The Rudolf Steiner Archive

15. Minutes of the Second General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

[ 1 ] At around 10:30 a.m., Dr. Steiner, as Secretary General of the German Section, opened the second regular general assembly, welcomed the guests and representatives of the foreign branches, and then delivered a brief introductory address in which he touched on the following points.

[ 2 ] First, he drew attention to the significance of the Theosophical Society; then he pointed out the task that members must fulfill in the development of humanity; next, he explained the relationship between the Theosophical Society and the occult movement upon which it is based; and finally, he emphasized that our entire organization must place itself in the service of those forces that are active on the hidden planes. Failure, hostility, obstacles of any kind—none of these will deter him, nor should they deter us.

[ 3 ] He then recalled the visit and lectures of Mrs. Annie Besant, from which a ray of inspiration and light emanated, and spoke of the significance of the mystical spiritual life lying dormant in Central Europe for the progress of Theosophy.

[ 4 ] Finally, he recalled his visit to the Theosophical Congress in Dresden, which had been organized by the so-called secessionist societies. Because this point is of fundamental importance, the remarks are reproduced here almost verbatim:

[ 5 ] “Before we move on to the more specific reports, I would like to briefly explain my participation in the Theosophical Congress in Dresden and outline my perspective on the matter. What motivated me, as a Theosophist, to speak in Dresden is something for which I cannot give an external account—and for which I do not believe I am directly accountable. Under no circumstances could I have prevented myself from participating. What can be demanded, however, is a justification for this participation in my capacity as General Secretary of the German Section.

[ 6 ] I understand our position regarding the so-called secessionist movement to be that we must always emphatically stress to this movement that the absolute right to bear the name of the Theosophical Society, to use our Society’s seal, and to claim continuity with its founding belongs to no one other than our Society. No other society has the right to claim these for itself. But the question now arises: How should we relate to theosophists who bear this title without justification? To what is it attributable that they bear it? To an error; for whoever justifies this—or rather, seeks to justify it—is simply in error. Whether this error is more or less conscious, whether it is to be judged morally or intellectually, is none of our concern. The members of such societies therefore stand in the same relationship to us as any other person in the world. We must help them; we must share our theosophical work with them; we must treat them as if we did not even know that they bear the title “Theosophical Society.”

[ 7 ] If anyone comes to us asking for help that must be provided in accordance with the principles of our society, then we must treat the members of this society with absolute brotherhood and do everything we would do for any other person. Regardless of what we do, this is the best way to gradually convince them of their error. This is how I understood my participation. I delivered the talk I gave in such a way that it could just as easily have been given in any other organization—be it a cycling club, a smoking club, or any other group. Whatever anyone seeks from me as a human being, I will do at any time. However, it is a different matter entirely whether we actively participate in these organizations.

[ 8 ] That is a fundamentally different matter, and I ask that a clear distinction be made here. If we were to participate in their activities, we would be taking the position that we are contributing to what the other powers are organizing against our organization.

[ 9 ] I therefore did not participate in anything in line with this view, even though I was present in Dresden throughout the entire congress. I wrote that I arrived in Dresden in the morning, but [I] did not participate in the business negotiations. In my opinion, this view is the only way to achieve clarity on this matter.

[ 10 ] If anything is required for the progress and well-being of humanity, we will cooperate selflessly. But if we are expected to work covertly against our own organization, so to speak, we logically cannot go along with it. That is my position of principle, and that is how I have acted in Dresden.»

[ 11 ] Representation of the branches:

[ 12 ] The question arises as to whether a branch with, for example, three votes can assign them to a single person, or whether each individual vote must be cast by a separate person.

[ 13 ] The discussion resulted in two motions:

[ 14 ] Hubo's first motion: “The branches are required to pool their votes.”

[ 15 ] Second motion [Löhnis]: “The branches are free to cast their votes as a single bloc or to send several representatives to cast the votes.”

[ 16 ] Motion two, [Löhnis], is adopted.

[ 17 ] Determination of the number of members, the number of votes, and the representatives.

