090B

(freely translated)

all that was shed out in the descent, the mineral, plant and animal kingdoms, are breathed in and integrated again, thereby pulling back up what was pushed down for our own development.

1908-09-13-GA106

.. As man grew more inward, something occurred in the world outside; what we know as the three other kingdoms of nature arose. The three kingdoms around us arose gradually.

At first, only man was present. Then the animal kingdom was added; then the plant kingdom, and finally the mineral kingdom.

If we were to look back on the primeval Earth when the sun was still united with it, we would find a human being in and out of whom all the substances of the physical world moved. Man still lived in the womb of the gods: everything still agreed with him, so to say.

Then he had to leave behind what was precipitated as the animal kingdom. Had he carried this with him, he would not have been able to develop further. He had to expel the animal kingdom, and later the plant kingdom. What exists outside in the animals and plants is nothing other than temperaments, passions, certain traits of men that they had to expel.

And when man formed his bones he expelled the mineral world.

After a certain length of time, man could look upon his environment and say,

“Formerly I could endure you; formerly you went in and out of me as air now does. When I still lived in the water-earth I could endure you; I digested you. Now you are outside, and I can no longer endure you, no longer digest you.”

As Man became enclosed in his skin, as he became a self-contained separate being, he saw, in the same proportion, these kingdoms around him.

Discussion

Note 1 - The relationship of Man with the different hierarchies in evolution

Schema FMC00.147 is a reference table to show the relationship of Man with the different hierarchies.

The role the SoF played since Old Saturn and through each planetary stage is described in 1908-02-29-GA102. It can also be found in record C of the esoteric lesson 1908-03-14-GA266/1, but as it does not appear in the other three records of that lesson, and corresponds totally to what is laid out in the lecture two weeks before, it is quite likely the author inserted it into her notes.

See illustration: Schema FMC00.483

To put this in perspective of 'hierarchies in evolution', consider Old Saturn alone with Schema FMC00.413; then project this into Schema FMC00.203 and Schema FMC00.276 on Overview of solar system evolution

Note, a very different angle on 'the hierarchy that is inspiring' in the Current Postatlantean epoch is in 1910-12-31-GA126: angels in first, archangels in second, archai in third, and SoF in fourth cultural age are described as beings that poured their forces and worked on Man's inner nature as 'inspirers'.

Note 2 - Evil races, kingdoms and opportunities for redemption

Introduction

This note expands on the term 'evil races' (in response to a question). Indeed Schema FMC00.077A (and variants) show future kingdoms below the human kingdom, of humanity, labelled as 'evil races'.

Rudolf Steiner used the term evil race with reference to the Book of Revelation, even though the term does not appear there literally, but different forms of evil (and 'beasts') are described. This has to do with the different types of counterforces, and their gradual redemption as part of evolution.

To allow for a better overall understanding, the below aims to presents this step by step in a logical structure.

Commentary

1 - Introductory frame of reference

• on Earth the spiritual hierarchy we call humanity is presented with freedom, and the evolutionary consequence is a bifurcation between an upwards and downwards path of future evolution (based on 'tendency' and spiritual maturity of the different cohorts or segments of the population, see coverage on the sixteen paths of perdition). The upwards and downwards paths can be called the 'good' and the 'evil'.
  • we can already see this happening today in the 21st century, the polarization due to various influences, with in the extreme the arising of pure evil in society. This is covered on various Discussion notes across the site (more info on request).
  • this trend will lead to ever greater differences between the two segments in the next cultural ages of the current epoch, and lead to a more drastic sifting in the next Sixth epoch (see description of the first five ages, eg on Schema FMC00.505)
  • note: the human 'I' is a sharp two edged sword and the resulting development will go to two extremes, some descriptions state that in the future this evil segment will also have developed their pineal gland which "will be an organ for the worst and most terrible impulses and will be so large that it will make up most of the body" (1907-06-06-GA266). See more on black magic.
• on Future Jupiter this 'split' or bifurcation into two groups will be decisive. As following from study of evolution, with each planetary stage of evolution the kingdoms shift 'half a step'. This is illustrated on Schema FMC00.583, but compare also the descriptions of kingdoms of nature on Old Moon with those on current Earth.
• taking a step back, all the above has to be seen in context of Schema FMC00.591 to realize the importance of the current times. This is covered on other topic pages, see a.o. Contemporary worldview war#Illustrations (page content and links to Schema FMC00.422 with variant Schema FMC00.422A). Note: the 'big picture' of where all this fits in, is covered on: Unification#Individuation and differentiation

.

2 - Evil kingdoms

2.1 - Quid evil race?

From the above is clear that the described bifurcation will create a 'sub-human' .. 'race' (on Earth), and 'kingdom' on Future Jupiter, and that the differentiator will be moral. In previous stages of evolution the successful development and integration of the etheric or astral principle led to kingdoms of nature on Earth, differentiated into mineral, plant, or animal. Hence the differentiator will be moral and binary: current humans will be part of one or two groups: good or evil, 'up' or 'down'. At first of course this is not binary and final, it starts with an affinity, a tendency, and each soul gravitates further. Weaker souls enter a field of gravity through karma that they are bound to glide into the downward segment.

Now on Future Jupiter, after the pralaya metamorphosis, the lower segment that did not spiritualize will be the the lower kingdom that will go through CoC=4, the so-called 'human stage', see further descriptions on the Future Jupiter topic page. They can however be characterized as the first 'evil' race or kingdom, because what differentiates them is exactly what preceded, as described above.

