The Rudolf Steiner Archive

First Dr. Steiner: “Today it is mainly about misunderstandings. I don't think much of discussing them and believe that they can be overcome through work. The divisions that usually arise are mostly based on misunderstandings. I have often found this on my lecture tours. Today I will try to dispel a real misunderstanding, because what should inspire us in society is a unity built on the heart and on feelings. Without this, it is hardly possible to move forward. I therefore propose forming an executive committee; this committee should make suggestions for the branch's events. I believe that this will help to avoid misunderstandings and also the differences that lead to divisions. As I have heard, members of the Theosophical Society meet at each other's homes; they unite in smaller groups. But that is not my concern. The assemblies that are of interest to me should be convened by the branch's board. If other assemblies are organized, it is tantamount to a vote of no confidence in the board. This is a matter that must be treated as a symptom. The question is whether the members of the Berlin branch believe that the current approach is not the right one and whether it is necessary to initiate a different way of doing business. We want to start with an opportunity to ask questions and discuss them."

Fräulein Schwiebs: “The meeting that took place at our house arose out of a completely harmless intention. It is not intended to confront the leadership or the management of the branch.”

Herr Quaas: “At the general meeting, Dr. Steiner pointed out that Fräulein von Sivers had so far provided her private rooms voluntarily. The Berlin branch, however, pays 300 marks for the library. But since there is a possibility that the library room may be needed by both Ms. von Sivers and the branch at the same time, the question arises as to what rights the Berlin branch has acquired for paying the 300 marks. Trust is not a patented thing, but something that one must make an effort to earn. I would therefore like to ask how this whole matter has been handled and whether there are no funds available to obtain premises that are completely neutral. It will not be possible to achieve agreement among individuals by listening to large crowds. I was sorry about the attitude that Dr. Steiner took towards my proposal. You can't say it's none of my business. Either the board has to deal with it or the board has to be bypassed. But now the question is: Do we have the means to bring about an improvement, or do we not have the means? I believe that the events organized by Schwiebs and Eberty are to be welcomed with thanks. It is true that they have not yet taken place in the time since the Berlin branch of the Theosophical Society has existed.

Mr. Fränkel: “I attended the meeting; it was not an official or semi-official gathering, it was purely private. Its only purpose was to bring members together. However, the members of the Theosophical Society should form the basis of the gatherings. I regret that thoughts have been expressed that do not correspond to the Theosophical guidelines. But one should not approach things with suspicions.

Dr. Steiner: “It is not about the cards, nor is there anything wrong with the meeting. But it is particularly important to get to a certain basis, because Mr. Quaas' speech has revealed that there are other things involved, other symptoms. Mr. Quaas has therefore also consulted with me. However, we must not mix up two things. We must not mix up the library issue and the issue of the Besant branch. I cannot get involved in private discussions. You have to have the right foundations for that.

And now for another matter. It is claimed that no insights into the financial situation of the Berlin branch are available. Then there were also remarks regarding the private rooms. In response to this, I must say that, in the beginning, my concern was to slowly take up the work of the branch and continue it in the same way. The work was done in the theosophical sense. Lectures were given on Christianity as a Mystical Fact and on Mysticism in the Rise of Modern Spiritual Life. The theosophical work is the main thing. But it can only be done if one has the fundamentals of the theosophical world-view. It is nice that members are approaching each other, but it must go hand in hand with becoming familiar with the theosophical world-view. This work could not be done if sacrifices were not made by private individuals. I have always felt that I was among Theosophists in this room. I did not have the impression of being in a private room. This year, members should divide into groups and work together. That is the second thing that will have to be done gradually. But it must be done in harmony with the central leadership.

The proposals must be within the framework of what currently exists. The continuity of the Theosophical Society must be maintained. I am called to maintain the continuity of the Theosophical movement. Until now, the only means of doing this was to hold meetings in this room. The library has been given to Miss von Sivers on condition that she has it in her home. It goes without saying that the library needs a room; and that something is paid for it is also self-evident. However, it is not a requirement that it should also be possible to hold meetings there. It is therefore advisable to leave the library issue out of it altogether. The Berlin branch has not yet had any reason to create a center. So we will stick with the old conditions as long as they are sufficient for the real work."

Krojanker: “I would like to say that a harmonious atmosphere no longer exists. The Berlin branch has no home at all, and now we are not even allowed to hold meetings in the library room. The situation of the Berlin branch is such that an executive committee is quite impossible under the current conditions. What has been on paper for years has now been summarized in a few proposals that have been discussed. We have the feeling that the lectures in the architects' house do not take place within the framework of the Berlin branch. These are separate events that we can or cannot attend, but with which we as the Berlin branch have nothing to do. They have statutes, but everything is dictated. We have every reason to accept your advice, Doctor, in every way. However, the administration of a branch does not quite coincide with this. Further misunderstandings should be avoided in the future. To convene a general assembly requires completely different preconditions. But then there are also other issues to be discussed: How are the general assemblies to be regulated? Where and how should they take place? What resources does the Berlin branch have for this? And how must the Berlin branch ensure that the external conditions are provided for regular meetings? These are the questions that the discussions came down to. The library question will hardly be able to be settled. There is a desire to feel at home among Theosophical members. For the Theosophical work that you describe, you have to choose the members yourself who can do such work."

Dr. Steiner: “We will then have to call an extraordinary general meeting. I don't see why an executive committee should be impossible given the circumstances of the Berlin branch. The lectures at the Architektenhaus are my events; the board must represent the Society. But the meetings at the Architektenhaus don't see why they can't be seen as branch events. I can't quite see how such a center should be created. The Berlin branch should consider the lectures as theirs."

Fräulein von Sivers: ”It's all very well to form groups, but it takes more than that. You need people, capital and staff. Before it was set up, there was no one at the library who could have taken care of it. It should have been sold or distributed. At that time, I was active in the Theosophical movement. It had adopted more fixed paths. The library was given to me because the branch could not spend the 300 marks. However, the continuity of the library and Dr. Steiner's lectures were to be maintained. The library was linked to my private rooms. Since they were not public, no one came.

The lectures that we have here were set up later, and the invitations from Miss Schwiebs and Mrs. Eberty to gatherings at their home have been quite successful.

Mr. Quaas: “The accounts should be duplicated and made available to the members. We do not need to completely dismiss the library question. We can also build and work on a solid foundation for the general meeting. The board has to make suggestions for convening the general meeting.

Dr. Steiner: ”I have heard something about a harmonious atmosphere that no longer exists.

Krojanker: “I believe that the assemblies at Schwiebs and Eberty will be able to bring the discord back into harmony.”

Dr. Steiner: “I would like to note: It is something different to work positively spiritually than to be active in administration. With attorney Quaas, [it] appears as disharmony, even a certain animosity comes to light. As long as animosity exists, I consider the positive work in society to be fruitless. This animosity was noticeable from the conversation.”

Fränkel: “I did not concern myself with the theosophical circumstances. Therefore, I did not know about the animosity either.”

Quaas: “The criticism is being forced upon the members.”

Fräulein Schwiebs: “I don't understand why heavy artillery is being brought up against us, although you were partly present at the first meeting. I didn't want to bring up this unfriendliness, but it hurt me. Fräulein von Sivers couldn't make the meeting because she had too much to do.”

Dr. Steiner: “Several errors seem to have occurred here. No one ever said anything about intending to hold meetings every fortnight. At the time, I asked that such meetings be officially recorded. It seems that invitations were sent out once. I knew nothing about the intention to hold permanent meetings. The fact that meetings are held on a regular basis has been presented to me as something new today. Personal discussions would not have satisfied the need. So it was probably not correct to speak of the members' meetings.” Miss Schwiebs: ‘We and Mrs. Eberty were together every first and third Sunday of the month.’

Mr. [Georgi] regards dissatisfaction as explosives. Working on oneself is the main thing. Then the walls that have been knocked down will disappear, and so will the dissatisfaction, so that we can devote ourselves entirely to the future.

Dr. B...: “Too many private relationships are discussed, but no one has really taken the actual study seriously. We want to approach everyone with love, we want to shake off what has made society disharmonious, so that in the future, instead of destroying, we will continue to work with a strong hand.

Quaas believes that the contact between the board and the members has been completely lost (objections are raised).

Krojanker: “This is a society that has certain forms. These must be adhered to and maintained. There can be no question of real animosity. Hold more general meetings.”

Ms. Motzkus: “The meetings were actually intended to facilitate closer contact with Dr. Steiner.”

Ms. von Holten: “I felt sorry for having let strangers write my letter. I missed a female touch here.”

Dr. Steiner: “This is a letter that interferes in my private affairs without justification, a letter that arises out of ignorance. I have not given a reply to it. It should never have been written in this form, for I would have forgiven myself something if I had replied to it. The impression was as if you had seen someone at whose sight you were frightened.”

Mrs. B.: “It is actually only about the form of the meetings. I am not one of those who absorb gossip and pass it on. But I have to say that there is a tremendous dislike of Miss von Sivers, so members feel cold, catch a cold. This coldness is brought in and is contagious. People should look within themselves and approach the people with real devotion and love. The aversion must be removed; goodwill must be cultivated and what has happened must be forgotten. Only in inner harmony lies real work in the spirit of Theosophy. Otherwise we cannot help with the work. We must approach Fräulein von Sivers with different feelings."

Krojanker: “You can have reverence for a personality without extinguishing your own ego in the face of that personality. I think we need to have more general meetings and more board meetings.”

Dr. Steiner: “You can't have meetings that don't go harmoniously, that don't enable harmonious work. Those who have the best intentions are ultimately the sacrificial lambs. My work would be undone if what lies at the bottom of the soul were not openly and honestly expressed. There must be no wall between me and the members, for the following reasons: I myself am not dependent on anyone for my work and will never be dependent on anyone for my theosophical work. If someone says that a wall could be built between me and the members, then that would be the worst kind of mistrust. Anyone who has done that cannot receive anything from me. If such statements are made, then my work is stopped.

Krojanker: He complains that such personal matters are being made the subject of the General Assembly and asks: “Do you have any objections to the members' meetings at Fräulein Schwiebs's?”

Dr. Steiner: “It is not about the general meetings at Schwiebs and Eberty. My idea was to organize the sequence of the general meetings because it is desirable today that work continues within group meetings. These meetings should not serve to attack, but to recognize that dissatisfaction prevails and to ask how it can be organized away. The people in such groups must be selected. People who are completely sympathetic to each other must come together in such groups. That is why I asked for the establishment and regulation of general meetings. I wanted to gain a foothold because some members in society have so much against each other that it is impossible to bring them together in such group meetings. If my theosophical work had not been stopped, I would not have put it forward. When someone says that a wall is being erected between me and the members, it is not just a private matter; it is an accusation against a member who has led the events in my interest of thwarting relations. When they erect a wall, it is a criticism that is directed at our entire society. A wall against Miss von Sivers is a matter for the Society.

[Georgi]: Speaks against Mrs. Braun and says: “Criticism is unnecessary, it has a bad effect, you have to starve this force.”

Mrs. Braun: “I am against the attitude, I will not participate in it, I have renounced all forms.”

Krojanker: “As the head of the Berlin branch, you have to deal with matters that you don't have to touch on as a theosophist. You don't feel constrained at the branch's events, so you don't have to have anything to do with the administration of the Berlin branch. It's a two-way street.

Dr. Steiner: “It is indeed my opinion that the chairmanship is not tied to me and Fräulein von Sivers. This society has existed for years, but it has not developed any particular activity. We have tried to love the Theosophical Society and bring it to life in Berlin. Count and Countess Brockdorff have said that they were only stopgaps to keep it going. If a different activity is desired, I would cede the chair to whomever is able to procure better premises and more success.

Krojanker: “What is said is said in the interest of the Theosophical Society. Dr. Steiner is above all debate. However, business matters that arise when Dr. Steiner retains leadership and remains united with us through his work must be dealt with in an orderly manner.”

Dr. Steiner: “My activity as chairman is not tied to my other activities because the administrator and the spokesperson can be separated. This is how it has been kept, and that seems to me to be the desirable state of affairs. For a long time, the Society lay fallow. We tried to revive it. I proceeded according to my thoughts, I tried to get to know the Theosophical Societies around the world. You should not have the impression that you have been called together for trivial reasons. If, during the meetings, younger members speak out against their superiors, then I am prevented from being effective. I was not trying to assure sympathy. There seems to be no inclination and no desire for it.

Group work: A number of members who get along well and meet to discuss with each other is an especially important thing. They should then write down the questions that arise in order to ask me about them in the big meeting, so that a theosophical understanding among the members can take place in this way. I have found something similar in England, in India and especially in Holland. Exemplary work has been done in Düsseldorf. The group members meet twice. One member, Lauweriks, explains the secret doctrine to people in an extraordinary way. But this work can only be made fruitful if it is organically integrated into our lectures, so that people can enter into the theosophical worldview. I have thought of this in order to be able to make suggestions and so that people can see why they cannot be in a particular circle. Disharmonious currents are very fatal in smaller working groups. My wish has only been granted to a small extent. I do not know why it has not been used to a greater extent. This disharmonious mood is also likely to affect me in my work. It could prevent me from working for the Berlin branch. It is something that marks my work as unfree. What can be done? 'For example, when the administration decides on something that I cannot go along with. That is why it was necessary for me to ask you to express what is in the air here.

I ask those who wish to participate in groups to express their willingness to do so. This is the only way to get deeper into Theosophy. It is nice to socialize, but there are many opportunities for that. Theosophy does not have to be the reason for that. Theosophical work requires a certain foundation based on work. There is no limit to the size of the group. I will be here again tomorrow for eight days, and I will be back in Berlin on Thursday. Perhaps the suggestion of a center will take on a more concrete form, because there are probably still some who have an idea of how it could be done better, but you just have to stretch yourself to the limit. But this criticism is creating bad blood. I had hoped that whatever was to be said against me or Miss von Sivers would be said bluntly. Since this has not been the case, however, the time we have spent on it should not be considered wasted.

There is no reason to find fault with the work of Miss von Sivers. Take a more intimate approach to her work, not just business. But I cannot help it if the Berlin branch should be damaged. I know what the Berlin branch needs, and I also know what the duty of an occultist is. The great spiritual world stands above that. But it also requires that my freedom not be interfered with. To put up a wall between me and the members is an act of humiliation, and an occultist must not be humiliated. Anyone who has such conditions cannot receive anything more from me as an occultist."

Dr. Steiner: “Careful scrutiny of the lines along which we were moving showed me that it is necessary to contribute something to clarify the things that were suggested at the time. That is why I asked you to appear at this General Assembly. I would like to emphasize from the outset that it will not be a matter of somehow interpreting the steps that three members of the Executive Board felt compelled to take in such a way that they could be directed against anyone, even remotely. The aim is to clarify the situation by means of a full clarification that cannot be achieved in any other way. In order to make this completely clear, I must still refer to a few words on the essentials, to the history of the Theosophical movement since the founding of the German section, namely insofar as it concerns members of the board, who come into consideration above all.

When the German Section was to be founded, the leaders of the Theosophical movement, insofar as they belonged to the Adyar Society, were to be persuaded to hand over the leadership to others. The personalities involved in the continuation of the theosophical work were Fräulein von Sivers and I. I myself was not yet ready to join the Theosophical Society, even a few months before I was called upon to contribute not only to the Berlin group but also to the entire movement of the Theosophical Society in my capacity as General Secretary of the German Section. I had already given lectures for two winters, in the Berlin branch. Two courses that have been printed, so that I am connected with the Theosophical Society in Berlin in a certain respect, am connected only personally.

When Count and Countess von Brockdorff left Berlin, I had already been a member of the Theosophical Society for several months, and when other measures failed, I was designated as General Secretary. I did not oppose the request at the time. I had no merit in the Theosophical Society at the time.

Berlin was considered a kind of center in Germany. Berlin was to become a kind of parent company. The German Theosophical Society (DTG) was built on this. The aim was to run the society from Berlin. At that time, Count and Countess Brockdorff went to great lengths to recruit Fräulein von Sivers, who was in Bologna, for their Berlin lodge. Even after she had been asked, she was not at all inclined to accept. Only when the leaders of the Theosophical Society deemed it necessary did Miss von Sivers decide to go to Berlin and lead the Theosophical movement with me under the conditions that were possible at the time.

