The Rudolf Steiner Archive

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 10/1910

After the opening of the eighth General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society by the General Secretary Dr. Rudolf Steiner, the first item on the agenda was the determination of the voting ratio and, in connection with this, the presentation of the delegates of the individual branches.

Fräulein von Sivers read out the number of members of the various branches and then the number of delegates was determined.

The official welcoming address to the assembly by the chairman, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, was followed by the following opening speech, the essential content of which is reproduced here:

"My dear Theosophical friends!

Just as I was able to point out at last year's general assembly that we are entering the seventh year of the existence of our German Section, we can say at the opening of this year's assembly that we have now completed the seventh year of our existence as the German Section. On this occasion, it may be assumed from the outset that the Theosophists have a feeling for what is called the cyclical development of events. Accordingly, our gathering today, after the first seven-year cycle has ended, signifies a special kind of celebration and consecration. On such an occasion, it may perhaps happen that not only what you may take for granted, namely that you are warmly welcomed by the Secretary General, but it is probably appropriate at the end of our seventh year to point out many other things. Truly, such a seven-year cycle, as it has just expired, can teach us many things. It will therefore not be superfluous to take this opportunity to point out some of the lessons that events have taught us.

Those of you who have participated in the Theosophical life in our German Section in various places will have noticed that this life has undergone an evolution and experienced a transformation. Those who can do so, through their long membership, may remember the way we started the Theosophical Society here in Germany seven years ago. Those who have followed different lecture cycles and have drawn comparisons between how we could speak in the last cycles and how we had to speak at the beginning of the movement will notice a big difference. It was necessary to ascend gradually from the contemplation of lower spheres of knowledge to higher ones. Years ago, one had to speak more abstractly and schematically than is the case now. The rudiments of theosophy had to be presented in such a way that everyone could understand them. Now, however, we can also acquire such intimate teachings as those presented to us in Munich or Basel a few months ago. At the beginning of the movement, many members would have still regarded what was said there as wild fantasy. So there must have been a significant change, which everyone is able to notice. This is a thoroughly justified thing; because the theosophical movement would not progress if it could not grow not only in number but also in inner content. This fact must make it clear to us that the Theosophical movement is not something that is based on a dogmatic book or a doctrine that is available only once, but is something that, like an organism, is constantly adding new members. But we can also look back on a certain fertility of the movement. What can be said about this can be seen from certain figures that relate to our working conditions. I have noted the number of members who do direct work, through lectures and so on, and this number has risen to twenty, and that includes only those members who are already expanding their activities to different locations. In addition to this, there is the extensive and important work in the individual lodges. Hardly any of the twenty collaborators was already active through oral lectures seven years ago. This shows that we have achieved something, that the Theosophical movement has been fruitful since its inception. But this has also happened in many other directions. For example, we have been able to expand our activities by setting up the so-called art halls. Mr. Wagner will probably tell us something about this new institution, as far as it concerns Berlin. These events are intended to present art imbued with theosophical ideas to people who are still distant from theosophy. Myths and legends are told, and those who come from the small life of everyday life are given a brief outline of the theosophical teachings in the most popular form, and so on. Without doubt, this kind of laborious, spiritual work can be imitated and further developed. It is very gratifying when ordinary people come in from the street to absorb the basic principles of Theosophy with joy. This is also a proper way of spreading the theosophical work, but it must be done in a thoroughly unpretentious way. If it were done in a pretentious way, it would not be fruitful. But as it is, it is a truly practical institution. The point is that what is to be done in the spirit of the present really does happen.

