The Rudolf Steiner Archive

46. Why Has What Is Understood as the Theosophical Movement Been Represented Within the Theosophical Society Up to Now?

Speech by Rudolf Steiner at the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

[ 1 ] You have heard some very beautiful thoughts and ideas from those gathered here and have become acquainted with certain difficulties facing the Theosophical Movement. Indeed, we have even had to hear that there are numerous people who see the Society’s current structure as an obstacle preventing them from joining it, but who also believe that the movement as such is perhaps hindered rather than promoted by the existence of the present Society. These are weighty considerations, especially for those who are seriously and genuinely committed to finding fulfillment through Theosophy.

[ 2 ] The question might arise: Yes, Theosophy, as we understand it, is indeed something real that has, so to speak, become part of humanity’s development in recent times, and that has found a vessel in the Theosophical Society, as we know it today, which has spread throughout various countries; and what, then, are we to make of the fact that this vessel did indeed emerge from Theosophy, yet at the present moment does not quite fit in with this movement? This is a question that, I believe, many of you are justified in directing, so to speak, at me personally. For some might say: Why do you advocate what you call the Theosophical Movement within this Society?

[ 3 ] Since I do not wish to take up too much time, I cannot go into detail about what anyone, upon examining the facts, can easily see for themselves—namely, that the manner in which Theosophy is disseminated, as I do it and as Baron Walleen intended, actually has very little to do with what we call the Theosophical Society. Anyone could easily deduce this for themselves from the facts of recent years. For what connection is there between all that has happened—and what Baron Walleen spoke of—and, shall we say, the central tenets of what is called the Theosophical Society?

[ 4 ] “Even with the most rigorous examination, one would find very little of what has flowed from the Theosophical Society into the movement referred to here. In a certain sense, this question can only be answered historically. I have already done so for some individuals and would like to point out a few purely factual aspects here. Everyone can then draw their own conclusions from these facts to assess the issues at hand.

[ 5 ] First, I have already given those theosophical lectures here in Berlin, which were later published as a brief summary in my *Mysticism at the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life*; I have also given other kinds of theosophical lectures in various circles, including—at the request of both Theosophists and non-Theosophists—some of the lectures that led to the book *Christianity as a Mystical Fact*, even though I was not even a member of the Theosophical Society at the time. In other words: for me, whether or not I was a member of the Theosophical Society made no difference whatsoever to my pursuit of theosophy in the way I intended to pursue it.

[ 6 ] Then this fact became known—[that I was not a member of the Theosophical Society]. And at that time I met a person who has remained connected ever since to this [the branch of the Theosophical movement that I represented], but who had joined the Theosophical Society much earlier than I had: Miss von Sivers. And during the time when Miss von Sivers was already a member, but I myself was not yet, a conversation took place between us in which she asked why I did not join the Society. And I replied to this in a lengthy discussion, the gist of which was: It will always be impossible for me to belong to a society within which such a form of theosophy is practiced—one that is so thoroughly permeated by misunderstood Eastern mysticism, as is the case with the Theosophical Society; for it is my calling to recognize that there are more significant occult impulses for our present time, and that, given this realization, it would be impossible to admit that the West has anything to learn from this Orientalizing mysticism. What I stand for would be subject to misjudgment if I were to say: I want to be a member of a society whose watchword is Orientalizing mysticism. That was the gist of that conversation.

[ 7 ] Then another fact came to light—and I am stating only facts, leaving it to you to judge them. I gave those lectures on “Mysticism at the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life,” which were published shortly thereafter in significantly abridged form as a book. Excerpts from this book, in English translation, were in turn published in the journal *Theosophical Review*, which was published at the time and edited by Miss Besant and Mr. Mead. The excerpt—or rather, the summary of this book that Mr. Keightley provided at the time—is different from the translation he has now [1911] produced. I define this fact—and defined it that way at the time as well—in such a way that it established the reality that the Theosophical Society did not demand anything of me, did not require that I share in any tenets, principles, or dogmas that were to be advocated, but rather accepted something that was offered from outside, from me. Thus, whatever one had to offer was most cordially invited.