On Future Jupiter the 'good' part of current humanity will be spiritual, like angels today for us. For the first larger segment (not counting adepts through self-initiation already today) this spiritualization takes place in the late stages of the Sixth epoch on Earth.

The other lower segment remains chained to the bodies and the physical material, so they can be imagined as remaining 'stuck' with the lower astral part, but no spiritualized part: they did not use their human I, and the faculties of freedom, the consciousness soul, and the Christ impulse, to work the lower two bodies and spiritualize.

Rudolf Steiner puts it literally like this (paraphrased, literal quote below): "On Future Jupiter ... those who have kept their bodies are stragglers. The asuras become the spirits of form making their bodies for them, they become full masters of physical bodies, and from the undischarged evil karma of the world they form the first evil race" (1905-08-11-GA091). And in 1910-GA013 indeed writes "there arise the forms of the 'evil human kingdom' ... in the future indicated there will exist two human kingdoms, one good and one evil".

To read this statement, think of the class of beings labelled Jehovah as the Spirits of Form (Elohim) that created the physical form of current Man in the Lemurian epoch (of course it evolved greatly afterwards). What this quote means is that now the backwards archai who will become spirits of form will be in full ownership of 'creation' and create 'the first race of devils'.

2.2 - Taking this line of thought further, we can see that the downward path of evolution consist of beings that have remained behind in evolution, gaining control and 'doing their thing' with the lower bodily principles.

In the same lecture 1905-08-11-GA091 this is described: "On Future Venus, during the seventh CoL, the next lower group, the agnishvattas gain power over the bodies in place of the asuras .. and ... on Vulcan, the lunar pitris gain power over the bodies."

So forms, kingdoms will arise in the lower kingdoms that are the 'embodiment' of the 'evil' as we denote these stragglers today.

2.3 - Redemption

The regular course of the 'good' humanity on its upward path of evolution will, through its spiritualization, lead to the redemption of these backwards beings. Already on Earth, humanity can redeem the luciferic beings. These beings could not evolve like the others who had their regular evolution on Old Moon, so they 'slipped in' humanity and have their evolution as part of Man. Through initiation and working the elemental balance and purifying the astral body, Man redeems these luciferic beings. See Luciferic influence on Man#Redemption of Luciferic principle.

This also we can extrapolate to what comes after Earth on Future Jupiter and Future Venus. A great deal of the work of the [advanced] human kingdom will consist of ennobling the fallen souls in the evil union [the lower kingdom] so that they will still be able to find their way back into the [higher] human kingdom. (1910-GA013). This is why it is important to understand the redemption by humanity of the luciferic principle on Earth, because this work is structural and will continue to be the 'mission' of the regular advanced humanity.

• note: an illustration of this being 'structural' or a recurrent pattern is given with Schema FMC00.238, and consider this quote alongside, I-less human beings#Beinsa Douno
• note: on the general principle: It is another related thread (covered elsewhere on this site), but regular humanity advanced thanks to the other kingdoms we have on Earth today. Today we live thanks to plant and animal kingdoms, so we 'owe' them. In and across previous cycles of evolution we 'pushed them downwards', to our benefit and development, so in future evolution we have to redeem them again. This is also the case for all stragglers (counterforces), and this tasks also awaits the progressed humanity to try and redeem the evil race or kingdom. The forebode of this future is Manicheism.

.

Hence one can see that the work from good humanity (the Tenth hierarchy) on the two 'spin-offs' that will be created as kingdoms below (in the next triad or spiritual hierarchies) corresponds to what was sketched higher as an evolutionary pattern between planetary stages of evolution, in this case Future Jupiter and Future Venus.

Part of them will be redeemed, but a 'residue' will remain, like the waste products in an oil refinery process, or a distillation column. An illustration is given in case of the luciferic beings that were not redeemed by the reunion of Sun on Earth. But this is a general principle, some are redeemed, and some are left behind. And it is the latter that make up the lower kingdoms.

2.4 - Opportunities for catching up

At this point we can add another aspect of the overall process: the fact that there is a separation of the main planetary body and the sun, and a separation of a moon ... such as we had on the Earth stage of planetary evolution.

• the separation of the planetary body with the Sun is shown upper left on Schema FMC00.427A, from where the comment "such stages represent stages with lower developmental speeds allowing lagging souls to catch up on their development. In other words, they accomodate further redemption of evil, whereby each reunion with the Sun includes both the ascent of the souls that are at the stage and speed of development required, and the abyss for those who are not. Such process took place on Earth and will take place on Future Jupiter, but no longer on Future Venus, which will remain united with the Sun.
• separation of a moon circling the planetary body: the current Earth moon is the residue of the Old Moon stage, similarly Future Jupiter will have a residue of the Earth stage, like a corpse, with beings who accompany this corpse as means to further development. These residues gradually dissolve into the universal ether. After Venus there will no longer be any residue (1911-10-01-GA130), as Future Venus represents the end of what is now called matter and energy (1918-08-06-GA181). As part of the Future Venus stage the residue will be finally discarted from regular solar system evolution, hence the term unredeemable moon.

.

Regarding the fact that not all evolutionary periods are of equal importance, and that some are more crucial, this can also be seen from Schema FMC00.168 along with Schema FMC00.130. Some periods are recapitulation (preparatory by integrating the past), others are preparatory for the future (especially for more advanced cohorts).