Finally, it was also possible to realize an intention in which one can really feel the essence of what lies in a seven-year cycle. Seven years ago, I gave a lecture in Berlin about Schur's drama The Children of Lucifer. At that time the idea of a later performance was already in the background of this lecture. Now, in the seventh year of our existence, this idea could be realized in Munich. Thus, after seven years, a movement like the theosophical one returns to its beginning, as it were. Then, under certain circumstances, what had once been conceived as a mere intention can be realized. But it takes patience to allow such intentions to mature. It would have been premature to realize the idea of a performance of the aforementioned drama before now. These are the kinds of things that must pass through our souls when we experience the sacred moment of the completion of a seven-year cycle. These are, of course, only the bright sides of development, from which we can learn that, if they really prove to be bright sides, they should be continued in a calm manner. But much more can be learned from the dark sides. The growth in the number of members of the Society is very easily associated with a misunderstanding of the innermost nerve of the forces that are to play within the movement. The members themselves have the necessary task of ensuring that misunderstandings do not arise too strongly within the Theosophical Society, and that, on the other hand, the spiritual research is exposed to as few misunderstandings as possible in the world. We truly have a sacred spiritual treasure to guard, which can very easily be misunderstood; the symptoms of such misunderstandings are evident everywhere. For example, an article appeared recently in a Berlin morning newspaper that must have seemed extremely boring and banal to the true Theosophist, in which occultism is presented as encompassing areas such as somnambulism, clairvoyance, thought transfer and so on. The writer of this article is indeed a famous man within the journalistic world, but basically he knows as little about occultism as a bookbinder knows about the content of the books he binds. But that man had to speak as one would speak when considering what is today called Theosophy or occultism in public. The task of the Theosophical movement is to appeal, in the first instance, not to ill-informed humanity, but to the better-informed human heart and human reason. But to do that, the theosophist must gradually acquire the right tact. The man who wrote the article said that he had met a nanny in a family who took the children to the zoo every day and occasionally met a lady there who began telling her about the nature and significance of the astral body, and eventually convinced this servant girl completely. I would not dream of believing that this could happen to a member of the Theosophical Society, for Theosophists are gradually acquiring a sense of tact in such matters. It is also completely improper to propagandize for Theosophy in this way; anyone who does so will cause the most intense harm to the Theosophical movement. It is a different matter if Theosophy is systematically introduced to people like the housemaid in the sitting room. If a naive person is presented with Theosophical facts in such a fragmentary way, it will only confuse him; it may even do great harm to his soul.

This also leads us to speak in an even more serious way about a point that is already important today, but will become even more so in the future. We will also learn a great deal from this! This point concerns the relationship between those who teach and work within society and those who want to learn. We are in a difficult place here. It can easily happen that precisely through such a movement, what is called blind faith, faith based on mere authority, gets out of hand. It is in this direction that sins take the greatest revenge. Let us take this opportunity to refer to a saying of Lessing. He found that all the people around him sang the highest praises of Klopstock. But when he delved into what people really knew about Klopstock, it turned out that they had hardly read him. In Theosophy, understanding is the only thing that matters. Those who want to understand within this from the very source of spiritual life will probably grasp Lessing's word, somewhat modified: “We want to be praised less, but understood more diligently.” This saying should be deeply engraved in our hearts as a salutary lesson that has emerged in recent years. We have seen how a truly estimable teacher in the theosophical field has received undivided praise; but we have also had to experience how a fierce opposition to her has gradually emerged, admittedly outside the German Section. If one were to examine the matter, one would find that the following applies here: There were many who in the past admired and marveled at the leading personality of the Theosophical Society. If these admirers had more often written in their hearts: We want to understand less than admire, the subsequent opposition would not have asserted itself. It is not outward worship and admiration that we should show to the Teachers, but we should strive for their understanding. Those who are well versed in true occultism know how pernicious uncomprehending admiration can be. They will say to themselves: if someone makes an effort not just to admire and venerate a personality, but to make that personality's cause their own, and to embrace that cause not just for the sake of the personality it represents, but for its own sake, then they are on the right path. Mere personal admiration can easily turn into its opposite. This is where the true reasons for the change of so many attitudes within the Theosophical movement to their opposite are to be found. You would do better to always listen to the words of those who are truly working in the spirit of our movement, then it will also become clear to you that they actually want to be understood rather than admired. But there is an even more serious side to this! Those who begin to hear the teachings of Theosophy from this or that source are not immediately able to understand everything. This understanding does not require clairvoyance, but rather the mere application of sound reason. Only those who have the will to do so, who apply their reason to the matter, will understand. Nothing has been said on my part, no matter how lofty the heights of spiritual science it may come from, that cannot be grasped or at least examined with reason, if it is applied in an all-round and unbiased enough manner. We must realize that not everyone can be a spiritual scientist, but what has been communicated must in all cases be able to be tested in a reasonable way. Admittedly, certain things often make such a test difficult, for example the high truths of the Gospel of Luke; but even here we can see an example of how it can be done. First of all, what has been investigated by the clairvoyant is taken as a mere communication. This information, without any documentary evidence, is then checked against the available documents, in our case the Gospel of Luke, because the writer of this gospel has said the same thing in his own way as is revealed by the direct research. This is only an approximate verification for the time being, but with simpler things it can become more accurate. Thus we will see that over time the testimonies will multiply. The doctrine of reincarnation and karma should be proved in life; for only in this way can we properly introduce it to a larger public. When the reproach is made that what the spiritual researcher says cannot be accepted otherwise than on mere authority, such a principle is quite wrong, and one should not let it arise at all, but rather say to oneself: I will gather up all my reason and test what is communicated with it in life. So, for example, we should go and study what has been said about Zarathustra, what is given to us by spiritual research as broad guidelines, and compare it with what history and life have to say about it. I am quite calm with those who really take the whole of history to verify what has been said. Newly discovered facts can only provide new evidence. Even what was said yesterday as a brief sketch about anthroposophy can only be confirmed by physiology, biology and so on. The more one uses such sciences in the right way, the stronger the evidence will be. Apparent contradictions should be resolved, for they are only contradictions if the investigation is inaccurate. This principle has been particularly adhered to in my forthcoming book, Occult Science.