[ 8 ] Then further developments arose. Plans were made to establish a German Section. Now, given what had happened, there was in fact a kind of connection between the Theosophical Society and me, insofar as the movement finds expression within the Society. This led—while on the one hand there was a tendency to establish a German Section—to a proposal being made to me by the then-leader [Count Brockdorff] of the “German Theosophical Society” [in Berlin]—which was a branch of [the European Section] of the General Theosophical Society—to accept me into the Society and, at the same time, to become chairman of the “German Theosophical Society.” This meant that I was not simply joining a Society, but that I was entering it to contribute what had not been there before, what it had lacked previously. I had never made any request on my part to become a member of the Society; rather, I told myself: If the Society wants me, it can have me. Furthermore, at that time—to address the outward appearance as well—I took the precaution of exempting myself from all payments. I paid nothing. Then the diploma was sent to me from England free of charge, and at the same time I became president of the “German Theosophical Society.” If I could speak in even greater detail, I would show that it was a necessary consequence to consistently acknowledge this fact: that I never wanted anything from the Society and had no need to adopt any of its principles or dogmas, but rather that it was understood that they wanted something from me.

[ 9 ] Then came the founding of the German Section—amid “suspense and anxiety, in agonizing uncertainty,” amid terrible back-and-forth discussions—but I’ll spare you the details. At that time, there was a figure—who has since left the Society—who also served as a mediator of karma; much could be said about the nature of this role in an occult context. It so happened that Mr. Richard Bresch, then chairman of the Leipzig branch, after consulting with various individuals, came to Count Brockdorff one day and said: “Since Dr. Steiner is already chairman of the Berlin Lodge, he can also be general secretary of the German Section.”—All sorts of compelling reasons now arose for accepting this proposal to become chairman of the German Section, and I would like to summarize all these reasons for you in a few words so that you may recognize them as such:

[ 10 ] First: The need to advocate for theosophy, as it is understood here, and to bring it to the world.

[ 11 ] Second: The other necessity was not to make things too difficult for those who were supposed to do the work, since we started out in very small circles.

[ 12 ] Well, in keeping with much of what has happened in the occult realm throughout the ages, I had to tell myself: This society, with everything that has developed within it, is really nothing more than an obstacle to the Theosophical Movement. And I believe that Miss von Sivers still remembers how I expressed this view in a conversation about Schur& and his relationship to H. P. Blavatsky. In that conversation, I explained in detail to the person closest to me just how great an obstacle this society is to the movement. The other thing I had to tell myself is what has often had to happen in the occult realm to cope with resistance: one absorbs this resistance, incorporates it into one’s own being, and thereby, in a certain sense, removes it from the world. Those who were part of the movement in Germany at that time will be able to confirm that we would have faced the most incredible obstacles from society during those years if we ourselves had not become that society. We would never have found enough time to carry out everything that was necessary back then to clear away the obstacles piling up from all sides and to fill the movement with positive content. It would have been impossible not to go along with society. For you must not forget that the concentration of obstacles, as they now appear initially at one point—others will follow, but that doesn’t matter—which were represented within society specifically by two people, meant that these obstacles, along with all the talk of brotherhood, were widespread in the broadest circles; it was skyrocketing everywhere. And you see, methodologically speaking, the same thing that has now happened to one person [Hugo Vollrath] happened back then to an entire society; namely, that they put forward and disseminated in pamphlet form the exact opposite of what I had told them at the time. That was practically a standard method within the various societies that had emerged through the very principle of the society.

[ 13 ] In the same year that I had joined the Theosophical Society—where I had been made chairman without a vote (such a thing did not exist back then)—there was a congress in London of the European sections, to which the German Section was just about to join. There, in the presence of Mr. Keightley, I had a conversation with Mr. Mead that revolved mainly around my “mysticism,” which he had learned about from Keightley’s presentation. At that time, Mr. Mead said the following—I must mention it as a fact, for it is enlightening: “Your book contains the whole of Theosophy.” - Of course, such a slim book does not contain the entirety of Theosophy. In such a case, this means: It contains that from which the whole of Theosophy can emerge as a consequence. - Essentially, everything that has since been revealed is already veiled within my “mysticism.” I would like to follow up with this question: Does this statement not already imply that one might assume a longing to embrace this particular current of theosophical spiritual life? For when one says, “the whole of theosophy lies within it,” surprisingly much is said by that alone.

[ 14 ] Based on this statement, it was reasonable to assume that the Theosophical Society might gradually develop in such a way that it could serve as a framework for what was said in London: “That is the whole of Theosophy.” For nothing to which the Theosophical Society currently says “no” is even remotely mentioned in this book.