We adapted ourselves to the circumstances in an absolutely conservative way. The circumstances naturally required that we take the initiative of the German movement into our own hands and try to bring the intentions to fruition in the right way. The situation in Germany was such that it would not have been possible at that time without initiative in a material sense. In addition to this material theosophical work, there were many other things, such as, for example, the management of the library, which was in a loose connection with the German Theosophical Society, the later Berlin branch of the Theosophical Society. This management of the library naturally required a certain amount of work, which had to be done between classes. The actual Theosophical work could only be done in the free breaks. I myself could devote myself to these library matters only in an advisory capacity. I had more important things to do. Besides, for two years I had been able to study the way the branch had been run, and I had no intention of making any kind of change in the external administration. What was factually given should be preserved.

It was our endeavor to operate within the framework and to throw what we had to give into the framework of the Theosophical movement. That was our endeavor. The basic prerequisite for Fräulein von Sivers to take over the management of the various agencies of the Theosophical Society in Berlin was that complete trust prevailed. Without this trust, nothing can be done in the practical part of the Theosophical movement. Trust in the practical part of the movement itself is necessary. The administration is a kind of appendage. Since we could not engage in any particular pedantry, it was natural that we expected complete trust in what is the basic requirement for working together in the theosophical field. This trust does not appear to have been given to the extent that we would need it to conduct the business calmly and objectively. We will only make the final point by linking it to the meeting two weeks ago and contrasting it with it. This meeting was based on things that were even referred to as gossip; they were based on public appearances. Everything is to be discussed in public. The fact that there is dissatisfaction was admitted in the meeting, and the expression of a mood of discontent is in itself enough to bring about such a step as is to be taken today. I am - let this be accepted as an absolutely true interpretation - I am, not only because every occultist is, but on much more esoteric principles, opposed to all aggression. Every act of aggression hinders the activity that I would be able to unfold. Please regard this step as something that merely follows from the principle of not acting aggressively. Everyone must behave in such a way that the wishes of all can be fully expressed. Everyone must suppress their personal desires so that our work can be done. Otherwise, the Berlin branch cannot be managed as desired. That is what I would like to achieve. When opposing views are expressed, it is impossible to work together.

If we work in such a way, as desired from various sides, then in my opinion we would flatten the Theosophical movement, we would reduce it to the level of a club.

The words that were spoken at the last meeting must be heard, the words: that I am in diametrical opposition to those who want a club-like community. I do not intend to attack anyone. I just cannot be there. Anyone who considers this properly will have to say that this is the absence of any aggressiveness. I would like to set the tone for this matter. This is what I emphasized at the general assembly in October, where I emphasized that I do not conform to such a form, that I cannot conform to a club-like society. Those who wish that the Berlin branch be administered differently, that the members interact with each other in a different way, must act accordingly. It is necessary for them to take matters into their own hands and carry them out for themselves, so that it seems self-evident that no one can object if their wishes are fulfilled in the manner mentioned. I could not fulfill these wishes. I have always tried to satisfy wishes as best I could. In order for the Theosophical Society to continue to develop peacefully, I have to take this step. I have the task of maintaining the continuity of the movement in Germany. It is clear to me that only on an occult basis – given our confused circumstances in the world – can this movement be taken forward. A movement on a social basis does not need to be Theosophical; its people may already have ideal aspirations and become dear to one another, and that does not need to be Theosophical. But we need a theosophical movement, and that is why I cannot be a leader in a club-like organization. Please understand that I am obliged to bring the full depth of the theosophical movement, which is based on occultism, to it. Today, only those who live by the Aristotelian principle are truly called to actively participate within the Theosophical Society: Those who seek truth must respect no opinion.

Perhaps I would also like to work in a different way. But here it is a matter of duty, and therefore I will take this step because I have this obligation to build the Theosophical movement on a truly deeper foundation, and in the process of building, any attempt to run the society in a club-like manner will lead to a flattening out. No one can better understand that such things are necessary for some, and no one's relationship with me should change. Everyone will always be welcome with me. I will continue to conduct the business that relates to the material aspects of Theosophy in the same way, so that in the future everything can be found as it has been found. But precisely for this reason I must withdraw.

The consistency is, of course, in the lines that I have executed. I cannot and must not lose sight of the theosophical movement at any point. That is why I have asked those members of our Theosophical Society – all the other organizations are of a secondary nature – individual members of the Theosophical Society, to hold a meeting with me and asked them whether they would be willing to continue the Theosophical movement with me in the way I have led it, against which a discord has arisen and dissatisfaction has been expressed. This had to be so, because I must maintain continuity. I will only mention the case I have in Munich. There is a strictly closed lodge there that only accepts those who meet the requirements of the whole. But now we will have a second lodge in which all others can be admitted. I have endeavored to draw attention to the conditions of the work of the lodges, which is the daily bread of a lodge. I also want to found a Besant Lodge soon, for whose name I will ask Annie Besant for permission soon. In addition, there will be completely free activity from which no one can be excluded. That is the reason for my resignation.

(The names of a number of members are then listed.)

Krojanker: “After these explanations from Dr. Steiner, those who were unable to attend the last meeting will have gained an insight into the cause of the discord and also the background to the matter, which led three members of the board to take the above-mentioned step. There must have been trouble brewing long before those involved knew anything about it. Since I have known about these things, it has been impossible for me to get over them. At first it was impossible for me to realize that these things could drive the gentlemen to this conclusion. What was it actually? The starting point for me was simply the decision of City Councillor Eberty and Miss Schwiebs, who had set out to see the members in their home for free, informal discussions. It was not foreseeable that such conclusions could be drawn from this. The suggestion came from Miss von Sivers; members should be encouraged to approach each other, and the feeling should not arise that one does not quite feel at home, so that everything rushes home immediately after the lecture. But even with Miss von Sivers, this was noticeable to a certain extent. As long as we had no headquarters, she had to help herself in a different way, visiting friends and talking to them. These are things that were purely personal and private in nature, and in the previous session I had hoped that they would not affect us. I still have the same opinion of these things today, the opinion that they must not be touched. The polite couple who had invited us were not yet part of the branch. A distinction must be made between association work, associationism and theosophical work. But committees are not formed and elected, and members of the board are not elected, for nothing, so that they do not have to worry about running the association. They are elected and will then also have the authority to speak about business matters and to allow themselves to make judgments from time to time. If autocratic management [...] is desired, then statutes and so on would not be necessary either. If Dr. Steiner had said at the time: We must renounce such a form, had he shown or said, only under such and such conditions is it possible for me to work and participate, then things would have happened immediately and quite naturally. Those who would have liked it would have gone along with it, and the rest would have stayed out. I don't understand why a whole business apparatus has been set up and why it is resented if, as a member of one of its branches, I take an interest in it. I think it cannot be considered a crime to inquire about these things. I would recommend the introduction of wish lists. I must protest against the accusation that we are aggressive. We have heard Dr. Steiner speak for two years about what Theosophy is and what Theosophical life entails. Surely other ways could have been found to steer the discussions in a different direction. But now that it has come to this, the consequences must be drawn under all circumstances. I imagine them to be – I don't know if I have understood correctly – that this Berlin branch continues to exist as a continuation of the Berlin branch of the German Theosophical Society, and that the three board members and the other gentlemen whom Dr. Steiner has read out are now founding a new lodge.

Further negotiations and consultations will be needed before this step can be taken. The first task will be to elect a committee, because the Berlin branch currently has neither a committee nor a leadership. We will therefore have to form a provisional committee to discuss how this is to be done. I would like to leave it up to you to make proposals in this regard. In any case, we deeply regret the way in which the matter has been handled so far. When Dr. Steiner speaks of discord and soul currents, there is in fact nothing that I know and perhaps some personal matters that must never be made the business of the Berlin branch."

Dr. Steiner: “I myself had good reason to take the personal into account. At the general assembly, 300 marks were approved for my work last year. I had already raised concerns at the time, but soon after that I felt compelled to put these 300 marks back into the treasury because of the prevailing mood, because I did not want to work on the basis of ill will. You see that I have kept quiet for long enough. 'I also wanted to let this matter pass quietly, to bridge the gap with positive work. In the long run, this was not possible for good reason. Of course, we are not discussing private matters here, nor is a conversation about professional life appropriate. I have said that, as far as I am concerned, what was requested has been largely satisfied. The wish had arisen that we should have lectures elsewhere than here or in the architects' house, and I agreed to give lectures at Wilhelmstraße 118 as well. But now we have to make a few comments about such a matter. The things are not as crude as they might initially appear, but are more subtly connected. At the time, I readily agreed to fulfill this wish, and in the pursuit of this matter, I asked to form an executive committee. I did not dream what came of it. We still have no branch in the north, south, or east. It was my intention to work not only in the west, but in all parts of the city. When an executive committee was formed in the Berlin branch, it was intended that this committee should take charge of the actual agitation. No one here has ever been prevented from taking care of business matters, but the view is that anyone who wants to do something has to create the space for themselves. No one could demand anything from us. If someone had come to us with positive suggestions, we would have taken them up. But when it is said that our activities have not been attacked, I say that only this week I received a written accusation that we are managing the library in such a way that one can threaten to go to court about it. We cannot accept hidden accusations. We will also hand over the library. When I have presented these things, you can assume that they are based on the firmest possible foundation. The statutes and so on could have been adhered to if there had been goodwill. When one talks about business, it must be practical. What was done at the time was impractical. I spoke three times in relatively beautiful rooms, but then in a room that was referred to as a stable, and finally in a room where speaking was almost impossible. I had to speak with glasses knocking behind me and so on. That was no atmosphere for Theosophy. I had to think of doing things in a practical way. This was the reason for my decision to hold the lectures in the architect's house. Such measures were in favor of the Berlin branch. Nevertheless, I was told: These lectures are ones that we can attend or not attend. - So you see that this is a silent discourtesy. Nothing has been done precisely because the other view of business matters, of statutes and committees, gave the opportunity to try out how it works. A letter from a theosophist reads: “I would like to see the Berlin branch work well for once. Most of all, I would be pleased if it could work in a favorable way.“ But then a wish list has also been worked out, you think - on the wish list it said: ‘The chairman has to be there half an hour before the start’ - that's what made the step so special.” Ms. Eberty: “Don't you think this fragmentation is very sad?”

Dr. Steiner: “I have worked against these things. Whether a fragmentation will result from it remains to be seen. If the members of the Berlin branch will understand how to act in a theosophical way, there will be no need for fragmentation at all. There is no need to speak of fragmentation, I will do nothing to promote it.”

Mrs. Eberty: “If you had had something against the meetings, it would have been enough to say: There are reasons why the meetings cannot take place. We had the best intentions for this. We only did it to serve the cause of Theosophy. It did not even remotely occur to us that this was against your intentions, not even when it was on the agenda eight days ago, when there were indications that our afternoon could be meant by it."

Dr. Steiner: “If the form is dropped, there is no objection to the private meetings. What has happened at my request? That the teas at Fräulein von Sivers's have been abolished because I have not seen any benefit for Theosophy in such tea meetings. It was difficult for me that Countess Brockdorff took it badly. But nevertheless, I just said it. We ourselves would not be able to manage things differently.

Krojanker: “It seems that the Executive Committee is being made the scapegoat. If you are on the Executive Committee, useful work is only possible if you are informed about the entire business situation. If you don't have insight and don't find opportunities to gain insight, what do you want to make suggestions for? The Executive Committee needs this knowledge because it has to report to the Board. I am increasingly lacking tangible documents that have given rise to these matters.

Now comes the library question. A library commission has been set up. It is not really understandable why the members of the branch should be held responsible for this.

Mr. Werner: “Dr. Steiner is a man called from a higher place. Now it is difficult to get what is needed to perfect us. If you approach him now with demands and questions, such as, ”Where did you leave the money you raised with your lectures? Give us information about what you got out of these lectures! Give us information about where the money has gone. If you say, 'We decide here, because we have a completely free hand to say what you have to do', then that is not the way to harmonious cooperation. I think that when you first accept teachings and instructions from someone, the demands and questions should not go so far that they are unbearable in detail. These would be thoughts that shun the light and lead to disharmony. But we can prevent disharmony if we want to. If that is not the case, then we have no right to come here and quibble about what has happened.

Krojanker: “A distinction must be made between the theosophical teaching and the leadership of the Berlin branch. This will make it possible to avoid any mistrust.”

Dr. Steiner: “The harmony may have to be bought at the expense of excluding some members. The arranged lectures were intended for the Berlin branch. It is true that we could not have done the work better. I am of the opinion that for the time being we have done the work as well as we could, since nothing better has been offered to us from the other side. At the moment something better would have been offered to us from the other side, we would not have ignored it. But what we have done, I consider to be the best so far.

Fränkel: “Two meetings have been convened that have caused the discord. On both occasions, accusations have been made, followed by disharmony, so that a club has been formed, as it were, and we consist of two classes of members, so to speak. There are two ways of proceeding. There is a civil case and a criminal case. This is a public matter, not a private one. The complaint should therefore be made. However, it is not clear what is actually at issue. The first point is the tea with the ladies, the second point is that only the business committee has taken the wrong measures. The error seems to lie in the fact that at the founding, there was no discussion about how the business of the committee should be handled. There is no real discord yet, only the complaint of a few gentlemen based on factual reasons.

Dr. Steiner: “If we had come to accuse anyone, then you could blame us for something. We are returning the management to those who have a wish list. The way of thinking expressed in the wish list is such that it cannot lead to anything in the Theosophical Society.”

Krojanker: “A desire for power emerges from those who perhaps believe they are superior. But I have heard from Dr. Steiner that Theosophy does not submit to any authority.”

Tessmar: “It is all much too materialistic. We are members of the Theosophical Society, but the whole Berlin branch can go home if Dr. Steiner says, ‘I will no longer give lectures here.’ Dr. Steiner gives Theosophical lectures, not lectures about speakers. I myself do not want to be held accountable; I want to hear Theosophical lectures in order to progress. And now the complaint about authority comes up. The theosophical lectures are authority for me. I show trust by not asking: What does the library do, what do the six Dreier do, who come in?"

Krojanker: “I now see where the debate is leading us today. We have to come to terms with the facts. From Dr. Steiner's reply, I see that he is not to be convinced in any way, and that perhaps only time can bring understanding of the individual things. We are faced with the fact that this separation is taking place. What must happen now? Perhaps we should devote another hour to this question.”

(A motion is made to end the debate, which is carried.)

(Dr. Steiner, Fräulein von Sivers and Mr. Kiem resign.)

Dr. Steiner: “My only remaining duty is to recommend that a managing director be elected for the time being. The process will be as follows: The managing director will have the task of informing the other members of the resignation. I myself will also inform the external members that I have resigned on my part.” Krojanker: ‘Can't a general statement be communicated to the members from both sides about what has happened here?’

(A number of members declare their resignation from the Berlin branch.

Krojanker: Asks what he has done wrong and is told that he disagrees with the management.

Dr. Steiner: “Why did I do it in general? It is done this way because it could not be done any other way. The Berlin branch can now experiment and so on, and do its own things.

Mrs. Eberty: “We all received invitations.”

Dr. Steiner: “I invited some with my name and with a personal greeting. But the list is not complete.”

Mrs. [Johannesson]: “We felt separated by the tone of your address. We felt as if you had carried out a separation.”

Ms. [Voigt]: “Could the ladies be asked which topic was discussed? And also about the question from which Mr. Fränkel started. It is perhaps of interest.”

Tessmar: “I belong to Dr. Steiner. I will not be influenced. Please make a note of that if necessary. I really feel offended. As a seasoned seaman, I would choose different words. I forbid personal tapping.”

Dr. Steiner: “It has therefore been decided that a manager must be appointed for the German Theosophical Society. It would have been impossible for me to continue my work without taking this step. I cannot give intimate lectures in this mood. I only had the choice of either leaving Berlin or taking this step. Maintaining continuity was the reason for this. Mrs. Annie Besant said, when she saw the current here, that I should go to Munich, where the work that Miss von Sivers has done can be continued. But I will not change my whole relationship into a mere point. It is precisely the outward appearance that is at issue here, not the inwardness.

Present were: about 30 members. The meeting ended at eight o'clock [in the evening].