Nothing is more harmful than when a teacher is shown unfounded admiration. The blind believer does himself harm by not developing; but even more harm does he do to the one in whom he blindly believes, whom he blindly admires. Everything that is shown as blind admiration for the spiritual researcher takes itself out like a drag shoe for the spiritual researcher, whereas the teacher has to fight against it in the most terrible way. There is nothing he has to fight against more than precisely such blind admiration, through which stones are literally thrown in his way. This should be entrusted to you as a secret after the seventh year! Those who want to test you are willing students with whom you can make progress. The others, however, constantly throw obstacles in your way, which you have to defend yourself against.

They can only be overcome if the teacher is absolutely honest. Blind admiration is the most dangerous pitfall in Theosophy. The theosophist must educate himself to be honest and strict with himself. Such things must be considered very seriously. The teachers must, of course, to some extent accept what has been characterized here, for they are able to examine everything that is brought to them. Personal followers will always exist; but they should not affect the teacher at all. He must strengthen himself against them. Blind followers are his tempters and seducers.

This way of thinking must gradually become a guiding principle in the Theosophical Society. We must come to the conviction that we are representing a sacred cause. Only under this principle will we make progress. No one need be deterred from wanting to teach on a larger or smaller scale if such a principle is recognized by them.

This is something we should learn from our great experiences. On the one hand, we should be impartial and unprejudiced people; on the other hand, however, we should exercise the utmost care in absorbing what is given to us. The past seven years have taught us this.

This is not to say, however, that everyone should hold back from teaching until they have verified something themselves. We must always make a strict distinction between what can be grasped through reason alone, and what can only be grasped later through further development. It is bad when we simply accept things on the basis of authority for the sake of convenience. Why do so many mediums become frauds? They are not solely to blame for this, but so are the blind listeners and believers. One thing is indispensable for anyone who studies occult phenomena, namely, a constantly deepening inwardness of one's own self. The more blind faith, which arises only from convenience, is hurled at a medium, for example, the more likely it is that the medium will become a fraud. It cannot be emphasized enough

strongly enough emphasize how important it is in this field to set the right path as an ideal."

With this the chairman concluded his opening speech and then gave a short summary of the external work of the past few years, his various visits to lodges, his various travels, especially to Austria. On this occasion, he mentioned a beautiful experience that is particularly symptomatic of the character of the theosophical movement. He recalled a public lecture in Prague, where members of both the Czech and German nationalities were present and sat together in the most wonderful harmony. At the end, an old gentleman told the lecturer that what Theosophy had achieved here would otherwise have been impossible in Prague. But Theosophy was able to unite those who were otherwise hostile to each other so harmoniously on that beautiful evening.

The journey then continued via Vienna to Klagenfurt. In Vienna, too, the work proceeded in the most peaceful manner. And that was in the days when the Italian and German students were fighting, with shots being fired; it was also the time when the fierce disputes between Germans and Czechs were taking place. From this it can be seen that Theosophy has a mission, namely to bring harmony, peace and unity to people. Through Theosophy, such a thing can be achieved.

