Perhaps through studying my work or as a result of your early schooling or your religion, you have learnt that one should be good to one's neighbour, in fact that one should even love this neighbour. Who this "neighbour" is, is still not entirely clear to all people. It has of course been obvious that what was meant by this expression was our fellow human beings and to some extent also animals, and we can perhaps even concede, if pushed, that plants also to some extent need to be treated humanely, but the fact that microcosmos is included in this category is still something that is to an overwhelming degree outside most people's day consciousness or their view of life.

The great, principal commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", which when it is carried out is "the fulfilment of all the laws", thus forms the foundation of all true happiness or of the being's attainment of the highest sense of wellbeing, the most perfect fate that the experience of life can ever offer. But if this fulfilment is not perfect, in fact if there is shown to be even the slightest lack in this fulfilment, it will inevitably, to a corresponding degree, affect the individual's fate, happiness and wellbeing. There is not one single form of disharmony within a being's experience of life, not even the slightest hint of a tendency towards a dark fate, that cannot be traced back to a failure to fulfil this great commandment. This is the case whether the being is suffering from an organic illness, or whether its wellbeing is being disturbed as a result of being personally persecuted by a fellow being.

The law states that "as one sows, so shall one also reap". But at this point you may perhaps find it difficult to keep pace with the argument. Whereas it is quite likely that you can understand that being personally persecuted can be one of the outer consequences of a similar persecution carried out by yourself towards a fellow human being at an earlier time, even though this event is now beyond your day conscious memory, possibly taking place as far back as in an earlier life, it will be far more difficult for you to understand that cancer, bronchitis or merely a simple cold can be the result of a lack of neighbourly love. But this is in principle nevertheless the case.

But of course this does not mean that the object of your lack of neighbourly love has been fellow human beings, animals or plants. Quite the contrary, you may even have an exceptionally well-developed talent for expressing sympathy and love towards these forms of life and are therefore what would in everyday terms be called "a sympathetic, loving and good person". You might even be so advanced in this form of behaviour that your sympathy and love have already begun to stream back towards you from these beings, so that your fate now manifests only the very best conditions for a state of happiness and wellbeing. The fact that this wellbeing is nevertheless disturbed by a to some extent virulent organic or bodily illness, and this disturbance is also the result of a lack of neighbourly love on your part, reveals that you are still not fully in accord with the fulfilment of the great commandment to love, or with the law of the existence and maintenance of life itself. This disharmony in your fate shows us that loving one's fellow human beings and being good to animals and plants is clearly not enough to guarantee a completely happy fate, even though a harmonious and happy relationship between yourself and your fellow human beings is of course an extraordinarily good thing and can sometimes even appear to be the very culmination of happiness.

With every illness or with every purely physical or bodily complaint, you are subject to something unpleasant breaking into and disturbing your otherwise benign wellbeing. This unpleasantness shows you that there are areas of your life or fate where you are not reaping wellbeing. But because you are not reaping wellbeing but unpleasantness, there must be areas in your fate where you have "sown" these forms of unpleasantness, otherwise where would they have come from? One cannot sow rye, and from this seed, reap oats. One cannot, by manifesting the conditions that lead to unpleasantness, experience pleasantness. This experience can obviously only be released by manifesting the conditions that bring forth pleasantness. In most cases you are quite unaware that you yourself have released the conditions that produced your present illness or the disturbance of your well-being. You are day conscious only of the fact that you are suffering from a complaint or illness, and in your pain you turn to a doctor or to a being who you think can bring your suffering to an end. And that is of course the very thing one should do. When you are unable to cope with your illness yourself you must of course turn to those who are authorities and who have the possibility of helping you. But of course that does not mean that these authorities are fully able to help you, even though they should be seen as the Godhead's outstretched helping hand and are in many cases able to alleviate the wretchedness.

These authorities, which mainly means doctors and scientists, are still researching those particular areas that are to do with bodily phenomena, and in many cases they are groping their way forward in the dark. At times their way leads through hundreds of experiments before they arrive at the result that enables them to combat the complaint. And when they have eventually discovered the conditions or the means that enable the condition to be physically combated, it is in many cases only a completely dead, outer, material phenomenon, based entirely on a one-hundred-percent outer, physical ability to see, and it leaves them without any inkling whatsoever of what is really taking place from a cosmic point of view or seen from within. They are patching up an organism, stitching and operating on it, as a cobbler would operate on a shoe. And thank goodness they do. That they have managed to do so with such evident success, and that they have, with their cool composure, strong nerves and physical insight, brought many a battered, mutilated and wounded organism back to some degree of healthy functioning is certainly one of the wonders, not to say miracles, of modern times that through their love for human beings they are offering thousands and thousands of people.

