The Rudolf Steiner Archive

18. Is Theosophy Buddhist Propaganda?

[ 1 ] Today’s lecture is intended to address one of the most widespread prejudices regarding the Theosophical Movement: namely, the notion that Theosophy is nothing more than propaganda for Buddhism. A term has even been coined for this movement: Neo-Buddhism. Now, there is no doubt that our contemporaries would have much to object to regarding the Theosophical Movement if what is expressed in this prejudice were in any way true. For example, someone who holds a Christian viewpoint will rightly ask: What use is a religion—intended for entirely different circumstances, for an entirely different people, and for entirely different conditions—to someone who has made Christianity their creed or who was raised in the Christian faith? And someone who stands on the standpoint of modern science may, in turn, ask: What can Buddhism offer us—who live with the scientific concepts gained over the course of the last few centuries—that is of any significance, since everything it deals with belongs to a sphere of thought that arose many centuries before our era? — Today we wish to address the question of how this judgment came about and what value it actually holds.

[ 2 ] You know that the Theosophical Movement was founded in 1875 by Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott, that it has since spread throughout all the civilized countries of the world, and that thousands upon thousands of people seeking answers to the questions of existence have found satisfaction in it in the deepest sense, and that it has produced research that speaks deeply to the soul of modern man. All this cannot be denied, and we must ask ourselves: How does this movement—which has a rich body of literature and has produced a number of men and women who are today capable of speaking independently in its spirit—relate to the religions of the East, to Hinduism, and especially to Buddhism?

[ 3 ] The title of one of the most widely read books in our field is largely to blame for the prejudice I mentioned. It is the book that has won countless people over to the movement: *Esoteric Buddhism* by Sinnett. It is a strangely unfortunate coincidence that the title of this book could be so thoroughly misunderstood. Madame Blavatsky says of this book that it is neither Buddhism nor is it esoteric, even though it is called “Esoteric Buddhism.” And this judgment is extraordinarily important for the assessment of the Theosophical Movement. Buddhism does indeed appear on the title page of Sinnett’s book, but this Buddhism should be written not with two d’s, as if it came from Buddha, but with one d, for it comes from Budhi, the sixth human principle, the principle of enlightenment, of knowledge. Budhi means nothing other than what was called Gnosis in the early Christian centuries. Knowledge through the inner light of the spirit, the teaching of wisdom.

[ 4 ] If we understand the term “Buddhism” in this way, we will soon be able to admit that the Buddha’s teachings are nothing other than one of the many forms in which this wisdom teaching is spread throughout the world. Not only the Buddha, but all the great teachers of wisdom have spread this Buddhism: the Egyptian Hermes, the ancient Indian Rishis, Zarathustra, the Chinese sages Laozi and Confucius, the initiates of the ancient Jews, furthermore Pythagoras and Plato, and finally the teachers of Christianity themselves. In this sense, they have spread nothing other than Buddhism, and esoteric Buddhism means nothing other than the inner teaching, in contrast to the outer teaching. All the great religious traditions of the world have made this distinction between inner and outer teaching. Christianity, too, recognized this distinction between esoteric and exoteric content, particularly in the first centuries.

[ 5 ] The esoteric differs quite significantly from the exoteric. The exoteric is what a teacher proclaims before the congregation, that which is disseminated through the spoken word and through books. It is what anyone with a certain level of education can understand. Esoteric teaching is not disseminated through books; the esoteric aspect of every wisdom religion is transmitted only by word of mouth and in entirely different ways. In order to convey esoteric content to a person, an intimate relationship is required between the teacher—who must also be a guide—and his or her student; it requires the existence of a direct personal bond between teacher and student; it requires that within this relationship between teacher and student, something be expressed that goes far beyond mere communication, beyond the mere word. There must be something spiritual in this relationship between teacher and student; the teacher’s spiritual power must act upon the student. The will, trained in wisdom, must allow something to flow in that passes directly to the student or the small community, which is to enjoy esoteric instruction solely and exclusively as a small community. Furthermore, part of esoteric instruction is that this small community is gradually led up to the higher levels. One cannot recognize the third level unless one has fully mastered the first and second. What the esoteric encompasses is not merely learning, but a complete transformation of the human being, a higher education and discipline of all his soul forces. The person who has passed through the esoteric school has not merely learned something; he has become a different person in temperament, disposition, and character, not merely in insight and knowledge.