Then reference was made to the remarkable fact that seven lecture cycles have taken place in the past year: In Rome, Düsseldorf, Kristiania, Budapest, Kassel, Munich and Basel. Furthermore, those members who have repeatedly worked in a wide variety of places were gratefully remembered; but the many others, whose names cannot all be mentioned, may accept as thanks the success that their work has had within the Theosophical Society, and draw from it inspiration for further hard work. The chairman also emphasized the Budapest Congress as an important external event and mentioned that at this congress he was awarded the Grand Subba Row Medal by the Adyar headquarters for the book “How to Know Higher Worlds”, which was available in English translation. This is a sign that there can also be harmony between the various teachers of Theosophy when independence prevails. Besant and Steiner are apparently getting along quite well, even though they are going different ways. It was necessary to unite the old stream of the Theosophical movement with a new current, to bring in new life blood from a certain direction. Nothing fruitful will come from empty talk of harmony. Those who are there as teachers are working together on the one great work, each in his own way.

The founding of a “Philosophical-Theosophical Publishing House” was also mentioned, which is under the direction of Miss Mücke and in which an outline of anthroposophy is also to appear from time to time.

In a very solemn manner, the Secretary General then named those of our dear members who had left the physical plane during the year, and in each case gave a brief description of the deceased's relationship to Theosophy, especially the three ladies from Stuttgart who had passed away, Mrs. Lina Schwarz, Mrs. Cohen and Mrs. Aldinger.

“Even in such a case,” the chairman continued, “we can place ourselves in the soul of the deceased, in particular, to understand the importance of what Theosophy can offer us. We do not want to try to console the bereaved of our dear friends who have passed away with banal phrases, but we want to point out that although we are only at the beginning of our movement, the overall karma of it must gradually come to that which should be achieved in the individual karma. Theosophists must ultimately feel obliged to actively support each other in certain cases. In this way the popular phrase of general philanthropy is replaced by a true understanding of individual real love for one's neighbor. If philanthropy does not address individual cases and become active there, it remains a mere phrase. Such thoughts must arise in us when we see from time to time this or that of our dear members leave the physical plan."

After these words of the Chairman, Mr. Bedrnicek from Prague took the floor on behalf of the Prague Section to express his warmest thanks to the Secretary General for his efforts on behalf of the Prague Lodge before the General Assembly.

Mr. Günther Wagner, on behalf of the Besant branch, proposed that the reading of the minutes of the last General Assembly be dispensed with, since anyone could have sufficiently informed themselves about their content in the printed “Mitteilungen”. The motion that the minutes of the last General Assembly not be read was unanimously approved, and the minutes were declared approved.

A report on membership trends is given by Miss von Sivers, according to the most recent lists:

The current number of branches is 44, compared to 37 in the previous year, and one center. Seven newly established branches can be named: the Wroclaw branch, the Cusanus branch in Koblenz, the Essen branch; the Paulus branch in Mulhouse; the Novalis branch in Strasbourg; the Dante branch in Dresden; the Goethe branch in Munich.

Mr. Seiler presents the cash report with the annual accounts and balance sheet:
According to this, the total income was 5817.69 marks
and the total expenditure was 5499.53 marks
. This leaves a surplus of 318.16 marks
, to which bank deposits of 2020.45 marks
338 Marks, which results in total assets of 2676.61 Marks.

Following on from this, Mr. Ahner from Dresden proposed that a more detailed cash report be published in the “Mitteilungen” in the future, so that outsiders could also gain a more precise insight into income and expenditure.

Mr. Werner proposed that this motion be rejected outright.

Mr. Elkan proposed closing the debate, which was accepted.

The previous motion to publish a more detailed cash report in the “Mitteilungen” was rejected by an overwhelming majority. The report of the cash auditors, Mr. Tessmar and Ms. Motzkus, was then read out. Mr. Tessmar explained that the cash books had been checked in three ways: firstly, in terms of external cleanliness and clarity; secondly, in terms of the arithmetic; and thirdly, in terms of the accuracy of the individual entries. The result of this was that the two auditors were able to report that the cash management was entirely proper. The financial statements also match the accounting records, and the positive cash balance is also factual.

Now the proposals from the plenary session were discussed. No written proposals had been submitted to the chairman.

Pastor Wendt asks for the floor and proposes that the “announcements” occasionally sent to members should no longer be sent in an open cross-band, but in a sealed envelope.

Ms. von Sivers replies that this would cause a huge increase in postage costs. It would be better for individual members to ensure that, through their own carelessness, information does not fall into the wrong hands.

Mr. Ahner suggests sending the various communications as a postal package to the individual board members and having them distribute them.

Mr. Pastor Wendt then withdraws his proposal in favor of this second one.