But being able to patch up and restore something that is damaged is not always the same as having combated the causes that produced the damage to the thing. And the same also applies in the case of the cause of an illness or damage to an organism. That a doctor can heal a broken arm or leg that has come about as a result of a fall on an icy road is no guarantee that others will not also fall and come to grief on icy roads. Healing the effect is not always the same as healing or removing the cause of the effect. The icy roads have to be combated or rendered ineffective using sand or gravel to prevent more pedestrians from hurting themselves by falling or losing their footing. That a doctor was able to heal a bad stomach ache in one patient is no guarantee that other people will not have the same illness. In order to create such a guarantee, one has to find out about the cause of the illness so that one can combat it before it reaches the point of being an illness in the organism, in the same way that one combats the icy roads before anyone hurts themselves on them.

Much progress has been made in combating the causes of many illnesses as a result of the discovery of the tiny microbes - the bacteria, bacilli and staphylococci - that with their parasitical existence in the living organisms produce the various illnesses. Through the discovery of the parasitical nature and life of these tiny microbes it has been possible to combat them by using a serum that is manufactured specifically for each one. By injecting this into the organism one is able, either totally or partially, to render the organism immune to the illness in question. In this way one is therefore able to render the organism immune to a variety of dangerous illnesses. But even though Man's increased capability in this field is, from one point of view, a very great blessing, whereby thousands of people have avoided an unnatural destruction of their organisms - in fact it has been the only means of combating or of wiping out dangerous epidemics - this knowledge or capability most certainly does not express the very highest point that it will eventually reach in this field. In time human beings will reach the point where they are able to make the organism immune to illness by using their own power, and they will then have reached the absolute highest degree of capability in the use and care of their organism, this most complex, most perfect and wonderful instrument or tool by which they can experience life.

Serum treatment or vaccination is certainly of great benefit to mankind, in fact during a certain period or at certain stages in the evolution of mankind it is absolutely necessary, but there is no denying that it is by nature unnatural to the organism, and therefore like everything else that is unnatural will in time be overcome or combated by the human spirit. The reason human beings are using it is not because it is not an "evil", but because it is a "lesser evil" than the illness it is intended to prevent. That it is an "evil" cannot be denied. It is often manufactured at the cost of suffering and harm to animals, just as its effects on the human organism are also to a certain extent poisonous or in some way constitute a form of brutality and suffering inflicted on the organism, which is only tolerated because it is a means of combating a greater evil. In addition, there are organisms for which it can be dangerous, organisms that do not react at all to its influence in the way that is usual for the majority of individuals, being far more vulnerable than they. It may even endanger the life of the person. In such situations it can be a greater evil to be vaccinated than not to be vaccinated at all. But as one cannot know this in advance, the whole issue of vaccination versus non-vaccination becomes rather problematic, owing to the fact that many people fear the possible unfortunate outcome of the treatment.

But since vaccination, as already mentioned, has provided mankind with an great wealth of blessed support in the fight to overcome powerful epidemics that destroy the organism, and has saved thousands of people from a far too early death and is still affording mankind this great support, one cannot at present dismiss it out of hand or advise people against being vaccinated, as one will without doubt find oneself in the situation that the person one is advising against vaccination is one of those very people who is highly susceptible to one of the very illnesses that vaccination can protect them against. On the other hand, to advise a person to be vaccinated can also be connected with a certain degree of risk, since the situation could well be that one is dealing with one of those people for whom vaccination is dangerous. As you can see, to advise someone both for and against vaccination can result in extremely harmful consequences. But one point in favour of vaccination is the fact that at present the percentage of those who cannot tolerate vaccination is much less than of those who can tolerate it. Vaccination with effects that are harmless and that prevent illness still occur in far more cases than vaccination with immediately dangerous consequences. Whether one should advise in favour of vaccination on this basis is therefore a question for each individual to answer by examining their conscience.