[ 15 ] So you see that it was necessary to act as we did back then. From the most occult standpoint, this can be justified; for the Theosophical Movement—which is what we are referring to—has indeed succeeded in preparing that Theosophical ground which we were able to prepare for it. Had this not happened back then at the beginning, none of what followed could have happened either.

[ 16 ] Actually, it’s nonsense for me to say this, because I could say the opposite: For everything that has happened to be able to happen, it had to be done back then the way it was done.

[ 17 ] Over the years, I have made great efforts to foster understanding for everything that arises as a kind of logical consequence of feelings and sensations. No one, upon careful analysis, will be able to say that I treated society any differently than was dictated by the facts of the time. And something else has emerged as well. This became clear and distinct to us in the beautiful words of our friend Baron Walleen: that since that time, conditions have changed—not within our movement, but certainly outside it. Nothing at all has changed within our movement; rather, everything has unfolded step by step. I would like to cite some facts here as well.

[ 18 ] Consider the situation of the Theosophical Society as it was at the time I became General Secretary of the German Section. At that meeting in London, I also met Misses Besant, and at the second congress, held a year later, I met Colonel Olcott. I mention this because it is necessary to emphasize that nothing that occurred at that time resulted in anything other than a reaffirmation of our approach to representing Theosophy. Olcott said at the time that he had been quite surprised to see me—a fact that gave me pause for thought—and that, having known of me for a year and a half, he had expected me to be at least as old as he was himself.

[ 19 ] The events that had taken place up to that point were such that, whenever obstacles arose, they always took the most varied forms, but they often took on such forms that one person or another would say: “We cannot join the Society, because everything is dictated to it from Adyar; it operates on a completely autocratic principle.” - So I always said to people—and this is one of the consequences that follow from the circumstances: I find it unfounded to speak that way within the German Section, because I handle the “funds” from Adyar in such a way that I set them aside one by one and leave them there, and otherwise do what seems right to me. - And during my first conversation with Colonel Olcott—even at the risk that he would have preferred to hear it from a man of his own age—I told him that I would proceed in this manner so that there would be no ambiguity. I have always spoken of Olcott with great warmth, for he was truly the ideal founder of such a society. He understood every impulse toward freedom immediately and never rebelled against such a thing; it never even occurred to him. He didn’t talk much about such matters, but if someone wrote to him saying, “The General Secretary of the German Section is setting aside the decrees from Adyar one by one and ignoring them,” he would simply set aside such a letter of complaint and ignore it as well. You see, back then it was excellent to work. Then, little by little, different times came. And you see, I’m not actually speaking at all about what is somehow presented as doctrine; nor am I speaking about the fact that it should have seemed important, or that the program of my mysticism should have been taken into account to a greater extent—rather, I’m speaking of the fact that this is what happened. Then, little by little, other things simply happened. Now, it would take us too far afield to recount all the various other things. One would have to begin with the fact that Olcott died, and even back then something occurred that, while it can certainly be interpreted in such a way as to appear consistent with the spirit of the Theosophical Society, is nevertheless extremely difficult to subject to such an interpretation. I can briefly explain that it was reported from Adyar that, at the time, on Olcott’s deathbed, the Masters had appeared and determined who was to be Olcott’s successor.

[ 20 ] Now there are two ways to interpret such things; I am not referring here to the interpretation of the content. One possibility would be to say: Under all circumstances, it is absolutely essential—regardless of how one interprets the content—to keep this fact within the very narrowest circles and under no circumstances to spread it around in society. The other possibility is to speak of this fact. Such a fact then, of course, spreads by word of mouth and cannot be contained. That is, in fact, exactly what happened.

[ 21 ] Even if no individual has done anything contrary to the spirit of the Society, even if no individual can be blamed for anything—for Mrs. Besant had the right to think as she wished and to act accordingly, that is, to make use of this manifestation and to lead the Society in this spirit—it is nevertheless a fact that, since that time, we have truly no longer been standing on solid ground within the Society. That, too, is a fact.