Mr. van Leer suggests that another type of cruciate ligament might be used.

The chairman now points out that voting is only possible on motions that are compatible with the statutes; however, since the statutes state that the lodges are autonomous, the General Assembly cannot decide what the individual lodges should do. It would have been best, the chairman continues, to have kept the original mode; where everything was sent to the members in sealed envelopes, but the financial aspect made the change necessary due to the rapid growth of the society. “Besides,” he says, “we are not doing anything that should be kept secret, and it is not a big deal if a postman occasionally reads such a message.” Pastor Wendt had based his proposal on such an actual case.

Pastor Wendt proposes to increase membership fees to cover the additional postage costs; but the chairman also replies that the general assembly does not have a quorum to decide on this in accordance with the statutes. This matter was thus settled.

Mr. Oscar Grosheintz proposes to create an address book of all members of the German section, to be sent to the boards of the lodges, if not to all individual members, in order to improve contact among members.

Fräulein von Sivers replies that on a previous occasion it had been decided, for various reasons, to no longer include the names of those entering the “Mitteilungen”.

Mr. Ahner believes that a list of exact addresses would be useful after all, and particularly important for the lodge boards, because it would in every way facilitate communication among the members.

Fräulein von Sivers points out the dangers associated with the creation of such address material, which could then be used for any other purpose. Besides, she says, members could, if they visit a place where there is a Theosophical branch, turn to the local chairman in question.

Dr. Steiner explained that this would be a matter of principle, which, in addition to its advantages, would also have a downside, since there are people who work honestly within the Theosophical Society but who, due to their position or other circumstances, cannot go public with their name as Theosophists.

Such important matters should be left to the well-founded discretion of the leadership of the Section. The Chairman pointed out further problems that would arise from publicly disclosing the addresses of members. He also did not feel called upon to reveal the names of members, as these were sacred to him. After Mr. Ahner had again taken the floor on the same matter, Mr. Kiem finally moved to end the debate, which was accepted.

The previous motion to forward the names and addresses of all members of the German Section to the lodge committees was rejected by a large majority.

No further motions were put forward by the plenary assembly.

The representatives of the branches then reported: Apart from Fräulein von Sivers, who read a report from the Karlsruhe branch on behalf of this lodge, no one wished to speak on this matter.

Mr. Günther Wagner then gave a brief report on the work in the Berlin art room and followed it up with a general consideration of the usefulness of such events within the Theosophical movement. He also encouraged similar attempts to be made elsewhere, as has already happened in Berlin and Munich.

No one requested the floor under the item “Miscellaneous”.

The eighth general assembly of the German Section was declared closed by the chair.

My dear friends!

The very considerations that are to begin with our Berlin branch with this evening could be the occasion for a brief introduction to say a number of things, to tie in once again with something that has been repeatedly mentioned and emphasized in recent weeks and especially in the days of our general assembly. We are now in the eighth year of our German Section, that is, after the conclusion of the seventh year, and it has been pointed out that what one might call the cyclical movement of events and facts in time does not arise from some fantasy theory, but is based entirely on facts of reality, and that only those who apply it to life, in which he is directly involved, understand such a thing in the deeper sense. For each of you, the fact that you have placed yourselves in the Theosophical movement makes it, in a certain sense, your own affair, and so each of you should consider such a cyclic sequence of this matter for yourselves, and, one might say, practically consider it. One can learn a great deal from such a thing. It has been repeatedly emphasized that in the development of the human being in the individual life, the period around the seventh year, when the change of teeth occurs, is important and decisive in a variety of ways. Anyone who has only superficially observed life within our German Section – not to mention the fact that everything that can be said about it appears all the more sharply and intimately when viewed more deeply – can truly say that this first cycle of our theosophical work can be compared quite accurately with the individual development that a child undergoes from birth to the change of teeth, when it gets its second, then permanent teeth. For anyone who really wants to look at the events will not be able to help saying that the overview that could be obtained during the days of our General Assembly has shown that we are dealing with a number of feverish symptoms that our changing teeth have caused in the past few weeks and months. We are even dealing with quite severe fever symptoms, and it cannot be denied that many a tooth that has grown again now that the first milk teeth have fallen out has bitten quite hard, and that this is not yet over. What I am now saying about biting and the various other symptoms has a deep and profound significance. It should be clear to everyone that another seven years lie ahead for the Theosophical movement, and that these seven years are in some respects a growing into what, when it approaches, is called the awkward age. All these things can be shaped in one way or another through a good education in the individual. In the theosophical movement, if we take our cause seriously and worthily, this education must to a large extent be a serious self-education, a taking-into-hand of the individual souls by the participants in the theosophical movement. And it will be necessary in the future to look more closely at many things than has been the case so far. In practice, many things have not been fully taken into account in the past seven years; however, things that are necessary for a fruitful development should definitely be taken into account.