2.5 - On the topic of 666

Now the main principles process have been described, this can be placed against an evolutionary 'timeline'. Not time as we know it, but just the evolutionary sequence of the Three dimensions of evolution (CoC, CoL and CoF).

Each spiritual hierarchy goes through a difference developmental sequence that 'overlays' with that of all the others, so within each CoC the different CoLs will be relevant for different hierarchies. See Schema FMC00.203.

The consequence is that, also for humanity, there are certain phases or 'windows of opportunity' for development, and there also moments when that opportunity door closes. These opportunities are for 'catching up' development, so getting back on track of regular development, redeeming laggers.

With that in mind, study the schemas on: Evil#On 666, Schema FMC00.425 and Schema FMC00.425A.

The final 666

With the final definitive '666' is meant the sixth CoL of the Future Venus stage. That is the final gate, after which any soul lagging development will not be able to get back to regular development. Up to that stage much remains possible, but it gets ever more difficult. But even on Future Jupiter, souls involved in black magic on Earth could still be redeemed.

At this stage of the sixth CoL of the Future Venus stage a 'cosmic wastebasket' called the 'unredeemable moon' will be finally separated from the regular solar system evolution, and go its own way. Rudolf Steiner calls this 'unredeemable moon' the eighth sphere, the colony of Sorat and the black magicians (1909-05-21-GA104A).

Related but on the side: Rudolf Steiner describes what it means to fall out of regular evolution when explaining the wheel of planes Schema FMC00.078 : "Only the first Logos is able to take up again anything which has fallen into the eighth sphere. It takes it along with the cosmic dust. To be cast out from evolution is to link one’s life to something which inexorably remains behind, without fail, and to wait until evolution once again coincides with the state in question." (from Twelve Conditions of Consciousness#1904-11-10-GA089). In other words, only at the level of a full cosmic breath of Brahma and a full cyle of solar system evolution this 'cosmic dust' is taken along and 'recycled' in the next cycle. For more on this, see eg Schema FMC00.067 variants A to C on Creation by the three Logoi#Illustrations.

Other 666s

However conceptually there are other levels of versions of '666', if one follows the meaning and interpretation that the three digits represent three phases of evolution - see Schema FMC00.425 (with explanation in a.o. 1908-06-29-GA104). This is because of the 'cosmic fractal' nature of the evolutionary dynamic (a note on this on Cosmic fractal#Note 3 - 'Cosmic fractal nature' reasoning). One can read this as CoC-CoL-CoF (certainly 666-C), or take the last third digit to correspond to lower periods, eg 666-B.

2.6 - Concluding notes

1 - What does it mean for humanity?

Rudolf Steiner describes on multiple occasions how many chances humanity has left to end up on the path of ascending evolution vs the descending 'evil'; see Evil#redemption - stages.

To start read Evil#1908-06-29-GA104 and Evil#1908-06-30-GA104. From this it will be clear that various windows of opportunity or better critical phases are described, but that Rudolf Steiner does not link them in an overall systematic overview as shown on Schema FMC00.425, but rather points to the link with the occurence of evolutionary number '6'.

Concretely:

• Earth stage
  • For now, it's obvious that by the end of the sixth cultural age a first sifting, separation will take place. This is clear from various statements "the fifth and sixth cultural ages are the decisive ones" and "the sixth cultural age will be the foundation for the civilization of the Sixth epoch", see orSchema FMC00.052 and Schema FMC00.169A. Or, in parable view, Schema FMC00.567. This is the key period before the War of all against all and the conclusion of the current Postatlantean epoch.
  • The Sixth epoch is probably the most important of all, with very harsh ordeals in the first ages and at the end the great separation as described in the Book of Revelation (the 144.000 at the end of the period of the seven seals), led by the Father impulse and most advanced cohort of the human spiritual hierarchy, towards spiritualization at the end of the Sixth epoch. See Sixth epoch#Father impulse and spiritualization.
  • Staying with the Book of Revelation, after the seventh epoch, going into the fifth astral CoF, Steiner maps the bowls or vials of wrath to the '5' (note '5' is the number of evil, the challenge before '6'; see Book of Ten Pages#Five), but also says this astral phase already starts in the seventh epoch: Seventh epoch#Aspects.

Then follow

• Future Jupiter: the crucial separation as illustrated on Schema FMC00.539: a decisive event will take place around the middle of the Future Jupiter stage: Man will experience around mid-life a short but life-changing revival of Earth consciousness during a period of three days, reviewing of all one has achieved during the previous Earth stage of evolution, and one's relationship with the Mystery of Golgotha. After that nothing will be the same again for that soul. (1915-04-03-GA161)
• Future Venus: the final separation with the unredeemable moon at the final 666 for our humanity in current solar system evolution, as described above

2 - Addition: an image describing Future Jupiter situation

The different types of stragglers are 'counterforces' for current humanity on Earth, and Rudolf Steiner differentiates them as luciferic, ahrimanic, and asuras/soratic. Humanity should not be seen as a homogeneous population, but as a sum of segments at different stages, and: also stratified with different types of these counterforces.