[ 6 ] That which is entrusted to the outer world or to an external book can only be a faint reflection of true esoteric instruction. Hence, Madame Blavatsky rightly says that Sinnett’s book is not esoteric Buddhism, for the moment any teaching is communicated through a book or publicly, it is no longer esoteric; it has become exoteric, for the unique coloring imparted by the mind, the coloring imparted by the finer soul forces, the entire spiritual breath that must permeate and warm what esotericism encompasses—all of this must have faded away from what is communicated merely through a book.

[ 7 ] One thing is possible, however: those whose dormant abilities can be easily awakened, and who have the will and inclination not only to read between the lines of a book but to, as it were, soak up the words, can extract from that book what lies at the heart of its esoteric content. Under certain circumstances, one can penetrate deeply into the esoteric teachings without receiving direct personal esoteric instruction. But this does not alter the fact that there is a vast difference between all that is esoteric and all that is exoteric. The Christian Gnostics of the first centuries recount, as in the words of Origen and Clement of Alexandria, how when they spoke to their innermost disciples, the direct fire of the soul, the direct spiritual power, was at work, and how these words then had a completely different life than when they were spoken before a large congregation. Those who have enjoyed the intimate instruction of these great Christian teachers can tell how their entire soul has been transformed, and how their entire soul has become different.

[ 8 ] In the last third of the 19th century, the need arose to awaken spiritual life within humanity as a counterweight to the materialistic worldview that had “taken hold not only of scientific but also of religious circles, for the religions had taken on a thoroughly materialistic character.” It had become necessary to reawaken the inner spiritual life. This inner life can only be awakened by one who, in his words, draws upon the power created in esotericism. It had become necessary for some to speak once again of things they knew not only from books and teachings, but from direct personal experience of the worlds that lie above the physical plane. Just as one can be an expert in the field of natural science, so too can one be an expert in the field of soul life and spiritual life. One can have direct knowledge of these worlds.

[ 9 ] Throughout history, there have always been people who have had spiritual experiences; and those who had such experiences were the key guides and leaders of humanity. The religious beliefs that have taken root in humanity have emerged from the spiritual and psychological experiences of these religious founders. These religious founders were nothing other than emissaries of the great brotherhoods of sages who hold the actual leadership in human evolution. From time to time, they send their wisdom and spiritual knowledge into the world to provide a new impulse, a new impetus in the progress of humanity. For the vast majority of people, it is not apparent where these inflows into humanity come from. But those who are able to have their own experiences, who have a connection with the advanced brothers of humanity—who have reached a level that humanity will only attain in distant times—know where these impulses come from. This connection, through which the Word of the Spirit speaks from within to fellow brothers and sisters through the advanced brothers of humanity, is itself an esoteric one that cannot be established through an external society, but is established directly through spiritual power.

[ 10 ] From such a brotherhood of advanced individuals, a stream of wisdom—a new spiritual wave—was bound to flow into humanity during the last third of the 19th century. Madame Blavatsky was nothing other than a messenger of such higher human individuals who have attained a high degree of wisdom and divine will. And the communications that form the basis of “Esoteric Buddhism” were of the same nature as those that come from such advanced human brothers.

[ 11 ] It was through a necessary, though not yet fully comprehensible, chain of spiritual events in world history that the first influences of the Theosophical Movement originated in the East, from Eastern masters. But even when Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was writing her *Esoteric Doctrine*, it was no longer such Oriental sages alone who, as great initiates, conveyed to Mrs. Blavatsky the teachings that you can find in the *Esoteric Doctrine*. An Egyptian and a Hungarian initiate had already added what they had to contribute to this new major development. And since that time, many new currents have flowed into this theosophical movement, so that for those who know from their own knowledge what goes on behind the scenes—necessarily behind the scenes, because it can only slowly penetrate the theosophical current—it no longer makes sense today to speak of this theosophical movement as containing only a New Buddhism.

