The Rudolf Steiner Archive

49. Eleventh Meeting on the Occasion of the Announced Eleventh General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

Article in the “Newsletter for Members of the Anthroposophical Society (Theosophical Society),” edited by Mathilde Scholl, No. 1/1913

At 10:15 a.m., Dr. Rudolf Steiner opened the meeting with the following words:

[ 1 ] “In lieu of the eleventh General Assembly of the German Section, which—as you will hear—I am, logically enough, no longer able to hold in light of the events that have occurred, I hereby open the meeting of the Theosophical friends who are present here.

[ 2 ] I ask you to take note of the fact that, logically speaking, I can no longer open the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society here, in light of the events that have occurred. What has occurred will, of course, be the subject of our deliberations; what I have to say to you above all else is that, even in previous years, our bond was not tied to any external organization, but rather to our heartfelt theosophical fellowship. And out of this heartfelt theosophical fellowship, I welcome you once again on this day of our gathering. It is to be hoped that this warm, beautiful bond, which has united us for many a year, will unite us once again this time, insofar as we understand what it is we have sought to achieve. And out of this sense of unity, let me express my heartfelt greeting in just a few words—in just a few words, because we still have much to do today and the proceedings that follow should begin as soon as possible.

[ 3 ] What I would like is for at least one single act to be free from the dark rays that might later cast their shadow; that is, in light of the difficulties of our negotiations, let us remember right at the beginning this time those who, since we were last gathered here, have departed from the physical plane—our dear Theosophical friends.

[ 4 ] Since feelings and sensations in such cases have been discussed for years, I need not particularly emphasize today that, for the truly sensitive theosophist, a person’s transition from one plane to another is merely a change in the form of existence, and that, since we feel connected by bonds that are not tied to any one plane, these bonds with our dear theosophical friends remain the same even when they are compelled to exchange one plane for another. Thus, those who have departed from us will have us as their loving friends, and we will have them as our loving friends, by directing our thoughts, wherever we can, toward those to whom they were so often permitted to go while they were still working with us on the physical plane.

[ 5 ] First and foremost, I would like to pay tribute to a member who worked for many years among us in the service of Theosophy, so that her kind and loving heart won her close, loving friends everywhere: Mrs. Mia Holm, who left us last summer after a painful illness. Those who had the opportunity to experience Mia Holm’s beautiful poetic talent know all too well how significant it was to have her in our midst, and how we have every reason to continue to remember her, as long as we feel connected to her. There are many among us who loved Mia Holm dearly and who also held her poetic talent and her entire endearing personality in the highest regard.

[ 6 ] Second, allow me to mention not only a long-standing member of our Theosophical work, but also, in a sense, the oldest female Theosophist we have ever had: our dear Mrs. Bontemps in Leipzig. She was so wholeheartedly committed to our way of thinking and our spirit that, when speaking with her, even the most ordinary words that came from her lips felt imbued with theosophical feeling and warmth. And those who came to know Mrs. Bontemps more closely appreciate her kind heart, her character—which was in so many respects grand and all-encompassing—and her theosophical spirit, which so easily and rightly won people’s hearts. It gave me deep satisfaction that, even in her final days, while she was still on the physical plane and could no longer leave her sickbed, I was able to exchange a few words with her. And just as many of the words I shared with her during her healthier days remain with me, so too will the conversations I was privileged to have with her at her deathbed remain unforgettable.

[ 7 ] I would like to remember Miss [Clara Brandt], whose life on the physical plane came to an end this summer due to a regrettable accident. I wish to emphasize—since misunderstandings have become widespread—that Miss [Brandt]’s death was entirely natural, caused by a state of physical weakness that led to the accident, her unfortunate fall; it was nothing other than a completely natural death. We remember her for the many years she devoted herself faithfully to the Theosophical cause, despite many difficulties, and how this Theosophical cause made her soul what she wanted it to be here.

[ 8 ] I have many faithful, dear friends to remember—friends I made just before their deaths as well as those who have been with us for many years. If I were to express here everything that is on my heart, it would turn into a very long speech—one that has value only if we all make a loving spirit the starting point of our thoughts about the friends who have passed on.

[ 9 ] I would like to pay tribute to a long-standing member, Mr. Leo Ellrich of the Leipzig Lodge.

[ 10 ] Thus [I] wish to commemorate a particularly poignant death, because in this case we are deeply moved not only by the fact that the deceased has left the physical plane, but also because she has left behind her deeply grieving husband, who is a dear member of ours. When we consider the beautiful way in which Dr. [Roesel], who belonged to the Bielefeld Lodge, found her way into the Theosophical Movement—how she strove to be a part of it—and when we reflect on this, we certainly come to share in the grief of our dear friend, Dr. [Roesel], who is such a loyal and much-loved member.

[ 11 ] I would like to remember two friends from Basel who were greatly appreciated and loved within their close circle: Gottlieb [Hiltboldt] and Wilhelm Vockroth, both of whom were members. They were loyal, kind, self-sacrificing, and dedicated Theosophical colleagues.

[ 12 ] I must also remember that man who passed away, having lived a life made painful not only by physical suffering—our friend Hugo [Boltze] in Eisenach. Most of our friends know Hugo [Boltze]; he truly suffered a great deal, and we were devoted to him in loyalty and love—and will remain so. After seven years of a very painful illness, this illness ultimately led to his death. We honor him in such a way that we will certainly send him our best and most loving thoughts.

[ 13 ] We must also remember a dear friend, Mr. Hans Schellbach, who, after seeking healing in a southern Theosophical colony, could not be saved from physical death. It suffices to say that he remained faithful to his Theosophical convictions—as he had always demonstrated throughout his life—until his very last breath. That they were a healing balm to him; that he was so devoted to Theosophy that it gave him the strength that can sustain a person in both the happiest and the most painful moments of life.

[ 14 ] I wish to commemorate a friend whose death, in a certain sense, is exceptionally tragic—a man who was a close friend of Mr. Georg Bauernfeind, who belonged to a circle closely associated with theosophical life. It would not be appropriate here to discuss the details of our friend’s life; suffice it to say that theosophy can enable us to understand, in our feelings, every kind of seeking and every kind of spiritual experience—and that we will also come to understand this man’s final journey toward death.

[ 15 ] I would also like to remember a man who held strong theosophical convictions, but whom few had the opportunity to meet: Mr. Meakin, who departed from the physical plane in October of last year, after having worked with us for a long time with ever-increasing intensity.

[ 16 ] Miss [Bloecker], Mrs. Major Herbst, Mrs. Marty—I must also remember them. Even though they were less prominent in our movement, we are no less called upon to feel united with them beyond death. We know, my dear Theosophical friends, how indissoluble our bond remains with those who have left the physical plane through death, those whom we know have entered another sphere of life. Let this moment of gathering, then, serve as the starting point for you to feel connected to these friends who have departed from us in the sense just described, and for you to continue to feel connected to these friends in the future as well. Let us express these loving thoughts and feelings that we send to our departed friends by rising from our seats.” - The assembly honors the memory of the aforementioned individuals by rising from their seats.

[ 17 ] Dr. Steiner: “My dear Theosophical friends! First, a question has been submitted that I must address as a point of order. The question reads:

Is the Executive Committee’s resolution of December 8, 1912, to expel the members of the “Order of the Star of the East” from the German Section of the Theosophical Society considered to have taken effect “without the General Assembly as such having voted on it and given its consent”?

Hermann Ahner

[ 18 ] I would just like to add a few words regarding this inquiry. I would like to say that the decision to simply expel the members of the “Stern des Ostens” was never made by the Executive Board in this form, but rather that the members of the “Stern des Ostens” were asked to resign; otherwise, the Executive Board would be compelled to expel them. However, a request had been received from a member of the “Stern des Ostens” asking whether such a member would still be permitted to remain in the assembly in that case, and whether I would like that member to address a few friendly words to the General Assembly. I replied that I had actually had enough of interfering in any way in the affairs of the General Assembly, and that the General Assembly would have to decide on the matter. During my absence, the Executive Board then felt compelled to address the delegates directly, asking whether they wished for members of the “Stern des Ostens” to attend today’s General Assembly. The delegates replied, almost without exception, that they did not wish for members of the “Stern des Ostens” to be present. Following this expression of the delegates’ will, I was therefore no longer authorized to admit members of the “Stern des Ostens” to the General Assembly. And no matter what distortions have been spread throughout the world, those who wish to investigate will see that I have never acted other than as a representative, as the executive body of the German Section. As General Secretary, I never sought to follow my own will, but always and only that of the Section.

[ 19 ] Furthermore, however, it must be said that, after giving the matter long and careful consideration—since the situation simply cannot be any other way—I am no longer in a position to hold the eleventh General Assembly of the German Section at all, but only to hold, in its place, a gathering of our friends, because, logically, a German Section no longer exists. Following yesterday’s Executive Committee decision, it is no longer possible to hold this meeting in the same manner as previous General Assemblies have been held. This, however, completely eliminates any possibility of challenging today’s meeting. I will treat this meeting retrospectively as a founding assembly. It is therefore worth considering whether there is any reason at all to decide in this meeting whether the Executive Board’s resolution to expel the members of Stern des Ostens should be carried out or not.” — This Executive Board resolution is now being read aloud.

Theosophical Society, German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society who are members of the “Star of the East.”

The undersigned are hereby obliged to inform you that the Executive Committee, having convened for an extraordinary meeting on December 8, 1912, has adopted the resolution set forth below. This resolution was not adopted because of any existing differences of opinion or divergent viewpoints—which, of course, may be represented within the Theosophical Society—but solely because the manner in which the leadership of *The Star of the East* has positioned itself toward the German Section appears to the German Section to be entirely incompatible with the first paragraph of the Bylaws of the Theosophical Society. If, therefore, it were to be said that the German Section excludes certain opinions and viewpoints, this must be regarded from the outset as an inaccuracy.

The aforementioned resolution reads: “The Executive Committee of the German Section of the Theosophical Society considers membership in the Order of the Star of the East to be incompatible with membership in the Theosophical Society and requests that members of the Star of the East resign from the Theosophical Society.

The Executive Committee of the German Section will be compelled to expel from the German Section any members who do not comply with this request.

On behalf of the Executive Committee of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.
The General Secretary. The Secretary.

[ 20 ] [Dr. Steiner:] “The delegates have already agreed to this resolution, but if Mr. Ahner wishes to speak about it, he is, of course, free to do so.”

[ 21 ] Mr. Ahner: “I see no reason why the members of the ‘Star of the East’ should be excluded. The Theosophical Society, which is an all-encompassing society, has room for everyone. That is why I am not in favor of excluding people who want to bring a higher way of life into the Society and inspire a higher way of life. I don’t know why ‘Star of the East’ members are being expelled. I don’t know to what extent the Executive Board has the right to do so. I would like to know whether this Executive Board resolution is legally binding at all. I myself am not a ‘Star of the East’ member, but I regret that I don’t understand, and I don’t grasp why this should happen, why there should be disharmony. So from my point of view, I do not want the expulsion—though you may, of course, think differently about it. I find it repugnant, decidedly unsympathetic, when we see our brothers in all people and then exclude them in such a heartless manner. I have nothing further to say on the matter; it was nothing more than a question, to which an answer has already been given. I have nothing further to say on the matter.”

[ 22 ] Dr. Steiner: “Would you like to put this to a vote?” Mr. Ahner: “Yes, if possible.”