Vaccination or serum treatment is thus not without risk or harm, even though at the moment it is unavoidable in terrestrial human beings' present state. But due to the fact that it causes harm and its use can endanger life, it is apparent that it is neither totally perfect nor therefore the absolutely natural and final solution to the problem. Furthermore there are also many illnesses or bodily afflictions on which vaccination or serum would have no effect whatsoever. But even though one could create a serum for any affliction whatsoever, this would not solve the problem. It is certainly a good thing to be able to patch up, piece together or repair things that are broken, but this does not remove the fact that they have been broken. Things can still inadvertently be broken to pieces as long as the conditions that lead to such breakages have not been removed. As I mentioned earlier, it is the same with organisms. Even though medical science has eventually become extremely skilled at not only healing many illnesses but also preventing many afflictions, this has, however, not enabled them to arrive at the highest or most perfect solution of the problem, as long as the combating and prevention can be maintained only through the use of medicines that it is only possible to produce at the cost of other beings' suffering and death. I am thinking here of the many hundreds of animals that have lost their healthy functioning or indeed their lives through vivisection.

How much suffering and mutilation it must have cost these fellow beings, who are younger in terms of evolution or life, to have been forced to place their healthy organisms at the disposal of the researcher's experiments, his knife, his poisonous preparations and serum production, to say nothing of the many other painful mutilations that authorised experimenters can carry out in the name of science? I will not dwell on any of the terrible things that can be manifested if the researcher is not the kind of person who works exclusively with things as a "necessary evil", but is the kind of person for whom vivisection is a source of real enjoyment, a camouflaged means of satisfying an extremely unnatural desire, that is to say, an unhealthy curiosity and a perversion. But even if one turns one's attention away from this possibility, treating it as something that would certainly not happen within authorised research, there still remains a great deal of suffering and killing, with cries rising up to heaven from this battlefield, this zone of death, this hell for myriads of beings that has come about as a result of terrestrial mankind's distress and agony. No matter how unavoidable one may say this state of affairs is at the moment, and how expedient it is in maintaining the health of terrestrial mankind, it cannot possibly be that basis for maintaining health that Providence saw as the final solution in the creation of perfect terrestrial human wellbeing. A state of health and bodily wellbeing that can only be maintained by torturing, killing and destroying other beings cannot possibly constitute the great aim of the divine creative plan that terrestrial human beings were promised in the form of the "kingdom of heaven". Of what use is it for people to succeed in abolishing war, hatred and antipathy and be able to demonstrate great friendship towards their fellow beings, if in order to maintain their health and wellbeing they have to take a daily dose of a certain preparation or be vaccinated against a certain malady with a certain serum, a serum which can only be manufactured through the illness, suffering and destruction of other flesh and blood beings? The fact that these other beings are "younger" in evolutionary terms than terrestrial human beings does not annul the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill", just as neither can it change the eternal, cosmic answer: "Whatsoever a man shall sow, so shall he also reap". A "kingdom of heaven" in which one sows and reaps suffering, murder and killing is not a "kingdom of heaven" but a zone of suffering, completely analogous to the one that terrestrial human beings are at this very time struggling so strongly to free themselves from.

As you can see, a sustained love for human beings is certainly not sufficient to lead you out of all suffering. The great commandment to love does not state: "Thou shalt love thy fellow human beings as thyself", it states, as we know: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". The concept of "neighbour" therefore covers far more than just fellow human beings. It covers nothing less than all living beings, thereby including all forms of life. If it is not seen in this way, and the law is not complied with in this respect, no being will be able to experience the perfect "kingdom of heaven". You can, through a love for human beings, animals and plants, certainly achieve a happy relationship between yourself and these forms of life, but such sympathetic feelings or complying with the law of love in this way is not sufficient to guarantee you complete organic or bodily health. Despite all your great friendship for animals and human beings, your organism could become severely undermined, weakened, in fact infected with so much illness that disability or a far too early death can occur. It is of course quite obvious that this is an evil that the human spirit must also overcome, as a "kingdom of heaven" or a form of happiness that has not overcome this can only be equivalent to a sun whose radiant light is totally or partially blotted out by spots.