[ 22 ] What our friend Walleen said refers to the assessment of outsiders who may be wondering whether or not to join. What I am saying now refers to the internal aspect—to the ground on which we ourselves stand. It was no longer solid ground, and from that point on, the question of whether one could even remain within the Society—or whether one might have to leave—could no longer be dismissed. You know that many people all over the world have left as well; for example, one of the most outstanding among them, Mr. Mead. Since that time, we have simply no longer stood on solid ground—for a wide variety of reasons—and it is certainly also since that time that the outside world’s judgment of society has deteriorated in this way, as

[ 23 ] as it is now. For since that time, the strangest things have happened—things that, in fact, do not belong to the administrative sphere of the Society, but bear the Society’s hallmark. Various things occurred: First came the Leadbeater case; but not the case as such. Those who are familiar with my position will know that I have taken the stance that Leadbeater, as a person, must be defended to the greatest extent possible. The only bad thing about the Leadbeater case is that it was also attributed to the Society. That was the second time I emphasized: One can really no longer work with this Society. It is also known, through indiscretions, that Misses Besant first personally condemned Leadbeater and then, after a short time, converted to his side. This is a fact that has also been incorporated into the Society’s public image. Now comes something that, strictly speaking, does not belong within the administrative sphere of the Theosophical Society, but which, if I were to remain silent about it or fail to mention it today, could be interpreted as a kind of insincerity.

[ 24 ] In addition to many other matters—which would take us too far afield—there is the fact that Annie Besant stated in Munich in 1907, in the presence of a witness [Marie von Sivers] who would be willing to testify to this at any time, that she was not competent to speak on matters of Christianity. And that is why, so to speak, she handed the movement over to me at that time, insofar as Christianity was to be incorporated into it. After Annie Besant had told me this, various things were done that, from this perspective, could have brought order to the Society. Yet at the time, one heard from many quarters: “Now Dr. Steiner has parted ways with Annie Besant; now there are two currents; this is causing discord within the Society.” - That made people suspicious. And now a peculiar method began to take hold, which consisted of actually turning the whole matter on its head. And since that time, the reversal of facts has been rampant in a strange way. It is difficult to make clear what this reversal means. People said at the time: “Yes, many people are leaving because of the discord!”—The truth was that many people would have left if this so-called discord had not arisen. They only stayed because that faction left in a manner that was entirely socially legitimate, after Annie Besant had reached that agreement. Another fact is this, which suddenly emerged two years later, in 1909. Please do not misunderstand this, but accept it as a fact without any hint of criticism—a fact that, of course, must be presented as such because it is absolutely justified—in 1909, Annie Besant announced a series of lectures in various locations on the nature of Christ. At that time, it gradually became apparent that the idea of a Christ coming in the flesh was also beginning to gain traction, and this idea grew ever stronger, eventually becoming what you are familiar with. And if, in recent times, the judgment of outsiders has become even more unfavorable, the story of the Christ coming in the flesh is undoubtedly a factor that has contributed greatly to this judgment.

[ 25 ] A situation has now come about—partly as a result of that event [Olcott’s death]—which makes it seem impossible today to separate the purely administrative from the doctrinal. It is a fact that has brought about the impossibility of such a separation, and that is the dire situation in which we find ourselves today throughout the entire Society. At first, this is merely a symptom. You will surely have gathered from my words that I do not dispute Miss Besant’s right to appoint whomever she wishes as her representative in matters concerning *The Star of the East*. Not only do I not deny her this right, but I have not for a moment taken it amiss that she has appointed Vollrath to this position. That is also her right, because she has the right to hold a different opinion of Vollrath than I do. But that was not the subject of the discussion—although I know for certain that it will soon be claimed that such a discussion took place—rather, the discussion was about something else. Of course, I don’t understand why someone who tells me I’ve stolen silver spoons can’t be a representative for something else; but the fact remains that this has made it impossible to represent the President, to stand by her side, precisely at this moment when such a pamphlet is being published. For this will give people the right—if the President continues to be represented, even if only to state the fact that she is loved—to say to me: “Well, you’re standing by Misses Besant’s side, so you must agree with her; you’re quite the fellow!” That is the fact at hand; or, on the other hand, one would have to say: Misses Besant doesn’t know this. — But that is not true, for she knows the case very well. In a detailed letter, I had to inform Misses Besant of these facts in response to a letter sent to her by the other side [by Vollrath]. Besides, anyone would ask: What about the judgment of this president you’re defending, if she doesn’t realize that she can’t do that? — In other words, this means we’re faced with an impossible situation. And we’re faced with such situations all the time. That is, in fact, the defining characteristic of society right now.