[ 23 ] Dr. Steiner: “Since a vote is to be held, I ask the delegates who are in favor of excluding the Stern members to stand.”

[ 24 ] A vote is being taken. With the exception of Mr. Ahner, the delegates are in favor of expulsion.

[ 25 ] Dr. Steiner: “That is undoubtedly the majority, even though the votes have not yet been counted. To be on the safe side, however, I would like the entire assembly to vote on this as well. Let’s take a vote.”—With the exception of five, everyone is in favor of the expulsion.

[ 26 ] Dr. Steiner: “Since I consider myself merely an executive body in this instance as well, I am not in a position to reverse the Executive Board’s decision and have the members of ‘Stern des Osten’ summoned at this late stage.

[ 27 ] My dear Theosophical friends! It is with a certain sadness—which many of you who have worked with me over the years may share—that I begin this discussion. I myself must recall that moment several years ago when, together with a small number of friends, we took the first steps here in this city to establish the German Section of the Theosophical Society. We took those steps to establish this Section because we were guided by the ideal and the intention to work within the Theosophical Movement for what we regard as the highest goods of human development. With feelings that amounted simply to a desire to work faithfully in the field indicated, we joined this movement at that time. An executive committee was elected at that time during the first, constituent general assembly.

[ 28 ] Not everyone who was elected back then is still on the board; nor are all of them still with us.

[ 29 ] The first difficulty we encountered—after having already faced various other difficulties—was one caused by a man who has now, once again, stirred up trouble within the German Section of the Theosophical Society. After Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had been willingly elected to the Executive Committee—as, so to speak, one of the veterans of the Theosophical Movement—he began, after just a few weeks, to write letter after letter, and there was really nothing to be done with any of these letters. Among the letters—some of which preceded the founding of the Section and others which followed—were ones such as, for example, the one that read: The president of the Theosophical Society—the Adyar Presidium—should have his power restricted, and in its place a sort of Areopagus of members should be established, standing at the head of autonomous national societies, so that no interference could come from a presidium. At that time, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden desired a completely republican structure for the Theosophical Society. Another proposal was to exclude women from the Theosophical Movement—a movement in which reason and sound judgment were supposed to prevail—because women were deemed to possess less reason and clarity of judgment than men, and because they were considered to have less mental aptitude. At the time, I ventured a quiet objection, asking whether the late Madame Blavatsky, who had founded the movement, should also be excluded, but received no clarification on the matter. Before the Genoa Congress, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden proposed that I, along with several other members—among whom the astral element of women, but rather the mental element of men, should be represented—negotiate before the aforementioned Congress regarding what would be beneficial for the Society, since he was familiar with the intentions that Mrs. Blavatsky and Mrs. Besant had originally held. But then came the request that only men of sound judgment, who possessed solely a mental aptitude, should participate in that conference. I have not had the opportunity to ask how the author of the letter could have justifiably mentioned the two women in the first part of the letter, since in the last part of the letter, on the same page, he issued the aforementioned judgment.

[ 30 ] After this mention of a later event, I will continue with the account of how we encountered difficulties right from the start of the section’s founding, and how Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden then resigned from the executive committee after a few weeks, without having been pressured to do so in any way. Those of our friends who may know something about this will be aware of how, in the ten years that have passed since then, I have gone out of my way to accommodate Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden in every respect. I believe I am justified in touching on these matters here, because today the factual and the personal are to be brought together in an objective manner. I believe there are members among you who know how—though out of pure love, justified goodwill, and justified humanity—those of our friends who are in need make use of—I may say, make use of—what is called time, which is, after all, not elastic and cannot be stretched. While I acknowledge this “taking” as something entirely justified, the fact remains that immense amounts of time have been spent in direct, person-to-person interaction. The vast majority of time in our work has been devoted to person-to-person interaction. And the question may well be raised as to whether, within this practice of theosophical love within our society, it was possible to accept that our precious time should be sacrificed for people who came only to cause trouble. That was the reason for the various measures that were taken. Based on these convictions, on genuine insight, we have implemented these restrictions—for no other reason than that we wanted to work in true love for humanity, and because we did not want to merely spout love-soaked platitudes, and therefore did not want to let insincere disruptions steal our time.

[ 31 ] The person who knew best of all that we could never make any progress if anyone could just barge in and disrupt things was Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. For I can say quite objectively that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is among those people who have often taken up the most of my time. These words would never have passed my lips if necessity had not forced them out of me. It is necessary, once and for all, that the mask fall from many things that drip with love but harbor something entirely different in their hearts.

[ 32 ] No one who wishes to work peacefully with us should be considered excluded from our German Section on the basis of their views, their standpoint, or their convictions. It goes without saying that every lodge has the right to set its own conditions. No other resolution was passed other than that the admission form should include, alongside the names of the two sponsors, the name of the lodge executive committee, so that the General Secretary would be informed whether the lodge executive committee agreed to the admission. Anyone could still become a member of the Section. There can therefore be no question of an amendment to the bylaws. It can thus be stated unequivocally that this resolution had no practical effect whatsoever on the customary procedures for admitting members. All those who were later rejected would have been rejected earlier as well.

[ 33 ] Before I get to what needs to be said today, I must first provide a little historical context. Among the various events that took place, difficulties arose that affected all of Miss Besant’s colleagues. Everyone became aware of these difficulties and spoke about them frequently, both privately and publicly. One should simply seek to assess these matters correctly. On one occasion—and I can still point out the exact spot where this happened today—I told Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden that it was truly quite difficult to work with Misses Besant. That was before 1906, before she became president. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden then told me that this was because, first, she was a woman, and second, she lacked intellectual education.

[ 34 ] Then came the various successive events, which, of course, became known to the German Section only to the extent that they had to be disclosed in accordance with duty. The intolerable Leadbeater affair arose. You know from a circular that I strictly and vigorously rejected Leadbeater’s method, since, if it were to become widespread, it would inevitably lead to the downfall of the entire Theosophical Movement. Misses Besant held a different opinion about Leadbeater at the time; she sent a detailed letter at that time to a number of members, in which she wrote that what Leadbeater had done could only be done by a person who was, in this regard, afflicted with madness. That was in June 1906. I would not mention this letter if its main points had not since been printed in journals. Thus, the publication would not have come about through me. I do not wish to discuss how I endeavored at the time to clarify the matter; I merely wish to mention how, from 1906 to 1907, Misses Besant had gone so far as to defend this man in the most vigorous manner—the very man she had described as mentally ill the year before. I do not wish to emphasize all the other matters, only this one: that when, in 1909, Mr. Leadbeater was to be invited to rejoin the Theosophical Society, I refused to vote in favor of his readmission. I wanted to abstain from voting. Mrs. Besant wrote back to me, stating that she had gathered from my letter that I was not opposed to it, and therefore she would count my vote in favor of readmission. Since there was no longer time to write a letter, I had to send a telegram demanding that what I had written—that I would abstain from voting—be carried out. I simply wish to emphasize that Mrs. Besant later reported again that the General Secretaries had unanimously decided to invite Leadbeater to rejoin the Theosophical Society.

[ 35 ] As things turned out, we had no choice but to work constructively and keep ourselves free from Miss Besant’s influence. I leave it entirely to your judgment whether we succeeded in doing so. We had no choice but to work so constructively that we made progress and concerned ourselves with nothing but our work, until we were vigorously disrupted in this work, without anything having happened that would have justified this external disruption.

[ 36 ] One day, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden—who had always sought my help up to that point—appeared and declared that he was the representative of the “Star of the East” Federation in Germany. Among other things, he explained that since a contradiction had arisen between what Mrs. Besant teaches and what Dr. Steiner teaches, I should in the future structure my teachings in such a way that my listeners could not construct any contradictions. It was even said that I should avoid the word “Christ,” because it could only lead to misunderstandings. The reasoning given was that Mrs. Besant uses this word to refer to “Bodhisattva,” because the term “Bodhisattva” is not understood in Europe. Since Mrs. Besant uses the word “Christ” to mean “Bodhisattva,” I am therefore supposed to avoid the word “Christ.” These things have occurred, and they can be substantiated with documents. Not only was I expected to listen to the distorted portrayals of what I had to say, but I was also expected to allow others to dictate the words I should use to describe my teachings. Such was the “inner tolerance” of the representative of *The Star of the East* in Germany.

[ 37 ] (I would like to insert a remark here for the record, which I am making because there are still people who seek the reasons for what happened in something other than the fact that my friends and I could not reconcile with their sense of truth a certain way of speaking about and listening to things, without admitting to themselves that this manner is the very opposite of all theosophical sentiment and should not occur within the Theosophical Movement. Thus it came to pass that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote the following words to me on July 4, 1911, in a letter in which he sought to justify the “Star in the East” movement: “That a 14- to 15-year-old boy can endure such a trial as Krishnamurti is now undergoing is beyond my comprehension. He is paraded before the whole world by Mrs. Besant as the coming adept. Since the cultured world has no concept of what this means, Mrs. Besant explains it succinctly to her church audiences: ‘The coming Christ, as the archetype of a divine adept.’ But anyone who has read about Krishnamurti’s 30 past lives—which she and Leadbeater published in *The Theosophist*—knows that she does not mean Jesus.” I am of the opinion that a sense of truth and truthfulness, as expressed here, must have nothing to do with Theosophy. Unfortunately, I must share such things, because otherwise people may repeatedly doubt how deeply grounded everything that originated from the German Section truly was.)

[ 38 ] After everything that had transpired—as you could read in the recently published “Mitteilungen”—our friends in Basel had asked me, following the latest negotiations in Munich, whether members of “Stern des Ostens” should be admitted to the upcoming Basel cycle. I replied by telegram that, as members of the Theosophical Society, they could of course not be excluded. The friends in Basel then asked—truly out of their sense of truth—that the members of the “Star of the East” not participate in their events, because this would have made them feel constrained in their natural sense of truth. It takes only one tongue that can speak to pay lip service to love and the brotherhood of humankind; and if one has such a tongue, one can write pamphlets that drip with love on the first few pages and then label as “Jesuitical” someone who has never had anything to do with a Jesuit. Love requires sincere hearts, and I came to realize in Basel that it was sincere hearts that said to one another: We can no longer come together or work with people who behave this way. We would never have stood in the way of the Star of the East as such.

[ 39 ] But this “Star of the East” is, after all, made up of individuals, and one simply has to know these individuals. The Basel cycle was scheduled and began. After it had begun, friends from the Netherlands arrived and said: A telegram had arrived in the Netherlands reporting that the Basel cycle had been suppressed. The matter was investigated, and it was discovered that the sender of the telegram was a member of the “Star of the East.” This member later explained that he had done so out of good will and with the best of intentions, because such terrible things were being said about Dr. Steiner in Belgium and the Netherlands that he had wanted to prevent even more such talk. That is the practice of the Star of the East. Such examples are numerous.

[ 40 ] At that time, when there was not even any talk of excluding members of the “Star of the East” from our events—when none of that had even been considered yet—Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden circulated a pamphlet promoting an “Undogmatic Association.” This pamphlet is riddled with accusations pulled out of thin air. We were dealing not merely with a member of the “Stern des Osten,” but with a man who fought us at every turn, who wanted nothing more than to oppose us. Are we now expected to summon the very people who are tightening the noose around our necks?

