The Rudolf Steiner Archive

51. Recent Developments I

Lectures by Rudolf Steiner from the series “What Significance Does the Occult Development of the Human Being Have for His Bodies (Physical Body, Etheric Body, Astral Body) and His Self?” (GA 145)

My dear Theosophical friends!

[ 1 ] This is the first time we have gathered here for a series of lectures since those of our friends who have been able to recognize the current state of our Theosophical endeavor have joined forces with the members of the former German Section of the Theosophical Society, who—there is no other way to put it—have been expelled from our Theosophical Society. It is necessary, my dear friends, at this moment when I have the honor of welcoming you to this gathering, which is particularly solemn for me, to add a few words to this heartfelt and theosophically sincere greeting. This is necessary because our friends may well have many opportunities in the near future to speak here and there about the true state of affairs regarding the events that have recently taken place among us and our friends.

[ 2 ] We have gathered from various letters and comments that, in some quarters, it was not considered natural that we had to adopt the policy—for our events, specifically our internal events—of not admitting members of the Theosophical Society, insofar as it is administered from Adyar, to these internal events of ours. It has become apparent that this necessary measure was not universally perceived as such; in some places, it was felt that we would have done better—for the sake of maintaining peace or the like—not to implement this measure so strictly. Nevertheless, my dear friends, if you truly consider everything that has happened, you will be able—indeed, you must—defend to everyone that, at that particular critical moment, this measure had to be taken. You need only consider that the German Section did not, as one might interpret it formally, withdraw from the Theosophical Society, but was in fact expelled—expelled, moreover, for a reason that can be formally defined in such a specific way that one could even go so far as to say that the German Section had violated certain statutes of the Theosophical Society! For it will be said: This German Section has excluded the members of the Star of the East—that is, the adherents of a certain opinion—from its body. One must take into account that everything had already been initiated by the other side; that the German Section had no choice but to stop admitting—not initially the members of the Star of the East, but rather the individuals within Germany who were considered members of the Star of the East—to the events of the German Section. For the moment the “Star of the East” made its entrance into Germany, it took a deliberately hostile stance toward the German Section; specifically, it sought to articulate the system that, among other things, had once again been expressed in such a—one might say—subtly peculiar manner in the latest March issue of *The Theosophist*. Those who have adopted the banner of the Star of the East have sought to portray our work to the world as if it had ever been our intention to exclude any spiritual opinion or any spiritual standpoint from our endeavors.

[ 3 ] This marked a major attack—based entirely on objective falsehoods—against the German Section. And all measures of a milder nature had proved ineffective against that subversive activity, which time and again escalated to the point of denigrating the very nature of our endeavors before the whole world, so that—for the sake of our work—we were compelled to declare that we could not associate with those individuals who had joined the “Star of the East” in Germany. Similar attacks, of course, came from figures associated with the “Star of the East,” even from abroad. The measure that was subsequently taken against the “Star of the East” was nothing more than a defensive measure, and anyone who portrays it otherwise is not describing it accurately. It was a necessary defensive measure, prompted by the fact that our work would not only have been disrupted but would simply have become impossible had we not resorted to this measure. Our work can indeed be characterized by pointing out that there were indeed lodges among us that operated quite differently from us, yet not a hair on their heads was harmed. We have “chartered” all lodges that adopted a standpoint entirely different from our own. But when, with explicit reference to the subversive activities of the Star of the East, lodges were to be founded whose very names contained attacks—not only on our work but on the truthfulness and honesty of our theosophical convictions—then the defensive measure was necessary for the simple reason that we would have become untruthful people if we had in any way allowed such lodges to be created.

[ 4 ] Thus, we were forced to either betray our innermost convictions or take this defensive measure against the members of the Star of the East. After all, tactics can always be portrayed in a peculiar light when one first seeks to compel someone to act and then labels that action as unlawful. It is fair to say that few measures in the world have ever been taken in such a manner; this, however, was reserved for the present Theosophical Society to a particularly high degree.