Report by Rudolf Steiner in “Lucifer - Gnosis”, July-August, No. 26-27/1905

This year [1905], the Federation of European Sections held its congress in London at the beginning of July (6, 7, 8, 9, 10). In general, the nature and organization of the events of this second meeting of its kind were similar to those held in Amsterdam the previous year. The beautiful feeling of belonging together again flowed through those who were able to come from the most diverse areas of Theosophical work to exchange ideas about methods of action, to bear witness to the progress of Theosophical ideas in the individual countries, and to receive suggestions for achievements in their home countries. Just as our Dutch friends spared no efforts and sacrifices last year to make the course of the congress a worthy and fruitful one, so did our members in London this year. Those who can appreciate the time and dedication required for the preparatory work and the management of such a meeting will be filled with warm gratitude for our English friends.

Mrs. Besant took over the presidency of the congress. The day before the actual start of the meeting, the assembled guests were able to attend a meeting of the Blavatsky Lodge to hear a momentous lecture by Annie Besant on the “Requirements of Discipleship”. The speaker followed up on various remarks that had been published recently about various minor weaknesses and faults of the great founder of the “Theosophical Society”, H. P. Blavatsky. Out of a deep sense of gratitude, the speaker spoke about the personality of the bringer of light on the path to truth and peace of soul. It is not important to see the small spots and weaknesses, but the great impulses that emanate from such personalities. We should hold on to them and find our own way through them. When we hear much about the life of the “initiates” that we say we did not expect, perhaps our expectations are based on misunderstandings. Where there is sun, there may also be sunspots; but the beneficent power of the sun works despite these spots. On the same day (Thursday, July 6), Annie Besant opened the “Arts and Crafts” exhibition, which then remained open for all days of the congress. It is natural that such an exhibition, which has the purpose of bringing artistic achievements influenced by theosophical ideas or originating from theosophists to the attention of the members, cannot be perfect in terms of the composition and value of the individual pieces. But it is a highly valuable addition to the congress; and anyone who does not see the purpose of the society in merely spreading theosophical ideas, but in developing theosophical life in all its aspects, will certainly not dispute its legitimacy. It is impossible to go into the details here, given the abundance of exhibits. It should only be noted that in the pictures of G. Russell, the interesting attempt was noticeable to give something of the astral reality in the symbolic color drawings around the figures depicted in the pictures, and in the coloring of the landscapes in which they are placed. How much of this is achieved is another question and cannot be considered today. The works of our member Lauweriks, who used to belong to the Dutch section and now belongs to the German section because he has been working as a teacher at the School of Applied Arts in Düsseldorf for some time, deserve special mention. His arts and crafts show the subtle mind and excellent artist everywhere. German works on display included an interesting picture of the chairman of our Düsseldorf lodge, Otto Boyer, the “Alchymist”, and a portrait study of the same excellent artist, who had also taken the trouble to participate in the work of the art committee as a German representative.

Miss Stinde, our member active in Munich, has contributed from the rich treasure trove of her landscapes. Furthermore, a picture by our member Miss Schmidt from Stuttgart was exhibited.

On Friday evening, Annie Besant gave a lecture on “The Work of Theosophy in the World” in front of thousands of people in the large “Queens Hall”. In a few concise strokes, she characterized the task that the wisdom teachings of Theosophy have in modern life today. Not only as a confession, but through all areas of life, science, art and so on, they should come into their own if they are to fulfill their mission. What the Theosophical movement has achieved in terms of artistic and scientific circles, which are far removed from the Theosophical movement, has been admirably demonstrated.

On Saturday morning, the actual congress proceedings were opened by Annie Besant's forceful introductory words. Here she pointed out how nations must work together in brotherly cooperation for the great work, and she characterized the approaches to deepening spiritual life in the theosophical sense that are present here and there. For example, she pointed to the work of an Italian sculptor Ezekiel, a “Christ” in which the theosophist could see his image of Christ. For Germans it will be particularly interesting to hear that Annie Besant pointed to the art of Richard Wagner, in whose tones influences of the astral world can be felt. - What followed was a beautiful symbol of the fraternal international character of the Society. In accordance with a decision of the committee, the individual representatives of the various countries gave short welcoming speeches in their national languages. And one could now hear such speeches in the following languages one after the other: Dutch, Swedish, French, German, English (for America), Italian, Spanish, Hungarian, Finnish, Russian and an Indian idiom. Mr. Mead spoke last for England. The morning session closed with business announcements from J. van Manen, the secretary of the congress.

In the afternoon, the individual lectures and departmental meetings began. Papers were presented by the individual members who had registered to do so, covering a wide range of topics: philosophy, science, ethnology, theosophical working methods, art, occultism, and so on. It is quite impossible to even hint at the rich abundance of what is presented here. Lectures are given in various rooms on a wide variety of subjects, followed by discussions. Only a few of them will be mentioned here: Mr. Mead spoke on an interesting Gnostic topic, Pascal, the General Secretary of the French Section, presented a paper on the “Mechanism of Clairvoyance in Humans and Animals”. Mr. Percy Lund had contributed a paper on the “Physical Evidence for Atlantis and Lemuria”. In the Occult Section, Annie Besant gave a most illuminating talk about the requirements and difficulties of occult research methods. She showed what precautions and reservations the occult researcher must take despite the greatest caution, and how his results must be received with equal caution despite his utmost conscientiousness. Dr. Rudolf Steiner spoke in the “Science” section about the “Occult Foundations of Goethe's Life Work”. M. P. Bernard was able to make a contribution on “Instinct, Consciousness, Hygiene and Morality”. M. H. Choisy discussed the “Foundations of Theosophical Morality”. Mr. Leo provided extremely valuable insights into “Astrology”.

Mr. Mead spoke at a final meeting about Gnosticism in the past and present and from there shed light on the similarities in all mystery wisdom. On Saturday evening there was a theatrical performance, two symbolic dramatic works, the first attempt to cultivate this art at our congresses as well. On Sunday and Monday afternoons there were musical performances; vocal performances in the different national languages again symbolically and beautifully expressed the principle of brotherhood. Annie Besant ended the congress on Monday evening with a short closing speech. The following were present from Germany: Fräulein Scholl (Cologne), Frau Geheimrat Lübke (Weimar), Gräfin Kalckreuth, Fräulein Stinde, Herr und Frau v. Seydewitz (Munich), Gräfin Schack (Döringau), Dr. H. Vollrath (Leipzig), Herr Kiem, Fräulein v. Sivers and Dr. Rudolf Steiner from Berlin, Herr und Frau Dr. Peipers (Düsseldorf). Our members J. v. Manen and [Miss] Kate Spink, who did all the secretarial work for the congress, deserve special thanks. It has already been mentioned that Otto Boyer participated in the work of the committee for visual arts. Adolf Arenson (Stuttgart) represented Germany on the committee for musical performances.

The lectures and all the assembly reports from last year's congress of the Federation of European Sections of the Theosophical Society will soon be published in a handsome volume, the “Congress Yearbook”. It can be understood that publishing this book in its first year presented a great challenge to the collectors and editors (J. van Manen, Kate Spink), and that it is therefore only now that it can be published. This year's lectures and discussions will be completed in a shorter time. The Max Altmann publishing house in Leipzig has taken over the distribution of the “Yearbook” for Germany, and one should contact them for the purpose of purchase.

The Annual General Meeting of the British Section of the Theosophical Society took place on July 8. At the meeting, Mr. Keightley resigned from his post as General Secretary and Miss Kate Spink was elected in his place. Dr. Rudolf Steiner welcomed the meeting on behalf of the German Section.

As you can see from the announcement, we will have a weekly meeting every Monday. This is to be considered a meeting of the Besant branch. The notes on the invitation are to be taken into account. Last year's work has made the venue too small. It is not at all our intention to be exclusive and to hold these Mondays for the branch alone. We would like to expand the matter, but on the other hand it seems a bit harsh to the members if non-members without excuse have access throughout the year, especially this year, when perhaps even more intimate things could be discussed in these Monday meetings than last year. We are getting deeper and deeper into it. The other meetings are then in the architect's house. This year, particular attention will be paid to demonstrating the significance of Theosophy and its importance for the present. I will speak about important questions in their relation to current affairs. Next Thursday, I will speak about Haeckel's world riddle, then about our world situation, and then about the question of inner development. The cycle will then conclude with a reflection on Christmas.

I have just completed a major lecture tour. A tour such as this is not only educational for the one undertaking it, but it can also be educational for the widest circles of those who are interested in Theosophy. I was in St. Gallen, Freiburg, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Frankfurt am Main, Kassel, Weimar. In most places I was able to give a public lecture, and then in the following days I had a discussion with those listeners who were more interested. We do not yet have branches in all these places. But that is not to say that we will not. We do not want to proceed in a stormy, agitating way. Those who come to the Theosophical Society should come because they have an inner urge to do so. Therefore, it will be good to cultivate Theosophy as much as possible and to tell the audience what it is all about. I am convinced that those who are predestined to participate will come. I was able to perceive that there is a great longing for what the Theosophical Society has to offer humanity. The Theosophists within it are deeply responsive to what people need and desire today. On the other hand, there is a certain despondency, a certain sum of prejudices with which people are afflicted, and which prevent them from immediately dealing with Theosophy. There is much to be overcome. This is shown by such a journey, on which one gets to know the most diverse moods. Despite all discouragement, such a journey has a certain satisfying impression. One sees in the hearts of men that which must live if we want to move towards the future, which the theosophical movement wants to strive for.

So let us touch on a few questions that may be of particular interest to us, without making any judgments. You only need to take a look at the current world situation to be able to recall at any moment how necessary Theosophy and Theosophical striving are today. You can look at all parts of the world, everywhere you see peoples and classes in a hard struggle for existence. Races are fighting each other, nations are at war with each other, individual classes in individual countries are sharply opposed to each other. Against this, we have nothing much other than our first principle: to establish the core of a universal brotherhood, without distinction of race, sex, class or creed. That is a powerful principle, people say. But many appeal to what Schopenhauer has already said: preaching morality is easy, but establishing morality is difficult. The theosophical movement is not a doctrine, not a foundation. It differs from the other movements of the new time in that it is real life. And the teachings we spread are not the main thing. It is not the teachings that matter to us. They are all only the means to life. And no matter what teachings are proclaimed in the various branches of the movement or at its public events, whether we believe these teachings or do not believe them, whether we can repeat them or cannot repeat them, that is not the point. The point is that the teachings are something quite different from other teachings of present-day science or from the teachings of even the traditional concepts of the Logos. As long as the theosophical teachings are not what they should be, as long as they are the same as other dogmas, as other doctrines and sciences. Only when they are great, when they live into the soul like a magnetic force and work in the soul, will they become what they should be. This is not a lodge where reincarnation and karma, the world view, the origin and purpose of man are merely taught and beautiful sentences are coined, but this is a lodge where these thoughts buzz through the room and touch the deepest part of the heart, so that man feels these teachings as intimately related to him, so that it is as if these teachings come from within him. When these things become so powerful that he not only becomes wiser but also better, then it is the right thing.

This difference will not be immediately understood by many. Many today present themselves as teachers of ethics, of morals, or as teachers of a creed or as educators. We hear people talking about monistic teachings, about a renewal of this or that teaching – all these teachings come across as being deeply different from what the theosophical teacher wants, what we want in general within the theosophical movement. All the others preach or proclaim their supposed truths, they stand there and say, this is our confession, this is our opinion, this is the truth, in my opinion. No Theosophical lecturer could approach an audience in this way. It is not about an opinion. We carry within us the awareness that truth is within ourselves, that it lives in every human breast, that we do not have to bring it in, but at most have to bring it out – that we stimulate our fellow human beings. Thus, what is necessary lies in what has been said, in the bond that unites the Theosophical members. What is discussed in the branches should be a kindling of the inner life in the souls. We bring thoughts from the spiritual world, the great laws from the supersensible existence, which have formed the world, brought forth man, the great laws according to which the wise teachers and masters taught our ancestors millennia ago and still teach us today. We draw on these great laws, and they are at the same time that which carries us forward, which gives us security, courage and hope for life. These laws should permeate the spaces in which we live. And by feeling them, these laws, we recognize the world and ourselves. Then we should let these laws influence our daily activities in the most mundane things we do. Then the members of the Theosophical Society will be like leaven; they will be everywhere on the outside like a new spirit - if that is the case, we will know that the spirit is something true and real.

Anyone who comes here just to hear teachings comes here in vain, because they don't have the right attitude. And this is what matters when faced with the spirit. It is important that the person who comes here knows that the spirit is a reality, a truth, that I do not just get well and ill from [a] medicine, not just from wind and weather, but that what our body and our reality actually is also emanates from what I think, feel and will, that health can only come from a spirit that works healthily. It is even more important that our thoughts are healthy than that our thoughts are true. You will not be able to notice tomorrow or the day after that a source of health emanates from what is done in the theosophical lodge. Think wrongly in the world and you will bring illness into the world, not tomorrow or the day after, but one day for sure. All evil stems from untruth, from an incorrect inner life. This connection will become clear to you in the next Monday lecture. To give humanity a new health, a new harmonious life, that is our main goal. Therefore, our thoughts are not just teachings, but forces. They do not just enlighten, but heal and harmonize, healing the body and healing the legal and social aspects of human coexistence. Those who grasp this so deeply have the core of the theosophical movement. Those who merely ask how this or that relates do not know about theosophy. But the theosophist knows that when he sits together with the others in the branch and the great thoughts of the world order pass through his soul for an hour, he makes himself the sounding board of a new, healthy and harmonious life. Well, ladies and gentlemen, the fact that such a life springs up and exists in the theosophical movement is evident in some phenomena. We started from the premise that we said: you cannot preach morality, you have to establish it. But it seems as if the Theosophical Society has already achieved something that corresponds to and serves the principle of the brotherhood of peoples. There was a beautiful moment at the opening of this year's congress. It was decided that each delegate would give a short speech in his or her mother tongue. There they were, people who, in the external political situation, are in a fierce struggle against each other. A prelude to what can become reality when the spiritual life takes hold of souls was played out at the opening of the London Congress. The following languages could be heard, as a symbol of our principle: Dutch, English, Swedish, French, German, Spanish, Italian, Hungarian, Finnish, Russian. There you have a symbol of the same will and the same feeling flowing in the different languages. This is the life that the Theosophical movement has achieved in the thirty years since its inception. There was one of the most beautiful and wonderful moments at this conference – not during the conference itself, but on one of the evenings before – for some members who gathered here during the summer. They were invited to attend a meeting of the Blavatsky Lodge. At that meeting, Annie Besant gave a lecture on the requirements of discipleship. As you know, discipleship is something very high. That evening, it was not so much a matter of discussing the requirements of discipleship in general, but rather of the greatest of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's disciples speaking out about critical minds. Allow me to say a few words about the actual subject. I need only mention here that everything that is the Theosophical Society is owed to the fundamental work of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. None of the disciples can claim to have fully grasped what lived in Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Those who delve into the works of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky see more and more that they are entering unfathomable depths, and that in her time the truth flowed through this unique personality as it has only flowed through the greatest religious founders and leaders of humanity. I can understand that in the beginning, when one approaches Helena Petrovna Blavatsky's achievements, one believes that one has understood many things. This can happen to anyone. But then there comes a time when one realizes that the content of the 'Secret Doctrine' contains writings of such spiritual depth that no one, without exception, has ever fully grasped it since Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. You could hear these words from Mrs. Annie Besant at any time.

There is the possibility, even for the greatest leading minds of humanity, to never stop. At least no one has yet found the end point. Deeper and deeper foundations of truth are found when you go deeper. That is what ultimately brings those who have the will to penetrate into a spiritual connection with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky is still in contact with the Theosophical movement today. She is still one of the aids for the Theosophical Society today. If we have the right to turn to her, then she will help. One only has to look at what she has done historically. Take a look at her writings. You will find things in them that some scholars say: “This could be cobbled together from all the books in the world.” Yes, but no one has ever found what was available in different places around the world. Some things are in the most hidden places, in places that no other soul has had access to before; you will find exact quotes from writings that no human eye has rested on for centuries in Blavatsky's writings. She wrote so many of them in [Würzburg], while the books [in truth] were in the Vatican.