[ 41 ] Among many others, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has made yet another claim, namely that there is not a single member within our German Section who does not copy Dr. Rudolf Steiner word for word or repeat verbatim what I have said. But that really went too far—to characterize the truly faithful work of our colleagues in that way. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden could say whatever he wanted about me, for all I cared; my stance toward him remained unchanged. But to portray our colleagues as automatons who do nothing but parrot what I have said—that is an outrageous insult to our colleagues. And now judge for yourselves whether we are the intolerant ones. One of the figures from “Stern des Ostens” who attacked us most fiercely sat in our Berlin lodge well into November, and there was never any thought of harming her in the slightest. Only when we found ourselves hindered on all sides in our positive work by the members of “Stern des Ostens” did we begin to consider taking defensive measures.

[ 42 ] There are other factors to consider as well; I need not go into them here, as they are discussed in the “Mitteilungen.” If truth is to prevail, then it must above all prevail on the physical plane. If it is possible for the president to pass a resolution in 1909 on a matter about which she claims in 1912 to know nothing at all, then one cannot imagine a more grotesque falsehood. I also had to witness the fact that there was an official of the Society who actually dared to say of Miss Besant: “She must have simply forgotten her letter from 1909.” That it is possible for something like this to be said—one has to see it happen to believe it within the Theosophical Society.

[ 43 ] You can see what has remained the same. You can see what has changed. What has remained the same? The steady progress of our positive theosophical work, as we once began it in the German Section. What has changed? In the early years, Miss Besant was a joyful supporter of our positive work. But there came a time when she began to feel that it was, after all, unsettling that there were people who said something different from what she herself said. Yet she could not immediately take a stand against these people. And when, in 1909, we passed a resolution to appoint board members for life, Misses Besant was among the most enthusiastic supporters of this arrangement. And it was only a few weeks ago that she had seriously considered whether she herself might be elected president for life. In Budapest, where I spoke with Miss Besant, she expressed her enthusiastic support for the election of board members for life.

[ 44 ] Among the things that have changed is the fact that, up until the year he broke with the movement, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden wrote to me: “In all matters concerning the Theosophical Movement, it goes without saying that your judgment is the primary consideration.” That was just a few weeks before he turned against me as a representative of *The Star of the East*. As you can see, I prefer to present facts rather than offer characterizations; but I believe that these facts are sufficient to instruct anyone who is willing to learn.

[ 45 ] Now the following occurred. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden had, in fact, circulated his statements everywhere, in which he vehemently attacked the German Section regarding the “Undogmatic Association.” We ignored this. But when he then came and wanted to establish a so-called “Freedom Branch,” as he called it, I wrote in October 1912 that I did not feel called upon to issue a diploma for this branch, but would instead refer the matter to the Executive Committee. I wrote explicitly that I could not issue the diploma because the mindset he embodied was not in harmony with the work of the German Section. And I went on to write that this was not a matter of some other perspective or a different opinion, but rather something that violated the first clause of our statutes and all principles of brotherhood. It violates all principles of brotherhood to portray people as the automatons of a single individual without any semblance of a reason. That is why I could not bring myself to sign the diploma. Whatever arguments might have been raised against me, I could not allow those whom I know to have devoted all their energy to our cause to be treated as the automatons of a single individual. Judge for yourselves where love resides by considering such facts; which carries more weight—these facts or the love-filled words of the one who speaks of our work with love-filled words, which are the opposite of what is objectively true, because he has not understood it or does not want to understand it.

[ 46 ] I had to decline a second lodge in Leipzig for the following reason. Before I was notified of this lodge, Misses Besant informed me that it was already independently affiliated with Adyar. Therefore, this lodge could not also be established by the German Section: I was thus compelled to refuse to issue a diploma for this lodge and added that I would await a decision by the Executive Committee on the matter, even though the specific reason for the refusal was not immediately clear. This lodge was founded with hostile intentions from the very beginning.

[ 47 ] Then certain events took place, the details of which you will be able to verify for yourselves once the “Mitteilungen” are published; a member of the executive board has already been tasked with overseeing their publication. It should only be mentioned that an extraordinary board meeting was convened by the board itself on December 8, 1912, which, in light of everything that had transpired, led to the regrettable but inevitable decision—with which you are all familiar—to send a telegram to Adyar for the General Council, which was meeting in the last days of December. You are also familiar with the text of the telegram from the “Mitteilungen.” It calls for the resignation of the President.

[ 48 ] I have omitted a great deal today, but I hope you have not forgotten what has already been published in the most recent issues of *Mitteilungen*. I think I can safely say that, after all this, it is quite something that in Adyar—without being able to examine the legitimacy of our measures in any way—they proceeded solely on the assumption that we were excluding people who were entitled to belong to the German Section. We will have to discuss the dissolution of the German Section later. Before I explain this matter to you, I would like to point out the following. What people began to make a fuss about was that we were expelling the members of the “Star of the East.” The members of “Stern des Ostens” have the option of belonging to the Theosophical Society without being members of the German Section. We did nothing more than defend ourselves against people who behaved hostilely toward us. In doing so, however, we did not at any time prevent anyone from being a member of the Theosophical Society. Perhaps some of you also know from me that I took the position that, while a section cannot make itself a slave to those who disrupt peace, I would never resist it, and I would have no objection whatsoever if a second section were to be formed; for how can one accept that a large number of people should become slaves to those who want to join simply to disrupt our work? We have not expelled anyone from the Theosophical Society, because we cannot do so as the German Section—after all, we could not expel anyone from the Theosophical Society. But consider this: if we are now expelled from the Theosophical Society, is there any way for us to remain within the Theosophical Society? I direct this question to all those who have spoken so much about love and brotherhood. What will the people who have spoken so much about the restriction of freedom with regard to the members of *The Star of the East* say when the General Council expels the entire German Section? I do not need to ask our members about that. Following what I have just said, I will now read a letter dated January 14, 1913—a letter from the President that came into my possession yesterday, just a few hours before our Executive Committee meeting. I will add some explanatory remarks afterward. Perhaps you will understand later why I choke up when addressing you.”

Office of the President, Theosophical Society,
Adyar, Madras S., January 14, 1913. Dear Dr. Steiner!

The enclosed document is self-explanatory.

After the General Council of the Theosophical Society has considered the German Section’s entire stance toward the Theosophical Society and its constitution—as reflected in your letter and mine, as well as in the correspondence regarding the German Swiss lodges and the telegram from your Executive Committee, the General Council has asked me to revoke the charter of the German Section and instead grant a charter to those German lodges that are willing to operate within the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Before I comply with this request, I ask you—in view of the seriousness of the situation—whether you would be willing to provide any explanation regarding the following matters, which, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, would constitute grounds for the revocation of the charter.

a) Your refusal, in your letter of October 15, 1912, to grant the lodge in Göttingen the charter requested by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and six other members of the German Section, on the grounds that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden advocates Theosophy in a manner that is contrary to—and even hostile toward—the views (intentions) of the German Section—and that the proposed lodge would include members who followed such a method of work.

b) Her refusal, in another letter dated October 15, 1912, to issue a charter to a lodge in Leipzig, at the request of Mr. Carl Schumann, for the (second) reason that the individuals who signed the request were working in a manner contrary to the views (intentions) of the German Section, since the working method was one that the German Section could not permit its members to follow.

c) The decision to exclude members of the Order of the Star in the East who were members of the German Section from the Section’s meetings, to which all other members have the right of admission as members, thereby depriving them of their rights as members of the Theosophical Society.

d) The Secretary-General’s silence in response to letters from the President informing him of requests made under Article 31 of the Bylaws and asking for the Section’s bylaws.

I shall await your response to this, or, if no such response is received, I shall wait another fourteen days after the return of the mail from Germany before carrying out the advice of the General Council, which has been conveyed to me as President of the Council. I deeply regret that you have forced the General Council to issue this advice through an attitude that places the German Section in opposition to the Constitution of the Theosophical Society and jeopardizes the freedom of every member of the Theosophical Society. I dare to express the hope that, even at this late hour, the German Section, through you, will retract its actions, submit to the Constitution under which it was founded, and continue its work within the Society.

If not, we can still wish it well on the path it has chosen and trust that its future as a separate society will prove its usefulness to the world.

Sincerely yours, Annie Besant, President, Theosophical Society

To Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Secretary-General of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

President’s Office, Theosophical Society,
Adyar, Madras, S., Jan. 14, 1913

Dear Dr. Steiner,

The enclosed speaks for itself.

The General Council of the Theosophical Society, having considered the German Section’s overall attitude toward the Theosophical Society and its Constitution—as reflected in your letters and mine, the correspondence regarding the Swiss-German Lodges, and the telegram from your Executive Committee—has asked me to revoke the charter of the German Section and, in its place, to issue a charter to those German Lodges willing to operate in accordance with the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Before complying with this request, I beg to ask you—in view of the gravity of the situation—if you wish to offer any explanation regarding the following matters, which, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, will form the grounds for the revocation of the charter:

1. Your refusal, in your letter of Oct. 15, 1912, to issue a charter for a lodge in Göttingen, as requested by Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and six other members of the German Section; the grounds for refusal being that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden represents Theosophy in a manner opposed to and even hostile toward the views (Intentionen) of the German Section, and that the proposed lodge included members who followed such a method of work.

2. Your refusal, in another letter dated October 15, 1912, to issue a charter for a lodge in Leipzig, upon the application of Mr. Carl Schumann, on the (second) ground that the persons signing the application worked in a manner opposed to the views (intentions) of the German Section, the method of work being one that the German Section could not permit among its members.

3. The resolution excluding members of the “Order of the Star in the East,” who were Fellows of the German Section, from the Section’s meetings—to which all other Fellows had the right of entry as Fellows—thereby unlawfully depriving them of their status as Fellows of the Theosophical Society.

4. The silence of the General Secretary in response to letters from the President informing him of applications under Rule 31 and requesting the Rules of the Section.

I will await your response to this; or, in the absence of a response, I will wait for a fortnight after the return mail from Germany before carrying out the advice of the General Council, conveyed to me as President in Council; I deeply regret that you have forced the General Council to issue this advice through an attitude that pits the German Section against the Constitution of the Theosophical Society and jeopardizes the freedom of every Fellow of the Theosophical Society; and I venture to express the hope that, even at this late hour, the German Section will, through you, reconsider its course, submit to the Constitution under which it was founded, and continue to work within the Society.

If not, we can still wish it all the best on the path it chooses, and trust that its future, as a separate society, may prove its usefulness to the world.

Sincerely Yours, Annie Besant,
President, Theosophical Society

To Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German Section,
Theosophical Society

[Rudolf Steiner:] “You see what happened with regard to the German Section during the last week of December—for that was when the relevant meeting of the General Council took place in Adyar. But you must forgive me at this moment if something that appears to be personal is brought into this matter. I know very well that people who do not wish to understand may take the opportunity presented by this statement to emphasize that personal matters should be excluded. But in certain cases, personal matters can certainly also be objective matters. You have just heard what was written to us from Adyar. The President of the Theosophical Society also gave a speech on this occasion in Adyar before the representatives of the Theosophical Society. According to the official Adyar Bulletin, Misses Besant said the following at the general meeting: “The German Secretary-General, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to free himself from this fatal influence, and that does not allow him to maintain freedom within the German Section.”

[ 49 ] The words are also read aloud in English: “The German General Secretary, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to free himself sufficiently from that fatal influence to allow freedom of opinion within his Section.”

[ 50 ] [Rudolf Steiner:] “According to the report by the French Secretary-General, Miss Besant also spoke these words.