[ 26 ] I don’t even want to talk about the Genoa Congress, which also represents an impossible situation. But look, when two people express opposing views from the same podium—as was the case in Budapest in 1909—that is acceptable in a society founded on the principle of equal rights to expression. But there’s nothing else one can do within a society of people. Let me ask you this first: Suppose you’re invited somewhere and you bring along someone who is extremely dear to you to the person who invited you. You place great importance on bringing that person with you. You then arrive at the home of the person who invited you, and they say: “I don’t want anything to do with that person; it’s none of my business.” Well, how must you interpret such a thing? As a kind of insult to your person. It can hardly be seen any other way. If you introduce someone to another person who is dear to you, and that other person rejects them, that won’t work—no relationship is possible. Suppose this had happened at the Genoa Congress: Then we would have been in that very situation. Regardless of what the others represented, out of our conviction we would not have been able to reject a doctrine, but rather a person whom Misses Besant had brought with her—and yet only for the reason that she saw something very special in him, and sufficient care had been taken to ensure that this special quality was made known—that is, we would have had to ignore this person. Any other possibility was ruled out. We would have been compelled in this way to insult the President. When one mixes the affairs of the Society with personal matters, personal matters inevitably come to the fore. You can teach the most diametrically opposed ideas; but when you present individuals who are intertwined with them, then the fact remains that the Society has been radically driven into the personal realm. How does this align with what Olcott once said: “It is not about H. P. Blavatsky, not about me, but about the cause; no personalities should play a role at all”?—Is that true when one practically serves up personalities to the Society as an integral part of the teaching? Isn’t this a breach of the Society’s principle in the most unambiguous way? Yes—even if unconsciously. The same applies when one advocates brotherhood in the way it was criticized today. Where, after all, is there anything in those three points originally established by H. P. Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott that suggests such brotherhood should be cultivated, as people claim in the Vollrath case—that it is stated in the first sentence? But what is stated there is that one should form a “core”—not some general mishmash, but the core of individually connected people bound by brotherhood, whose task is to carry Theosophy out into the world. That is something different from saying that one is primarily obligated to practice brotherhood. Brotherhood is something that can arise of its own accord; one remains chaste in one’s silence about it—that is when it is most present. When one speaks loudly about it, that is when it is least present. But it is connected to all other matters that this very general, muddled concept has gradually emerged as a matter of statutory policy.

[ 27 ] You see, I have also presented you with some facts. But it may have been necessary to speak of these things in order to substantiate the opinion, to elicit the well-founded judgment that we now find ourselves—through no action of our own—facing an extraordinarily important situation within society. And the only thing that has been decisive for me personally, up to this moment, is that I know—not to what extent you consider it justified that I speak this way, but that is why I also say: For me, this is the decisive factor—there is, first of all, a prevailing view among the individuals who are the leaders of our theosophical movement that the society should be maintained for as long as possible! And that is what makes it difficult for me to recommend any immediate initiative aimed at dismantling the society. One might say: Certainly, the things that existed back then are no longer there today—that would not be entirely correct—but on the other hand, it is still true that with this Society we have something that has come about—not through us, for we did not found it but joined it—out of the founding of the modern Theosophical Movement. So the destruction of the society as such is certainly not the right thing to do at this very moment; rather, the right thing is the positive. And as far as this is concerned, it is more difficult to achieve than the negative, which is done in no time—it requires nothing more than a resolution. But the positive requires actions that do not merely stand at the starting point, but must continue to take place. That is the essential point that must be clear to us; and it will be a matter of arriving at things that are truly positive—that is, things that, in a certain way and step by step, bring about the realization of Baron von Walleen’s beautiful saying: that the content always creates its own framework when the content is there. But it is always necessary to take the first step. It just seems to me that this is a matter of extraordinary importance and significance, and one that perhaps should not be taken as lightly as it is by some. Therefore, I would like to make one remark today: that I will be compelled to speak to you from this very spot tomorrow, at about eleven o’clock, about a matter that already exists as such—one that has recently been established on particularly solemn occasions—but in such a way that it is intended to become a kind of common heritage in a very unique way. Whatever can be announced in this regard will take place tomorrow. We will then see how the matter is intended.