Berlin	89	5	Kiem, Krojanker, Seiler
Charlottenburg	7	2	Engel
Dresden	8	2	Dr. Löhnis
Düsseldorf	8	2	von Rosen
Hamburg	20	2	Hubo
Hanover	24	2	Deinhard
Cologne	16	2	Scholl, Dr. Wegeler
Leipzig	30	3	Bernsdorf, Judge
Lugano	8	2	Dr. Braun, Deinhard
Nuremberg	8	2	Seiler
Munich	19	2	Countess Kalckreuth, von Sivers
Stuttgart	14	2	Arenson
Weimar	12	2	Lübke, Wolfart
	263	30

absolute majority = 16 votes
2/3 majority = 21 votes

[ 18 ] Miss von Sivers (secretary) then reported on membership trends.

Number of members in 1902: 108.
Admitted in 1903: 34.
Admitted in 1904: 21.
Admitted in 1903 and 1904 combined: 55.
Total number of members: 263.
Resigned in 1904: 7
Remaining as of August 31, 1904: 256.

Cash:
Cash on hand in 1903: Marks
Revenue in 1904: Marks
Expenses in 1904: Marks
(Figures missing)
Results in cash on hand as of August 31, 1904: 999.96 Marks.

[ 19 ] In response to Mr. Hubo’s question as to why no voluntary contributions appeared in the financial statement, Miss von Sivers replied that these funds do not go into the section’s treasury but rather into the treasury of a subcommittee, which is accountable for them.

[ 20 ] Report of the Cash Auditors: Motzkus, Seiler. Mr. Seiler reported that the entries had been compared with the supporting documents and verified mathematically, that the books and cash on hand had been found to be in order, and that the cash auditors were submitting a motion to grant discharge.

[ 21 ] The motion is approved, and the treasurer and the board are granted discharge.

[ 22 ] Mr. Hubo noticed that no rent was listed on the statement, whereupon Miss von Sivers pointed out that it was paid from the library’s funds at a rate of 300 marks per year.

[ 23 ] Elections:

[ 24 ] Treasurer: Mr. Seiler is elected to replace Ms. von Holten, who has resigned from the office, specifically to manage the books. However, for the sake of simplicity, all monetary contributions should be addressed to the Secretary General, Dr. Steiner. Addition to the Executive Board:

[ 25 ] First: Mr. Arenson is nominated and elected to replace Mr. Oppel, who has resigned, in Stuttgart.

[ 26 ] Second: The following are proposed to replace Dr. Noll:

1. Dr. Löhnis, Leipzig, and
2. Ms. Stinde in Munich.

[ 27 ] Given that Leipzig already has representation on the executive committee, but Munich does not, Miss Stinde is elected.

[ 28 ] Auditors for 1905: The vacant position of auditor has been offered to Mr. Krojanker, who has accepted it; thus, Miss Motzkus and Mr. Krojanker will be responsible for the audit next year.

This marks the end of the elections.
Dr. Steiner then reads aloud the messages received in honor of the anniversary

[ 29 ] Dispatches from

Concertmaster [Rösel], Weimar
Hennifn]g, Weimar
[Not specified], Düsseldorf
Michael Bauer, Nuremberg
Consul [Franken], Lugano
Feldner, Regensburg
[Not specified], Düsseldorf
Vollrath
Mrs. von Lichtenberg
Brockdorff, Merano.

[ 30 ] Reports from the representatives of the individual branches:

[ 31 ] Hanover (Deinhard):

[ 32 ] Number of members at the end of 1903: 25. Activities include small-group meetings every Monday. The librarian has made his home available for this purpose. Members are encouraged to further their education through free discussion. In addition, there is a public meeting every month.

December 15: Adalbert von Hanstein: God and Immortality (Response to Ladenburg’s speech in Kassel).
[Wöbcken], Bremen: Hilfe
May 16, 1904: Dr. Steiner: Birth and Death in the Life of the Soul.
July 27, 1904: Reaching from This World into the Hereafter.
October 18, 1904: What Joys Await Us in the Hereafter?
October 24, 1904: Deinhard: On the Groundbreaking Results of Research in England.

[ 33 ] Every four weeks, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden answered questions of a theosophical nature.

[ 34 ] Munich (Deinhard):

[ 35 ] Founded in 1901 as the first true lodge, Munich faced great difficulties at the time but nevertheless managed to survive for two years. Then came the turmoil of the Judge/Hartmann movement. Hartmann frequently traveled over from Salzburg. From that point on, there was a flood of zealous influence from the secessionist movement, so that the Munich members no longer knew which way to turn. This unfortunate situation was decisively brought to an end by the intervention of our General Secretary and by the visit of Mrs. Annie Besant, who took the opportunity to dedicate the newly founded lodge.