As I have already explained, we have reached the stage where we are able to combat or prevent many of these "spots", that is to say illnesses in the organism, with various kinds of serum or preparations that to a greater or lesser extent are produced at the expense of the healthy functioning and wellbeing of other beings (the animals). This causes us to break the law of neighbourly love, as animals are also our "neighbours". The form of preventing and combating illness that we have invented is therefore not perfect, and must, through the human spirit's advancements in knowledge and capability, eventually give way to a form of combating and preventing illness that in no way deprives any other being of its healthy functioning and wellbeing, but on the contrary creates harmony and happiness for all beings. Such a way of combating or preventing illness is not a fight and is therefore in no way war and mutilation or the destruction of other beings' life and wellbeing, but is perfect life itself, nothing more or less than the fulfilment of the commandment to love one's neighbour. And it is on the fulfilment of this commandment that the very highest form of life experience - called in the Bible "the holy spirit" and in my main work, Livets Bog, "cosmic consciousness" - exclusively rests.

In order to arrive at a state of oneness with this total fulfilment of the commandment to love one's neighbour, and the illness-free existence that goes with it, it is necessary to come to an understanding of the great main structure of life itself. From a certain viewpoint this can be divided into three large, main areas, namely, "microcosmos", "mesocosmos" and "macrocosmos". Together these three "cosmoses" constitute the whole of the universe and life. As a whole they therefore constitute the very thing that we generally term "cosmos". We divide this "cosmos" into three "cosmoses" or sections in order to show from what perspective we ourselves, with our organism, relate to this immense universe. Every one of us senses himself or herself as the centre or midpoint of the universe, regardless of where we happen to be. We are in a position to manifest thought, will and movement, that is to say a release of forces, just as we are in a position to see a great many other beings equipped with similar abilities and aptitudes. Apart from being able to perceive ourselves and our fellow human beings, the range of beings that we can see also includes animals and to some extent those life forms we call plants. And all these life forms, which are in varying degrees related to our own appearance, I have named "mesocosmos".

To this cosmos also belong a great many of the advanced, independent, but not day conscious, forms of crystallisation. And here we come to the great boundary of the everyday terrestrial human being's ability to experience directly life forms or beings outside its own appearance. And in fact over the centuries it has been common practice to regard all the active forces and creative processes outside mesocosmos, as "dead" or "lifeless" substances. As a standard by which life is measured, one has therefore acknowledged only those things whose movements were like human movements in as much as they gave expression to conscious, willed action and appearance. This is the reason why plant forms were not counted as real expressions of life. They did not walk about or give expression to any particularly day conscious will or ability, like humans or animals. It is only through intellectual research that terrestrial humans are beginning to realize that plants also constitute a form of life, even though they certainly cannot talk, laugh or cry to the extent that humans can. Research shows that plants, in principle just as much as animals and humans, require nourishment, light and warmth in order to exist. The plant's existence is just as constrained as the existence of these beings, for example, metabolism or the transformation of matter is "digestion", it is growth, it is how the organism is created. In the nature and life of the plant one begins to recognize the same main principles or phenomena as those that form the basis of our own life.

One begins to understand that the difference between our own life and the life of plants is only one of degree, in reality it is merely a question of mental growth. Plants will at some point be animals, just as animals and humans are nothing more than advanced or more highly evolved plants. This scale with varying degrees of growth also corresponds exactly with what is evidenced by the history of the Earth. There have not always been animals and humans on the Earth. At one time vegetation or plant life was the highest or most perfect form of life existing on its surface. Then came a period in which animals began to be in evidence on the earthly scene, and out of the life of animals flowed early Man or the human beings that today rule the globe as the highest form of life. If these two forms of life, animals and human beings, are not the continuation in terms of evolution and mental growth of the plant life form, where have they come from? They cannot have come about out of nothing. It is not possible for "something" to come out of "nothing", and equally it is not possible for "something" to become "nothing". But if it is therefore apparent that life has grown out of the plant being, what has the plant being's life grown out of? At one time there were no plants on the Earth either. Does this mean that the life of animals and humans began in the organism of the plant being? Have we therefore found in this organism the boundary between life and death? Before the existence of plants did death hover over the globe? Was there, in that far distant past, a total stillness, immobility or lack of energy everywhere in its sphere? No, quite the opposite, in fact.