[ 12 ] It is not only the average person who is dependent on their environment, their era, and their nation, but even the most highly developed person. Even those who have attained a high level of wisdom and divine will are still, in a certain sense, dependent on their environment. The great sages of the movement emphasized this right from the very beginning. The great sages had emerged from Eastern knowledge, from the Eastern world. They belonged to a brotherhood that had its roots in what is called the profound Buddhism of the East. This brotherhood has its roots not in so-called Southern Buddhism, which you can find specifically in Ceylon, but in Northern Buddhism, which encompasses not only the pure and noble moral teachings and the teachings of justice found in Southern Buddhism, but also a sublime teaching about the spiritual, the spiritual life of the world. This Northern Buddhism can, in a certain sense, be regarded as a kind of esoteric teaching, in contrast to Southern Buddhism.

[ 13 ] Why, then, did the renewal of spiritual life have to be initiated from this direction? Was that necessary? Let us not delude ourselves about the full situation at hand, but let us state it as it appears to the impartial observer.

[ 14 ] All the major world religions and all the major worldviews originate from emissaries of these great brotherhoods of advanced human beings. But as these great creeds then make their way through the world, they must adapt to the various popular beliefs, the intellect, the times, and the nations. Our materialistic age, particularly since the 15th and 16th centuries, has materialized not only science but also the religious creeds of the West. It has increasingly pushed back understanding of the esoteric, the spiritual, and the true spiritual life; and so it came to pass that by the 19th century, there was very, very little understanding left for a deeper wisdom. Regarding the origins of European religion, we must allow ourselves to say that those with a spiritual conscience sought the spiritual, but found very little inspiration in the Protestant creeds of the 19th century; they were dissatisfied with what they heard from the creeds and theologians. It was precisely those who had the deepest religious needs who found the least satisfaction in the religious creeds of the 19th century. These religious creeds of the 19th century have been revitalized at their very core by the esoteric essence of the universal wisdom teachings. Countless people who had previously been turned away from Christianity by fascinating scientific facts were led back to Christianity by Theosophy. It is thus the case that the Theosophical Movement has deepened this Christianity once more, that it has revealed the true, authentic form of Christianity, and has also led back to Christianity many of those whose souls and hearts could no longer find satisfaction in it. This is because Theosophy does nothing other than renew the inner core of Christianity and reveal it in its true form. For this, however, it was necessary that the inspiration emanate from the small circle in the East where a continuous current had been preserved from the times of a highly developed spiritual life at the beginning of our root race.

[ 15 ] From the Middle Ages right up to modern times, there have been great sages in Europe as well; and such brotherhoods have also existed. I must mention the Rosicrucians time and again; but the materialistic century could accept little more from this Rosicrucian society. And so it came to pass that the last Rosicrucians had already united with the Oriental brothers at the beginning of the 19th century, from whom the inspiration then emanated. European culture had lost its spiritual power, and the great inspirations therefore had to come from the East at first. Hence the saying: Ex oriente lux. — But then, once this light had come, the spark was found again, so that religious convictions could be rekindled in Europe as well.

[ 16 ] Today we no longer have the slightest need to continue echoing the influences of Buddhism. Today we are able to present the matter entirely from within our European culture—indeed, from within Christian culture—without any reference to Buddhist sources or origins or other Eastern influences. It is remarkable what one of India’s most prominent theosophists said at the Religious Congress in Chicago regarding the global mission of the theosophical movement. Chakravarti gave a speech at the time and said: Even among the Indian people, the ancient spiritual life has been lost. Western materialism has also made its way into India. People in India, too, have become arrogant and dismissive of the teachings of the ancient Rishis, and the Theosophical Movement has earned the credit of bringing spiritual teaching back to India as well. — It is just as untrue that we are spreading an Indian worldview as it is that the opposite is true: rather, it is the Theosophical Movement that has brought the worldview it represents back to India.