[ 36 ] Hamburg (Hubo):

[ 37 ] In addition to the general meetings, four public meetings were held. Between 50 and 120 people attended each of the lectures. Initially, a large meeting with free admission was convened. Due to contentious elements, a question-and-answer session was introduced in place of a discussion, and an admission fee was charged. Topic:

1. Evidence for the Truth of the Theosophical Worldview
2. Esoteric Christianity
3. Dr. Steiner
4. What Can We Expect in the Afterlife?
5. How Did Religions Come About? (Hubo)

[ 38 ] Annie Besant’s lecture was attended by 300 people. The newspapers published the reports, some in full and some in abridged form. Dr. Steiner will come to Hamburg every month to speak to a smaller group and thus be able to offer more than he can in a public lecture.

[ 39 ] Stuttgart (Arenson):

[ 40 ] Apart from the lectures by Dr. Steiner and Annie Besant, there were no public lectures. Greetings to the General Assembly and thanks to Dr. Steiner.

[ 41 ] Weimar (Lübke):

[ 42 ] Lectures by Dr. Steiner. Weekly meetings. Study sessions.

[ 43 ] Lugano:

[ 44 ] They meet several times a month, chaired by Günther Wagner. They study theosophical writings. The major event of the year was Dr. Steiner’s visit.

[ 45 ] Berlin:

[ 46 ] Every Monday: a gathering of members and close friends who may take a greater interest in the movement. Well-attended (often 50 people). Lectures by Dr. Steiner. Monday evenings are to become discussion evenings for members; introductory lectures by Dr. Steiner: lectures on old and new apocalypses. Every Thursday, a public lecture: Basic Concepts of Theosophy, Theosophy and Darwin, Theosophy and Tolstoy, Theosophy and Haeckel.

[ 47 ] Motions:

[ 48 ] Löhnis's first motion:

[ 49 ] I move that a vote be taken on whether a decree from President Olcott should be obtained through the Secretary-General, permitting members of the Theosophical Society to participate in the preparatory work for the General Theosophical Congress in Nuremberg.

[ 50 ] The motion is based on a resolution passed by the General Theosophical Congress in Dresden. Since a gentleman was barred from participating because he belonged to our society, Dr. Löhnis has opened the next congress to all Theosophists without exception. The question now is whether members of our Society in Nuremberg may also participate in the preparatory work. Undoubtedly, an inquiry regarding this matter will be issued. Of course, participation as a “lodge” is out of the question; it can only involve the participation of individual persons. Mr. Bresch has now published an old decree by President Olcott and pointed out that, according to it, our members are not permitted to belong to another theosophical organization. Mr. B[resch] also regards cooperation with another organization as an alliance. However, I believe we should let this congress take place and participate in it—not publicly as an organization, but with each member attending privately. Most people are unaware of the cause of the split. Their ignorance and misconceptions can best be dispelled through personal discussion. For some members of the secessionist group, it is undoubtedly not a matter of misconception but rather a deliberate effort to undermine our Society. A resolution by the General Assembly would affect participation as an organization; however, since organizational matters must not be addressed, no such resolution may be passed. The congress is to be independent of any organization. Therefore, the only option remaining is a decree by the president.”

[ 51 ] Hubo: “I find Dr. Steiner’s conduct at the Dresden Congress to be very proper. Given such tactful behavior, Dr. Steiner’s participation can do no harm, only good. Dr. Löhnis’s motion envisions the general participation of the members.” [Hubo provides] an assessment of the Secession’s actions and its theosophical involvement. “When we had founded the Hamburg branch, Edwin Böhme came to Hamburg and gave a lecture, though without mentioning that he did not belong to our organization. This caused great confusion, and they took advantage of the situation to stir up trouble. People have no right to use the society’s name, seal, and motto. This obscures the fact that the organizations are distinct. I recommend reading Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden’s pamphlet *Eckige Kreise* (*Angular Circles*). Dr. Steiner’s lectures are a means of showing people where theosophy finds expression, and where originality and imitation can be found. Perhaps it would be good if Mr. Bresch were to tone down the sharp language in *Vâhan* somewhat.”