Of course she also made mistakes. But if you look into them, you will find that the mistakes are based on something specific, namely on a certain uncertainty of reading that always occurs when one has to grope in the astral light. We do not only live in the physical world, we also live in the higher worlds. We see not only the physical, but also the spiritual. We see not only physically, but also spiritually, and there you can also read books that are in the Vatican in Rome, but you can easily read wrong, you can easily read 136 instead of 631. Where mistakes have been made, it turns out that they have always been made in this way. Every objection that is raised against the truly valuable, the great and significant aspects of this personality can be easily refuted by anyone who really engages with it. But it seems that not many people are willing to get to the bottom of the matter, despite everything. Otherwise it would not have been possible for small mistakes by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky to have been ridiculed here and there in recent times – even in the English “Vâhan” – that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was sometimes passionately agitated, used a harsh, passionate word, smoked cigarettes. The question was raised as to whether someone who smokes cigarettes can really be a great person, can sometimes be agitated. This was the reason for Mrs. Besant's lecture on Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Now this greatest disciple of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky spoke from her innermost being. Everyone who was there will have found that something tremendous emerged from within, everyone had to feel that something deep was alive there. She discussed the fact that there may be people who have not gone astray – but [she also] asked whether they also have the great qualities of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Of course, there are also many who do not smoke cigarettes, but do they have the great qualities of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky? The sun also has sunspots, but these do not illuminate the earth. It is light that has a warming and fertilizing effect. Those who want to have it, who want to achieve what Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was able to give to humanity, must also be able to see it - and be satisfied with what is great and powerful about it. Then they will come closer and closer to the impersonal source of wisdom, truth and life.

The fact that this was spoken out of a deeply serious experience was what mattered, and it was spoken by a personality who herself admitted that evening that [Helena Petrovna Blavatsky] was the Bringer of Light for her. Then came the beautiful, profound words in which Annie Besant, as everyone could feel, was in complete harmony with all the students of the great teacher Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, at the head of whom she placed those who said that that one should bear in mind that the disciple, the beginner above all, before he can grasp the greatness of the great, harms himself if he blocks his path to these great ones by hasty, unintelligent criticism. To have such an attitude, to get into such a mood, to really feel what is right in the face of greatness, that is the gain of life, that is the beginning of the highest spiritual knowledge. No one needs to venerate anyone else, everyone may criticize as much as they want in the world, but by doing so, they harm themselves most of all when they want to gain knowledge. Then they put the greatest obstacles in their own way.

There is one thing that must not be misunderstood. It is often said in theosophical writings: Don't criticize, seek to understand first, before you judge. And this is taken as if it were a prescription for everyone. The Theosophical Society does not oblige anyone to follow such a prescription. But there is something else we need to know, and that is that we must be in this mood of unbiased acceptance if these truths are to flow into us. You can't have one without the other, and anyone who wants one without the other is like someone who has a glass rod and wants it to be electric. If he wants it to be electric, he has to rub it. If he does not want to rub it, it will not become electric. He who wants knowledge must have this mood. You cannot achieve one without the other. It is a contradiction in terms to want to achieve one without the other.

You just have to understand the theosophical view correctly. It is nothing more than a narrative. It never demands anything of any of its members. That is something we are very far from, especially those who know what is important in the theosophical movement. We are not asked to believe in any authority, to engage in any personality cult. The less the cult of personality is demanded, the higher the status of those to whom it is applied. All speaking against personality cult is speaking against things that are not there. The great moment I wanted to characterize was to see a personality looking up. And the whole lecture was looking up. That was the significant thing about it.

I wanted to emphasize these two moments for you because they symbolically show something of the gain in life that one can have today within the Theosophical Society. There are two things that will become more and more important: One is the realization of our first principle: to establish the core of a human brotherhood, to present the great core of humanity, and the second is to learn to worship without belief in authority, without worship of persons, to worship out of freedom, out of knowledge. To offer worship as a gift that is free, without compulsion. This can be achieved. This is what we have achieved in thirty years. When we do that, it is as if a different kind of spirit were to pass through the room and fill everyone. Little by little, the theosophist comes to realize that this is something much more real than what can be grasped with hands. The thought should occur to every member at the entrance gate to the Theosophical Society: Here you enter a society in which people believe in the truths and realities of the spirit, in which they believe that spirit lives in you. This is connected with the central phenomenon of our society.

We recognize the great progress of the outer life, we are not reactionaries, we know what it means to have achieved outer science, that in the eighteenth century in one of the big cities 77 out of 1000 people died, while now only 22 out of 1000 die. We know what it means that our industry has conquered the world. In the face of all these achievements, there is one thing within this modern science that claims authority, one thing that you will encounter again and again, and that is an uncertainty regarding the great questions of the divine, regarding the great questions of the immortal powers in man. And there you hear from those who are most learned, most scientific: We know nothing, we can know nothing. And that is only natural, for it lies in the present development. But what knowledge have we acquired? To understand this properly, we have to look back a little in history.

Anyone who studies culture from a historical perspective from the point of view of the school of thought will be told that there were originally primitive, uneducated, uncultivated peoples. They still live in some parts of the world. We are descended from them. We will not examine whether this is the case. But when we examine religious beliefs, legends and myths, these world scriptures, we are amazed when we look into the deep wisdoms for which these myths and legends are the expression. We can glimpse the deepest wisdom in the mythical images of the seemingly most primitive peoples. We do not import it. Those who study them will find that it takes much more skill to import it than to extract it. These peoples did not have our means of understanding and our instruments. It is a miracle that the secret of the material is presented in a similar way to that given to us by science today. But now read a lecture given at the naturalists' meeting on the brain conditions. Everything appears chaotic to you compared to the old wisdom. There is a difference in how our people think and how our ancestors thought. What does today's man say? I have invented the truth. - Your ancestors would have referred you to their teachers, to higher and higher teachers. A sense of profound humility permeated the whole thing, a humility that can listen, that says to itself, the human being is in a state of development, knowledge and wisdom are also in a state of development, and if I want to know that which I cannot know myself, I must look up to other teachers. We should not accept knowledge on authority, no, when we have heard the truth, the knowledge, we can also find it ourselves.

It is true that the personal cannot know anything about things that go beyond the tangible. If we want to know something about this, we have to turn to such teachers who have kindled the light within themselves, in order to be able to show us what it looks like in the worlds that extend beyond the physical world. They will bring the teacher principle home to us.

What has the man of today achieved with all his science? He has been able to build the outer house and to bring about the greatest conceivable progress in the outer world of the senses. But one thing must be borne in mind. Think of it: all of science and culture has made our Earth a veritable palace for the people living on it. But it also teaches us something else: namely, that this physical Earth will no longer be here, because all the greatness and infinity that material culture has achieved will disappear, will disperse into its atoms. What does this physical science teach us? What will happen to all that man has been here and has achieved? A “I don't know,” this science must say, which is limited only to this earth. Only those who have experienced more than what is connected with the earth can know something about this question – and they do not speak about it that way. We must turn to the great teachers. Therefore, theosophical teaching ultimately leads to the great masters and teachers of the human race. Then one comes to the point of saying that a certain human knowledge is vain. But there are human beings who are beyond this point of view and have achieved something that will still be there when the earth has long since been scattered. We must find the way to the higher individualities who speak to the people who want to hear them. The Master does not speak to those who are arrogant, only to those who are truly humble in the highest sense, who make themselves a vessel and tool of the Master.

The Master speaks to them in the highest sense. Did the founder of the Theosophical Society, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, also have this humility? How easily she could have said: What is in my books comes from my knowledge. But she always referred to those who stood behind her, to the enlightened guides and masters of wisdom. So Helena Petrovna Blavatsky had that great modesty.

There are many who do not want to hear about the so-called higher worlds, who want to avoid the Theosophical Society precisely because it talks about a devachan plan and an astral plan. But whether we are afraid and afraid of these things is not the point, but whether they are true. The masters have told us more about these things because we need them in life. Certainly, you can learn a lot by observing life, the mind can tell us a lot. Even the moral teachings can be grasped by the intellect. From the ordinary point of view, many a person can be moralized about envy, cowardice, lies and so on. But envy, cowardice and lies are things that are observed in truth in the higher world. In the physical world, lying is a relatively light offense. But it is nothing compared to what it is on the astral plane. The moment you tell a lie, you cause something that is like the destruction of a living being. You then carry this killing with you. It mixes with your own astral body. What we otherwise only know from the lie as an external world, we then get to know in its liveliness. What is sensual here becomes spiritual. Today we need to be reintroduced to the spirit, to sense it first and then be led to certain knowledge. This is the life that must pulsate through the theosophical movement. If this life does not pass through the theosophical movement, then it will not achieve what it is meant for. These guiding masters, all our beautiful teachings and theories are in vain if there are not a number of people in the world who come together in the mood we have described, in the mood that they already say to themselves at the entrance: Here we only live in the awareness that the spirit is a reality. - When every listener is filled with this mood, then our branch has meaning, then you yourself are the source of something living. When we are together in the consciousness of the truth of the spirit, then this consciousness is a force, and the people who are there and have this consciousness form an electrical receiver. And when thoughts are expressed, whether by anyone in particular, that are in harmony with the laws of the universe, and are grasped by all the souls in us and a center is formed, then they go out from there through the whole city and influence the whole city, when we have the consciousness of the spirit. My words have no meaning if there are no people who take them up and carry them out into the world. That is why we come together in the Society. When we have this consciousness, only then are we truly a Theosophical Society. That this consciousness becomes more and more intense, stronger and stronger with us, that we really show a power through faith and through the knowledge of the spirit and of the spirit, that is what our meetings should achieve. What really matters is not that we read books or listen to teachings, but that we accept and appropriate this consciousness of the spirit. And then, when there are as many branches as there are people who have this consciousness of the spirit, only then will there be a Theosophical Society. But not before. It is not the doctrine, not the dogma, but the consciousness of the spirit that is important.

Report in the “Communications for the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society (Adyar Headquarters) published by Mathilde Scholl”, No. 1/1905

At half-past ten, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, as General Secretary of the German Section, opened the third ordinary General Assembly and welcomed the representatives of the foreign branches and all other guests.

After reading and approving the minutes of the General Assembly of October 30, 1904, the number of votes of the various branches was determined, with the following result:

Absolute majority 21 votes

Two-thirds majority 28 votes.

Mr. Hubo proposes the following procedural motion: The General Assembly shall decide to grant the Secretary General the exclusive right to publish the General Assembly; however, any other publication shall be declared inadmissible. After a lengthy debate, in which Dr. Löhnis, Mr. Ahner, Mr. Krojanker, Mr. Arenson, Mr. Stübing, Mr. Kieser, Dr. Paulus, Dr. Steiner took part, the Hubo motion was adopted as follows, with all but two votes in favor:

“The report of the General Assembly is to be duplicated by the General Secretary and sent confidentially to all members. It may not otherwise be published or sent.”

Dr. Rudolf Steiner makes the following statement on the first item on the agenda - the Secretary General's report:

"The Theosophical movement has spread extensively and intensively within Germany and Switzerland. The Theosophical idea seems to be understood more and more. During my visits to Munich, Nuremberg, Regensburg, Stuttgart, Frankfurt am Main, Bonn, Cologne, Düsseldorf, Weimar, Zurich, Basel, Kassel and so on, it has become clear that there is a great longing in people's hearts for a spiritual deepening of life. In these cities, we either already have branches or their establishment is in prospect. Branches have been established in Freiburg im Breisgau and Karlsruhe, and in other cities: Sankt Gallen, Frankfurt am Main and so on, such branches are likely to be established soon. In Basel and Heidelberg, the circumstances are more difficult; there, the understanding that the high spirit, which was sent into the world thirty years ago, flows through our society, must first be created. There is still much misunderstanding to be cleared up, which has been caused by the split-off theosophical movements.

This longing should give us strength. It is essential that we not only cultivate theosophical teachings, but also theosophical life. Only when art, science and all other branches of life radiate out of theosophy, only then has the mission been fully grasped. The significance of the Theosophical movement was beautifully demonstrated at the Congress of the Federation of European Sections in London. One may object to such congresses as one likes; perfection has not fallen from heaven; but here we are dealing with intentions. We must set ourselves the ideal of improving what needs improvement, of working to improve it, not of criticizing it.

Before I move on to the Congress report, I would like to mention an event that relates to certain recent events. On the eve of the Congress, Mrs. Besant spoke at the Blavatsky Lodge about the needs of the student body in connection with Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. All those present at the time will not contradict me when I say that it was an hour of intimate Theosophical togetherness, from which one could take away a lasting impression in one's heart and mind. I have seldom heard Mrs. Besant speak in such an inward and heartfelt way. In the English “Vâhan” it had been expressed some time before that the qualities of Helena Petrovna Blavatsky were in contradiction to the discipleship, and the question had been raised: Can someone possess the qualities and yet not be free from such faults as smoking, intermittent passionate outbursts and so on? Mrs. Besant took up this remark about “Vâhan” and said that Helena Petrovna Blavatsky was a personality who was the bringer of light for her; she was the one who led her out of darkness towards the light. Well, it is true that Mrs. Helena Petrovna Blavatsky smoked and flew into a rage; but do such questioners know what it means to go through the storms and struggles that someone has to endure before they have worked their way to this level of knowledge? Even the sun has sunspots, but we should not judge it by these spots, but as the bringer of light and warmth. The younger members should first try to understand the older members whom they cannot recognize in their greatness before they begin to criticize.

Let us tie this in with a few words about personality cults and belief in authority, because such things have also been discussed in our section. It might seem that I myself now wanted to engage in such personality cults and belief in authority with regard to Mrs. Besant. Before I knew Mrs. Besant, I was as far removed as possible from engaging in personality cults; it was more important to me to continue searching for the truth in the world. Then I met Mrs. Besant. Not out of personality cult, but out of the spiritual content of the personality, I became convinced that she lives in what leads to the higher spiritual worlds. Fifteen years ago, I still stood before Helena Petrovna Blavatsky as before a mystery, but through Mrs. Besant I also found my way to Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. Mrs. Besant demands the least cult of personality; nothing is more unpleasant to her than this. Mrs. Besant has never demanded the slightest cult of personality from me.

At the congress, a scene took place that seems to symbolize the global reach of the Theosophical Society. In addition to Mrs. Besant, there were representatives of the various sections and countries. Everyone spoke in their mother tongue. The idea of Theosophy, which is common to all, was heard in the languages of the most diverse peoples of the earth: Dutch, English, Spanish, French, German, Italian, Swedish, Russian, Finnish, Hungarian, and Indian. The course of the congress was the usual one. There was an exhibition, in particular of works of art by our members. Among the German exhibitors, I would like to highlight Lauweriks (Düsseldorf), Seydewitz (Munich), Boyer (Düsseldorf), Miss Stinde (Munich), Miss Schmidt (Stuttgart). The pictures of the Irishman Russell should be mentioned, who tried to express inner astral life in the environment and also in the symbolism in his landscapes and persons. Besant also pointed out that those who want to find theosophy in art can find it in Richard Wagner, for example. The sculptural work of a sculptor named Ezekiel, who lives in Italy, was also mentioned. Besant said that it reflects well what a theosophist can imagine of Christ.

Ms Besant's lecture on occult research, its methods and dangers on Sunday evening should also be mentioned. No one should accept anything that is claimed about occult research on good faith or on authority, but should consider it only as a suggestion at first. What comes to light is researched in difficult ways. Therefore, anyone who does such research should only want to suggest.

I myself was allowed to give a lecture on the occult basis in Goethe's works.

Regarding last year's Federation Yearbook, I note that it was completed by the beginning of July, except for the index, which I assume has been finished by now.

This year's Yearbook should be ready in less time.

The location of the 1906 congress is Paris. It is expected to take place in May.

This concludes the factual information. However, I would like this information to be understood as it is meant, and that these messages are not understood as meaning that all theosophical teachings, dogmas and thoughts are only valuable if they flow directly into life.

Those who enter Theosophical Society should know that everyone who sits there should be a battery of power for the mind. We are clear about the living weaving and living of the mind. We do not want to spread the teachings through mere words on the physical plane. We know that the spirit flows out like the current of an electrical power source. Wherever theosophists sit together, there should be such a power source. Then those who receive these waves will also be found. One should feel like one is a member of a spiritual community.

The treasurer, Mr. Seiler, now gives an account of his stewardship:

The total income in the past
financial year was 1462 marks
The total expenditure was 936.67 marks
Thus there was a surplus of 525.33 marks.

Added to this are 1000 marks in the bank, giving a total cash wealth of 1525.33 marks.

Dr. Steiner also reports that Countess Wachtmeister has provided him with 50 pounds for Theosophical work in Germany. He asks that these be used exclusively for propaganda and that he be allowed to administer them together with Miss von Sivers. The General Assembly agreed.