For example, it should be borne in mind that in the theosophical wisdom there are initially the broad guidelines that one must first acquire. So that those who are new and fresh can always acquire these guidelines, and so that they can thoroughly acquire these guidelines for themselves, perhaps in a shorter time than the others who have been through the whole seven-year theosophical life, it will always be ensured that a course is held with these guidelines. If one understands the essence of the assimilation of these guidelines in the true sense of the word, then one will also understand, on the one hand, where the later deepening should lie, after one has assimilated these guidelines, for those who seriously want to work within the Theosophical movement. But one will also find the right relationship to the first guidelines as well as to what is given later. This is something that one should acquire through a corresponding feeling. That which gives the first guidelines is truly a great plan of world wisdom. When you absorb within yourself the configuration, the planned structure of the human being, as given in my Theosophy, it depends on how the individual reader or listener relates to it, whether he absorbs mere abstract knowledge in such a matter, or whether he absorbs warm, meaningful wisdom. The entire book of “Theosophy” contains, if you will, abstract, cold, conceptual knowledge, and it also contains, if you will, the warmest, deepest, most soul-stirring, most vital wisdom. And it is self-education and self-knowledge alone that must lead us to realize that it depends only on the reader whether it is abstract, dry knowledge or whether it is warm, meaningful wisdom that goes deep into the heart, ordering all life, setting life tasks, and offering consolation in the most difficult situations of fate.

Those who are not too lazy can find answers for all of life's situations in such a book. It often happens that someone comes to me with the best of intentions and says, “Oh, tell me what my faults are, I would so much like to get rid of them.” But they do not consider that everyone can always find the answer to this question for themselves in the spiritual scientific literature, and that it is of far greater value to them to find the answer for themselves in the available literature than to have it answered in an external way. Sometimes, instead of asking such a question and wanting a personal answer, it would be much, much better if the person concerned would take Theosophy, read half a page of it, and then imbue the matter with their own genuine thoughts.

It is not too much to go over these guidelines and basic principles of the theosophical worldview again and again, to make them completely your own. Only by doing so will you be able to gain the right relationship to everything that follows. Then you will be able to understand that it was necessary, in a certain sense, to proceed from the guidelines and basic principles to what has been given at the branch evenings over the past few years: it is necessary in order to fully immerse oneself in it. On the other hand, however, it is also true that in the last three years, after the foundations had been laid, I have in fact said nothing new with regard to the deeper truths. As necessary as it was to penetrate everything intensively, these were further elaborations for life, compared to what was said in the basic and guiding principles; they were lights that were to be thrown on the various areas of life. Four lectures have been given in the last few weeks in the House for Architects: 'The Mission of Spiritual Science Once and Now', 'The Mission of Wrath', 'The Mission of Truth', 'The Mission of Devotion'. Anyone who has really studied the book 'Theosophy' could have found that everything that was said there is already contained in it: there are four squares that have now been painted in different colors. It is absolutely necessary to carry out this coloring in every single soul; for it would be the most false and incorrect to think that just because everything is contained in “Theosophy,” one should spend one's whole life with “Theosophy.” But the right attitude in practical life to these further explanations will come to him who has made entirely his own what is said there. He who has made entirely his own what is said in 'Theosophy' may say to himself: 'I have worked for four years to make entirely my own the fundamental principles of Theosophy. And now it is so strange what has happened to me! If I had heard a lecture like the one on 'The Mission of Wrath' four years ago, I would have been able to understand it, of course, but I see that there are different ways of understanding it. This is the case with such things, in which there really is something to it. There is an understanding that someone might have who is perhaps hearing these lectures for the first time but is not aware that “Theosophy” exists. Then there is a second understanding that someone has who has embraced Theosophy, and they might make a strange discovery in the process. He might say to himself: “Four years ago, this would have seemed difficult to me; some things would have been foreign to me, it would have seemed to me that some of the terms used as turns of phrase would not have made much sense to me. And now, after I have properly absorbed this matter about the sentient, intellectual, and consciousness soul, and so on, I listen to these four lectures in much the same way as I used to read a novella that spoke quite easily to my soul."