[ 52 ] Deinhard: “Everything essential regarding our relationship to the Secession has already been said in *Eckige Kreise*. Bresch, too, has contributed some good points in *Vâhan*. That should be enough. I think we should ask Mr. Bresch to exercise restraint regarding this topic. My opinion is that Olcott is not sufficiently informed about the situation in Germany. Extensive correspondence would be necessary. It would probably be best to leave the President out of this entirely.”

[ 53 ] Bresch: “Some things in the *Vâhan* may have been stated too harshly; but anyone who, like me, has had to witness firsthand how the secessionists operate—how they play on sentimentality, use the idea of brotherhood as a pretext, and then fish in troubled waters—cannot do otherwise. The *Vâhan* is not written for the secessionists; it is meant to represent the interests of the Theosophical Society. The Danzig Lodge wanted to cancel its subscription because of an article. I said: “Please. I am a representative of the interests of the Theosophical Society. As long as Hartmann and Rudolph are at the helm, nothing substantial can come of it.” In the article in question, I merely wanted to express that a danger is looming. Help in the field of theosophy, yes; but organizationally, we cannot get involved in anything. Even at the first congress, there was a tendency to found an organization. I advise rejecting any sentimentality on this point; we must not allow ourselves to be led astray or lured, nor should we be afraid when it is said that we are being unbrotherly or un-theosophical. That must not concern us. Our Society is the solid core that must be preserved. Our circumstances in Germany are probably unknown to the President, as well as to the English. We should, however, maintain contact with our President. It strikes me as a kind of duplicity when our lodges or their members participate in convening a foreign congress.”

[ 54 ] Deinhard: “We have no choice but to participate in the congress in order to engage with them. But that is specifically a German matter.”

[ 55 ] Dr. Löhnis: “The distinction must be strictly maintained. What belongs to our organization is the Theosophical Society; what lies outside it is not the Theosophical Society. However, it also depends on the Theosophical cause, and in that regard we should emphasize the points that unite us rather than those that divide us. Let us keep open the possibility that we can interact objectively at all.”

[ 56 ] Hubo: “A new thought has occurred to me. The organization of these congresses is a countermeasure against our own. What position will our section be in if, in a few years, we have all the representatives of the other sections as guests here? Should we invite them as well? There is definitely a plan behind this course of action. By participating in their congress, we’ll find ourselves in conflict with our own conduct when we organize a congress.”

[ 57 ] Engel: “If no organizational issues are addressed, we can participate; otherwise, we cannot. Malicious forces are at work in the secession, but so are benevolent ones that could join forces with us. Secession is not limited to the Theosophical Society; it is, so to speak, a disease of our times.”

[ 58 ] Bresch: “I would like to suggest to Dr. Steiner that he perhaps contact Mr. Bauer in Nuremberg regarding this matter.”

[ 59 ] Krojanker: “I believe that secession must be opposed under any circumstances.”

[ 60 ] Hubo: “Don’t fight it; just ignore it organizationally. Don’t take an aggressive approach.”

[ 61 ] Bresch: “The question is not whether individual members of our society should participate, but whether they should help convene the congress.”

[ 62 ] Dr. Steiner: “The legal situation has been definitively clarified in the ‘Eckige Kreise.’ I would like to emphasize one more point: The act of holding a congress is, in and of itself, an act of organization. Those who hold a congress are organizing it. If we participate, this contradicts our own position, because as members of the Theosophical Society, we can logically advocate only for it and its events. The right to organize Theosophical congresses belongs solely to our Theosophical Society, and we violate our duty as members if we do not emphasize our Society at a Theosophical congress. The directive not to speak of the organization directly contradicts the duties of a member of the Theosophical Society. Nor can you possibly assume that these congresses are organized to benefit our Society in any way. Nevertheless, we have a duty to accommodate people in every way. However, no such effort exists on the other (secessionist) side. The secessionist movement does not act in a theosophical manner, no matter how much it talks about it. It is wrong to say and spread falsehoods. The way we conduct ourselves here is a matter of prudence. A wrong step—whether in opposition or accommodation—is a significant step backward. The point is not to let falsehood—which I would call error—prevail. We do not always need to emphasize this particularly; we simply need to adopt this standpoint in our actions. We do not hold it against the others that they have unlawfully taken our name, seal, and motto, but it is wrong of them, since they have the opportunity to use these things lawfully. We ourselves run the risk of falling into this trap at any moment, because the people over there also use the very words that the public then falls for. The success of the German Secession to date is no proof of its legitimacy. As soon as we adopt the stance that we are making common cause with them, we betray the Society, for they do not want our Society to exist. If they did, we would be able to unite with them at any moment. That is not possible because they want the downfall of our Society. We must work with this in mind and remain constantly on guard. This must be clear to everyone and emphasized over and over again. Nor can we leave this in the hands of the president; rather, we must keep our eyes “open” ourselves. We would be giving the Nuremberg Congress a free hand if we gave them the opportunity to say that the Adyar Society is excluding itself.