Fräulein von Sivers, as secretary of the German Section, gives the following report on the course of Theosophical life in the past year:

The number of branches is 18 compared to 13 last year, an increase of 5 (Besant Branch, Stuttgart II and III, Freiburg, Karlsruhe).

Total number of members: 377 (previous year: 256), an increase of 121.
8 have left
3 have died
132 have joined (previous year: 121).

Members in the individual branches:
Besant branch [newly founded] 83
Berlin branch [DTG] 18
Charlottenburg 5
Weimar 11 Munich 33
Stuttgart I 9
Stuttgart II (Kerning-Loge) 11
Stuttgart III 11
Freiburg i. Br. 10
Lugano 9
Karlsruhe 9
Cologne 22
Düsseldorf 15
Hamburg 21
Hannover 25
Leipzig 26
Dresden 9
Nuremberg 18

Section members 22

Reports from the individual branches:

Mr. Ahner reports on Dresden that there has been much struggle in the theosophical movement there, especially with the secession. The circumstances had led to the founding of an Adyar Lodge, which, however, found it very difficult to maintain its membership, as there were very few funds available. Therefore, work could only be done in a smaller circle. Mr. Ahner concluded with a general appeal to the generosity of the members with means. Mr. Hubo called for such voluntary donations to be made immediately after the General Assembly.

After the report of the auditor, Mr. Krojanker, the treasurer is granted discharge, as are the other members of the board.

The next item on the agenda is the election of the board:

Mr. Bresch takes the floor to speak about the election of the General Secretary and says something along the following lines: He is against the re-election of Dr. Steiner. Three years ago, he himself had urged Dr. Steiner to accept the position. At that time, Dr. Steiner was to be seen as a scholar. Since then, he has been working as an occultist, and it must be said that such personalities are not suitable for administrative positions. Dr. Steiner could better perform his services as a teacher if he were not burdened with the post of General Secretary. Furthermore, it is dangerous to have people with occult pretensions in such posts. The case of Judge proved that. Occult life is only too easily associated with fraud, imposture, deception, and so on. Mr. Bresch would therefore like to ask Dr. Steiner to refrain from re-election himself.

Dr. Steiner first notes that no motion for re-election has yet been made. He acknowledges Mr. Bresch's reasons to a certain extent; however, as things stand today, he feels obliged to accept the election if he is elected.

Proposal Arenson: Dr. Steiner shall be re-elected as Secretary General.

For the duration of this vote, Dr. Steiner hands over the chair to Miss Scholl.

Mr. Stübing asks if it would not be possible for Dr. Steiner to devote his activities entirely to propaganda.

Dr. Steiner replies that this has been his wish for a long time, but given the circumstances, he would be failing in his duty to the Theosophical Society if he did not accept the election at the moment.

Mr. Hubo proposes the middle way of re-electing Dr. Steiner but relieving him of mechanical work by paid assistants. Dr. Steiner requests that these motions be treated separately. After a lengthy debate, in which Mr. Ahner, Dr. Paulus and Mr. Arenson take part, Dr. Steiner is re-elected by roll call with all but two votes in favor of the motion to end the debate.

Dr. Steiner resumes the chair.

The remaining twelve members of the executive committee are then elected; they are elected individually by roll call.

The results of the election are as follows:

1. Miss von Sivers
2. Miss Scholl
3. Mrs. Lübke
4. Miss Stinde,
5. Mr. Arenson,
6. Mr. Kolbe,
7. Mr. Kiem,
8. Mr. Wagner,
9. Mr. Deinhardt,
10. Mr. Bauer,
11. Mr. Hubo,
12. Mr. Ahner.

The treasurer is then elected. At the request of Mr. Wagner, Mr. Seiler is re-elected. Since Mr. Krojanker declines re-election, Miss Motzkus and Mr. Tessmar are proposed and elected as auditors. Proposal by the Secretary General: For reasons of fairness, the section members, of whom we currently have 22 in Germany and who do not belong to any branch, should also have representation at the General Assembly. On behalf of the board, he proposes that they be treated as a single branch, that is, in addition to a joint delegate, they should have one additional delegate for every 25 members (or part thereof). Adopted.

Dr. Steiner requests the mandate to greet the general secretaries of the remaining sections on behalf of the general assembly. Accepted.

Proposal Bresch and Dr. Löhnis, regarding the Fuente matter, Leipzig, August 30, 1905: Proposal: The general assembly of the German section of the Theosophical Society should decide as follows:

1. The President of the Theosophical Society, Mr. H. 8. Olcott, is hereby informed of the displeasure of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society at his having allowed Mrs. Besant to use half of the estate of Don Salvador de la Fuente for the purposes of the Central Hindu College, although according to the arbitral opinion in the testator's papers this does not mention the college and rather states that the legacy should be used for the purposes of the Theosophical Society.

2. The President of the Theosophical Society is further expressed dissatisfaction because he has responded to factually justified complaints from individual members with personal insults (“impertinences” and “selfishness”, according to “Theosophist”, July 1905, p. 622).

3. The President of the Theosophical Society is requested to hand over to the Theosophical Society, as it has now acquired corporate rights, the foundations and bequests in his possession that were given to him as a representative of the Theosophical Society.

4. The President is further requested to always obtain the prior consent of the Central Board when using foundations and bequests intended for the purposes of the Theosophical Society, since, according to Clause 11 of the statutes of the Theosophical Society, he himself only acts as a co-administrator, not as the sole administrator of the Society's property.

5. The Vice President and the Secretaries-General of the various sections are to be expressed, as members of the Central Board, the displeasure of the members of the German Section for failing to object to the unlawful actions of Mr. Olcott and Mrs. Besant in matters concerning the Fuente bequest.

6. The Central Committee is requested to have the documents of the Fuente legacy submitted to it by the President and to duly settle this matter with the assistance of a court of law.

7. The General Secretary of the German Section shall issue the resolutions listed in Nos. 1 to 6 in the required number of copies within four weeks and then immediately send one copy each by registered mail to the President, the Vice President and the General Secretaries of all Sections of the Theosophical Society.

Richard Bresch, Dr. F. Löhnis

Dr. Steiner reports that the following is available:

1. Counter-motion from the Munich Lodge and several other lodges: “To the Secretary General of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.” Mr. Bresch publishes a motion to the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society in number 3 of “Vâhan,” volume VII, according to which the General Assembly should decide: “To express to the President and Vice-President as well as the General Secretaries of the various sections of the Theosophical Society the displeasure of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society for allowing or not objecting to Mrs. Besant's use of half of the Certral Hindu College.

Although the arbitrator Sir Subramania Iyer recognized in his verdict that “Mrs. Besant is entitled to one half of the property bequeathed by Colonel Olcott and her, although on the other hand, Mr. Bresch had already once raised an accusation against President Olcott and Mrs. Besant in this matter, which he had to recognize as “(“Vâhan” No. 12, Volume VI, page 280), Mr. Bresch and his friends would like to put Mrs. Besant on trial because Mr. Bresch wants the money distributed, and because Mr. Bresch and his friends have no confidence in any of the leaders of our movement. Dr. F. Löhnis, co-signatory of the aforementioned motion, accuses Mr. McAd of dishonesty, Mr. Olcott of partiality, Mrs. Besant of pride, and the majority of the members of servility in an article that precedes the reasoning behind this motion (“Vâhan” No. 3, Volume VII). The undersigned members of the Theosophical Society consider the motion of Mr. Bresch and his friends to be unjustified and see in the arguments of Dr. Löhnis an unjustified insult to the highly esteemed leaders of our movement and to the majority of the members of the Theosophical Society. In order to express the trust of the members of the German Section in the esteemed leaders of the movement, the undersigned members request that the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society vote on the following motion instead:

Proposal: “The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society expresses its fullest confidence in Mr. H. $. Olcott and Mrs. Besant, in grateful recognition of the great services they have rendered to the Society, the fullest confidence of the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society. The General Assembly expresses the conviction that Mrs. Besant acted fully within her rights in appropriating half of the assets bequeathed to her by Don Salvador de la Fuente Colonel Olcott.

Munich, September 22, 1905.
Rosa von Hofstetten, 1st Chairwoman of the Munich Lodge.
Sophie Stinde, 2nd Chairwoman of the Munich Lodge.
Heinrich Hiernickel.
Countess Pauline von Kalckreuth.
Emmy von Rumpler.
Harriet Vacano.
Marie von Seydewitz.
M. M. von Scherpenberg.
Hermine von Scherpenberg.
Max von Seydewitz.
Emmy von Gumppenberg.
Gertrud von Tschirschky née Scholtz.

2nd proposal from the Hanover branch: Hanover, October 12, 1905. Regarding the proposal from Bresch and companions. Contrary to the proposal from Mr. Bresch and companions (printed in the “Vâhan” of September this year), the Hanover branch decided at its meeting on October 9 this year to submit the following proposal to the general assembly on October 22 this year:

Proposal: “With regard to the proposal submitted by the Leipzig branch, or rather by Mr. Bresch and his associates, as published in the September issue of Vâhan, the Hanover branch proposes that the agenda be changed to address this matter on the grounds that – quite apart from the question of whether or not the individual complaints can be justified factually – it is formally quite inexpedient to discuss such matters of the Society in a public journal, and even more so to do so on behalf of a section. This must damage the reputation of our society and impair the influence of our movement. Such expressions of opinion should only be expressed personally and privately on the basis of expert examination rather than formal judgment, and they should never be settled in public, but at most in closed negotiations between the parties involved.” The board of the Hanover branch of the Theosophical Society.

Wilhelm Eggers.

The Secretary General announced that the following branches had joined the Munich application:

The following signed:
Cologne Lodge,
Weimar Lodge,
Hamburg Lodge,
Hanover Lodge,
Lugano Lodge,
Düsseldorf Lodge,
Nuremberg Lodge,
Munich Lodge
and the Besant branch in Berlin.

The delegates Bauer (Nuremberg), Mücke (Besant branch), Lübke (Weimar), Arenson (branch III, Stuttgart) then communicate the decisions of their branches: to support the motion from Hannover to move on to the agenda. The motion will be discussed first as it is the most far-reaching.

The following spoke against the motion: Messrs. Krojanker, Jahn and Stübing, the latter two emphasizing that Messrs. Bresch and Löhnis had been misunderstood. Furthermore, a new motion had already been drafted in a less harsh form; in the interest of fairness, the gentlemen should be allowed to speak. It would be intolerant and un-Theosophical to accept the Hanover motion. The delegates Arenson, Bauer, Huchthausen, Hubo, and von Sivers speak in favor of the motion, which has been well thought out. There can be no question of intolerance. A debate would hardly bring anything new to light, and the assembly would have better things to do than to listen again to everything that has been said in this regard in recent weeks. The form and content of the Bresch motion are so seriously offensive that, also in view of what became known at the board meeting, the only dignified thing to do is to accept the Hanover motion.

After a motion to close the debate has been adopted, the motion for Hanover is adopted by an overwhelming majority, whereupon Mr. Bresch and Mr. Löhnis and a supporter of the same demonstratively leave the meeting.

A letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Mr. Deinhard is now read out about the brochure by Dr. Hensoldt that has been distributed from Leipzig in recent weeks; the same reads:

"To the annual meeting of the German Section of the Theosophical Society in Berlin, October 22, 1905. Regarding the proposals of Mr. Bresch and his colleagues regarding the use of the De la Fuente legacy, the undersigned request permission to express their personal views: We have in our possession a pamphlet by Dr. Heinrich Hensoldt entitled “Annie Besant, a Whimsical Saint”, which was sent to us from Leipzig. We cannot help but suspect that this pamphlet was the cause of the agitation that has spread from there against the leaders of our society. This pamphlet has the sole purpose of fighting and suppressing our society. It mixes incorrect statements of fact with a spiteful distortion of real circumstances. The description of the character and endeavors of Mrs. Besant and Colonel Olcott (page 42 and following) is in the main the exact opposite of reality. The picture they paint contradicts the judgment of all those close to them regarding their moral and intellectual value; and to be able to judge such personalities validly, one must have known them for decades. The same requirement applies to the assessment of the factual circumstances.

As for the use of de Ia Fuente's legacy, it has been used in accordance with the wishes of the testator. Dr. Hensoldt (page 46) only objects to the donation to the large Adyar Library. But this is undoubtedly the most important creation of our movement. Therefore, its support had to be considered first and foremost. Under the direction of Dr. Otto Schrader, an outstanding German Sanskrit and Pali scholar, this collection of rare books and unique manuscripts is now on the verge of developing into a world-class library. The capital contribution from the legacy serves as a necessary prerequisite for this. Even if this had not been the testator's wish, his gift could not have found a more beneficial use. Incidentally, we older members are familiar with the fact that our society tends to go through a crisis every ten years, during which the same objections are always raised against it. Its founding took place in [1875], the Coulomb crisis in 1885, the Judge crisis [1895], the current crisis in 1905: but the effect of all these crises has always been that all those who judge the essence of our society only intellectually fall away from it because they do not possess the necessary intuition to sense the spirit that is effective through the leaders of our society."

Döhren near Hannover, October 12, 1905.
Hübbe-Schleiden.
Ludwig Deinhard.

Dr. Steiner declares the brochure to be a terrible pamphlet and reports that Mr. Bresch said at the board meeting that he provided Mr. Hensoldt with printing and address material.

As a representative of the Leipzig lodge, Mr. Jahn objects to this. He believes that the condemnation of Mr. Bresch and Mr. Löhnis has gone too far. Although he himself is against the attacks made in “Vâhan”, he must nevertheless take the gentlemen into his protection, since he is of the opinion that Mr. Bresch is a fanatic, but that he is not guided by bad motives. From this point of view, he asks to be judged by him.

Dr. Steiner remarks that no one should be denied the [subjective] feeling of fighting for the truth. But here, any sense of a basis for the truth is completely lacking. This is proven by the way in which “Vâhan” has behaved towards eyewitnesses of true facts that he has distorted. The behavior towards Miss Scholl, Mrs. Lübke and Dr. Vollrath clearly shows that Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis simply lack a sense of the necessary factual basis for the truth.

Dr. Paulus proposes that the meeting move on to the agenda, since it is really not worth engaging in lengthy debates about such an elaborate piece of work by a non-member. Mr. Stübing notes that the brochure is not to be understood in the context of the Bresch-Löhnis motion.

Mr. Ahner disagrees. Anyone who reads “Vâhan” and the brochure recognizes the connection. Hensoldt is, so to speak, held up on a shield in “Vâhan”.

After Fräulein von Sivers speaks against the opinion of Her Stübing and Frau Geheimrat Lübke announces that Mr. Bresch stated at the board meeting that he is indebted to Mr. Hensoldt for the unveiling, the motion to move on to the agenda is adopted.

This is followed by a motion from Dr. Paulus for the Stuttgart I branch. The applicant refers to the circular of the Stuttgart branch dated June 27 of this year and proposes that a “news sheet” be established for the German Section in the following form:

“The General Assembly resolves to publish a newsletter for members and to have it appear as soon as possible, as a supplement to Luzifer, at the expense and risk of the section, since there is a need for it.”

A further motion is made in this regard:

“To ask a member to take on the publication of this newsletter. The costs for this are to be covered by voluntary contributions.”

Mr. Hubo, Ms. Stinde, Mr. Bauer and Dr. Paulus take part in the debate.

Dr. Steiner proposes “that the newsletter be published officially and sent to each member separately from ‘Lucifer’, free of charge and on a mandatory basis”.

After further debate by members Ahner, Peipers, Bauer, Hubo, Arenson and von Sivers, it was deemed appropriate to place the entire matter in the hands of a suitable member, who could then initiate the process as they saw fit.

The following motion is proposed: Miss Scholl would first like to deal with the publication of a newsletter and to contact personalities she considers suitable for this purpose. The motion is adopted.

Proposal from the Leipzig Lodge:

“The General Assembly shall decide: ‘All motions received by the date of dispatch of the invitations to the General Assembly shall be sent to all members with this invitation’.”

The motion is adopted.

Proposal Scholl:

“The General Assembly shall decide: Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis are to be asked to resign from the society.”

Mr. Jahn then says that the two gentlemen should not be treated equally with regard to the assessment, since they certainly have different motives.