In all the spheres of the globe, there were powerful movements, tremendous explosions, tumultuous, hurricane-like tidal waves and glowing masses of material raged throughout its fiery atmosphere. Where did all this energy come from? Can death itself, absolute stillness or total lifelessness bring about such a powerful manifestation of movement? Can "movement" appear as a firm or absolutely certain indication of lifelessness? Is it "death" that produces the "movement" or is it life? If it is death, which means absolute lifelessness or stillness, it must therefore be this stillness that has produced the "movements". But how can absolute stillness give rise to "movement"? Would it not rather be the case that it is "life" itself that produced the "movement" and that movement is therefore rather a firm indication of life? Can you not see in your own manifestation or in your own experience of life that "movement" and "stillness" alternate as expressions of your own will and capability? To believe that movement can be an expression of anything other than life, is to be enveloped in the greatest and deepest delusion or superstition that can possibly exist. Life is "movement". "Death" is "stillness".

But absolute stillness does not exist. Every sensory experience of "stillness" or "immobility" is merely an experience of a lack of contrast between two movements of different speeds. Where we do not have this contrast, we think we are experiencing stillness. This is the very reason why it seems to us that the Earth constitutes a firm, static phenomenon. The movement that in relation to the movement of the Earth is slower or faster and that is necessary in order that we can directly sense or experience the Earth's own movement, can be given to us only by the sun and the globes in that region of the heavens to which the Earth belongs. But these heavenly bodies are so far away in space that they, in relation to our own heavenly body, are as it were microscopic in nature. Their movements are therefore, in the massive physical perspective in which our eyes see them, equally microscopic in nature - even to the extent that they are not directly visible at all to our eyes as movements - and cannot in this perspective constitute the movement that is slower or faster in relation to the movement of the Earth that is exclusively necessary in order that we can in this perspective directly see the movement of the Earth. In our physical perspective it therefore looks as if these distant details are standing still. This thereby prevents us from directly seeing the movement of the Earth globe, because this globe must also appear to be standing still, as there do not arise any directly visible contrasts in the relationship between it and the phenomena that, from this perspective, are far away.

We are able to witness the same principle from the carriage window of a train. Whereas it is easy to ascertain the movement of the train against the closest details or the surroundings that lie beside the railway track, it becomes more and more difficult to ascertain the movement of the train against the details of the surroundings the further out they lie towards the edge of the horizon. From the carriage window of the train at full speed one will therefore in any given situation be able to look at far-off mountain tops for quite a long time without noticing the many kilometres of ground one may have covered with one's own self in the time spent enjoying the view. Everything that appears to the senses as a "fixed point" is only able to exist as the point of equilibrium between two types of movement. "Fixed points" are an effect of "movement"; without "movement" they would not be able to exist. Whatever we experience as a "fixed point" is therefore in reality only a hidden form of "movement". This hidden movement becomes visible the moment we stand facing a new type of movement that differs from the equilibrium or the state of stillness in whatever sensory object was previously the centre of our attention. But if this new type of movement does not impinge on the sensory object, it will continue to constitute the equilibrium or the "fixed point" that we previously perceived or judged it to be.

This subject is of course much too wide for us to be able to explore in any depth in this lecture. I have touched on the subject here because it is important to gain an understanding of the mystery of "substances" or "matter". For if one understands this and therefore perceives all apparent stillness or immobility in matter as camouflaged "micromovement", it becomes much easier to perceive this matter as an expression of life and thereby as an expression of thought, will and desire. And once one has reached this point, a completely new horizon will open up as a result, with a view over hitherto unsuspected worlds, inhabited by living beings, some of which one finds oneself cooperating with to form each other's fate in a way that is hitherto so unimaginably intimate that it is surpassed by no form of cooperation whatsoever that one engages in with beings from our own sphere, an exception being the cooperation between our own I and our mother's I that resulted in that part of our own life where we found ourselves in the position under our mother's heart on our journey towards the physical world.

The microworld therefore now becomes alive to us, it becomes visible as an ocean made up of the life functions of living beings, and the character of all substances as sour, salty, bitter or sweet, as well as their appearance in all shades of colour, red, yellow, green, blue etc., can be traced back to the day-conscious, as well as the unconscious, manifestations of will of these small fellow beings, their everyday lives and activities, their experience of sorrow and suffering as well as their experience of happiness, joy and wellbeing. But it is not just that matter becomes a living world to us; the fact is that we ourselves also receive, as a result of this new panorama, a revelation of that aspect of the appearance of our being and the nature of our organism that is nothing other than that very "image of the Godhead" that it is our task to take part in to some degree creating "after his likeness" and which makes our everyday experience of life an adventure that surpasses all adventures, an adventure that with its alive, down-to-earth reality outshines all imagination.