This should only be stated as what a real appropriation of “Theosophy” can and will certainly do if it is worked through in the right way. If someone, after picking up the book and going through the material once or twice, then finds, “These are dry arguments that occur in every science,” then he has never overcome the discomfort of asking himself, “Is it really not up to me to see something else in it than a science? That I cannot see that which can come out of it like sparks from a fire?” This is how we have to look at these things. We must not believe that it is demeaning for us in later years to say to ourselves: I should really learn the guidelines and basic principles correctly, and in fact as they are written. It is tremendously important that we realize that things are not said just so or just so because the writer in question thought of it, but because things are written with an inner necessity in every detail. The present, with its shabby literature, has no concept whatsoever of the great responsibility with which the book is written. It would be a great self-education if, within the theosophical movement, people would gradually get into the habit of feeling something of this responsibility. Believe me, it does matter if in a book like that, written with responsibility to the spiritual worlds, a predicate is placed before the subject or if 'was' is chosen instead of 'is'. Or if in some other way a sentence is formed in this or that way, then there are good reasons for it. And our present-day degenerate literature, which believes that one can write down anything that comes to mind and that it does not matter whether one uses this or that word, has no concept of the very profound responsibility that one must have towards these things. Today everything is written down carelessly, as people think of it. It is important to coin each sentence correctly. And if there is no right word for a concept in the language, then in a book like “Theosophy” you have to use a word in the first half line that approximately gives the right meaning, and then, in order for the concept to come out right, use a corresponding word in the second half line so that the two words balance each other and the matter can take effect on the soul.

A book like “Theosophy” cannot be compared to any book of external literature. For it will be the most beautiful, the highest fruit of the theosophical movement when a feeling awakens in the soul from that self-education. Then one also gets a feeling for the fact that most of what is printed today - with the exception of mere reports of events that are given about social conditions - would actually be best left unprinted because it is not fully developed, because it is not at all ripe to flow from one soul to another.

For that we should get a feeling and a truly dignified and earnest sentiment. It would be bad if the Theosophists were to take in what is given in “Theosophy” with exactly the same attitude as they take in anything else from the outside literature. Perhaps you remember that I developed the system of the arts here a few days ago in a very particular style. Do you think that was a quirk? If you think so, you would be completely mistaken. It is not a matter of just giving this lecture in this form, but rather that what had to be said in the process necessarily resulted in each individual sentence and each turn of phrase quite by itself; and any other way of talking about it could never have said what was said in this lecture. As everywhere, the “how” was of the utmost importance. And if you wrap these things in a different way, they are no longer the same, they are something completely different.

Thus it is always necessary for the serious theosophist to return to the first guidelines and basic principles, and precisely by making these guidelines and basic principles one's own to gain the opportunity to advance further and further. If anyone had taken these basic and fundamental lines in the first four years of our spiritual scientific movement here as they were processed in the four years with us; if anyone had taken them in such a way that three years ago they would have been present in him, would have made the discovery in the following three years that what was further developed was no longer new, but [expansion] according to life practice in all areas. He would have noticed that he absorbs this with complete ease, without difficulty of understanding and without mistaking the necessity for one or the other interpretation. But he would have had another strange feeling after another three years... today, that is. He would have given himself the opportunity to say today: “I have, without realizing it, entered into a completely new life of the soul: Now I know what spiritual life is. Now I know that I was mistaken in imagining that I could attain the spiritual life in any other way than by contemplating the world and thereby awakening the slumbering powers, at least on the first step! Four and three are again an important matter within a seven-year cycle: that is why, in our movement, we worked on the guidelines and outlines in the first four years, and in the last three years we have only inserted into what was set out in the general plan what is more important than the foundation in terms of the real content of life. But to achieve it, it is necessary to have adopted the basic and guiding principles.

And this should be said above all to the dear members of our Berlin branch, which, as one of the oldest branches, can in a sense be a leader. It should be particularly recommended to all those who are involved in the formation of new branches here or there, because these things are not done arbitrarily, but because they are to be exemplary for new branch formations: It is extremely important to keep reminding ourselves that it is not right to offer people what is supposed to be an extension first; rather, anyone who is to come into the spiritual life through the theosophical path must be able to do so simply by appropriating the guidelines in their soul in a thorough, serious and dignified manner.