The latter will all metamorphose and make up the variety in the lower kingdom of nature of 'humanity on Future Jupiter' (lower than humanity). Here is an example of a description. Christ is a unified group soul for spiritualized humanity at the end of the Earth stage, before metamorphosis through other CoL and pralaya to Future Jupiter. For the other segment of humanity this is not the case: "relics of various incarnations would be scattered at the end of the Earth stage, binding to that part of the Earth which remains dead in these relics ... Lucifer will send over what remained of scattered Earth-relics as dead content on/within Future Jupiter ... continually thrusting up these Earth-relics .. to be animated as species-souls by the souls above (1914-07-16-GA155)

Conclusion

The above commentary shed light on the origin and meaning of the term 'evil races'.

The term appears on Schema FMC00.077A based on o.a. 1905-08-11-GA091, this was done to highlight and create a higher awareness for all that was described here as the challenge and mission for evolving humanity, and the choices that face each soul today and in future lives.

However this has to be distinguished from the final end product of the planetary stage. As, during each planetary stage of evolution, there is a part that reaches the next developmental goal, and another part that does not. What is meant is that we are told in the above excerpts that it starts off as a lower human kingdom, but not what the result will be when humanity has worked on this lower kingdom during the planetary stage Future Jupiter, offering assistance in its development as the 11th hierarchy. Humanity will 'care' and look after this, just as angels (and archangels and archai) do this for humanity on Earth. This is visualized by the green on Schema FMC00.077B. And so what Rudolf Steiner describes is the ingoing position at the start of Future Jupiter, not the end 'product' or result of this planetary stage of evolution. That is the scope horizon of Rudolf Steiner's coverage and descriptions.

Fourth hierarchy

Spiritual science considers nine hierarchies consisting of three triads of spiritual beings at different states of consciousness, see Schemas on overview of the spiritual hierarchies.

The story of the evolution of the solar system is that of current humanity evolving as the tenth hierarchy under development, evolving along the CoC-ladder, see Twelve conditions of consciousness.

Such developments go in triads (Schema FMC00.564A). The 11th and 12th hierarchies will mature through the CoC-4 stage on Future Jupiter and Future Venus. This is what will further lead to the development of these two hierarchies below humanity (as the tenth hierarchy), making up the fourth triad of the spiritual hierarchies.

Now to imagine, describe how these will 'look' (in terms of nature and structure) is difficult to impossible given that the planet en solar system will be completely different, so this falls beyond extrapolation for our current intellect and consciousness. That is why here we reach the scope horizon of Rudolf Steiner's coverage and descriptions, who does not describe the end products of these lower hierarchies and how they evolved from the kingdoms. With scope horizon is meant that the in-depth descriptions stop at a certain point, when describing certain aspects of Future Jupiter. For all that comes later only indications are given.

However one could consider that the entire fourth triad is included, encapsulated within the current humanity. And imagine two lower kingdoms to come/evolve out of current humanity during Future Jupiter and Future Venus, that would be 'lesser variants' of, or 'below' humanity, but still as 'an extension of' in terms of nature. To get a feel with what is meant here with 'lower down the food chain', just like in the Third Hierarchy there are archangels and angels below the archai, see Schema FMC00.661 and Schema FMC00.661A to build an appreciation of the embedded or nested structure, an idea also visualized with Schema FMC00.668. Note: all these visuals are on: Overview of the spiritual hierarchies#Illustrations.

Humanity is called by Rudolf Steiner the hierarchy of freedom and love. It is the first hierarchy endowed with 'freedom', and is thus the first truly self-creative hierarchy. So this is a step-change in terms of complexity for the cosmic fractal. This tenth hierarchy will make a new beginning after Vulcan, similar to how the Thrones at the start of Old Saturn, see Schema FMC00.564A. Because the 11th and 12th hierarchies can be seen as the extension out of 10th, we might imagine and expect these to inherit some of the nature of this creative freedom at a more executional level. This can be felt from understanding the mutual relationships of the hierarchies in the earlier triads of the Third Hierarchy and Second Hierarchy.

Reference extracts

(specific to this note)

1905-08-11-GA091

below is a worked extract from the original longer quote on Christ Module 14 – the counterforces: Lucifer, Ahriman and Sorat#1905-08-11-GA091

On Future Jupiter, Man attains his psychic consciousness [CoC=5]. There the matter is decided ... humanity is divided into races of good and evil.

• Those people who have shed their bodies have become spirits;
• those who have kept their bodies are stragglers. For these, the asuras now become the spirits of form, who make their bodies for them. This is when the asuras achieve what they have always striven for: to become masters of physical bodies. From the undischarged evil karma of the world, the asuras form the first race of devils [the first 'evil race']

[Future Venus]

On Future Venus, Man will attain his super-psychic consciousness [CoC=6] in the sixth CoL. During the seventh CoL, the next lower group, the agnishvattas gain power over the bodies in place of the asuras.

[Vulcan]

And ... on Vulcan, the lunar pitris gain power over the bodies.

1906-08-29-GA095

The good will result in a race of men who are naturally good; the evil in a separate evil race. You will find this stated in the Apocalypse, but it must not be misunderstood. We must distinguish between the development of the soul and that of races.

The extreme difficulty of the task is that these evil races will not be like bad children in whom there is goodness which can be brought out by precept and example.

[this is why the higher/good humanity will has as its task to try and redeem these lower denerate/evil 'races' or kingdoms on Future Jupiter and on Future Venus, up to the final point '666' and the unredeemable moon]

1907-06-05-GA099

All materialistically thinking souls work on the production of evil race-formations, and what is done of a spiritual nature causes the bringing forth of a good race. Just as mankind has brought forth that which has retrogressed in the animals, plants and minerals, so will a portion split off and represent the evil part of humanity.