So what is it we are actually witnessing here? It is nothing less than the fact that in principle each one of us is the ruler of terrains, kingdoms and spheres with such countless numbers of living beings under our rule that all the earthly rulers, popes, kings and emperors who have ever existed must, despite all their glory and autocracy, fade into insignificance when compared to the greatness and might that is subject to our I, and with which we control the fates of such innumerable hosts of beings and areas of such vastness that they constitute nothing less than entire universes. There are no parallels that bear comparison with the greatness and might embodied in the appearance of the living being. The individual reigns supreme in his cosmic realm. Only the Godhead can serve as a model. The living beings are the spheres' reflexion of the Godhead's radiant glory. In the gentleness of their bright eyes and the caresses of their hands we meet the direct warmth from God, and through this love we see them as an expression of "his image after his likeness".

By looking into microcosmos, a completely new perspective has now opened itself up to us. This perspective not only contains an immense panorama of regions populated by myriads of living beings, but these beings are direct co-workers in the creation of our own fate, our own wellbeing and our own happiness, just as we ourselves are an extremely prominent factor in the maintenance of these beings' "kingdom of heaven" or "hell".

Through our insight into the cosmic structure of our own organism have we not found a counterpart to the structure of the whole of the external universe that surrounds us? Does this not force us to use the structure of our own organism as the solid foundation on which to base our investigation or research into other bodies in which we can see movements and life functions taking place? Is not "Nature" just such a body? Is not Nature full of living beings, movements and functions? Is there in principle any difference between a micro-individual's view of its surroundings and the view of our surroundings from our own sphere? Are not the micro-individuals in our organism surrounded by fellow beings and by both known and unknown functions and terrains? Do they have any idea that these unknown functions and terrains are respectively organ functions and organs in a living being's organism? If they had a terrestrial human way of thinking, would they not perceive these unknown functions as "forces of Nature"? They certainly cannot know that they are a living being's breathing, circulation, digestion etc.. And similarly to such microbeings would not all the unknown terrains be nothing more than "landscapes of Nature" that least of all could be thought of as constituting parts of a living being's organism? But is this not precisely the very situation that terrestrial human beings find themselves in? Are they not also surrounded by myriads of known as well as unknown living beings, functions and terrains that they call "forces of Nature" and "landscapes of Nature" or simply "Nature"? But as it is a fact that our organism constitutes spheres or zones for living beings, in which they can experience life, but which can nevertheless only be perceived by these beings as "Nature" or "forces of Nature", why should it not be the same situation that terrestrial human beings find themselves in? Why should it not be just as possible for these terrestrial human beings to be "micro-individuals" in a gigantic organism as the micro-individuals from their own organisms? And why should not all of Nature's functions or its manifestations of force be just as much the functions of the organism of this kind of gigantic being? In fact what else could these functions possibly be?

We are therefore forced to accept our own appearance in "Nature" as being identical to a "microbeing's" appearance in a "macrobeing" in the same way that we accept the appearance of our own microbeings in our own organism. Just as we find ourselves in an external world that appears outside our own organism, whose forces, substances or materials we have to cooperate with, a cooperation which in turn results in what we call our fate, so do the microbeings within us also find themselves surrounded by an external world with which they have to cooperate, this cooperation giving rise to their "fate". But as these small beings' external world is our organism, and as our circulation, digestion, glandular functioning etc. are therefore for many of these beings external "forces of Nature", which they have to cooperate with in order to be able to maintain their physical existence, it becomes clear how powerfully we, through the way we exercise our will and satisfy our desires and in the other attitudes we have towards our body, constitute a fundamental factor in these beings' experience of life and the way their fate is formed.