[ 51 ] You will surely understand that I want nothing more to do with a person who is capable of making, in an official speech before the very society they represent, such claims that are completely fabricated and fly in the face of all actual facts.

[ 52 ] (Thunderous applause from the assembly.)

[ 53 ] Anyone who wishes to stand on the ground of truth may, if such an accusation is intended to harm their cause in this way before the world, regard it as a substantive attack. May I ask you whether the assembly also views this attack as one that concerns its own cause?

[ 54 ] Before this incident, there was another passage in the January issue of *Theosophist* that deserved special attention. It contains the following lovely little piece: a portion of a letter I wrote to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is reprinted there. The first few sentences read:

[ 55 ] ‹It is impossible to attach to the German Section the Branch, for the Charter of which you applied on the 14th September last. This cannot, at least, be done on my own responsibility, but would have to be submitted to our next General Convention. The reason for this is the manner in which you have for some time chosen to represent the Theosophical cause; this is felt by the German Section to be directly opposed to their intention, and even hostile to them. Above all things I myself cannot put my name under the charter of such a Branch which includes members who follow this kind of work.›

[ 56 ] But the later sentences, in which I explain the reasons for this in my letter, have been omitted. This is simply an objective falsehood resulting from an incomplete quotation.

[ 57 ] But now, immediately after I was mentioned, the following passage appears in the January issue of *The Theosophist*:

[ 58 ] ‹The Theosophical Society is face to face with an organised attack, engineered by the most dangerous enemy that liberty of thought and speech have ever had - the Jesuits. Helena Petrowna Blavatsky long ago warned us that this Conflict would come, and now it is upon us. They work in different lands in different disguises, but aim steadily at one thing — the distruction or the distortion of Theosophy. In America, they started a secret Organisation, called the Universal Brotherhood (not openly identical with Mrs Tingley’s Universal Brotherhood), and within this the ‹Besant Union›, and cleverly induced Theosophists to think that they were working in my interests. Their chief tool has now joined the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany, they are working to secure the predominance of Christianity in the Theosophical Society, thus distorting it into a Christianising sect, and making certain its rejection in the East. They use their old weapons - misrepresentation, slander, false charges, all levelled against the leaders of the movement they seek to destroy; and all means are good ad majorem Dei gloriam. The ‹Black General›, as their Head is called, has agents everywhere. Attacks are circulated in many countries, in many tongues; money is poured out like water; one day’s post brings attacks from Rome, from Stockholm, from Hong Kong. It is very interesting to watch, and one recalls the words of warning that ‹the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.› The old record bids men rejoice because it is so; of such combats the Bhagavad-Gita says that they are the open door to heaven. Therefore the word goes out to all faithful members: ‹Quit you like men: be strong.› ›

[ 59 ] In plain English, this means:

[ 60 ] “The Theosophical Society is facing an organized attack launched by the most dangerous enemy that freedom of thought and speech has ever known—the Jesuits. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky warned us long ago that this struggle would come, and now it is here. They operate in various countries under various guises, but their goal is always the same—the destruction or distortion of Theosophy. In America, they created a secret organization called the Universal Brotherhood (not openly identifying itself as identical to Mrs. Tingley’s Universal Brotherhood), and within it the “Besant Society,” and through clever means they led Theosophists to believe that they were working in my interest. Their main agent has now joined the Roman Catholic Church. In Germany, they are working to secure the supremacy of Christianity within the Theosophical Society by distorting it into a Christianizing sect, thereby certainly bringing about its rejection in the East. They are using their old weapons—misrepresentation, slander, false accusations—all directed against the leaders of the movement, whom they seek to destroy; and all means are justified ad majorem Dei gloriam. The “Black General,” as their leader is called, has representatives everywhere. Attacks are being spread in many countries, in many languages; money is being poured out like water; one day’s mail brings attacks from Rome, from Stockholm, from Hong Kong. This is very interesting to observe, and one is reminded of the warning words: “The devil has come down with great wrath, because he knows that his time is short.” The ancient scriptures urge people to rejoice because this is so; the Bhagavad Gita says that such struggles are the open door to heaven. Therefore, the message to all faithful members is: “Be like men! Be strong.”

[ 61 ] This passage comes immediately after a reference to the German Section. But just imagine if someone had objected to it the day before yesterday—before the President’s letter arrived—even though the Belgian Secretary-General had already drawn his own conclusions from such matters, which were objectively completely untrue; then Misses Besant could still have said: “Well, you aren’t even affected by this, so why are you speaking up?” This passage is separated from the preceding one by three asterisks. This is how a matter is written about, and people speak of “Theosophical politics”—a term that should never be used within our movement. But there is one more point to consider; for even if we are not supposed to be affected by it, the matter itself is still not true! Where, then, is there any Jesuit influence within our Theosophical Movement? It’s all pure fabrication.

[ 62 ] It is true that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden has constantly played on the Jesuit accusation; it is true that Miss Besant officially made this accusation against him. A more untrue accusation could hardly be made, yet it is one that is likely to play a role in Germany and elsewhere whenever there is a desire to cast suspicion on us.

[ 63 ] Since that is the case, and since this matter truly intertwines the factual with the personal, I would now like to ask you for something. I cannot share everything right now that would show you just how baseless, untrue, and foolish this accusation is. I ask you: Would you be willing to listen to a brief outline, a short excerpt from the story of my life, in the coming days? I have no other way to prove to you just how foolish and untrue such a claim by Miss Besant is. However, I do not wish to impose this account on you, so I ask you to let me know if you would like to hear my memoirs—condensed as briefly as possible—at a more convenient time in the coming days.”

[ 64 ] (The assembly accepts the offer.)

[ 65 ] [Rudolf Steiner:] “Misses Besant knows very well that some of these accusations will stick. And now—I’ll list them point by point—because no single expression is sufficient to characterize what has happened. It is, after all, outrageous that I must resort to describing the course of my life. I hope that the lecture will be transcribed so that it can then be published as a pamphlet. People are going so far as to make up details about the location. It was only from a book by Paungarten titled *Werdende Wissenschaft* (*Emerging Science*), which refutes these unjust and untrue accusations, that I learned I was supposedly given this Jesuit education in a place in Moravia whose name is completely unknown to me—and which I have already forgotten again. Boitzenburg or something like that. I assure you that I have never known this place or even heard it mentioned.

[ 66 ] I therefore declare that I wish to have nothing more to do with Misses Besant, now that she has added this little bit to all her other objective untruths. I have referred the matter to the board; I will only convey this one final fact to Misses Besant: that I wish to have nothing more to do with anyone who treats the truth in this manner.

[ 67 ] In saying this, I am actually trying to convince you that we are, so to speak, suspended between heaven and—I won’t say earth—between heaven and hell. I now ask Miss von Sivers to read aloud the Executive Board’s resolution.»

[ 68 ] Miss von Sivers: “At its meeting yesterday, the Executive Board decided to send the following letter to the President in response to her letter, provided it is approved by the General Assembly.”

Berlin, February 2, 1913.
To the President of the Theosophical Society,
Mrs. Annie Besant.
Adyar, Madras.

[ 69 ] The dignitaries present at the eleventh General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, having taken note of the letter from the President of the Theosophical Society, Ms. Besant, dated January 14, 1913, to the Secretary-General of the German Section, Dr. Steiner, in which it is stated that the General Council has demanded that Ms. Besant revoke the German Section’s charter, and that Ms. Besant will comply with this demand if the German Section does not submit to the Constitution, hereby declare:

[ 70 ] The German Section, its Executive Committee, or its General Secretary have never in any way violated the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. The decision of the General Council, which was reached before even the published documents could be examined, must be recorded as an outrageous violation of the spirit and constitution of the Theosophical Society. Even the most basic sense of truth and justice must be outraged by the manner in which the well-founded accusations—which the German Section and its Executive Committee were compelled to raise against the President’s conduct—were treated. No means is too low for Mrs. Besant to cast suspicion on the Secretary-General, whom she finds inconvenient: the pinnacle of such cunning denigration, however, is the arbitrarily fabricated and, in light of the facts, utterly nonsensical assertion made before the General Assembly that “Dr. Steiner was educated by the Jesuits,” with the insinuations that follow.

[ 71 ] The German Section has nothing to retract and nothing to take back. It therefore has no choice but to regard the ultimatum presented to it by Mrs. Besant as an act of expulsion, carried out solely because the German Section undertook to stand up for the truth and integrity of the Theosophical Society.

[ 72 ] The German Section and its members would never, of their own ‘initiative leave the Theosophical Society. And so, having been forcibly expelled, they will continue their work undeterred and will be ready at any time to work with the Theosophical Society again, as soon as truthfulness, reason, seriousness, and dignity have once again replaced the current conditions.

Berlin, February 2nd, 1913.
To the President of the Theosophical Society,
Mrs Annie Besant.
Adyar, Madras.

[ 73 ] Those who assembled to the 11th Convention of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, having been made acquainted with the letter of the President Theosophical Society, Mrs Besant, to the General Secretary of the German Section, Dr. R. Steiner, bearing the date of January 11th 1913, wherein it is said: That the General Council has asked Mrs Besant to cancel the charter of the German Section, and that Mrs Besant will comply with this request ‹unless the German Section shall submit to the Constitution» declare that: The German Section, its Executive Committee or its General Secretary have never in any way violated the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. The resolution of the General Council which was taken, even before the published documents could be examined, must be characterised as an unpardonable offence both to the spirit and the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. Even the most primitive feeling for truth and justice must be indignant at the treatment given to the well substantiated accusations, which the German Section and its Executive Committee were forced to direct against the attitude of the President. In order to cast suspicion upon the personality of the General Secretary who is inconvenient to her, no means are too base for her to stoop to: but the culminating point of such malicious defamation is reached in the freely invented and in face of the facts simply absurd affirmation brought by her to the General Convention of the Theosophical Society that ‹Dr. Steiner has been educated by the Jesuits› and other subsequent insinuations.

[ 74 ] Nothing exists which the German Section has to repudiate or retract. And it therefore has no Option but to consider the alternative put to it by Mrs Besant as an act of expulsion, accomplished only because the German Section has undertaken to stand for truth and veracity within the Theosophical Society. The German Section and its members would never have left the Theosophical Society on their own initiative. Being thus expelled by force they will continue their work unswervingly and will be ready to work again with the Theosophical Society as soon as veracity, reason, seriousness and dignity take the place of the present conditions.

[ 75 ] Dr. Steiner: “My dear friends! I do not wish to become sentimental at this moment—just as I have never wished to do so—but I may well tell you that I myself view this departure from the Theosophical Society with a heavy heart, and that it will not be easy for us, for we can only regard it as an expulsion. In Miss Besant’s letter, the Executive Committee regards the expulsion of the German Section from the Theosophical Society as a fait accompli. Therefore, we are no longer the German Section and, logically, no longer need to hold the General Assembly of the German Section.

[ 76 ] I believe and hope that the members of the German Section—that all those who understand what is at stake—have a sense of what this expulsion means. That they can appreciate what we are seeking and striving for. Now that we have been expelled, we can only state that we will resume cooperation with the Theosophical Society at any time once order has been restored within it. But we value and honor the Theosophical Society, from which we are truly not leaving of our own free will. Now we have no choice but to consider ourselves excluded, since the letter from the President contains the following sentence: “If not, we can still wish it all the best on the path it chooses, and trust that its future, as a separate Society, may prove its usefulness to the world. “If not, we can still wish it all the best on the path it chooses, and trust that its future, as a separate Society, may prove its usefulness to the world.” Therefore, it was logical that the Executive Committee ultimately felt compelled to take this step. Consequently, we have no choice but to consider the German Section of the Theosophical Society no longer in existence, and we have no further action to take other than to grant the Executive Committee indemnity for this decision.”