[ 17 ] Scholars who studied Buddhism during the 19th century objected, from their perspective, to the term “esoteric Buddhism.” They argued that the Buddha never taught anything that could be described as esoteric. He taught a popular religion that focused primarily on moral living, using words that anyone could understand; there is no mention whatsoever of a secret doctrine in the Buddha’s teachings. For this reason, some have even claimed that esoteric Buddhism could not possibly exist. Much that is inaccurate has been written about the Buddha and Buddhism. You can already see this from passages in the little book published by Reclam. It says there: “Thus, what I realize but do not proclaim is far greater than what I have proclaimed to you. And truly, I have not proclaimed this to you because it brings you no benefit, because it does not promote the transformation into holiness, because it does not lead to fortitude, not to the suppression of desire, not to peace, insight, enlightenment, and Nirvana. That is why I have not preached that to you. And what have I preached to you? That is suffering, that is the origin of suffering, that is the cessation of suffering, and that is the path leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have preached to you.”

[ 18 ] A passage like this immediately shows us that in Buddhism we are also dealing with a teaching that has not been publicly proclaimed. And why has it not been publicly proclaimed? Because an esoteric teaching cannot be publicly proclaimed at all! What did the Buddha wish to do other than proclaim to his people an uplifting teaching of ethics and morality through which every individual could mature to be admitted into a school of wisdom science, after having cultivated the virtue, temperament, and character necessary for admission into the esoteric? To his closest disciples, the Buddha proclaimed what he had to say beyond the exoteric. Northern Buddhism has now preserved this secret teaching of Buddhism and all the great wisdom religions within a living spiritual current, and it was from them that the influence emanated which led to the founding of the Theosophical Society.

[ 19 ] Now, our contemporaries in particular are also resistant to the idea that any beneficial influence could have come to us, whether from Buddhism, Hinduism, or any other Eastern religious tradition. And just as we encounter a prejudice of the most incredible kind here, so too could one demonstrate, with regard to countless other points, how little the Eastern faiths have been understood in Europe, and how these faiths are discussed in Europe by those who have never taken the trouble to delve into them, and who behave as if something entirely foreign to Western wisdom must be flowing into the West. Thus it is said that Buddhism leads to an escape from life, to asceticism, that it leads to valuing non-being more highly than life. And it is further said that such an escape from life, such hostility toward life, is something unbecoming to the active modern person. What use is such an escape from life to us, they say. One need only cite a single passage from the Buddhist scriptures to show how unfounded the accusation of hostility toward life is when leveled against Buddhism. The term “bhikkhu” means a disciple in Buddhism. If any bhikkhu deprives a human being of life, delivers a eulogy on dying, or incites others to suicide, saying: “What good is this life to you? Death would be better than life!”—and if he justifies life after death in this way, then he has fallen away and no longer belongs to the community. — This is a strict precept of Buddhism, and a prohibition against telling anyone that death is more valuable than life: this is one of the greatest sins in true Buddhism. If you take this into account, you will be able to gauge, based on this, how inaccurate the ideas are that are repeatedly proclaimed by those who have not sufficiently studied the matter themselves.

[ 20 ] It is difficult to dispel prejudices that have become so deeply ingrained. One can only keep pointing out the true nature of these things. One may have spoken, but soon the same objections arise again and again. One can say a hundred times that Nirvana is not non-being, but the fullness and richness of being, that it is the highest summit of consciousness and being, that there is not a single passage—not even in the exoteric writings—from which it follows that a true connoisseur conceives of Nirvana as non-being: one can repeat this a hundred times, but time and again people speak of an escape from life. Nirvana is exactly the same thing that Christianity speaks of. But only those who were initiated into the deeper mysteries of Christianity can point this out.

[ 21 ] There is no denying that true Christians, that is, the Scholastics and Mystics, were deeply influenced by Dionysius the Areopagite. In his writings, you will find that when speaking of the divine Being with which the human must unite at the end of its development, one should not ascribe to this highest Being any attribute derived from our earthly concepts. Everything we can say about attributes, we have acquired in this world. If we ascribe such an attribute to the divine Being—so says this Christian esotericist—then we are saying of the Divine that it is equal to the finite, equal to what is in the world. Dionysius the Areopagite therefore states in his writings that one should not even speak of God, but rather of the Super-God, and that, in order to indicate the full sanctity of this concept, one must above all guard against attributing any characteristic derived from the world to this divine Being; that one must therefore be clear that the attributes we can experience in the world cannot possess the divine essence, but rather much more.