There is no situation in which we have such colossal opportunities for creating happiness or unhappiness for other living beings as the situation that we are in possession of regarding the microbeings that make up our organism. Take for example the case of "alcoholics". Have not such beings, by repeatedly filling their organism with alcohol, gradually transformed it into a "hell" for the microbeings that normally live in the organism? What is this weakening or destruction of the brain and nerves and the other internal organs - a weakening that is brought about as a result of addiction to drink - other than a destruction of the theatre stages on which the organism's microbeings can normally act out their lives. And is it not conceivable that this destruction results in a weakening and unnatural death for these microbeings' organisms, just as much as for the "alcoholic's" or the macrobeing's organism? And do not these same consequences apply to the many other more or less poisonous substances it has become fashionable or common practice to consume on a daily basis? Does not excessive tobacco smoking lead to "nicotine poisoning"? And does not the consumption of extremely strong coffee lead to palpitations? And what about opium addicts and beings in our own country who have turned to narcotics? Do they not all end up to some degree defective or even totally wrecked with regard to their physical organism and the mental manifestation that is connected to and dependent on it?

But in addition to the outer physical effects produced by narcotics, there is also another aspect of the problem, which is extremely serious to the individual. It is not the fact that narcotics destroy one's own physical organism, and thereby one's own life and wellbeing, or the fact that they harm one's closest relatives and fellow beings that makes the taking of narcotics the greatest infringement of the commandment to love one's neighbour. This infringement on the part of the individual harms a far greater number of individuals in microcosmos within its own organism than the number of individuals in its external surroundings or mesocosmos for whom it also causes harm. If its habit of taking narcotics harms a mere ten or twenty people or beings in mesocosmos, it will at the very least harm thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, or even millions of beings in microcosmos within its organism.

How can one love these small beings in one's own organism that, from a mental point of view, it is absolutely impossible to share a wavelength with? If one could speak to these small individuals and thereby exchange thoughts and feelings with them, it would be quite a different matter. But is it not written that one should love, not merely in word and in tongue, but in deed and in truth? And this brings us to the very field or the particular method in which we can benefit our small friends in the microworld. It is precisely in action and in truth that we can make life and the surroundings immensely easier and more pleasant, just as we can make their existence grim and destructive. And it is this creation of light or darkness that we take care of, albeit unconsciously, through our intake of nourishment and in all the other ways in which we care for our organism.

Do you not think that the person who lives a healthy life, has sufficient exercise and fresh air, sleeps as much they naturally need to each day, receives the sort of food and drink that is healthy and appropriate to their organism's particular step and does not incorporate any kind of harmful, poisonous substances, would create good conditions in its organism for its micro-individuals? Do you not think that the living conditions would be far more difficult in situations in which the being consumes large amounts of stimulants or narcotics or on a daily basis receives insufficient or the wrong kind of nourishment, and in addition to all this does not get enough sleep or rest but perhaps even overexerts itself. It is the effects of all these foreign energies, which are harmful to the material of the organs, that are directly experienced by the microbeings in the organism. As a result of all the unnaturalness brought about by the foreign energies, these small beings' surroundings gradually become defective and are unable to meet the needs that are necessary for the microbeings' lives and wellbeing. The microbeings become sick and moribund. By introducing into the organism substances that are particularly stimulating, certain organs are forced to work at an increased speed, which they are certainly not intended to do, the result being that they are overexerted. But this overexertion appears only once the effects of the stimulants have passed. The overexertion and the resultant damage to the organs and thereby the micro-individuals appears as "frayed nerves", a "weak heart", "nervous breakdown" and such like. The same symptoms will of course come about as a result of permanent everyday physical or bodily exertion. And to these may be added the many other illnesses that an organism can be afflicted with. These can likewise to a greater or lesser extent be traced back to a lack of consideration for the care of the organism, its food and nourishment, and its protection against cold and heat or against infection and injury.

Irrespective of what is wrong with an organism, whether it is disabled physically or mentally or whether it has merely a simple cold, the cause will therefore lie exclusively in some form of lack of consideration for our own organism. But as this consists of living beings and their world or the theatre stage on which they act out their lives, our lack of consideration for our organism is therefore identical to a lack of consideration for these younger brothers of ours or our "neighbour" in microcosmos. But lack of consideration is the same as lack of love. But as lack of love is in turn the same as an infringement of the great commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself", this will enable you to see the meaning behind the bodily, organic illnesses in the world. They provide actual proof of the great terrains and areas of the law of love that still remain unfulfilled by terrestrial human beings.