[ 77 ] (Vote. All but two votes are in favor of the resolution.)

[ 78 ] Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone have anything to say about this?”

[ 79 ] Mr. Weidlich: (The first few words are inaudible.) “... unjustified. We should also ask the other side. Couldn’t this have been avoided?”

[ 80 ] Mr. Ahner: “I would have liked to say a few words before the decision was made. That’s standard procedure, after all.”

[ 81 ] Dr. Steiner: “This is a decision by the Executive Board. ‘But please, go ahead and speak now.’”

[ 82 ] Mr. Ahner: “I cannot blame Dr. Steiner for becoming forceful. But I wonder if all of that was necessary. If this is happening in the Theosophical Society, what can one expect elsewhere! I would like to say a few more words about the members of the ‘Star of the East.’ No one from the ‘Star of the East’ is present. This is undoubtedly unlawful. Someone might step forward and argue that it would be necessary to hear from the members of the ‘Star of the East’ as well.”

[ 83 ] Mr. Weidlich: “I would like to make one more comment regarding the translation of a letter from Miss Besant in the *Mitteilungen*. I consider this to be an incorrect translation. Misses Besant does not write that she is unfamiliar with the matter, but rather that she does not know right from wrong. That is a big difference; there is no doubt about it.”

[ 84 ] Dr. Steiner: “There is, in a certain sense, a valid reason why, given our convictions, we cannot be part of this Theosophical Society. Anyone who looks at the sentence in question will find that the translation has been done as carefully as possible. But that is not the point at all. The English text is right there, and everyone is free to consider it for themselves. The things that have been proven to be facts—right down to the latest Jesuit accusation—are so numerous that the individual details are of no consequence. It is strange that these things are not being said where they belong. If the gentleman in question had addressed these matters to Adyar, they would be in the right place in this case.

[ 85 ] If we were still at the eleventh General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, there might have been some debate as to whether the delegates were right to expel Stern members. But based on what we have just heard, we can only be grateful to the delegates that we are not once again subjected to a barrage of flowery words, only to have completely incorrect claims made afterward. Perhaps it is, after all, a matter of good taste not to listen to everything that some people have to say. But if anyone finds that unpleasant, I ask the assembly once again: Must a free assembly listen to those it does not wish to hear? Must it allow itself to be tyrannized by two people? Does it not have the right to defend itself and refuse to have the opinions of two people imposed upon it?”

[ 86 ] (Agreed.)

[ 87 ] Mr. Fidus: “I would like to emphasize that I do not entirely agree with the way this hearing is being conducted. The moment we became a free assembly, the expulsion of the Stern members in particular should not have taken place. They must be able to defend themselves. Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden should have been notified so that he could defend himself. We must emphasize ... (very unintelligible, but prolonged, causing unrest and shouts of “Enough!” from the assembly) ... we cannot know where the truth lies; no one can understand the truth. There is no truth for us, only truthfulness. What is truth ... (unintelligible) ... not satisfied...”

[ 88 ] Mr. Tessmar: “We’re all satisfied except for three, and they can leave...”

[ 89 ] Dr. Steiner: “I’m afraid I must call Mr. Tessmar to order regarding the expression ‘go out.’ But I must protest against statements such as: ‘No one can understand the truth.’ Yet the words ‘truth’ and ‘truthfulness’ are used all the time. There is no debate, after all, about whether one can recognize the ‘truth’ or not when, for example, a quote is misrepresented. In such cases, everyone needs to place my books on one side, for example, and Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden’s outrageous quotations on the other. I must say that here, too, there is once again a tendency to play with words.”

[ 90 ] Miss Prellwitz: “We are grateful to Dr. Steiner for everything we have heard. What we wished and hoped for was that what has happened would take place without so much friction. It is impossible to unite if we sit here and want to fight one another. We should avoid any conflict that can be avoided here. For there are demonic forces against which there is only one remedy: to be as passive as possible, as loving as possible. For this tearing apart has to do with demons. We should not have started this. But now it has happened. We are a primal assembly; now we must also carry out a complete, pure separation, make a pure new beginning with as much loving intention as possible and as simply as possible. You must not put on hostile faces now; you must work, lovingly and faithfully, for the sake of the great truth.”

[ 91 ] Dr. Steiner: “I completely agree with you. I just want to tell you that what you are asking us to begin at this very moment is something we actually began eleven years ago, and we have been as passive as possible throughout that entire time. That is why I must ask you to direct what you said as a warning to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mrs. Besant.”

[ 92 ] Miss Prellwitz: “We don’t seem to be all that aware of it… Everything happened so fast and we didn’t understand it. You have to be patient, after all. We felt as if we were faced with a reality we didn’t understand. These are all difficulties, after all.”

[ 93 ] Dr. Steiner: “If you were to look into this, you would see the patience and forbearance with which the matter was handled, and that this patience and forbearance nevertheless led to Miss Besant making that accusation of Jesuitism.

[ 94 ] I am fully convinced of your good will, but your opinion stems from your inadequate examination of the facts. I know that you simply have not examined the matters thoroughly enough; had you done so, you would have seen how much patience has been exercised and where false passivity leads.

[ 95 ] Anyone who speaks of a translation error at this moment is not taking into account what this is really about, but is merely trying [sophistically] to gloss over the main issues. There is nothing to be said about such things.

[ 96 ] One can truly believe that anyone who, with a heavy heart, decides to act in this way does not do so for trivial reasons. It is saddening that so little good will is assumed on the part of those who are otherwise brimming with love, and who then hide behind translation errors that do not even exist. You see, I left the matter alone; I did not publish it in order to spare Miss Besant from shouting falsehoods out into the world. And what does she do? She shouts the falsehood of the Jesuit accusation to the whole world. So please, examine where there was passivity and where there was action.”

[ 97 ] Miss Hübbe-Schleiden: “I have witnessed all of this over the past eleven years and know that Dr. Steiner did everything humanly possible. I would just like to express my gratitude here for all the selfless sacrifices and for all the love he has shown my father and me over these eleven years. That is what I would like to say to the assembly.”

[ 98 ] Dr. Steiner: “You know, dear Miss Hübbe-Schleiden, that what happened was done with good intentions. But it was important for the assembly that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden’s foster daughter spoke these words, and may the assembly empathize from the bottom of their hearts with what moves Miss Hübbe-Schleiden. One speaks such words only when one must.”

[ 99 ] Mr. Fidus: “I do not see this entire large demonstration as an expression of fanatical one-sidedness, but rather as the gradual strengthening of theosophical life in Germany. I do not know where right and wrong lie, or whether mistakes have been made on one side or the other. I do not wish to settle scores. I would just like to say that I am pleased that the German movement feels compelled to become independent. In this sense, I welcome the founding of the ‘Anthroposophical Society.’ Anyone who works in theosophy will always be of service to theosophy. The German movement must no longer allow itself to be dictated to by the East. The main thing is that spiritual life in a country becomes so strong that it does not have to turn to a central authority time and again.”

[ 100 ] Dr. Steiner: “Everything is being used against us. It is already beginning in Europe, based on Miss Besant’s objective falsehoods. The Belgian Secretary-General has already made a strong start, for he speaks of a ‘Pan-Germanist’ movement. Theosophy is not a German movement; it is a universal human movement to which anyone can belong, regardless of race. We are faced with the necessity of replacing a caricature of Theosophy with true Theosophy. It would be exploited if what Mr. Fidus has just said with good intentions were to go unchallenged. What we seek is as universally human as truth itself; and the spirit of universal humanity knows no distinction of race, religion, people, or nation that would lead to division in the highest sense. Anyone in the world who strives for the theosophical ideal belongs—and rightly so—to us. To prevent well-intentioned words from being used to forge spears against us, I had to speak these words here.”

[ 101 ] Miss von Sivers: “I wanted to say that, too. It’s not about East and West; it’s about awakening a sense of truth and sincerity. We did not use this word as long as it was possible to work without having obstacles thrown in our way. If we must now use this word as well, it has been forced upon us.

[ 102 ] I would like to move on to two other points. The first is the passivity one is supposed to have; the second is that there is no pure, objective truth, that no one can determine where the truth lies. I believe there are indeed facts on the physical plane, and if one cannot distinguish them here, one is hopelessly lost when venturing into the occult world. I would like to share just a few examples. First, then: passivity. For years, untrue things have been written about us. For years we have had to endure the most untrue things being hurled into the world about us in Theosophical journals, in letters, and so on. We have remained silent for an unthinkably long time and have aroused passionate opposition by remaining passive. This has led to serious accusations. Until the Munich days, there was silence regarding the events that had taken place. Just one example: In 1909, Mr. Leadbeater was to be invited once again to rejoin the Theosophical Society. Through his objectivity, Dr. Steiner had earned the hostility of Leadbeater’s enemies in England. The fact that he was able to remain so fraternal despite his factual rejection aroused resentment. Then came the invitation for Leadbeater’s readmission. You heard earlier how Misses Besant wrote back, stating that she would count on Dr. Steiner’s vote in favor of Leadbeater’s readmission. Dr. Steiner had to send a telegram asking that he be allowed to abstain, as he had indicated. Then a telegram came back: “You are the only General Secretary who proceeds in this manner.” That, in turn, was not true; the Scandinavian General Secretary had also abstained from voting. In 1911, however, a biographical sketch of Leadbeater appeared in *The Theosophist*, in which it was reported: “All General Secretaries, without exception, have asked Mr. Leadbeater to rejoin the Theosophical Society.” That was in 1911. Now, however, we learn that Mr. Mead is making a serious accusation against Dr. Steiner for having voted in favor of Leadbeater. I ask Mr. Fidus: Do people here not know what is true? Is there no way here to discern the truth? One who knew about this matter has since died; his voice has fallen into the grave, and here they are counting on our passive silence.

[ 103 ] Another case: It is repeatedly claimed that Miss Besant forgot a letter. At first, it was claimed that she had never even received the letter. We heard Mr. Schrader say in Munich that the president could not possibly have received the letter regarding the Vollrath affair—otherwise, she would be mentally deficient. He omitted this remark, of course, in his later account of the days in Munich—an account riddled with inaccuracies—but such a distorted report is taken as the basis for our position and used against us. It causes great outrage.

[ 104 ] I believe it is pointless to cite any more examples, but I ask once again: Is a distinction being made here between truth and falsehood, or not?

[ 105 ] Mr. Fidus calls out: “That’s what you’re supposed to do.”