[ 5 ] Furthermore, if you read the letter that Miss Besant sent to the Secretary-General of the German Section at the time regarding the impending expulsion of the German Section, you will have no choice but to view this letter as nothing other than an actual expulsion. You will have to conclude: If the German Section had not viewed it that way, it would have placed itself on false ground.

[ 6 ] But then you must bear in mind that these events were preceded by a circular letter I sent to the general secretaries, in which the actual state of affairs was explained in detail. This circular letter contained concrete documentation for assessing the situation. It was a regrettable experience to find that, apart from the Secretary-General of the Scandinavian Section—who has since resigned—not a single person within the body of the Secretaries-General and the General Council was willing in any way to address the points I had raised. Everything that came from the General Secretaries was worded in such a way that it was assumed from the outset that all the statements from Adyar were the only authoritative source that could serve as a basis for assessing the situation. This is the one disheartening fact that emerged as a result of my circular letter at that time. One might say: A justified sense of sorrow could overcome one regarding the fate of the Theosophical Society when one had to witness this general indifference toward facts stated quite openly on the part of an entire organization.

[ 7 ] And the crowning touch to the whole system was a speech that Mrs. Besant delivered at the representative assembly in Adyar during this convention, in which she demonstrated her complete inability to relate to that necessary sense of duty—the duty to first examine the facts and only then make a claim. As is well known, Misses Besant made the assertion that my education had been guided by Jesuits. Nothing could be said that would more absurdly and foolishly fly in the face of all truth than this assertion, which was hurled into the assembly by the leadership of the Theosophical Society at the very same time that we were holding our lecture series in Cologne, in the presence of numerous friends, including some from this country, were holding our lecture series, during which we were once again able to reaffirm how firmly and truthfully we sought to stand on the solid ground of the old Theosophical Society. One should sense, my dear Theosophical friends, the full absurdity of such a fact. Not only did this happen, but Miss Besant had the audacity—an audacity that is not to be envied—to cobble together a response to the facts I had presented in the issue of *Mitteilungen*, where I was first compelled to describe the facts; at the end of which she stated that these were her final words on the matter.

[ 8 ] My dear Theosophical friends, based on our experience so far, it might perhaps be—or there might even be a possibility—that there are still people in the Theosophical Society who would still attach some importance to this answer. One might search this reply for a single word that corresponds to objective truth: one would find nothing, for in this reply virtually everything has been turned upside down—and in such a way that this very turning of things upside down has been driven home through an immense verbal skirmish. It is truly remarkable that someone can be found who is capable of turning things upside down in such a way; every sentence in it contains something that is the opposite of what actually happened.

[ 9 ] I did not mention this document at all during the General Assembly in Berlin or the meeting of the Anthroposophical Society, so as not to take up any more of the time that was already so heavily occupied. And I do not wish to address this document today either; anyone need only read it to see the spirit in which it was written. I would like to comment on just one point, because it is not immediately apparent from the text itself. At the end there is a sentence that reads something like this: Dr. Steiner says that Dr. Vollrath’s pamphlet—meaning the printed pamphlet that was discussed in such an intolerable manner at the previous General Assembly—contains nothing other than certain repetitions that Mrs. Besant had addressed to me regarding his expulsion. Anyone who can read can see for themselves. Here she does indeed say that this document—Dr. Vollrath’s appeal—was in existence… indeed, she says more than that; she says: “If that pamphlet contained nothing more than that document which Dr. Vollrath addressed to me, then it must be quite harmless.” However, her assertion that the pamphlet must be harmless repeats the accusations contained in Dr. Vollrath’s appeal to Mrs. Besant at that time, for she does say that those accusations were harmless. Now, among these accusations was, for example, the point that Dr. Vollrath should have turned against me because I was greedily enjoying an excessive salary and because my practices were of such a strongly black-magic nature that numerous people had fallen ill, and some had even died … and that all those practices were again aimed solely at acquiring magical powers rather than knowledge, and so on. Regarding all these matters, Dr. Vollrath asserts that he stands ready to prove them if Miss Besant so requests. That was the document Vollrath sent to Adyar. ... This letter