[ 22 ] And this view was revived in the 15th century by the great Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, as well as by the Christian mystics—Meister Eckhart, Tauler, Jakob Böhme—and indeed all mystics who have gained insight into the great mysteries of existence through direct experience. Western Buddhists also spoke of Nirvana in this way. We might be able to better grasp the concept of Nirvana if we seek European, Christian terms for it.

[ 23 ] Anyone today who goes back to the 16th century and examines the language of that time will find that it is more difficult to determine its meaning. Therefore, what is said about Nirvana from a philological perspective is completely inaccurate. Anyone who speaks of the Theosophical Movement as a form of Neo-Buddhism will, above all, be unable to say anything accurate about the Buddhist school of thought. Those who have raised this prejudice usually have no idea what they are talking about. For it is not necessary to resort to Oriental sources. Only the initial inspiration originated from this Eastern source. What we have today does not flow to us from Buddhism. On the contrary, since the earliest days of the Theosophical Movement, life—the immediate spiritual life within the Theosophical spiritual current—has become ever more vibrant. And if today someone who wishes to proclaim the original theosophical teaching were to proclaim only a Buddhist creed, it would be just as if someone who wishes to teach mathematics today were not to teach what he himself knows, but were to teach the ancient Euclid or the ancient Descartes. That is, after all, the significance of the Theosophical Movement: that the first great teachers were merely the great inspirers, and that since then men and women have arisen who possess genuine spiritual experience and are capable of imparting spiritual knowledge. What are Zarathustra, Buddha, Hermes, and so on to us? They are the great ones to us. Inspirers before whom we stand in reverence and admiration, because when we look upon them, the powers we need are stirred within us. Knowledge cannot be transmitted on authority, not even by the greatest sages. If we stand in a different relationship to Buddha, Zarathustra, and Christ than to the great teachers of mathematics or physics, there is a good reason for this. What is proclaimed as the principle of wisdom becomes immediate outer life within the human being. Unlike mathematics or natural science, it is not mere external knowledge, but living life itself. What the science of wisdom conveys speaks to the whole human being. It permeates the entire personality right down to the fingertips. And when it flows out of the personality, wisdom itself flows out; it overflows from one being into another. Therefore, we do not relate to Jesus, Hermes, and Buddha in the same way we relate to science, but rather in such a way that we share a communal life with them, that we live, weave, and are within them. Yet in another sense, they are merely the inspirers. Once wisdom has become our own, they consider their task fulfilled. Therefore, what matters is not dogma, not doctrinal principles, or what is written in books, but that living life is in motion, pulsating. Whoever does not know in the depths of their heart that a living life pulses through every single member, every single personality belonging to the Theosophical Movement, that they are permeated by living streams of spirit, does not understand the Theosophical Movement in the right way. We do not hold a book in our hands and proclaim the doctrines of the book; we are life, and we wish to share life. And to the extent that we share life, to that extent will Theosophy work.