Mr. Engel, Mr. Stübing, Mr. Krojanker and Mr. Feldner speak against this motion. Mr. Ahner asks Ms. Scholl to withdraw this motion. Ms. Scholl remarks that she has thought about this matter carefully and cannot in any way comply with this request.

Mr. Stübing proposes: “To move on to the agenda item regarding Ms. Scholl's motion.”

This proposal is rejected.

Scholl's proposal is rejected.

It is now proposed that the “Theosophical Library”, which has been under the direction of the “Berlin Branch” and in the possession of a few private individuals, be transferred to the direction of the German Section. The General Assembly generally expresses its approval of this proposal.

Preparatory work for a possible congress of European sections in Germany is assigned to the board.

The Munich branch once again puts forward the request, already made last year, to move the general secretariat to Munich. The matter is taken note of again.

Dr. Steiner then closes the business part of the meeting at half past three and invites the members to attend the substantive part of the General Assembly at half past four. With regard to a report on the General Assembly of the German Section contained in the November 1905 issue of 'Vâhan', we note that it is impossible and also quite useless to engage in polemics with people who adopt such a way of fighting. We want to work and not argue. However, we do want to register the following 'objective untruths':

1. Dr. Löhnis writes: “Instead of the factual annual report that the General Secretary is obliged to present, Dr. Steiner offered his faithful followers a brilliant apotheosis of Mrs. Besant, and he he increased his own nimbus by declaring that he had been in contact “on higher planes” with Mrs. Blavatsky, the “great teacher, to whom all who ‘know’ look up out of true knowledge.”

This is an objective untruth. It is much more true that the report was given entirely in part by Dr. Steiner and in part by Miss von Sivers, and that the alleged “apotheosis” was necessarily part of this factual report on the congress of European sections. Regarding Mrs. Blavatsky, Dr. Steiner only said that Mrs. Besant had opened his understanding for her. Nothing was said about “higher plans”.

2. Dr. Löhnis writes here with all sorts of combinations of his imagination that are too indifferent for us that Countess Wachtmeister “has donated a considerable amount to promote the Theosophical movement in Germany. It was deemed unnecessary to provide more precise information about the amount. Only so much was communicated that about 1000 marks are available annually.

This is another objective untruth. What was actually said was that 1000 marks had been given once (not annually) by Countess Wachtmeister.

3. It is also objectively untrue that Dr. Steiner himself stood for election as General Secretary; he merely said a few words after Mr. Bresch's speech against this election to say that he would accept the election if he were elected because he currently still considered it his duty.

4. It is objectively untrue that Miss Scholl proposed the motion to expel Mr. Bresch and Dr. Löhnis. Rather, it is true that the motion was to request the aforementioned gentlemen to resign. That's enough; anyone who illustrates the principle “No law is above the truth” with such “objective untruths” can justifiably use it in conversation or write it in their letters every now and then!!!

The following have resigned from the Theosophical Society:

Mr. Richard Bresch, Dr. Löhnis, Mr. Haase, Mr. Heyne, Mr. Emil Hubricht.

Newly admitted are:

Miss Clara Rettich, Mr. Paul Weiß, Mr. Eduard Bachmann, Mrs. Helene von [Gillhaußen], Mrs. Anna Werner, Mrs. Eliza von Moltke, Mr. Ludwig Weiß.

by Felix Löhnis in “Vâhan”, Volume VII, No. 5, November 1905

The General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society took place on October 22, a.c. in Berlin. We can summarize our report briefly. Cult of personality and servility have triumphed there. Not only for the board meeting held the day before, but also for the general assembly itself, it was decided, at the request of Mr. Hubo (Hamburg), that the strictest silence must be maintained regarding the course of the negotiations. The Secretary General was to report exclusively to the members and in strict confidence at a time and in a form of his own choosing. The vast majority of the delegates agreed to such a restriction of freedom of expression. Instead of the factual annual report that the General Secretary was obliged to give, Dr. Steiner offered his faithful followers a brilliant apotheosis of Mrs. Besant, and he increased his own nimbus even more by declaring that he had been in contact for a long time “on higher planes” with Mrs. Blavatsky, the “great teacher,” to whom all those who “know” “look up from true knowledge.” During the discussion of the financial matters, it was mentioned that Countess Wachtmeister had donated a considerable sum to promote the Theosophical movement in Germany. It was not considered necessary to provide exact details of the amount. Only so much was communicated that about 1000 Marks are available annually, which, according to a proposal by the Secretary-General, which was of course very favorably received, do not flow into the section's treasury, but are transferred to him, together with Fräulein von Sivers, for his free disposal, in order to make accounting superfluous. (!) The “revered leaders” of the Theosophical Society are also setting an example in this respect. Under such circumstances, it was also very understandable that Dr. Steiner himself campaigned vigorously for his re-election as General Secretary during the election of the new board. Mr. Bresch spoke against the re-election. He pointed out the serious concerns that arise in this regard with regard to the alleged clairvoyance that Dr. Steiner boasts of, compared to the experiences in a very similar situation in America ten years ago. The same fate befell the motion printed in issue 3 of Vâhan, which was intended to remedy the violations of rights and duties mentioned at the locations listed, of which the president and the central committee of the Society have been proven to be guilty. It was not admitted to the proceedings at all. In accordance with a motion from the Hanover branch, it was decided by a large majority to “proceed to the agenda”. (!) And how did the Hanover branch justify its motion? Literally as follows:

“Quite apart from the question of whether or not the individual complaints can be justified factually, it is formally quite inexpedient to discuss such matters of the Society in a public journal and even less to represent them from the point of view of a section. This must damage the reputation of our Society and impair the influence of our movement.”

Thus, in the Theosophical Society, no longer are objective reasons valid, but only formal ones. It does not matter if the Society itself suffers harm at the hands of disloyal officials; only its reputation must be protected at all costs. The motto of the Society is still: “No law above the truth!” But under no circumstances may the members publicly stand up for justice and truth; the “fear of the truth” reigns in the Society and demands strict secrecy. - For historical reasons, it may be mentioned in passing that Miss Scholl (Cologne), probably to make up for the “Autodafé” in London (see numbers 2-4 of “Vâhan”) that she denied, made a motion to expel Mr. Bresch and the reporter from the Society. A quarter of the votes were in favor of this first heresy trial; over the course of a year, it might be the majority. In fact, such a motion was completely superfluous in this case. Because – however shamefully this General Assembly went otherwise – it did produce a result that was beneficial to the cause: It has now made it completely clear to anyone who can and wants to see that, given the current state of affairs, one can no longer serve the truth and the progress of humanity within this society.

Finally, on behalf of the editor of 'Vâhan', I would like to point out that this magazine will no longer deal with the affairs of that 'Theosophical Society' in the future.

Minutes of the General Assembly of the Berlin Branch of the Theosophical Society (DTG)

At 9 o'clock, the chairman Paul Krojanker opened the General Assembly convened by circular letter dated January 3, 1906. Adele Schwiebs and Messrs Richard Arendt and Referendar (junior lawyer) Richard Fränkel were present. Count Cay and Countess Sophie von Brockdorff as well as Helene von Borcke had sent their votes by letter, and City Councilor Luise Eberty and Comtesse Eva von Krockow had authorized Adele Schwiebs to cast their votes. Paul Krojanker gave an account of the branch's activities in 1905. Richard Fränkel reported on income, expenses and the branch's assets:

Cash on hand on April 1, 1905: 725.40 Marks
Income (from membership fees and interest): 102 Marks
Expenses (library contributions: 421 Marks, contributions to the section treasury, administrative costs): 516.65
Current balance: 310.75 Marks

It was then decided:

I. (with all 9 votes cast)

The Berlin branch of the Theosophical Society (DTG) is dissolved.

II. (with all 6 votes cast by members present and represented by Adele Schwiebs):

The branch assets will be given to the informal Theosophical Circle formed by the members of the dissolved branch in Berlin; this group will use the assets to purchase Theosophical or related books, magazines and for other events. The interim owners of the assets are the four members present today, with Paul Krojanker as administrator.

The meeting was closed at 10:30 a.m.

Richard Fränkel as secretary.

Above all, I must express my satisfaction at being able to greet you once again in Berlin. I know full well that my absence, my all-too-frequent absences, cause some disruption. But you will understand, from a theosophical point of view, that today's work is necessary at the most diverse points in the German-speaking world – and is necessary in other ways as well. Right now we are at a very important stage of the development of the Theosophical movement, and each and every one of us must contribute to the development of occultism and Theosophy wherever we feel we can contribute. I hope that you will therefore also understand this matter, that I am not always able to work only in the place that is, after all, in a certain respect the starting point of my theosophical work; but circumstances have made it necessary for a temporary absence like the last one to occur more often, and we can hope that somewhat different times will arise for Berlin in the future. For my part, I will endeavor to be here as much as possible. However, I cannot neglect the comprehensive task of our Theosophical development during this time and ask you to be understanding in this regard.

Obituary for Countess Brockdorff

The next thing we have to do today is to remember the departure from the physical plane of one of our very dear members. Countess von Brockdorff, who, as especially the old members of the Theosophical movement in Germany know, devoted so much strength and devotion to this Theosophical movement in Germany, departed from the physical plane on June 8, after a physically agonizing ordeal. The older members of our group, and I myself in particular, are aware of the beautiful and devoted work of Countess von Brockdorff. At times when the Theosophical cause in Germany was often on the verge of dying out, it was the couple, Count and Countess Brockdorff, who, time and again, knew how to keep this Theosophical movement in Germany afloat in their loving and, at the same time, extraordinarily appealing way for the widest circles. Those who still remember the quiet and extremely effective way in which the countess knew how to gather individual minds in her house to send out individual rays of light will fully appreciate her work.

If I may first say a few words about how I myself came to be part of the circle in which Countess Brockdorff was active, inspiring in the broadest sense in theosophical and other intellectual matters, I would just like to say that one day a lady said to me whether I would like to give a lecture on Nietzsche in Brockdorff's circle. I accepted and gave a lecture on Nietzsche. The countess then took the opportunity to ask if I would like to give a second lecture in the same winter cycle. This second lecture - I think it was the 1901 winter series - was about the fairy tale of the “Green Snake and the Beautiful Lily”. Even then, the countess had the desire to take up again what had been dormant at the time - the actual theosophical activity.

The countess's work was extremely difficult because she became more and more rooted in the theosophical life with which she had come to various theosophical experiences.

It was difficult to continue the spiritual life under the name of Theosophy. Therefore, she had initially limited herself to her Thursday afternoons, but then felt the need to return to actual Theosophical activity and invited me - I was not even a member of the society at the time - to give lectures at the association, which took place during the first winter and were about German mysticism up to Angelus Silesius. An outline of this is given in the book 'The Mysticism of Modern Spiritual Life'. The following winter I gave the lectures on 'Christianity as a Mystical Fact'. This led to the creation of a kind of center for the gathering of theosophical forces in Germany, from which a foundation was laid for the actual founding of the section.

Now, when one thinks of the dear Countess Brockdorff, it must be emphasized that the Theosophical cause was repeatedly kept afloat by her extraordinarily sympathetic manner and work. The Countess had little sense for certain organizational issues and currents in the Theosophical movement. It was less her thing. She had less sympathy for it. But a certain basic tendency of her heart formed to work in the direction of the theosophical movement. She did this in a way that was truly rare in a human being, borne of the fullest devotion and extraordinary love.

It was probably her health that made it necessary for her to retire to her country residence in Algund near Meran at a time when we were forced by circumstances to develop a tighter and more cohesive organization in Germany. And, as was often the case, even this peace was not truly rest for the good countess. She soon began to suffer from ill health, and she went through difficult times in terms of her health in the last few years.

Objectively speaking, the history of the Theosophical Society in Germany in the 1890s and early 1900s will be linked to the name Brockdorff, as the achievements of the countess and the count cannot be praised enough. The older members will still remember our good count when he was still at the side of the companion he has now lost in the physical plane. But the members also know how deeply rooted the theosophical sentiment was, with which peace will be won from the theosophical world view. But even those who may have been younger members and did not know Countess Brockdorff will, in view of what she achieved for the Theosophical movement in Germany and particularly in Berlin, gratefully remember it, and look back with a certain – essentially Theosophical – emotion on the last days that brought physical death to the much-admired and beloved member. I ask you to honor the honored member by rising from our seats.

Report on the Paris Congress

Now it is my turn to speak briefly about the congress of the European section that took place at Whitsun in Paris and that coincided with my presence in Paris. It was not just a matter of attending the congress, but I also spent four weeks in Paris giving lectures and tried to cover the various fields of Theosophy and occultism in these lectures. These lectures – I may say this objectively – have aroused some interest. In the end, it was no longer possible to finish the lectures in the small venue. The French section has earned our special thanks by providing us with their club venue for these lectures.

I am particularly gratified by the fact that one man in particular took part in these lectures from start to finish, and he has achieved extraordinary things for the occult and spiritual movement in our time: namely Edouard Schur, whom you may also know from 'Lucifer'.

So our French congress took place at Pentecost. This congress, like all congresses of this kind, kept our French comrades and colleagues busy for a long time. Anyone who is able to look behind the scenes of such a congress and see what needs to be done will know that it is not without reason that we look back with gratitude on everything the French Section has achieved over many months, just as the English Section did last year. However, I have to add a bitter pill sweetened by joy by informing you that we will have the congress in Germany next year. I believe that the German Section will be able to take on the burden of this congress as the fourth of these sections. I hope that we will be able to welcome many friends from abroad here next year.

If I am to speak of the participants in the congress that began on Saturday, July 2 and ended on Wednesday, June 6, I have to mention President-Founder Olcott, who made the long journey from Adyar to Paris especially for the congress and who was the chairman of the congress this year. Then I can only give you a few of the names of the participants in this congress that may interest you. I can tell you that on the part of America, only one member was there – that is natural, because America does not belong to the European section – our member [Bernard]. Of foreign members, I would like to mention an Indian who is currently planning to give lectures in England: [...]. He will give lectures on Vedanta philosophy. Then there was a personality, a representative of the area north of India, who spoke in a few words during the congress, in a way that gave an idea of the shades of the theosophical view in this area.

Among the European participants, mention should be made of Mr. Mead, Mr. [Keightley], Secretary General of the European Section, [Kate Spink], then Misses Cooper-Oakley, then, from the English Section, Miss [Ward] and several other members who can hardly be known in Germany by name.

Our Scandinavian member [Arvid Knös] represented the Scandinavian Theosophical Society at the congress in an exceptionally pleasant manner. The Dutch section was represented by our friend [W. B. Fricke]. The French section was present in person. Then there was Pascal, the secretary general of the French section, who was not very active due to poor health and could only devote a little time to the work of the Theosophical Society. The main work of the French section lies with the three siblings: Monsieur and [Mesdames Blech], who have ensured that there is now a beautiful headquarters in France and who had a lion's share in the preparation of the congress. In addition, Mr. Ostermann, who lives in Alsace for most of the year and who has greatly supported our work through his activities, made it possible to give lectures in Strasbourg and Colmar. In Strasbourg, he had an audience of about 700 people. He supports the theosophical cause wherever he can.

From Spain, there was Monsieur [Rafael Urbano]. From Italy, there was our friend Professor Penzig, a professor in Genoa, who is also the Secretary General of the Italian Section. The German members Fräulein von Sivers, Baroness v. Bredow, Mr. Kiem; also from Cologne, Miss Scholl, Mr. and Mrs. Künstler, Miss Noss, Miss Link – Cologne, now Bonn. A lodge has recently been established in Bonn. From Hamburg there were: Miss Wagner, the sister of Günther Wagner, who could not be present. Then from Darmstadt: Mr. Kull, from Munich: Countess Kalckreuth, Miss Stinde and [Miss Stucky]. From Stuttgart: [Carl Kieser], from Regensburg: Mr. [Feldner]. Those are more or less the German members who were able to attend. So that was the list of participants.

The congress was opened by an exhibition held in the rooms of the French headquarters at [Avenue de la Bourdonnais 59] on the afternoon of June 2. In a series of partly symbolic and partly other images, the French section endeavored to make the artistic part of our congress. It is to be hoped that this part in particular will be developed more and more. It is certainly true that the French section did well to only allow works by French artists. Whether this can continue to be the case to this extent will have to be carefully considered. The artistic element was relegated to a mere secondary meaning by the fact that the congress was held in a large room at [14 Rue Magellan], but the smaller exhibition in the rooms a little way away could only be considered for those who could spare a quarter of an hour to look at the pictures. Nevertheless, just consider what it would cost such a congress committee to gather a larger number of images from all over France in order to organize the congress to the satisfaction of the members.