[ 10 ] was presented to Misses Besant, and the aforementioned was an integral part of it. Misses Besant says about this: “If Dr. Steiner claims that this pamphlet contains only repetitions of that appeal from back then, then this pamphlet must be of a very harmless nature.” Thus, Misses Besant presents to the world the accusations—that Dr. Steiner had sought to enrich himself, even though he had refused any salary, and that he had conducted exercises of a black-magic nature that made people sick and even caused them to die—these accusations, which were in fact made at the time; Misses Besant called them harmless in order to present the case to the world in her own way. Such is the nature of what Misses Besant has recently served up to her followers in the February issue of *The Theosophist*.

[ 11 ] I don’t want to add anything further to these matters for now; for these matters become less and less—truly less—bearable the more one adds to them—I would only like to ask whether our feelings at that time in Berlin, when our friends decided to work toward finally drawing a line under the matter, whether our feeling was justified in assuming—taking it for granted, of course—that our friends would themselves feel: It is impossible for me to speak to those who continue to call themselves followers of Miss Besant. It would violate all occult principles to speak to those people who—to use the expression—have cast one out, who have portrayed one in such a way as Miss Besant saw fit.

[ 12 ] I am so averse to addressing matters such as the March issue of *The Theosophist* that I refuse to do so. For what is presented there, coated in a sugary-sweet glaze, is the most insidious attack imaginable.

[ 13 ] In principle—as you have seen from the bylaws of the Anthroposophical Society—we take the position that anyone can join us. However, those who are unable to see the truth of the matter at hand declare, as a matter of principle—even if [they wish to join us]—that they actually want to exclude us from their organization. And the way the General Secretaries have behaved proves that it would be dishonest of us if we had now taken any other measures than drawing a line between what we want and what is being done—not in accordance with the principles, but contrary to all the principles—of the old Theosophical Society, now within this Theosophical Society.

[ 14 ] But I must also mention the other side of the whole matter, my dear Theosophical friends. And actually, it was necessary—so that our friends would not be, so to speak, put on the spot when this or that is discussed further—to respond; it was necessary for that reason alone to offer the words that have just been spoken, as it were, as a backdrop to what I have to say to you next, by way of a greeting. In truth, my dear Theosophical friends, I must admit that I myself—if I may speak to you for a moment, and the friendship you have shown me entitles me to do so in a certain sense—I myself perceive everything that has happened, alongside all the bitterness and all the suffering, at the same time as a great liberation—a liberation precisely from a narrowness which had been oppressive for years within the life of the Theosophical Society, ever since that Munich Congress of the European Sections, where an attempt was made—not on the basis of any national or one-sided opinion, but on a truly broad foundation of the present—to introduce into the Theosophical Society a new note that was still timidly emerging at that time. There one could hear the verdict: “What you have done there is not Theosophy; it is something entirely different.”

[ 15 ] A society founded on occultism nevertheless possesses—even if, in a certain sense, the individual may free himself from its limits and barriers—forces that act psychically or spiritually, and it was simply not possible within the framework of the Theosophical Society to give full expression to what is rightly called occultism, in all its breadth and in its suitability for our present human cycle. And I hope that, if we are granted the opportunity to continue the Anthroposophical Society, our friends will come to realize that our separation from the Theosophical Society will not lead to a narrowing, but rather, on the contrary, to an expansion of our occult endeavors. Much of what was impossible to realize within the Theosophical Society—due to its prejudices and because it stood in our way with its narrowly defined traditions—will be realizable in the Anthroposophical Society; and those who are willing to see will see that it is precisely this breadth of perspective—which we need in our present time—that must now be pursued, so that the spiritual wisdom and spiritual impulses of will flowing down from the spiritual worlds in our time may truly benefit that portion of humanity capable of understanding them. That is why this first lecture series, which we are privileged to hold here before you, my dear Theosophical friends—the first lecture series of the newly founded Anthroposophical Society—seems to me to call for a particularly solemn welcome.