[ 106 ] Pastor Klein: “I cannot let a phrase that a lady used earlier go unchallenged, because I would consider it downright dangerous to follow the practice it recommends—that ‘one cannot be passive enough toward demons.’ On the contrary, I am of the opinion that one cannot be too cautious or too vigilant toward demons, and that in the struggle against them, the best defense is still the strike—the offensive attack. Did Christ, perhaps, show passivity toward the demons? I recall one of his most significant words: ‘I have cast the strong, well-armed one out of the house!’ I won’t even speak now of his conduct toward the other demons—but let it be noted that he dealt with two of them with a strikingly impulsive, relentless, and ruthless harshness: these were “falsehood” and “hypocrisy,” as they were particularly manifested to him by the sect of the Pharisees. Think of the famous scene of the cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem, after which he delivered his terrible final reckoning with the Pharisees, who, through their untruthfulness, distorted his teaching and, through their hypocrisy, presented themselves as so pious and behaved so hypocritically, while their attitudes and deeds testified loudly to the contrary. Christ Jesus hurls the sharpest and harshest words at them: “You hypocrites,” “You fools,” “You brood of vipers,” “You whitewashed tombs”—outwardly full of flowers, inwardly full of mold and decay—“You blind guides”—blind yourselves, yet you seek to lead others. He knew full well that sincerity and integrity are the lifeblood of all morality; that where they are absent—and insincerity and hypocrisy reign instead—there is something corrosive, destructive, and corrosive, like a caustic agent, that destroys every form of community.

[ 107 ] Such demons have come upon us; we did not summon them—they approached us with the intent of destroying our work! To remain passive in the face of them would be irresponsible. What we have had to hear today about the dishonesty practiced by the Adyar leadership and the members of the “Star of the East” defies all comprehension; and can one imagine a greater hypocrisy than to constantly and unctuously recommend peace to one’s opponent as a fundamental theosophical virtue on the first page of a publication like the *Message of Peace*, only to openly call him a Jesuit at the very end?

[ 108 ] Against such a tactic—which is driven by the two most dangerous demons of untruthfulness and hypocrisy—let us apply the “passivity of Christ,” namely, clear, conscious, energetic, and uncompromising resistance and defense, which in this case constitutes self-defense.”

[ 109 ] Mr. Fidus: “I’d just like to say a few words. We cannot know the truth here, but we can practice truthfulness. I am well able to distinguish between what has been said here. I simply mean that these apparent contradictions might turn out to be misunderstandings. If the board had been a little more willing to understand...”

[ 110 ] (Call to order)

[ 111 ] Dr. Steiner: “You must not insult the board here. I cannot understand how anyone can still use the words ‘truth’ and ‘truthfulness’ in the face of such blatant, objective falsehoods; that must surely be taken as an insult. It is unacceptable to simply say whatever comes to mind. Please, continue speaking.”

[ 112 ] Mr. Fidus: “... I want to address the criticism and the accusations ... I don’t want to gloss over everything, but there are certain things that can be taken into account ...”

[ 113 ] (The speaker becomes completely incomprehensible in his longer remarks.) (Interjection: Enough.)

[ 114 ] Dr. Steiner: “It is impossible for you to continue speaking this way—objectively impossible. Just give it a moment’s thought—there are people here who need their time, after all. It’s simply not acceptable to keep bringing up points that have already been objectively refuted, and we really do need our time today.”

[ 115 ] Miss von Sivers: “I just want to point out that we have indeed been challenged by the fact that Dr. Steiner has remained silent for so long. Miss Besant has even accused us of withholding the letters. It has been widely reported that we are withholding letters. Miss Besant has appealed to every section to distribute all their letters as widely as possible. We maintained a passive stance for as long as possible. But since she herself challenged us, we have published the letters.”

[ 116 ] Dr. Steiner: “I must admit that it is quite uncomfortable when people refuse to address these matters at all. At the time of the Leadbeater affair, Mrs. Besant sent a letter to a number of members—the letter in which she wrote that Leadbeater could only do such things if he were insane in some respect. That was in June 1906. Part of this letter has been published. At the end of the published version of this letter are the words:

“I was gravely mistaken in my judgment and understanding, and must bear the karmic consequences. I dare not believe that the White Lodge could overlook such evil thoughts and deeds within the temple, which is accessible only to those who are pure of heart.” “Should the day of my downfall come, I ask those who love me not to shy away from condemning my mistake, not to gloss over it or say that black is white, but rather that they alleviate my heavy karma, just as I try to alleviate the karma of my friend and brother, by upholding the unshakable purity of the ideal, and by declaring that a person’s fall leaves their trust in the Masters of Purity and Compassion unshaken.

We must not confuse what emanates from the Masters of Wisdom with what we, as weak human beings, do. The Masters know how to guide us in such a way that they direct everything for the best of human evolution.

“A person may fall, yet even his fall is directed to his advantage. Leadbeater has fallen, Judge has fallen, and I, too, will likely fall. But I will not complicate Leadbeater’s karma by calling black white and white black. And I urge all who love me, should I fall, not to fail to call black black and white white.”

[ 117 ] This is an echo of Mrs. Besant’s own words. I am quoting them only because they appear in public journals. I would not have quoted from Mrs. Besant’s letter. I am convinced that those who do so today—who call black black and white white—love Mrs. Besant more than those who flatter her today. Listen to the words Mrs. Besant spoke in a moment of clarity! This is something I, too, might be permitted to recall whenever people say again and again: “Those in Adyar were actually quite nice people; if you weren’t such cowards, everything would be fine.”

[ 118 ] Mr. von Rainer: “As I take the floor here today, I feel compelled at this very moment to emphasize the nature of the important transition we are undergoing. When discussing what Theosophy is and is not, only one aspect of this crucial moment has been taken into consideration. The second aspect is that the Theosophical Movement, if properly guided, has the mission of rousing humanity from what has today led to complacency. This must not be overlooked. And we ourselves, a relatively small number, have the task of keeping our eyes open to see how things stand today. On the one hand, people no longer want to believe that there is such a thing as truth, yet they demand that everything that is put forward be heard and that we accept it all. Love for one’s neighbor and brotherly love can be mustered to the greatest extent when one also has the courage to say, at the right moment: “This is no longer something I can stand for.”

[ 119 ] When someone like me joined this movement because they felt that something essential was missing from it in the past—something that needed to be included—they feel, in the deepest and broadest sense, what it means to learn to value the truth and to stand up for it once it has been recognized. The very fact that attacks can be launched in this way—and that they find an echo—proves that something has died within us in the face of what has revealed itself as truth. All of this shows us how necessary it is to truly call forth in our hearts what must be called forth if we truly wish to feel connected to the ideal of humanity. And if we wish to give voice to this—if we feel what it means to be united with the ideals of humanity at this hour and in this sense—then we must give voice to our outrage at what has happened and reject from the depths of our souls this other side; that will be the first step. What choice do we have left if we cannot believe in the truth? We would have to shatter everything within us if we did not feel it our duty to reject what comes so outrageously from the other side. And we must commit ourselves to the truth in a much deeper sense. It is not easy, but we can find it if we want to. There is only one path to take.

[ 120 ] I would like to invite you, in this spirit and from the depths of our hearts—perhaps by rising from our seats in protest—to express our outrage at how our positive work is being cast under suspicion, and at how, precisely by leveling the accusation of Jesuitism, our Theosophical cause is being portrayed in a light that could not be more negatively perceived by the public. In Germany, and also here in Austria, no one should be able to say that those who voice such suspicions have any understanding of what Theosophy is all about. I would like to repeat my request that you accept this expression of our indignation.”

[ 121 ] (The assembly rises from their seats.)

[ 122 ] Mr. Tessmar: “What was weighing heavily on my mind just a moment ago has been expressed by the previous speaker in a much more eloquent way than I could have done. But I would still like to say: I am one of those people who feel this deeply in their hearts. Last year, Mr. Bauer spoke of being ‘sleepy-headed.’ I am not complacent; rather, I am outraged. I have already been called to order today; I regret that call to order, but I must say that I cannot take anything back, even if Dr. Steiner were to call me to order again.

[ 123 ] (Call to order)

[ 124 ] Whenever people keep talking about tolerance and all that, you listen to it for as long as you can. But there are limits. When a large group of people are expressing a sentiment, and just a few try to bully the assembly, that’s not acceptable. You feel what moves me, what’s burning in my heart—I’m all for cracking down when necessary. We didn’t come here to listen to two or three gentlemen who bore us and waste our time. I’d like to ask the assembly to declare emphatically that it wants to put an end to this.”

[ 125 ] Miss Riege: “I heard that when Mr. Fidus was cut off, he spoke of a letter he had to share. There was even talk of a message being withheld. It would be good to hear about that.”

[ 126 ] Miss Prellwitz: “Yesterday, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden sent us a letter containing an insert from Mrs. Besant. In this insert, she responds for the first time regarding Vollrath—whether or not she lied in this matter.”

[ 127 ] Dr. Steiner: “To avoid boring you, I did not mention this interlude. Miss Besant did, however, write a letter in which, as is her custom, she diverts attention from the main issue and directs it toward a side issue. I certainly did not believe that there were people who would fall for this confused, sophistical letter. I must confess, Miss Prellwitz, that given your refined literary sensibility, I cannot understand how you are capable of overlooking the closing sentence of this letter.”

[ 128 ] (The sentence is read aloud.)

‹As to the pamphlet, I had supposed that it contained something importan, as Dr. Steiner was evidently very angry about it, saying that if its statements were true «a dog would not take food. from us». If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a rehash of the original quarrels, stated in his letter to me, the language seems a little strong»

Was das Pamphlet betrifft, so glaubte ich, dass es etwas sehr Wichtiges enthalten müsse, da Dr. Steiner augenscheinlich sehr ärgerlich darüber war, und sagt, wenn die darin enthaltenen Darlegungen wahr wären, «kein Hund mehr ein Stück Brot von uns nehmen würde. Wenn es, wie Dr. Steiner nun sagt, nur ein Aufwärmen der ursprünglichen Streitigkeiten war, wie er sie in seinem Briefe an mich darlegt, so erscheint die Sprache ein wenig stark.›

[ 129 ] [Rudolf Steiner:] “I have here the letter that Dr. Vollrath wrote to Mrs. Besant in 1908. If she can write the above sentence about it, it simply means that she is covering up the old objective untruths with new objective untruths.

[ 130 ] Wherever one looks, one encounters whole bundles of untruths. Recall the previous General Assembly—could one have spoken of anger there? I am not angry with Miss Besant either. I feel compassion for her, a great deal of compassion; but that does not mean I can call black white and white black. So I ask you to see how this letter completely diverts attention from the main issue. In 1909 she writes: “After I have heard all the details,” and then later, in 1912, says she cannot distinguish right from wrong in the matter. I know that she has heard what is right and what is wrong. For I reported it to her in detail. Anyone who is capable of writing in May 1912, “I do not know right from wrong,” even though I went to great lengths in 1909 to explain the matter to her and officially clarify everything for her—and who then comes forward with accusations against the other—need not be taken seriously. That is an insult and nothing but an insult.”

[ 131 ] Pastor Klein: “I move, as a matter of urgency, to close the debate. There should be no further debate on the expulsion of the members of the ‘Star of the East.’

[ 132 ] (The motion is approved, and there is a lengthy pause in the proceedings.)

[ 133 ] (After a lengthy recess, the session resumes at 6:00 p.m.)

[ 134 ] Miss von Sivers reads aloud the English text of the statement that the German Section is to send to the General Council in response to Miss Besant’s latest letter to Adyar.

[ 135 ] Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone wish to speak on this matter?

[ 136 ] Since this is not the case, I ask those who are in favor of sending this statement to the General Council to please stand up.»

[ 137 ] (Everyone stands up from their seats.)

[ 138 ] Dr. Steiner: “This documents that those members of the German Section who are gathered here consider themselves to be excluded from the Theosophical Society.

[ 139 ] The German Section, as it has existed since its founding, has hereby ceased to exist, and all functions of the German Section have thereby come to an end. And it will now become clear who wants to belong to us and who does not. We are now in a freer position, even if this fills us with sorrow.