[ 24 ] If we understand this, then we will also realize that what matters is not the wording of the teaching, but the direct spiritual experience that someone has to proclaim—the message they themselves have to convey. The great misunderstanding is the belief that one must now, in Theosophy, swear allegiance to some word of a Master, or that one must constantly repeat this or that dogma or doctrine derived from higher individualities, and that this, then, is Theosophy. People believe they are Theosophists if they speak of the astral world and Devachan, and disseminate what is written in the books. That does not make someone a Theosophist. What matters is not what is proclaimed, but how it is proclaimed: that it is proclaimed as immediate life. Therefore, the one who lives the life that comes from these books—whether written by Madame Blavatsky or someone else—in the right way will live this life in such a way that they live it individually. And that will be the best inspiration anyone can receive, which one can also gain from Blavatsky if they are able to receive the spiritual within themselves and in turn send it forth. We need personalities who know how to proclaim from within themselves what they have experienced in the higher worlds. And then it does not matter whether it happens in the words of the East, in the words of Christianity, or with newly coined words. In the true Theosophist, it is not words and not concepts that live; in him, the Spirit lives. And the Spirit has not words and not concepts; it has immediate life. All concepts and words are merely the outer form of this Spirit living within the human being. This will be the progress of the Theosophical Movement. And it will become all the more theosophical the more we have men and women who will grasp theosophical life, who will understand that what matters is not speaking of karma and reincarnation, but rather: making the Spirit that lives within them the shaper, the creator of words. Then perhaps we will not even speak in the words that were valid in the Theosophical Movement, and yet we will be better Theosophists. We will no longer have orthodox believers and heretics in the Theosophical Movement. If we were to distinguish between orthodox believers and heretics, we would, at that very moment, no longer have understood the Theosophical Movement. And for no other reason can we have neither a Hindu nor a Buddhist creed. We speak to every person in a way that they can understand, as determined by their progress and the circumstances of the times.

[ 25 ] It is therefore not right for us to speak to our European friends using Buddhist phrases, because Buddhism, in its current form, is something foreign to our European hearts and minds. We must truly put ourselves in their shoes, not impose something foreign upon them. It would be tantamount to slapping the very spirit of the Theosophical Movement in the face if we were to impose a foreign creed that is not rooted in the living life of the people. That was precisely the secret of the wisdom teachers: they found words and concepts to speak to everyone in a way that they could understand. Among the wisdom teachers, Hermes, Moses, Pythagoras, Buddha, and Jesus Christ show us this. They proclaimed to the peoples what they could understand in their own places and times. Hermes would never have taught anything other than what was suited to the Egyptian heart. Buddha would never have taught anything other than what was suited to the Indian heart. And we must teach what is suited to the Western heart. We must attune ourselves to what already lives within the people. That was the secret of the great teachers of all times. And so we will in turn deepen the core of wisdom in the great religious creeds, and above all find access to every heart. We must unlearn swearing by dogmas, unlearn seeking the truth in the acceptance of a doctrine. We must look solely to life. Then we will no longer give cause for such prejudices, as if we were trying to proclaim a new Buddhism, as if we were engaging in Buddhist propaganda. Those who understand Theosophy as a modern spiritual movement will speak to the Christian in Christian terms, to the scientist in scientific terms. For a person may indeed err in details, but in his innermost being he must find the truth, in whatever form it may express itself. Yet people speak as if they were giving stones to one who seeks bread when they address him in unfamiliar forms.

[ 26 ] This also serves as a reminder of how wrong and misguided it is to make any kind of dogma, in the sense of an ancient church, the foundation upon which we stand. We have no such dogma. Those who know the true nature of the Theosophical Movement do not look to dogmas. What we have to teach is deeply inscribed in every heart. What the theosophist has to proclaim, he does not have to seek in a book or in a tradition; it does not spring from any dogma, but springs solely from his heart. He has nothing to do but to lead his listeners to read what is written in their own souls. He who wishes to help must be an inspirer.

[ 27 ] Thus, the Theosophist stands before the life of each individual soul, desiring nothing more than to be a catalyst who helps bring about self-knowledge. More and more people will come to understand the Theosophical Movement in this way and, through positive work, will ensure that prejudices such as the notion that we seek to engage in Buddhist propaganda—as if we were trying to introduce something foreign into Christianity—can no longer take hold. No, the past is dead unless it is brought back to life. It is not what we read in books and documents that has life, but what is born anew in our hearts every day. When we understand this, only then are we true Theosophists. Then there is theosophical freedom in our society, theosophical self-seeking on the part of everyone, not an oath to any dogma, merely research, merely striving, merely a longing for one’s own knowledge. Then there is also no heresy of any kind, nor anything that could be recognized as unattainable—not struggle, but a united striving toward an ever-united spiritual life! This is how the great ones have always held it. This is also how Goethe held it and beautifully expressed it in the words:

Only those who must win it anew each day,
like life itself,