[this refers to what is depicted on Schema FMC00.583 - in context of Schema FMC00.591]

...

Just as older conditions which have degenerated to the ape species seem grotesque to us today, so do materialistic races remain at the standpoint of evil, and will people the Earth as evil races. It will lie entirely with humanity as to whether a soul will remain in the bad race or will ascend by spiritual culture to a good race.

1907-06-06-GA266

But it is not only those who are now doing occult exercises who will have a developed pineal gland in the future, but all human beings. And in the people who will make up the evil race, it will be an organ for the worst and most terrible impulses and will be so large that it will make up most of the body.

Note 3 - Recapitulation in evolution

Ernst Haeckel (1834 - 1919) stated in 1866 a biogenetic law that "Ontogenesis is the short and rapid recapitulation of phylogenesis" or for short "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", i.e. every animal or human organism repeats the essential features of phylogenetic evolution in the course of its individual development.

This so-called recapitulation theory, according to which ontogenesis recapitulates phylogenesis, is today considered refuted in the form advocated by Haeckel. Major review and critique came from Erich Blechschmidt (1904-1992).

According to Rudolf Steiner, the human being was not only ontogentically, but also phylogenetically the human being from the very beginning, though not in his present form. He developed to his current form by eliminating animal forms from his form and being in the course of the phylogenesis. See Animal kingdom#evolutionary and Schemas on that topic page.

Bottom line: Haeckel's base idea was not completely wrong or without merit, but he saw it strictly in a materialistic way, whereas Steiner meant it spiritually.

Reference extracts

Ontogenesis, or the development of an individual, is a fast, short recapitulation of the phylogenesis, or evolution, of the species.

(Evolution of Man 1874).

1899-08-01-GA030

Two Essays on Haeckel: Haeckel and His Opponents

One might therefore quite rightly name this part of the theory of evolution, which asserts the common origin of all plant and animal species from the simplest common root-forms, in honour of its most deserving founder, Lamarckianism” (Haeckel, Natural History of Creation).

Haeckel has given in grandiose style an explanation of Lamarckianism by means of Darwinism.

Such a parallelism between the developmental stages of the higher organisms and the developed lower forms may be followed out through the entire evolutionary history.

Haeckel clothes this fact in the words: “The brief ontogenesis or development of the individual is a rapid and abbreviated repetition, a condensed recapitulation of the prolonged phylogenesis or development of the species.”

1904-06-09-GA089

Theosophical cosmology is a self-contained whole, derived from the wisdom of the most developed seers. If I had a little more time I would be able to indicate to you how certain natural scientific facts are conducive to testifying to the accuracy of this image of the world. Look at Haeckel's famous phylogenic trees, for example, in which evolution is materialistically explained. If instead of matter you consider the spiritual stages, as Theosophy describes them, then you can make the phylogenic trees as Haeckel did - only the explanation is different.

1913-11-15-GA069C

There is a law in natural science whose validity is more or less acknowledged by all, despite this or that detail of it being open to dispute. This law, first formulated by Ernst Haeckel, has become fundamental to biology. It states that a living being recapitulates in its embryonic life, passes through stages of development that resemble those of the lower animals such as the fishes. This is a law recognized in science.

1914-GA008 Ch 2.

Only four years had passed since the appearance of Darwin's Origin of the Species when Müller's book was published as its defense and confirmation. Müller had shown how, with one special class of animals, one should work in the spirit of the new ideas. Then, in 1866, seven years after the Origin of the Species, a book appeared that completely absorbed this new spirit. Using the ideas of Darwinism on a high level of scientific discussion, it threw a great deal of light on the problems of the interconnection of all life phenomena. This book was Ernst Haeckel's General Morphology of Organisms. Every page reflected his attempt to arrive at a comprehensive synopsis of the totality of the phenomena of nature with the help of new thoughts. Inspired by Darwinism, Haeckel was in search of a world conception.

Haeckel did his best in two ways to attempt a new world conception.

First, he continually contributed to the accumulation of facts that throw light on the connection of the entities and energies of nature. Second, with unbending consistency he derived from these facts the ideas that were to satisfy the human need for explanation. He held the unshakable conviction that from these facts and ideas man can arrive at a fully satisfactory world explanation. Like Goethe, Haeckel was convinced in his own way that nature proceeds in its work “according to eternal, necessary and thereby divine laws, so that not even the deity could change it.” Because this was clear to him, he worshipped his deity in these eternal and necessary laws of nature and in the substances in which they worked. As the harmony of the natural laws, which are with necessity interconnected, satisfies reason, according to his view, so it also offers to the feeling heart, or to the soul that is ethically or religiously attuned, whatever it may thirst for. In the stone that falls to the ground attracted by gravity there is a manifestation of the same divine order that is expressed in the blossom of a plant and in the human spirit that created the drama of Wilhelm Tell.