[ 140 ] I would now also like to ask our foreign friends who do not belong to the German Section to join me here tomorrow afternoon for a brief meeting.

[ 141 ] “The next item on our agenda—since we are accountable to our friends—is that we must present a friendly report on membership trends.” Mr. Ahner: “I am surprised that there are supposed to be people here who do not belong to the German Section; I thought this meeting was only for members of the German Section.”

[ 142 ] Dr. Steiner: “You seem to have never attended a General Assembly outside of the German Section; otherwise, you would know that all members of the Theosophical Society are admitted to all General Assemblies, regardless of which section they belong to. It has always been that way.”

[ 143 ] Mr. Ahner: “I apologize.”

[ 144 ] Miss von Sivers: “The number of members is 2,489, compared to 2,318 last year; 330 new members have joined; 132 have resigned or could not be located and have therefore been removed from the rolls; 6 have transferred to other sections; 14 have died; and 7 are of uncertain status. Three new branches have been established: Augsburg, Erfurt, and Hamburg II. There are 54 branches, 4 centers, and 1 center of uncertain status.

[ 145 ] Mr. Seiler: “The financial report is as follows”:

Revenue:
Cash on hand 1910/11: 1,446.68 marks
Donation receipts: 30,
Admission fees: 1,700; membership dues: 7,781.37
Voluntary contributions 37.10
Interest 322.20
Revenue 11,317.35
Expenses 11,291.46
Cash on hand as of
August 31, 1912 25.89

Expenses:
Office expenses and fees 3030.70
Rent account (halls for general meetings, audiences) 1410.
Communications account 1076.30
Postage, telegrams, etc. 484.30
Miscellaneous Expenses 376.15
Operating Expenses, Wages, etc. 1,541.89
Adyar Headquarters 1,576.24
Section Congress Dues —,—
Printed Materials 27,—
Transfer to bank account 1,768.88
Expenses 11,291.46 marks

Statement of Financial Position
Cash on hand as of August 31, 1912: 25.89 marks
Bank balance: 3,789.33
Personal property: 457.65
Total assets as of August 31, 1912: 4,272.87 marks

[ 146 ] Mr. Tessmar, as treasurer, reports that he and Miss Motzkus have properly audited the books and found them to be in order.

[ 147 ] Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone wish to speak on these reports? Since that is not the case, I ask our friends to grant discharge.”

[ 148 ] (Discharge is granted.)

[ 149 ] Dr. Steiner: “We now turn to the third item on the agenda: a discussion of pending matters. Does anyone wish to speak on this? Since that is not the case, we will move on to the fourth item: motions from the floor.

[ 150 ] The first motion is as follows:»

To the Executive Board and the members of the
German Section of the Theosophical Society

After the undersigned learned that the name of the Besant Lodge, originally founded in Berlin, had been abolished and that the same association had been given a different name, they decided, together with several like-minded individuals, to found a new lodge intended to uphold the spirit of the principles that originally prevailed in the Theosophical Society and were represented by Mrs. Besant. The request for this lodge to affiliate with the German Section was rejected by its Secretary-General, Dr. Steiner, on the grounds that the members of this new lodge belonged to the Order of the Star in the East, which he described as a “sect”—a purely personal opinion that cannot possibly be decisive in a Theosophical matter of such importance to us, for the same

right, one could make the same claim about the “Anthroposophical Society.” To enable the founding of the lodge in question, we felt compelled to seek affiliation directly with Adyar, which was most willingly granted to us. After all, this was merely a last resort to which our predicament drove us, and we can by no means so calmly accept the insulting, entirely groundless rejection of long-standing and entirely blameless members who have always made earnest efforts to promote the spread of the genuine theosophical spirit, just as we cannot calmly accept the humiliating expulsion from a community to which we have long belonged, based on the same meaningless grounds. Where, then, is the principle of tolerance, which is rightly always cited first in Theosophy? We are of the opinion that it should not only show respect for different religious views but also allow freedom of thought in every respect, especially when it comes to such a lofty ethical mission as that pursued by the Order of the Star in the East through its preparation for the coming of a future World Teacher—an event acknowledged by nearly all religions. We believe that the equality of all worldviews—which is guaranteed to new members upon their admission to the “Society”—must be upheld here, lest it become a mere empty phrase and tarnish the reputation of the “German Section.” We must therefore protest in the strongest terms against the treatment we have received and ask the highly esteemed General Assembly for its support, so that we may be granted the right to affiliate our lodge with the German Section.

Berlin, January 6, 1913. The Executive Board of the Besant Lodge in Berlin.

[ 151 ] [Rudolf Steiner:] “The motion is signed: The Executive Committee of the Besant Lodge in Berlin. I do not know the names of the members of this branch’s Executive Committee. The second motion reads:”

Motion to the General Assembly of the
German Section (Regional Society) of the
Theosophical Society in Berlin in February 1913

The undersigned move that the General Assembly resolve:

1. The van Leer motion adopted by the ninth General Assembly on October 30, 1910 (Mitteilungen, Cologne, XI, p. 8), according to which, in addition to the signatures of two sponsors for the admission of a new member, a third signature—that of the chairperson of the relevant section branch—is required, is hereby repealed. 2. Furthermore, it is hereby determined that the requirement, previously in effect, of prior participation in a preparatory course for the admission of a member to the Society shall no longer be enforced. For admission as a member of the German Section, as in the other branches of the Society, consent to the Society’s purposes shall henceforth suffice, regardless of the applicant’s religious beliefs or other views.

3. The amendment to § 8 of the Section’s bylaws, adopted by the 7th General Assembly on October 26, 1908 (“Mitteilungen,” Cologne, VIII, p. 7), according to which any member of the Executive Board who had served for seven years became, from that point on, a lifelong, irremovable holder of that office, is hereby repealed. Henceforth, the Executive Board shall again be newly elected every three years at the General Assembly.

Oberloschwitz – Weißer Hirsch, Jan. 7, 1913.
Hermann Ahner
Chairman of the “Zum Gral” Lodge in Dresden,
currently residing at Schreiberhau in Rsgb., Jan. 9, 1913.

Hugo Höppener-Fidus, Dresden, Jan. 11, 1913.
Rudolf Schaefer,
Member of the “Zum Gral” Lodge.

Reasons for this motion:

1. The requirement for a third signature for the admission of a new member constitutes an amendment to §§ 28 and 29 of the general bylaws of the Society. A section is not authorized to amend these; in fact, § 37 expressly states that the bylaws of a section or regional society must not conflict with the bylaws of the Society as a whole (‹not conflict›) . Section 28 requires the signatures of up to two members as guarantors for the admission of a new member. Section 29 then stipulates that the membership certificate shall be issued without any further requirements. This intent is expressed particularly strongly by the use of the word “shall” instead of “will” in the section, in accordance with the general rules of English legal practice.

2. and 3.: The measures to be derogated from here are expressly intended to establish certain doctrines within the section in such a way that they are required of the section’s members, much like the creed of a religious community. This purpose has been explicitly highlighted as the motive for introducing these measures; this is authentically reported in the “Mitteilungen, Cologne, VIIL,

pages 6–7 and XI, p. 8. Those measures have consistently proven effective for this purpose, as world history teaches us. However, it is precisely the purpose of the Theosophical Society to overcome the need for such measures and to make its members spiritually independent enough that they can accept the esoteric truths and defend them rationally without such organizational protection. Thus, such measures also contradict the Society’s main purpose: to form a nucleus for the brotherhood of humanity without distinction of faith.

[ 152 ] [Rudolf Steiner:] “The motion is signed by: Ahner, Oberloschwitz; Hugo Höppner-Fidus; Rudolph Schäfer.

[ 153 ] I must point out that if it were true that every person who applies should be accepted without review, I would never have accepted the office of Secretary-General; instead, I would have proposed purchasing a signature-generating machine for that purpose. Furthermore, these motions are moot, and the proposers must be advised that they must now turn to the body that is about to be established—to those people who are willing to comply with Adyar’s unjustified demands. Therefore, these motions must be addressed to the future German Section of the Society.

[ 154 ] “The next item on our agenda is a motion by Dr. Bachem of Frankfurt am Main. I am compelled to bring this matter before this forum because it is a purely human one.”

[ 155 ] (Letter from Dr. Bachem)

[ 156 ] To the Theosophical Society, German Section;
For the attention of the Secretary General
Dr. Rudolf Steiner, Berlin

[ 157 ] I submit the following motions to the eleventh General Assembly:

[ 158 ] 1. Those who suffered losses as a result of the founding in Rödelheim by [Miss] M. Stenzel, the former chairwoman of the “Goethe Branch of the Theosophical Society in Frankfurt am Main,” are to be compensated

[ 159 ] a) through the funds of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

[ 160 ] b) through a collection organized by the Secretary General within the Society.

[ 161 ] 2. The rationale for Motion 1 is to be read aloud at the general meeting.

[ 162 ] January 21, 1913, Dr. Max Bachem, Frankfurt am Main, Finkenhofstraße 46.

[ 163 ] Explanation of Motion 1 by Dr. med. Bachem, Frankfurt am Main, to the Eleventh General Assembly of the Theosophical Society, German Section.

[ 164 ] When she first established the organization, Miss M. Stenzel approached various members of the “Goethezweig” to ask them to act as guarantors for the resulting liabilities. - Thus, Deputy Telegraph Director Roggenberg deposited 3,000 marks as a guarantee for the rent and assumed responsibility for the rent; similarly, Mrs. Jahn and Dr. Bachem transferred bills of exchange from [Miss] Stenzel, which were used to pay for the furniture.

[ 165 ] When the request was made to Dr. Bachem, he was told at the same time that this favor was purely a formality and that he would never have anything to do with the bills of exchange. Furthermore, he was told—as Mr. Leser can attest—that if he were called upon to honor the bills of exchange, he would receive movable property in return.

[ 166 ] The guarantees mentioned were provided because [Miss] Stenzel stated that the Rödelheim foundation enjoyed Dr. Steiner’s support and approval. Director Roggenberg lost 3,300 marks in cash in the process.

[ 167 ] In the spring of 1912, Dr. Bachem received a bill of exchange in the amount of approximately 4,000 marks; [Miss] Stenzel and Mrs. Jahn, who had also been summoned, did not appear in court; Dr. Bachem reached a settlement under which he must pay the bill of exchange in installments of 200 to 250 marks per month.

[ 168 ] When Dr. Bachem tried to obtain personal property in the amount of his payments, he received nothing.

[ 169 ] In October 1912, he had to suspend his practice for a month due to illness; he was then no longer able to make his payments and was summoned on January 14, 1913, to take an oath of insolvency, which [Miss] Stenzel and Mrs. Jahn had already taken.

[ 170 ] His marital relationship has been largely ruined by this affair, and his medical career has also been severely hampered as a result.

[ 171 ] During his last visit to Frankfurt am Main, Dr. Steiner stated that the victims should be compensated as requested. Several letters from Dr. Bachem to Dr. Steiner regarding this matter went unanswered; he did, however, receive a single letter from a woman who informed him—allegedly on Dr. Steiner’s instructions—that Dr. Steiner would write to Dr. Bachem from Finland.

[ 172 ] This appears to have been yet another instance of misuse of Dr. Steiner’s name, as this letter was never received. Dr. Bachem’s cash expenditures to date amount to approximately 1,950 marks; he has been ordered to pay 2,792.40 marks plus costs and so on, and is still expected to face a lawsuit this spring over a promissory note in the amount of 8,000 marks.