[ 63 ] On the other hand, we must not overlook the tendency to have us overshadowed by large conventions and absorbed into the public eye. Do not pass any binding resolutions; do not set any course of action that restricts the actions of the individual. What Mr. Bauer does as a private individual is by no means any of our business. However, we must ensure under all circumstances that Mr. Bauer does not gain a reputation for having orchestrated, together with his lodge, the staging of an unauthorized Theosophical Congress—that is, for having acted illogically. It would be unwise for us to intervene as individual participants, but it would be extremely unwise for the entire lodge to get involved. I knew beforehand that the Dresden Congress would not be interpreted as, “We have seen that you, too, are good theosophists,” but rather that it would be exploited in the interests of the other movement. So let us conduct ourselves in such a way that we are under no circumstances the ones who have fallen into the trap.” Hubo: “I request that these matters be brought to the attention of the lodges so that they are informed.”

[ 64 ] Bresch: “It is questionable how one should interpret it when members are invited by the chairman of a lodge to attend the convention.”

[ 65 ] Dr. Löhnis: “Under no circumstances may the president of a lodge ask anyone to participate.”

[ 66 ] Dr. Steiner: “I believe that the only way to resolve this matter is to pass a very specific resolution, and I move that we resolve: “The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, held on October 30, 1904, resolves not to participate in any undertakings initiated by other so-called theosophical societies and considers it the duty of every branch to act in the same manner. Any participation by individual members can therefore only be of a purely private nature.”

[ 67 ] “This grants everyone absolute freedom, but at the same time makes it clear that the section as such cannot participate.”

[ 68 ] The motion is unanimously approved.

[ 69 ] Second motion by Dr. Löhnis: “The decrees of President Olcott and the Central Executive Committee that are still in effect should be made available to members, lodges, and branches.”

[ 70 ] Following the debate, Dr. Steiner stated that the decrees still in effect would be made available to the individual branches.

[ 71 ] Relocation of the General Secretariat to Munich:

[ 72 ] Countess Kalckreuth, speaking on behalf of the Munich branch, expresses the wish that the General Secretariat be relocated to Munich.

[ 73 ] After a brief discussion, it was decided to note the request in the minutes.

[ 74 ] Invitation from the branches to the General Assembly:

[ 75 ] Mr. Hubo points out that the text of any motions received should be communicated to the branches. Any motions should therefore be submitted to the Secretary General four weeks in advance so that he can include them with the invitation to the General Assembly.

[ 76 ] Amendment to the Bylaws:

[ 77 ] Dr. Löhnis believes it would be desirable to make some changes to the bylaws. He therefore expresses the hope that all those who wish to see changes will draft proposals for the next general meeting.

[ 78 ] Budget for the coming fiscal year:

[ 79 ] Hubo: “It is necessary to have as clear a picture as possible of next year’s expenses in advance so that arrangements can be made in a timely manner to cover them; that is why I recommend drawing up a budget in the future.”

[ 80 ] Voluntary contributions:

[ 81 ] Mr. Hubo proposes collecting voluntary contributions as well and ensuring that voluntary annual contributions received on a regular basis are recorded.

[ 82 ] Dr. Löhnis notes that these voluntary contributions should be collected not by the section, but by the branches.

[ 83 ] Dr. Steiner replies that neither the section nor the branch should be assigned the task of collecting. The only issue is to designate a person to carry out the collecting activities.

[ 84 ] The Executive Board is tasked with initiating such a collection.

[ 85 ] This marked the end of the first part of the General Assembly.

[ 86 ] Dr. Steiner then asked those present to reconvene at 4:00 p.m. to hear the presentations by Mr. Bresch and Dr. Steiner, and with that concluded this year’s proceedings. The meeting adjourned at half past two.