How erroneous is the belief that the feeling for the wonderful beauty of nature is destroyed by the penetration of reason into laws of nature is vividly demonstrated in the work of Ernst Haeckel. A rational explanation of nature had been declared to be incapable of satisfying the needs of the soul. Wherever man is disturbed in his inner life through knowledge of nature, it is not the fault of knowledge but of man himself. His sentiments are developed in a wrong direction. As we follow a naturalist like Haeckel without prejudice on his path as an observer of nature, we feel our hearts beat faster. The anatomical analysis, the microscopic investigation does not detract from natural beauty but reveals a great deal more of it. There is no doubt that there is an antagonism between reason and imagination, between reflection and intuition, in our time. The brilliant essayist, Ellen Key, is without doubt right in considering this antagonism as one of the most important phenomena of our time (compare Ellen Key, Essays, S. Fischer Verlag, Berlin, 1899). Whoever, like Ernst Haeckel, digs deep into the treasure mine of facts, boldly emerges with the thoughts resulting from these facts and climbs to the heights of human knowledge, can see in the explanation of nature only an act of reconciliation between the two contesting forces of reflection and intuition that “alternate in forcing each other into submission” (Ellen Key). Almost simultaneously with the publication of the book in which Haeckel presented with unflinching intellectual honesty his world conception derived from natural science, that is, with the appearance of his Riddles of the Universe in 1899, he began a serial publication called Artforms of Nature. In it he gives pictures of the inexhaustible wealth of wonderful formations that nature produces and that surpass “by far all artistic forms created by man” in beauty and in variety. The same man who introduces our mind to the law-determined order of nature leads our imagination to the beauty of nature.

The need to bring the great problems of world conception into direct contact with scientific, specialized research led Haeckel to one of the facts concerning which Goethe said that they represent the significant points at which nature yields the fundamental ideas for its explanation of its own accord, meeting us halfway in our search. This was realized by Haeckel as he investigated how Oken's thesis, which Fritz Müller had applied to the crustaceans, could be fruitfully applied to the whole animal kingdom. In all animals except the Protista, which are one-celled organisms, a cup- or jug-shaped body, the gastrula, develops from the zygote with which the organism begins its ontogenesis. This gastrula is an animal form that is to be found in the first stages of development of all animals from the sponges to man. It consists merely of skin, mouth and stomach. There is a low class of zoophytes that possess only these organs during their lives and therefore resemble gastrulae. This fact is interpreted by Haeckel from the point of view of the theory of descent. The gastrula form is an inherited form that the animal owes to the form of its common ancestor. There had been, probably millions of years before, a species of animals, the gastrae, that was built in a way similar to that of the lower zoophytes still living today—the sponges, polyps, etc. From this animal species all the various forms living today, from the polyps, sponges, etc., to man, repeat this original form in the course of their ontogenies.

In this way an idea of gigantic scope had been obtained. The path leading from the simple to the complicated, to the perfect form in the world of organisms, was thereby indicated in its tentative outline. A simple animal form develops under certain circumstances. One or several individuals of this form change to another form according to the conditions of life to which they are exposed. What has come into existence through this transmutation is again transmitted to descendants. There are then two different forms, the old one that has retained the form of the first stage, and a new one. Both of these forms can develop in different directions and into different degrees of perfection. After long periods of time an abundant wealth of species comes into existence through the transmission of the earlier form and through new formations by means of the process of adaptation to the conditions of life.

In this manner Haeckel connects today's processes in the world of organisms with the events of primeval times. If we want to explain some organ of an animal of the present age, we look back to the ancestors that had developed this organ under the circumstances in which they lived. What has come into existence through natural causes in earlier times has been handed down to our time through the process of heredity. Through the history of the species the evolution of the individual receives its explanation. The phylogenesis, therefore, contains the causes for the ontogenesis. Haeckel expresses this fact in his fundamental law of biogenetics: “The short ontogenesis or development of the individual is a rapid and brief repetition, an abbreviated recapitulation of the long process of phylogenesis, the development of the species.”

Through this law every attempt at explanation through special purposes, all teleology in the old sense, has been eliminated. One no longer looks for the purpose of an organ; one looks for the causes through which it has developed. A given form does not point to a goal toward which it strives, but toward the origin from which it sprang. The method of explanation for the organic phenomena has become the same as that for the inorganic. Water is not considered the aim of oxygen, nor is man considered the purpose of creation. Scientific research is directed toward the origin of, and the actual cause for, living beings. The dualistic mode of conception, which declares that the organic and the inorganic has to be explained according to two different principles, gives way to a monistic mode of conception, to a monism that has only one uniform mode of explanation for the whole of nature.

Haeckel characteristically points out that through his discovery the method has been found through which every dualism in the above-mentioned sense must be overcome.

Phylogenesis is the mechanical cause of ontogenesis. With this statement our basically monistic conception of organic evolution is clearly characterized, and on the truth of this principle depends primarily the truth of the gastraea theory. . . . Every naturalist, who in the field of biogenesis is not satisfied with a mere admiration of strange phenomena but strives for an understanding of their significance, will, in the future, either have to side with or against this principle. It marks at the same time the complete break that separates the older teleological and dualistic morphology from the new mechanical and monistic one. If the physiological functions of inheritance and adaptation have been proven to be the only causes of the process of organic formation, then every kind of teleology, of dualistic and metaphysical mode of conception has thereby been eliminated from the field of biogenesis; the sharp contrast between the leading principles is clearly marked. Either a direct and causal connection between ontogeny and phylogeny exists or it does not. There is no third possibility! Either epigenesis and descent, or pre-formation and creation! (Compare alsoin Part 1 Chapter IX of this book.)