The opening of the congress by President Olcott took place the next morning, and was preceded by a very pleasant performance of the “Ode to the Sun”, which was written and composed by our French member [Edmond Bailly] and which introduced the congress in a very beautiful and dignified way. Then there was an address by our friend Dr. Pascal, the Secretary General of the French Section, in which he welcomed the assembled members (over 400 in number). Of course, the members of the [affected] country provided the main support. The number of German members has grown somewhat compared to the number that could be represented in Amsterdam and London. I can say that we had a very favorable number in Paris.

Then our president Olcott gave his speech, which he first delivered in English and then repeated in French. This opening speech – allow me to give you an objective report – probably belongs to a current in the theosophical movement that, I would say, no longer stands on the ground of the original intention of the theosophical movement. I do not wish to hide my views and convictions from the members of the German Section, but I would ask to be allowed to speak openly about the matters at hand during a relatively difficult period in our development. It is not a matter of in any way touching on the merits and virtues of President Olcott, but for me it is only a matter of speaking to the German members in a completely unbiased and honest way.

The speech that our president gave more or less culminates in expressing the aspiration that is prevailing in a large part of our society today, the aspiration to push back occultism. Within society, more superficial studies than can otherwise be found today, and in particular, as is often emphasized, the ethical direction, the moralizing direction, have come to the fore. I do not want to say that the theosophical movement today is already shaping itself similarly to a society for ethical culture. But there is clearly a certain turning away from actual occultism and a limitation to what is in the first principle, to an external study, to the results of scientific research, such as hypnotism, suggestion and so on; as I said, there is a reluctance to deal with the great occult problems, which we in Germany tried to place at the center of the movement. There is a tendency to push them more into the background.

I am not going too far when I note that there was a tendency in the speech to let the esoteric element in society recede somewhat. It is self-evident that within society every person can have their own opinion, and that the president must also have and can have his own opinion. However, I must say that for many members, what the president says carries more weight than what anyone else says. But what he says must not be taken democratically. I myself would not be dissuaded at any moment from the path I have taken, and which actually does not go in the direction that appears to be official, but emerged as the opinion of an individual in the opening speech of the congress. I do not want to say – I do not actually want to say what I am saying – that I myself [...] consider it right for the Theosophical movement to be gradually pushed aside by occultism, but that I consider the cultivation of the great aspects of occultism and esotericism to be the basic nerve that should make up the Theosophical movement.

I can also say that at the congress, where I had the opportunity, I never hesitated to speak about this view. I said that in Germany it could not be about anything other than the cultivation of esotericism and occultism, although sometimes I was all alone. But it seemed necessary to me not to hold back what I consider to be the main focus of the movement.

Recently, our German section has been accused – including by German members – of spinelessness and all sorts of other things because we did not engage with their matters, which were not worth the trouble, because we could not go along with this line. Where it will be a matter of objective opposition, we will hopefully not shrink from making that opposition. I am not saying that our president expressed his personal opinion as president, but that he did not actually fully observe the custom that a president should observe: namely, to speak in generalities and in a kind of greeting, that is, to speak in a comprehensive manner, so that he may have gone too far in a way that can very easily create the danger of also giving a certain impression in society. That would have to be avoided at all costs.

The next item on the congress agenda was the individual speeches of the general secretaries and then also of the representatives of other individual nations. There was a colourful mix of languages, as each person gave their welcome address in their own language, in keeping with the true spirit of an international congress.

Dr. Pascal spoke for France, [W. B. Fricke] for the Netherlands, [Arvid Knös] for Sweden and Norway, Penzig for Italy, and I for Germany. The British section – and this was a cute scene: the of the English section is our member [Kate Spink], who spoke in such a way that Miss [Ward], who has a good voice and is good at speaking, stood behind her and spoke those words that were to be considered the greeting of the English section.

The last thing was the announcement that our friend Johan van Manen, who for years has been the de facto secretary of the Federation's congress and has always organized this congress in an extremely busy and active manner, and who has devoted himself so intensively to this work that he had to take a vacation next year to recover, so that we will have to do without a permanent secretary. Fräulein Stinde from Munich has therefore been elected as secretary for the German work, and she will represent Johann van Manen next year.

That was the first morning. Then came the first afternoon, which was dedicated to one of the two discussions that were held. The questions were as follows. The first question was: “To what extent is the Theosophical Society purely a group of seekers after truth? And a group of students? Or is it a group of propagandists or of followers of some system?”

The second question was this: “Whether the Theosophical Society has no dogmas or whether any authority exists in it, and what the value of that authority is?”

The third question was: “Whether the moral character of individuals should influence admission to the Theosophical Society?”

This last point about admitting [morally questionable] individuals was not even included on the agenda. To approach this question would be a difficult experiment. It would then come about that members would be thrown out of the society under some form or other. We would be holding heresy trials.

A number of prominent figures spoke on the first question, and here two stages in particular emerged clearly in the discussion. If I am to characterize what lies dormant in the bosom of our society, I would say it in the following words: There is a group that is mindful of the purpose of the original society and desires that true occultism be practiced. But then it is necessary that those who know something can say it in some way. Then the others will listen first. It is in the nature of the facts that one cannot immediately control and test everything that someone who has progressed as a teacher proclaims. There will always be those who say: This is uncontrollable, anyone can make something up.

Then there is the other current, which says: There must be no authority in the Theosophical Society, no dogmas, only what everyone - and the word has been repeated in all variations - can understand in the sense of common sense, can be taught.

In Germany, there is someone who wanted to trace everything back to common sense. Even Fichte has risen to a pamphlet, because who has that kills gods. [...] You could also have a vote in the Reichstag on what should be valid as common sense. Then you could also come to vote on mathematics and so on.

There are those who know what is important and that what is true does not require the approval of others. There are those who understand the teachings and those who do not yet understand them. Therefore, it is necessary that there is a certain trust, a certain personal relationship between those who teach in society and those who receive it. This is so obvious that it should not be discussed. But there is a current in society that only talks about what everyone knows and everyone can talk about. That was the question that was discussed that afternoon and about authority in the sense that a certain field must be created in the theosophical movement for those who, from their own experience, from higher experience, can teach occultly. The Russian friend Miss Kamensky stood up for this, then Miss Winters, then myself. But then we are more or less finished with those who advocate this view. In fact, however, there is a very strong sentiment in favor of the other [current] within the Theosophical movement, and Messrs. Mead and [Keightley] have vigorously advocated this direction. That is a true report, and I think I have given you such a true report.

The evening was filled with two lectures. Mr. Mead spoke about the religious spirit. What he said was from the circle of his studies, which for years have been in the field of esoteric fraternities, which developed outside of Christianity in the first centuries of Christianity, namely the great fraternities of Egypt, which bear the name of Hermes Trismegistus, and he sought to show that the receptivity of those great brotherhoods has been able to achieve a wisdom that is capable of forming a complete harmony between research on the one hand and the demands of reason on the other. He showed how, at that time, there were currents existing alongside Christianity, and his tendency was to show how these have eliminated a personal master, how they have limited themselves to regarding the actual spirit as the actual inspirer and, instead of what is understood as initiation, namely the fertilization of one spirit by another that is further along, to set self-initiation, which in this sense is the actual initiation.

That same evening, Monsieur Bernard, who had been in India for two years, gave a lecture on “The Problems of the Present Hour”, on those problems that Theosophy is dealing with in the present hour, how the goal of brotherhood is made the high goal of the Theosophical movement, how difficult it is to understand and interpret this correctly, and how those who believe they are living this brotherhood can fall into all kinds of aberrations. In a more moralizing way, he tried to explain how this moral-ethical aspect of the movement should be fulfilled.

On Monday morning, the actual sectional work began. Now we had sections working in two halls next to each other. I can report little about this. The main event was a lecture by Mrs. [von Ulrich], a member of the Italian section. She spoke about old [Slavic] myths and legends; she tried to extract the occultism of such primitive peoples.

Then I myself spoke about “Theosophy in Germany 100 years ago”. It is not for me to give further details of my own lecture. The Spanish Section was discussed in terms of [Louis Desaint].

Another example: a lecture was given on [Henri Bergson] in order to put the relationship of modern scholars with Indian occultism into perspective. Mr. Whyte from England gave a lecture in which he discussed interesting relationships within the oriental esotericism referred to by the name Mahayana. Then something else was read about a group under the title “Yoga from Algiers”. Then there was a reading about... that was a lodge work, the result of all members together.

The afternoon of that Monday was filled with questions. The question: to what extent propaganda could be a goal for the movement, and whether directives should be given to individual lodges for joint work. The latter could be useful if there is time for those who can do such a thing.

Then came the question: why the Theosophical Society has not grown beyond 13,000 members. In relation to this question, those who believe that 13,000 members is already a very respectable number for the spiritual current worldwide will be right. And if we were to gradually shed the occult character of the Theosophical movement, the number of members would also decrease considerably, but our culture makes it self-evident that with the expanded concepts of occult knowledge, the number of members of the Theosophical movement will continue to grow.

Monday evening was filled with musical soirées organized by members of the Society in France, and which, with a rich program, earned all credit for the musical achievements of our French comrades. Then the evening was closed with a [r&ception du soir], a kind of hospitality with tea and other things.

Of the next day – Tuesday – I would like to highlight, of the work that was given, a treatise by [Edmond Bailly, who also wrote the “Ode to the Sun”], with discussions of certain [mantric type, from the English language of the gods [...1] – Then we heard a talk about Mozart's “Magic Flute”, then a suggestion from Dr. Pascal (France) and then a suggestion from Miss [Ward] that people in different countries should gather evidence to support what is written in Blavatsky's “secret doctrine” and to confirm it with new scientific discoveries. She expected a lot from the fact that this enormous treasure of science, which has been created over time, will be collected and used to support the secret doctrine.

Then a member of the French Society, [Commandant D. A. Courmes], spoke about what needs to be done in the Theosophical movement to cultivate the material side of Theosophy, the mutual support in a spiritual and material sense. No specific proposals were made. But there should be a suggestion in this direction to consider to what extent members can help each other on this issue.

Then there is a lecture by [Frederick Bligh Bond] that will be of interest to those who favor a more materialistic elaboration of the basic theosophical ideas. He has tried, by combining certain pendulum movements, to draw figures [...] that come about when one pendulum swings to one side and crosses another pendulum. This creates interesting vibrational relationships. Our friend Gysi in Zurich tried to cut out an ordinary piece of a tree and let a drop of liquid dye fall on it and then let it run into the channels. It turned out that one piece of wood gave the shape of a butterfly, another piece the shape of a flower. You can get beautiful shapes out of it. This is better because it is reality that lives on the astral plane, while the pendulum movement is more of a game.

On Tuesday afternoon, the congress was closed at four o'clock. The president had become indisposed and could not attend the closing of the congress. The congress was closed by an address from our French friend Pascal and by addresses from the various general secretaries. At the opening, not only the general secretaries spoke, but also the others. It was interesting to hear India and Persia, then to hear the member from Spain speak, or rather, I can almost say, to see him speak. I was reminded of the Viennese university lecturer Unger. He once said: “The individual nations differ in many ways, including their speakers. And while the Latin souls have speeches that have a harmony between gesture and speech, the Germans have no gestures. The Spaniard spoke with his head, with his hands and feet. He spoke warmly. He also spoke in a discussion; there he said that one must have theosophy in one's heart and mind, then one can also express it with the appropriate gestures. Kamensky spoke in Russian. Then a Czech speaker took the floor. The approximately ten members in Prague were represented by him. They belong to us in Germany. The next day, everyone gathered for an excursion to Meudon. You can see the city from a nearby point outside. The congress was closed.

It has been decided to hold the congress in Germany next year, and we have endeavored to invite the friends of the world to join us.

Regarding the Leadbeater case

We have been discussing this for a little too long, but I still have to discuss one more matter that I feel is necessary to discuss, which is somewhat related to the things I told you about as difficulties of the Theosophical movement. I remind those who were at our general assembly that our friend Hübbe-Schleiden, together with Mr. Deinhard, said that our movement is going through a severe crisis. I have already said that this crisis does not consist of an action by Hensoldt and Bresch, but that we have now fully entered into this crisis through a certain event.

I would now like to talk about this event that led to a major crisis. There was something like a black shadow operating in the background of the whole Congress mood, and those who, like the General Secretaries, had to deal with what belonged to the background had to deal with these difficult circumstances – some more than others. They know that Mr. Leadbeater is one of those personalities who have been most appreciated by a large number of Theosophists all over the world in the past years, and that the Leadbeater books are among the most popular literary works of the Theosophical movement. Recently, Leadbeater had given effective lectures for the Theosophical movement throughout America and Australia. You also know – the members of the Berlin branches know this best – that this veneration of Leadbeater was even greater outside of Germany than within Germany. They know that some outsiders, like [Schouten Beek] always said, “But Leadbeater says it differently.” So you can imagine that it was significant for certain members - though not surprising for occultists - when, after May 16, the various general secretaries received word that on May 16, President Olcott felt obliged to convene a committee consisting of English, American and French members to discuss Leadbeater, so that Leadbeater had now resigned or would have been expelled. It is a hard blow when one of the pillars of the Theosophical Society is now being excluded after serious accusations by the section in which he has otherwise worked successfully.

Now it is, I might almost say, an insurmountable difficulty to speak about the reasons that led to the exclusion of Leadbeater. You know – and this is a problem that I have emphasized time and again – that there is a boundary between what is called black and white magic that is as easy to break as a cobweb, and that it is very easy for highly developed personalities to fall away through all kinds of impossible arts.

This is indeed a fact that is understandable to the occultist, but of course in no way defensible – and at present has found no other solution than that which lies in the exclusion of Leadbeater. If I am to speak in generalities in order to clarify the serious case at hand, I must relate it to a number of contemporary conditions.

You must not forget that occultism leads people up to higher levels of spiritual life, that people must consciously go through what they have unconsciously gone through in the past.

I have guided you through the sublime mysteries of the past in a variety of ways. I have not yet spoken of the degenerations of the mysteries because I did not consider it necessary. But there are also degenerate mysteries that have dragged down the sacred teachings, which shine into the depths of the universe, to the basest level. There are mysteries that have degenerated into the most savage sex cult and the most savage abuse of the sexual organs, and the one that on the one hand leads to the most sublime can, if abused, actually lead to the most terrible. You will often have heard that this is symbolically expressed by the great teachers of ancient Egypt, that it is compared to words - Osiris, the male; Isis, the female principle - that sexual images are evoked to describe that which rises to the highest region of the spirit. It is the same with a person who rises above all teachings. It is just as easy for him to fall into the swamp.

Now, in Leadbeater's case, it is still the case that he has come to excesses that are extremely condemned by morality. He started out from priests who described the difficulties of life with an awakening sex drive and offered help, so that the view has developed that one must counteract what there was of excess in this area. He combined this with all kinds of practices that are called practices, which are mixed into his educational system. It is difficult to continue talking about this. This is an ugly case of a slide that the occultist has to understand, who condemns himself only within his own karma of life.

We must not forget that he has achieved an infinite amount. What he has achieved will be won. What he has done wrong will have to be worked off again through him. The outsider has no right to judge his fellow man, because karma is the incorruptible and just judge. That is why we do not interfere in personal matters either.

Olcott did not consider it appropriate to ask the General Secretary of the German Section about this question. So the German voice was not considered. I do not wish to call this an accident, because it would have been difficult for the occultist to take a definite position. Leadbeater is of the opinion that he has done the right thing and that, in terms of cultural development, he has done good with what he has done. But those who have judged him are of the opinion that he has done something bad, which is punished in the most severe way according to the laws of various countries, with the exception of Italy.