[ 173 ] January 21, 1913, Dr. Max Bachem, Frankfurt am Main

[ 174 ] [Rudolf Steiner:] “In addition to this letter, I received a letter from Director Roggenberg on the very last day, in which he stated that he was very displeased that Dr. Bachem had made this request, and that he did not at all wish for my name to be associated with this matter.

[ 175 ] As for the matter itself, it must be said that there can be no question whatsoever that the Rödelheim Castle was ever established with my consent. It is purely a private matter for Miss Stenzel and has nothing to do with the Theosophical Society or with Section affairs. Miss Stenzel initiated this matter. But none of us is in any way connected to this matter—so much so that I myself only learned of the completed founding through the printed materials that Miss Stenzel sent out at the time. I must categorically deny having had anything to do with this matter prior to its establishment. In Frankfurt, I merely said that, if possible, it would be highly desirable for our Theosophical friends, who have been so wronged, to be compensated. — Does anyone wish to speak on this matter?”

[ 176 ] Mr. Arenson: “Dear friends! This case, which has just been presented, is certainly quite distressing, but I would still like to point out something else. This case is also typical, and we should recognize from it all the conclusions that are drawn from offhand remarks, how, in all such cases, Dr. Steiner’s name is dragged into it, and how there are always people who respond to it in one way or another. I would now like to ask you briefly to adopt a resolution expressing our regret over the harm caused to our friends, but stating that the assembly is not in a position to grant any form of compensation, since the former

[ 177 ] The German Section has absolutely no grounds for such compensation. I would like to submit my motion along these lines: The assembly regrets that this has occurred. However, it cannot in any way be held liable for compensation.»

[ 178 ] Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone else wish to speak on this matter?”

[ 179 ] Mr. Daeglau: “It might be good to point out to our Theosophical friends that this example can serve as a very good lesson. People often talk about how necessary it is to apply Theosophy to real life. Here, an attempt was made out of enthusiasm. This example shows that good will is not enough; rather, anyone who wants to do something like this must also truly understand practical life in order to put the theosophical teachings into practice within it. Anyone who has had the opportunity, as a businessman or someone knowledgeable about business, to observe this venture from the very beginning must have felt a pang of sorrow when considering the consequences, when seeing what was unfolding there. Enthusiasm alone is not enough, and it is not enough to rely on the fact that, as a Theosophist, one is dealing with people who understand life better than the entrepreneur himself. Anyone who wants to undertake a project is easily inclined to ask around and interpret the knowledge and opinions of others in a favorable light. He undertakes it, lacks sufficient knowledge, and makes mistake after mistake. But when the venture fails, he believes that all those wiser people are also responsible for it. Let us continue to bring Theosophy into practical life, but let us also be practitioners and not just enthusiasts.”

[ 180 ] Mr. Lippelt: “Two members are in dire straits. I would like to appeal to the Society’s spirit of friendship in general. Surely a fundraiser could be organized.”

[ 181 ] Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone else wish to speak? If not, Mr. Arenson will now read his motion aloud.”

[ 182 ] Mr. Arenson: “The assembly present expresses its regret to Dr. Bachem that he has suffered harm of the nature described at the hands of the Rödelheim company. However, as such, it is not in a position to take any steps in this matter that could lead to the repayment of the debts he has incurred.”

[ 183 ] Dr. Steiner: “It is truly extremely difficult in such a case. While, on the one hand, Dr. Bachem has suffered a loss, the situation is such that one would very much like to help, but there is no end in sight to these matters. After all, it is simply not possible that, whenever some theosophist decides to set something up here or there, and others are persuaded to go along with it and lose their money in the process, the Theosophical Society as such can be held liable in any way. I must admit, it is indeed difficult to understand why Dr. Bachem would sign promissory notes and allow himself to be told that this is merely a formality, and that he would never have anything to do with the notes. It is good-natured, but truly too careless, to be told that signing promissory notes is a mere formality. Of course, if a number of members wish to do so, that would be very nice, but for us as a whole to do so really does not seem feasible. Therefore, I ask those who support Arenson’s motion to raise their hands.”

[ 184 ] (The motion is approved.)

[ 185 ] Dr. Steiner: “We’ll move on to the next item: reports from the branches. Would anyone like to speak on this?”

[ 186 ] Dr. Grosheintz: “I just want to ask, what is the status of the charters of the individual lodges?”

[ 187 ] Dr. Steiner: “The matter is settled. It would have become complicated if we had waited for every lodge to be asked to recognize the new General Secretary and to be affiliated with Adyar: It is simpler for the members to no longer consider themselves members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society. This, after all, corresponds to the truth. It is in the members’ interest to consider themselves expelled from the Section. Of course, any lodge may register with the new General Secretary of the German Section. A new charter will then be issued by the new General Secretary, who is to be appointed, and those who wish to continue belonging to the Theosophical Society in Adyar would have to join this new German Section or Adyar directly. In either case, they would no longer have anything to do with our movement—with which I am closely associated—because we want to work ‘without being subjected to the most absurd accusations. Whoever wishes to have anything to do with us should faithfully acknowledge it, and whoever does not wish to do so may join the new German Section or Adyar. This is what the future will be about. The German Section and all its functions have ceased to exist. I already mentioned at the opening of this friendly gathering that I and all those who understand the situation have watched with great sorrow what had to come to pass. It has come to pass because we considered it our duty to belong to the Theosophical Society, and we had to watch with deep sorrow as this was made impossible for us.

[ 188 ] Our work has brought about many things, and in fact, hardly a day has gone by recently without it becoming clear to us what obstacles and difficulties must be overcome when it comes to bringing a spiritual movement into the world in an honest, sincere, and upright manner.

[ 189 ] Let me add one more point—purely as an illustration, not to dwell on trivialities, but to show how it is indeed possible to arrive at a sound, healthy judgment, even though one has to hear such expressions time and again: Everyone strives for the truth, but one cannot always know whether one is on the path to the truth. However, those who are serious about it can, in many cases, discern what is true and what is not. Anyone who reads the “Message of Peace” will find that the quotations are all incorrect. But to say, in such a case, that everyone strives for the truth—that means one does not really want to understand things. And if one does not want to see it, one cannot understand it either. If it happens that the person who quoted incorrectly says, “I inserted that little word just to clarify the matter,” then a response is called for—as the author of the rebuttal so wittily provided: Does it really serve to clarify matters to say, instead of: ‘My friend went out onto the ice and put on warm gloves,’ ‘My friend went out onto the ice and put on only warm gloves.’ (Loud laughter.) That’s the kind of clarification it is.

[ 190 ] It would be a good idea to open our eyes and see what this is really about. For example, a bookstore has published an announcement that includes the following words:

Dr. Steiner has already made a start in Germany, but the plutocratic-autocratic direction he advocates is, due to its one-sidedness, unsuitable for comprehensively promoting today’s spiritual and social progress. Therefore, a contemporary, popular form had to be found that would make it possible to make those treasures accessible to the public in a non-dogmatic way, freely available, and without clerical paternalism. These Rosicrucian instructional letters provide a comprehensive overview of Rosicrucian research and worldview. Their origins can be traced back to Germany. They were further developed in the intellectual atmosphere of California, which was much more conducive to Rosicrucian research.

[ 191 ] It is simply necessary to be attentive, to keep one’s eyes open, and not to be constantly asleep as a Theosophist. It would be advisable to observe what has actually come to fruition in California. But I want to show that, if one wishes, one can indeed draw the right conclusions by reading aloud a letter addressed to me from someone who is just now opening his eyes:

“Dear Sir, Might I dare to approach you with one—or perhaps even more than one—question? First, I must mention that I am here on a short visit and that I live in Salina, Kansas, U.S.A. Some time ago, two friends and I had a book sent to us from there that was recommended by the Esoteric Library in Washington, D.C.; it is titled *Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception: A Christian Occult Science by Max Heindel*. In the preface, we noticed the peculiar way in which Mr. M. H. refers to the name of Dr. Rudolf Steiner, whose teachings are similar in their main tenets, etc., etc.—In short, the preface prompted me, and later my friends, to read your books *Theosophy* and *Initiation and Its Results*. It is a mystery to us how it is that entire sentences in *Cosmo-Conception* are almost word for word comparable to those contained in your books, and so the thought occurred to us: “Did that Mr. Max Heindel borrow from you the teachings he seeks to spread in America, but mainly in California?”

[ 192 ] This is a letter from someone who examines the facts and reaches a conclusion. All I needed to do was reply by stating the fact that Max Heindel lived among us under a different name than [Grasshoff] and attended and transcribed many of my lectures and lecture series. And it is indeed the case that a certain movement was initially established in Germany, and that Max Heindel then, in a rather curious way, found a form that is “in keeping with the times … etc. …” (see above). Then the gentleman in question left and, for his part, pieced together something from my lectures and presented it as something new.

[ 193 ] We are experiencing some rather strange things. On the one hand, our work is portrayed here as plutocratic, autocratic, and one-sided, while in the ethereal atmosphere of California, it is passed on as something that has matured and been transformed. Perhaps it will even happen again that someone simply translates Max Heindel into German and then turns against me with things that are my own. ... That is why I ask that you take a closer look at these matters.

[ 194 ] Working for the Theosophical Society has truly been an ordeal, and it is also quite difficult to work when colleagues do not take an interest in what is happening. It is then quite difficult to move the cause forward.

[ 195 ] It must be emphasized that we were faced with the fact that, for reasons of spiritual purity, we could not participate in a movement such as the Krishnamurti movement. And “The Star of the East” must be viewed in such a way that, since a young boy serves as the chairman of this “Star of the East,” we would be sinning against the prevailing spiritual current of our time if we were to have anything to do with it. The father of the two boys has filed a lawsuit against Miss Besant to get his sons back. Anyone who knows what is at stake here, and who—out of a sense of truth—must have nothing to do with what calls itself the “Star of the East,” may simply say in such a case: These absurd demands are turning directly into impossible demands. For I would like to meet the person who, without delusion, has seriously examined the entire Krishnamurti affair and can still be a member of this “Star of the East.” It is impossible to tolerate this organization in a society seeking truth. But it is also impossible to speak of tolerance or anything similar in this case.

[ 196 ] Even though, on the one hand, it causes us the deepest pain that we can no longer work within a society that has become dear to us, one thing remains true, no matter what the world may say: We have no choice but to stand on the ground of truth—a truth that allows for no frivolous quibbling or playful concepts. There is no disagreement about the fact that someone has used false quotations or that two letters do not match. Anyone who still claims that a decision cannot be made simply does not want to stand on the ground of truth.

[ 197 ] If we wish to move forward, we will be able to do so only on the basis of unvarnished truth, and we will be glad that in the future no one will ever again be able to confuse us with those who spread objective falsehoods and all manner of tricks. We will try to move forward. Those who unite with us in this way will find the way forward with us. But to those who, even today, lightheartedly find it possible to tell us in Adyar—instead of telling the others—that things could have been handled this way or that, we can only say: let them go to Adyar. We, however, wish only to stand on the ground that has already been characterized as the ground of truth and truthfulness. It cannot be any other! And if anyone chooses to tell us, with flippant words, that we are to blame for what has now come to pass, then we reply in good conscience with the words we are permitted to quote: “Here we stand; we could not have acted otherwise; may the spirits of the world, the divine spirits, help us.” And let things proceed from there.”