After Haeckel had absorbed Darwin's view of the origin of man he defended forcefully the conclusion that must be drawn from it. It was impossible for him just to hint hesitatingly, like Darwin, at this “problem of all problems.” Anatomically and physiologically man is not distinguishable from the higher animals. Therefore, the same origin must be attributed to him as to them. Haeckel boldly defended this opinion and the consequences that followed from it for the conception of the world. There was no doubt for him that in the future the highest manifestations of man's life, the activities of his spirit, were to be considered under the same viewpoint as the function of the simplest living organism. The observation of the lowest animals, the protozoa, infusoria, rhizopods, taught him that these organisms had a soul. In their motions, in the indications of the sensations they show, he recognized manifestations of life that only had to be increased and perfected in order to develop into man's complicated actions of reason and will.

Beginning with the gastraea, which lived millions of years ago, what steps does nature take to arrive at man? This was the comprehensive question as stated by Haeckel. He supplied the answer in his Anthropogenesis, which appeared in 1874. In its first part, this book deals with the history of the individual (ontogenesis), in the second part, with that of the species (phylogenesis). He showed point by point how the latter contains the causes of the former. Man's position in nature had thereby been determined according to the principles of the theory of descent. To works like Haeckel's Anthropogenesis, the statement that the great anatomist, Karl Gegenbaur, made in his Comparative Anatomy (1870) can be justly applied. He wrote that in exchange for the method of investigation Darwin gave to science with his theory he received in return clarity and firmness of purpose. In Haeckel's view, the method of Darwinism had also supplied science with the theory of the origin of man.

What actually was accomplished by this step can be appreciated in its full measure only if one looks at the opposition with which Haeckel's comprehensive application of the principles of Darwinism was received by the followers of idealistic world conceptions. It is not even necessary to quote those who, blindly believing in the traditional opinion, turned against the “monkey theory,” or those who believed that all finer, higher morality would be endangered if men were no longer convinced that they had a “purer, higher origin.” Other thinkers, although quite open-minded with regard to new truths, found it difficult to accept this new truth. They asked themselves the question, “Do we not deny our own rational thinking if we no longer look for its origin in a general world reason over us, but in the animal kingdom below?” Mentalities of this sort eagerly attacked the points where Haeckel's view seemed to be without support of the facts. They had powerful allies in a number of natural scientists who, through a strange bias, used their factual knowledge to emphasize the points where actual experience was still insufficient to prove the conclusions drawn by Haeckel. The typical, and at the same time the most impressive, representative of this viewpoint of the naturalists was Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902). The opposition of Virchow and Haeckel can be characterized as follows. Haeckel puts his trust in the inner consistency of nature, concerning which Goethe is of the opinion that it is sufficient to make up for man's inconsistency. Haeckel, therefore, argues that if a principle of nature has been verified for certain cases, and if we still lack the experience to show its validity in other cases, we have no reason to hold the progress of our knowledge back. What experience denies us today, it may yield tomorrow. Virchow is of the opposite opinion. He wants to yield as little ground as possible to a comprehensive principle. He seems to believe that life for such a principle cannot be made hard enough. The antagonism between these two spirits was brought to a sharp point at the Fiftieth Congress of German naturalists and doctors in 1877. Haeckel read a paper there on the topic, The Theory of Evolution of Today in Its Relation to Science in General.

In 1894 Virchow felt that he had to state his view in the following way. “Through speculation one has arrived at the monkey theory; one could just as well have ended up with an elephant theory or a sheep theory.” What Virchow demanded was incontestable proof of this theory. As soon as something turned up that fitted as a link in the chain of the argumentation, Virchow attempted to invalidate it with all means at his disposal.

Such a link in the chain of proof was presented with the bone remnants that Eugen Dubois had found in Java in 1894. They consisted of a skull and thigh bone and several teeth. Concerning this find, an interesting discussion arose at the Congress of Zoologists at Leyden. Of twelve zoologists, three were of the opinion that these bones came from a monkey and three thought they came from a human being; six, however, believed they presented a transitional form between man and monkey. Dubois shows in a convincing manner in what relation the being whose bone remnants were under discussion stood to the present monkey, on the one hand, and to man of today, on the other. The theory of evolution of natural science must claim such intermediary forms. They fill the holes that exist between numerous forms of organisms. Every new intermediary form constitutes a new proof for the kinship of all living organisms. Virchow objected to the view that these bone remnants came from such an intermediary form. At first, he declared that it was the skull of a monkey and the thigh bone of a man. Expert paleontologists, however, firmly pronounced, according to the careful report, on the finding, that the remnants belonged together. Virchow attempted to support his view that the thigh bone could be only that of a human being with the statement that a certain growth in the bone proved that it must have had a disease that could only have been healed through careful human attention. The paleontologist, Marsch, [e.Ed: perhaps American paleontologist, Othniel Charles Marsh (1831–1899)] however, maintained that similar bone extuberances occurred in wild animals as well. A further statement of Virchow's, that the deep incision between the upper rim of the eye socket and the lower skull cover of the alleged intermediary form proved it to be the skull of a monkey was then contradicted by the naturalist Nehring, who claimed that the same formation was found in a human skull from Santos, Brazil. Virchow's objections came from the same turn of mind that also caused him to consider the famous skulls of Neanderthal, Spy, etc., as pathological formations, while Haeckel's followers regarded them as intermediary forms between monkey and man.