We have here a case that signifies a crisis, a difficulty within the Theosophical movement. And perhaps those who are just joining the Theosophical movement today or have only been part of it for a short time and are superficially familiar with what is going on in the Theosophical movement will say to themselves: If such things can happen in the Theosophical such things can happen in the theosophical movement, if a person who has written books that have brought countless students can fall into immorality and be accused of it, then stay away from us if it is such a dangerous thing. Others will become frightened when they hear that even someone so advanced can fall into such a state. Those who are more advanced will say to themselves: however many people fall away, it cannot harm the theosophical movement. It will show who has only joined the theosophical movement for the sake of its reputation when they fall away because of such events. Those, however, who recognize the significance and greatness and value of the Theosophical Society will join together more closely. They will experience the strangest things, especially in the fields of occultism and esoteric life. Not only those who have done something not quite right for the ethically thinking person leave the movement. There can also be reasons for this when the Theosophical movement and the members of the Theosophical movement are spoken about, when judged from points of view that are only able to put the Theosophical movement in a miserable light, - because of its assumptions. Our culture suffers from an evil that is the evil of many hideous dark sides of culture. It is the evil that is connected with sexual life. The one who has open eyes and can see into the miserable swamp that humanity is sailing into, who is a versatile one, can be a good and an evil to a certain extent. Those who have entered the white path ascend the good side of culture, those who have entered the black path ascend the reprehensible side, the evil side, so that everything they can hear from either side, about the evil sides of occultism, is nothing more than the grotesque, the caricature of occultism.

Of course, people can say that what our poets and artists achieve, the atrocities that are created in these directions, is already bad enough. There is no longer any need to ban occultism. They would simply have to cross out the occult, although it is so necessary because humanity would have to perish if it did not have it. I already said to our members in Paris: The case of Leadbeater can be settled by a simple analogy. He should not be excused and nor should he be defended: Where there is much light, there is also much shadow; where there is strong light, there is also black shadow. Now, occultism needs the light of the cultural movement. But it has black shadows. So it will be a matter of the Theosophical movement, despite its severe crisis, despite its severe impairments, gradually overcoming its shadows to a real fertilization of the light it has to practice.

It was not my intention to tell you about this somewhat painful event in the Theosophical movement just for the sake of being here one day longer. But I also had to tell you at the same time – and that is my duty – that in my own opinion such an event cannot affect the momentum and impetus of the Theosophical movement. Even if it should prove to be the case that persecutions may arise from a misunderstanding of the actual crux of the matter and from a mere looking at the dark sides of those who lead the Theosophical Society in the various crises that the Theosophical Society will experience in the near future, we must not waver for a moment if we recognize the greatness and cultural significance of the Theosophical Society. We will also overcome the Leadbeater crisis. But those who do not know what is at stake will fall away. They know that great tasks are knocking at the doors from all sides, which we know to be the doors of the culture of the future. See how the world is in flames, both physically and morally. Consider how the ground begins to shake underfoot, not only in the East but also in Europe, and understand the profound role that the realization of spiritual forces plays. Anyone who thinks this way will also look at the Leadbeater case differently. The storm rages and claims its victims. It is a great sacrifice, as will become apparent from the consequences that the Leadbeater case will have. In the next issue of 'Lucifer', I will give an account of the Leadbeater case and everything connected with it. At the same time, I apologize for the fact that “Lucifer” appears so irregularly, but the next issue will be published on the 31st. You will then be able to form an accurate judgment from reading about the case, the discussion of which is met with almost insurmountable difficulties.

This would have brought me to the end of my arguments.

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. IV/1907

At half past ten, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, the General Secretary of the German Section, opened the fourth ordinary General Assembly. The first item was the [the] determination of the votes. Represented were:

Not represented: Bremen, Stuttgart I, Charlottenburg. Similarly, the section members who did not belong to a branch had not exercised their right to appoint representatives.

Mr. Selling was elected secretary. He read out the minutes of the General Assembly of October 22, 1905, which was approved by the Assembly.

Regarding Item II, the report of the General Secretary, Dr. Rudolf Steiner first warmly welcomes the members present in the theosophical sense and then says the following about the course of the movement in the past year:

"During my travels and lectures, it has become clear to me that the actual effective basis of our Theosophical movement does not lie in mere talk of universal love of humanity and the like, but that the real reason that drives most people to Theosophy consists in the desire to gain knowledge of the treasure of wisdom that is Theosophy. And this is entirely justified. Morality is the result of wisdom. Just as it is certain that the yearning to develop into a noble humanity lives in man, so it is certain that the worn-out phrases of duty and mere moral admonitions have proved ineffective. Just as a stove needs real fuel, not just admonition, to radiate warmth, so too must man receive such an impulse to act morally. This real firing is the occult wisdom.

Of course, there was no lack of resistance and obstacles of various kinds to the spreading of this wisdom. The opposition that arose in the process of bringing this wisdom out can be characterized as a lack of understanding on the one hand and complacency on the other. If many people do not want to know anything about what they do not see for themselves, it is certainly true that people do ask themselves: Can we understand these occult things with ordinary logic? But if they really wanted to look into it, they would soon see that the teachings of Theosophy contradict logic just as little as the teachings of ordinary natural science.

Others would like to participate in the ennobling of morals, but they want to remain in the same place where they are, they want to help with what they have already achieved. But Theosophy consists in the pursuit of self-perfection. To understand this, one needs tact, a sense of not being called upon to help, and the realization that one really has something to give.

Few scholars today still belong to the Theosophical movement, that is, few of those people who are convinced of the infallibility of their own views; for there can be nothing more infallible than today's science. Most of them are people who are in the prime of life, driven to the Theosophical movement by the longing for the powers that flow from the wisdom teachings. This longing for security and strength is growing despite all the resistance that lies in our time, as the gratifying increase in membership shows us. If scholarship is still dismissive, this should not make us unjust to the merits of that scholarship, but should spur us on to conquer the culture of the present and its scholarship for our theosophical movement. Under the influence of our present-day culture, almost all our scholars think much more materialistically than they themselves suspect.

As a symptom of the obstacles that this materialistic way of thinking poses to our views, I would like to point out a representation that a biologist who starts from the view that everything in the world is based on a materialistic foundation has recently given about the nature of movement. The scientist in question said that he could not imagine the deeper causes of the movement of a billiard ball other than that in the collision, very small particles of one ball were transferred to the other, thereby causing the movement. So, for a modern scientist, the problem of movement is presented as a kind of tiny passenger transferring from one train to another. In an age when such a materialistic view of life dominates science, it is understandable that a spiritual movement has a particularly difficult time.

Without going into all these things in any more detail, I would just like to emphasize that the Theosophical movement is the only movement that is built entirely on freedom.

However, it does not work without any authority; but authority is understood in a completely different sense than in the laboratory, where the only authority is the person who understands chemistry.

In contrast to all earlier intellectual movements that used external means of power to assert themselves – I am only recalling the Church here – the theosophical movement is a completely free movement that is built only on the spirit. Without invoking external powers for support, which would be a failure for any intellectual movement today, without propaganda in the usual sense, because the theosophical movement does not agitate, it presents itself. Everyone must approach it of their own free will. What it offers people is not an external organization, agitation in the sense of the old power organizations. In theosophy, it can only be about an organization to help people find what they are seeking within themselves. Without polemics, even without polemics against those who attack us, let us do positive work.

Sometimes we have been told that we should reject the attacks against us, so sometimes a correction is certainly necessary, but in general, everything can be recognized by its fruits. We want to do positive work that leads up to the higher worlds; fighting does not help anything, it can at best straighten something out on the physical plane. But on the higher planes, only positive work can help.

You have received a report about this year's international conference in Paris. The most important thing we brought home for the German Section is a great deal of work: preparing for the next conference in Germany. Next year we will welcome the representatives of the individual sections to Germany. Negotiations for the next conference are, after all, part of the program of today's general assembly.

In addition to the lectures that have been given everywhere, something new has been added: lecture cycles – not only in Paris but also in Leipzig and Stuttgart; one will soon begin in Munich. Such cycles are of great value; they allow the foundations of the Theosophical worldview to pass before the soul.

But we should also remember at this point the members who have left the physical plane this year. In particular, we would like to remember our esteemed member, Countess Brockdorff, whose unassuming but all the more admirable work at a time when few in Germany were willing to stand up for Theosophy. In honor of the deceased, we want to rise from our seats.

Over the past year, our movement has gained some excellent new members, in particular Ms. Wolfram from Leipzig. This deserves special mention because she is the kind of member the Theosophical Society could only dream of. Furthermore, I would like to announce that our long-standing and valued member Mr. Günther Wagner has decided to swap his residence in Lugano for one in Berlin in order to provide assistance here. With his help, we will be able to accomplish many things that have been left undone in recent years.

Let us hope that through the combined efforts of all, the Theosophical movement will flourish and develop in the coming year.

Miss von Sivers, as secretary of the German Section, then gives the following report on the course of Theosophical life in the past year:

There are 24 branches, compared to 18 in the previous year, and 3 centers: Regensburg, Elberfeld and Esslingen.

Eleven members have left and seven have died, while 232 have joined, compared to 131 in the previous year, an increase of 214. The total number of members is 591, compared to 377 in the previous year.

The names of the new branches are: Basel, Bonn, Bremen, Frankfurt a.M., Heidelberg, Munich II, St. Gallen. The DTG (Berlin branch) has disbanded.

The treasurer's report by Mr. Seiler follows.

According to the auditor's report, Mr. Tessmar, the treasurer is discharged.

Fräulein von Sivers then read out and translated a welcoming letter from the English General Secretary, Miss Kate Spink.

Since there are no reports from delegates about work in the branches, the Secretary General remarked on this point that it is desirable that the branches should recognize it as their duty to publish such reports in Fräulein Scholl's “Mitteilungen”.

Thereupon, a new member of the board was elected to replace Mrs. Lübke, who joined the section in England because she moved there. Mrs. Wolfram from Leipzig was proposed and elected unanimously by acclamation.

Item III is the discussion about next year's congress of the Federation of European Sections. Dr. Steiner takes the floor and says something along the following lines: “The General Secretariat and the Board propose to hold the congress in Munich. The reasons for this are purely practical, since the appropriate forces for the long and demanding work are only available in Munich. Whitsun seems to be the most suitable time.”

In response to a question from Mr. Hubo as to how the organization of the congress was planned, Dr. Steiner said that all previous congresses should be seen as attempts. The task of the German congress should be to bring everything into intimate harmony with each other, so that works of art, music and speech interact and sound atmospherically with the rest of the arrangement - striving in its intended effect to recall the ancient mysteries. To this end, a performance of a mystery play is also planned. Whether all this can be realized depends, of course, on the circumstances. Dr. Steiner also announced that Miss Stinde has been elected as secretary of the International Congress Committee for this year, replacing Mr. van Manen, and that Countess Kalckreuth has been elected treasurer of the International Congress Committee. All inquiries from German members, including payments, are to be addressed exclusively to Miss von Sivers, and she alone will contact Miss Stinde.

The following have been elected as additional members of the German committee:

Miss Scholl,
Baroness von Gumppenberg,
Mr. Günther Wagner,
Mr. Arenson.

To cover the costs of the congress, which amount to between 4,000 and 5,000 marks, it is proposed that a list of voluntary contributions be circulated as soon as possible and that Mr. Selling be authorized to accept payments.

The Secretary General then requested the authority to greet the General Secretaries of the other Sections on behalf of the General Assembly. The meeting agreed.

Regarding Item IV, “Final settlement of the matter of the Library of the German Theosophical Society”, the General Secretary reported that the matter had taken a gratifying turn, namely that Graf Brockdorff had transferred all rights to the library to Mr. Günther Wagner. After a lengthy debate, Mr. Günther Wagner in turn transferred these rights to the German Section.

The General Assembly has passed the following resolution:

"The German Section takes over the library of the former German Theosophical Society on the basis of the transfer of the rights that Count Brockdorff held over it to Mr. Günther Wagner. The Section's Executive Board will act as a library commission and transfers to Mr. Günther Wagner the measures for the desirable installation of the library and its further administration.” At the request of Mr. Tessmar, Mr. Günther Wagner is appointed by the German Section as the lifelong custodian of the library in recognition of his generous actions.

Item V: Motions from the floor.

Mr. Hubo: The costs for the “Mitteilungen” should be covered by an annual contribution of 50 pfennigs per member.

Dr. Steiner notes that the proposal is not possible in this form because the previous year's General Assembly decided to make the mandatory delivery of the “Mitteilungen” free of charge. It might therefore be necessary to take the decision to increase the contribution. After a lengthy debate, in which members Scholl, Wolfram, Hubo, Ahner and Wagner took part, Mr. Hubo withdrew his proposal. Mr. Hubo then proposes: In view of the fact that the costs of the German Congress will amount to at least 4500 Marks, based on previous experience, voluntary subscriptions are required and a registration list is to be circulated immediately. It is pointed out once again that subscriptions can only be made to Fräulein von Sivers.

There is no material on the agenda for Item VI, “Miscellaneous”, whereupon Dr. Steiner closes the business part of the meeting and announces that the Theosophical part of the General Assembly will begin at four o'clock.

Died on February 17, 1907

In what I am going to say today, I do not intend to give an appreciation of Olcott's invaluable services. He was not only the long-standing president of the Theosophical Society, but also a co-founder of the Theosophical movement. Through his great organizational and administrative talent, which was extraordinary, he made the Society what it is today. The spiritual current can, however, be traced back to H. P. Blavatsky, who, through the peculiar organization of her soul, offered the opportunity to the great Masters of Wisdom and Harmony of Feelings to let their wisdom flow into the movement. Olcott was their faithful companion and that was the real half of the work in this case.

You have to be clear about how the work of the entire movement, which we call theosophical, is actually to be understood. It became necessary at a certain point in the nineteenth century. It became necessary for some of that spiritual wisdom, which had previously only been at home in the innermost circles, in closely guarded occult brotherhoods, to be brought into general human culture.

The Masters cannot stand directly in front of humanity; and for reasons that cannot be discussed here. They need tools. And H. P. Blavatsky was such a useful tool.

Gratitude will be the feeling that the members of the Society must maintain for Colonel Olcott. The selfless love that is maintained beyond death gives him wings and facilitates his ascent.

The President-Founder has been granted the right to make a personal proposal for his successor. The Vice President takes over the business in the meantime and initiates the election process. Everyone can vote for whomever they want. The President's proposal is not binding. The election will not begin before May 1. No ballot that is submitted before May 1 May is therefore invalid. During the month of May, all members will have to elect the new President of the Theosophical Society. Sinnett is the acting Vice President until the election.

I will not make use of what I now want to say, so I will not say anything about it, although it has been mentioned in other sections.

If we had been informed by Olcott that he was proposing Annie Besant, we would all have elected Annie Besant. But Colonel Olcott's proposal occurs in connection with psychic phenomena. It has been communicated in a communiqué sent to all the general secretaries that on the last day of Olcott's life, the two masters appeared to him on his deathbed and expressed their wish that Mrs. Besant should succeed Colonel Olcott.

They have left it to me to discuss this matter, precisely because I believe I know something definite about these things. However, I am in the special position of not being able to say much about these matters. We would be in a difficult position if we were to refer to this communiqué. We must therefore treat it as if it were not there. We must take it as if it were only Colonel Olcott's personal wish. We will ignore the content of the matter and discuss only the formalities. We must not care whether Olcott was advised by a Schulze, a Müller or a Mahatma. He may have been advised by a Mahatma. This is an administrative act, and it is true that the Masters do not concern themselves with administrative matters on the physical plane. On the other hand, we would be in a strange position if we opposed the Masters' pronouncements. So we simply have to write the name we want on the ballot paper. For those who live an occult life, the Master's pronouncement would be absolutely binding. Olcott may have taken advice. That is his business as an esotericist, but not the business of the Society. So for us there is only a wish of the Society's meritorious President. If we took it as a Master's wish, we Theosophists would be in a very difficult position.

If the Adyar communiqué were correct, then the president would be appointed; and then we would not need to elect him. I would like to urge you to do whatever you can to help ensure that little or no mention is made of this matter. But it should be recognized that the German Section at least understands that these things do not belong in public, and that if they must be discussed at all, they should be treated as an intimate family matter in the Society. We can only serve the true, great cause if we not only try to remain silent about this matter, but also try to maintain that silence in such a way that the matter does not become public, so that it can never appear in our newspapers. Just think of the shock that could be caused to our society if it became known in the world that the Theosophical Society has the President appointed by extrasensory means. This appointment is to be considered as non-existent. This is difficult because it can be read everywhere and because there is discussion about whether it should be considered valuable or not. The only thing to do is to ignore it. The high [wisdom teachers] have nothing to do with the administrative affairs of the society. The content is provided by wisdom, the framework for which people have to provide and form.

Not only out of my conscience, but also out of my knowledge, I had to give you this advice: to ignore the communiqué.