Haeckel did not allow any objections to deprive him of his confidence in his mode of conception. He continued his scientific work without swerving from the viewpoints at which he had arrived, and through popular presentations of his conception of nature, he influenced the public consciousness. In his book, Systematic Phylogenesis, Outline of a Natural System of Organisms on the Basis of the History of Species (1894–96), he attempted to demonstrate the natural kinship of organisms in a strictly scientific method. In his Natural History of Creation, which, from 1868–1908, appeared in eleven editions, he gave a popular explanation of his views. In 1899, in his popular studies on monistic philosophy entitled, The Riddles of the Universe, he gave a survey of his ideas in natural philosophy by demonstrating without reserve the many applications of his basic thoughts. Between all these works he published studies on the most diverse specialized researches, always paying attention at the same time to the philosophical principles and the scientific knowledge of details.

The light that shines out from the monistic world conception is, according to Haeckel's conviction, to “disperse the heavy clouds of ignorance and superstition that have heretofore spread an impenetrable darkness over the most important one of all problems of human knowledge, that is, the problem concerning man's origin, his true nature and his position in nature.” This is what he said in a speech given August 26, 1898 at the Fourth International Congress of Zoologists in Cambridge, On Our Present Knowledge Concerning the Origin of Man. In what respect his world conception forms a bond between religion and science, Haeckel has shown in an impressive way in his book, Monism as a Bond between Religion and Science, Credo of a Naturalist, which appeared in 1892.

1919-08-31-GA297

We, with our scientific mentality, are proud of our methods of experimentation and observation. These methods have led to great triumphs in the fields of natural science. However, many of our contemporaries who are close to the educational system feel that these same experimental and observational methods are incapable of finding an approach to education. Many people with a certain level of perception have asked, “What can we do to rightly use the developmental capacities that arise in the successive stages of the child’s life?” I need only point out a few things to show that some educators already have the desire to really understand the development of the child, but that due to the current scientific mentality they stand helplessly before such questions. Already in 1887, for example, the educator Sallwiirk drew attention to the discovery of a certain natural law that holds true during the development of an organism.

According to this Recapitulation Theory, as it was named by the recently deceased Ernst Haeckel, the embryonic development of each individual human follows the history of development of the animal kingdom. During the first weeks of embryonic development, the human is similar to the lower animals, and then rises until it develops into a human. The individual development is a shortened repetition of a long development in the world at large. Educators have now asked themselves, “Can something similar also hold true for the mental development of the individual child? Also, can education find any help in a rule patterned after the Recapitulation Theory?”

You see, an effort already exists, not simply to begin teaching, but to gain insight into the development of the growing human. It was, for instance, obvious to say that all of humanity has gone through the time of the prehistoric cultures; then followed cultures such as those handed down to us through the writings of the ancient oriental cultures; then came the Greek and Roman cultures, followed by the developments of the Middle Ages, and so forth, right up to the present time.

Can we say that each human as a child repeats the stages of human cultural development during childhood?

Can we, by observing the course of history, obtain an insight into the development of the individual child? Sallwiirk emphatically argued in his 1887 book Gesinnungsunterricht und Kulturgeschichte [The training of character and cultural history] that educators could not gain any help from such ideas. Even before that, the pedagogue Theodor Vogt, a follower of the Herbart school of thought, suggested that at present we are powerless to answer such pedagogical questions. In 1884 he said that if there were a science of comparative history in the sense of comparative linguistics, it could perhaps give us insight into child rearing comparable to the insight into the historical development of animals found in the Recapitulation Theory. However, he admitted that such a historical science did not exist. The pedagogue Rein echoed his words in 1887, and so things still lie in superficial pedagogy and the superficial art of education today.

1921-01-05-GA323

On the other hand, we saw yesterday that what confronts us in embryology emerges as if from indefinite, chaotic regions, and from a certain point onward can be grasped in picture-form, or even geometrically. As I said yesterday, in studying the celestial phenomena, through the very process of cognition we come to a point where we must recognize that the world is different from what this process of cognition might at first have led us to believe. And in the embryonic phenomena we are led to see that there must be something which preceeds the facts to which we still have access.

Now among other things there recently appeared a certain divergence of outlook among embryologists. (I will only give a rough description.)

On the one hand there were the strict followers of biogenetic law, which states, as you know, that the development of the individual embryo is a kind of shortened recapitulation of the development of the race. These people wished to trace the cause of the development of the embryo to the development of the race.

On the other hand, others came forward who would not hear of the derivation of the individual from the racial development, but held to a more or less mechanical conception of embryonic development saying that it was only necessary to take into account the forces directly present in what takes place in the embryo itself.

For example, Oscar Hertwig left the strict biogenetic school of Haeckel and changed over to the more mechanical school. Now the mechanical needs to be grasped in a way that is at least similar to mathematics even though it be not pure mathematics. We therefore see, from the very history of science, how front a certain stage onward (something as I said, must be presumed to have gone before this stage) embryological development is taken hold of by a mechanical, mathematical method of research. It is the history of these things to which I now wish to point.

Further reading

• Daniel Hindes: 'Rudolf Steiner and Ernst Haeckel'

Related pages

• Evolution
• Four kingdoms of nature
• Overview solar system evolution
• Earth's seven epochs for the evolution of the kingdoms on Earth

References and further reading

• Ernst Hagemann
  • 'Gedanken zur Evolution der Naturreiche' (1955)
  • 'Noch einmal - Gedanken zur Evolution der Naturreiche' (1958)
  • 'Vom Wesen des Lebendigen'(1963)
• Werner Schüpbach: 'Mensch und Pflanze: im Werdegang der Evolution' (1971)