If seven years ago we had started work with a small or larger group of people who had the deepest yearning for the spiritual world, and these people — whether ten or fifteen hundred — had been driven by some event to feel this yearning at the same time, and if this group had devotedly taken up the guidelines, and for three years into these guidelines what has been given in the last three years as an explanation of the practice of life, then we would now, after most of our dear friends, after having heard something about the foundations of Christianity and the essence of Christ from the reflections that were made in reference to the Gospel of John, after most of them, at least in a brief repetition, the fundamental facts that are linked to the Gospel of Luke, and on the basis of the fact that they have adopted the principles and basic lines of “theosophy”, have now connected everything that has been worked out in this way, what has been mentioned in lectures that touched on the most diverse chapters of life, such as storytelling, illness, moral principles, if all this and if we had now crowned what was there with the fact that we have now included those significant points of view that were said in reference to the Gospels of John and Luke, then we would now be on the verge of approaching the contemplation that points to the Gospel of Mark, and we would finally be able to ascend to the contemplation of the Gospel of Matthew. Then we would begin to have an inkling of what Christ Jesus is. Of course, this cannot be the case in this way, because things in life cannot be so perfect. Since we were not a small group working for seven years under complete exclusion of all disturbing circumstances, it has happened time and again that after absorbing what was said in the lectures about the Christ-being in view of the Gospel of John, one believed that one now knew what the Christ Jesus is. For one could easily believe that because the Christ has been spoken about, one now knows what He is. Then the Gospel of Luke was spoken about, and again someone might think: “Now the speaker has said everything possible, has spoken so much about the Christ in the last three years, following the Gospel of John, has also spoken about the first thirty years, following the Gospel of Luke – now one can get an idea of the thirty-three years of Jesus Christ's activity on earth...” If that were so, then it would not have been necessary to give the world the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.

If you want to look above all at the attitude from which the reflections were made in connection with the Gospels of John and Luke, if you want to consider these attitudes, they cannot be characterized other than as having been spoken from a point of view that says something like the following: “That which we call the Christ-Jesus-Being is, as far as can be grasped by human understanding at all in our present time, is so great, so all-embracing, so mighty that no consideration of it can proceed from saying in any one-sided way who the Christ-Jesus was and what significance His Essence has for each individual human spirit and for each individual soul; that would have seemed in our considerations like an irreverence toward the greatest world problem that exists. Respect and reverence are the words that describe the attitude from which our reflections have been given. Respect and reverence, which could be expressed in the sentiment: Do not place too high a value on human understanding when you are confronted with the greatest problem. Try never to place too high a value on anything that a spiritual science, no matter how great, can give you, even if it reaches the highest regions, when it is a matter of confronting life's greatest problem. And do not believe that a single human word would suffice to say anything other than what characterizes this great and formidable problem from one side.

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 11/1910

At around 10:45 a.m., the General Assembly is opened by the Secretary General of the German Section, Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The first item on the agenda was to determine the voting rights of the delegates from the individual branches.

The second item on the agenda was the reading of the minutes of the previous year's general assembly. It was proposed that the reading be dispensed with because the minutes were included in detail in the “Mitteilungen”. The proposal was accepted. This was followed by the report of the secretary, Fräulein von Sivers, on the state of the membership movement over the last year.

The number of members in 1950 was around 1500, compared to 1500 the previous year; 522 new members joined, compared to 415 the previous year; 63 left or could no longer be found and were therefore deleted, 1 transferred to another section, 8 passed away.

Three new branches were established: Görlitz, Vienna and Klagenfurt. Two new centers were formed: Göttingen and Wyrow. The total number of branches is 47, and the number of centers is 3. The treasurer, Mr. Seiler, will now present the financial report.

According to the report, total income was 7546 marks
The total expenditure was 6255.61 marks
There remains a surplus of 1290.39 marks
To this, bank balance 2020.45 marks
Furniture inventory 565 marks
Results in total assets of 3875.84 marks

After the report of the auditors, Mr. Tessmar and Ms. Motzkus, the treasurer is discharged.

Report of the Secretary General [Rudolf Steiner]:

"I will try to keep the report of the Secretary General as short as possible this year, because we need the time for other things; quite a number of our dear Theosophical friends have kindly agreed to delight us with lectures during this General Assembly.

My first duty is to give you, who have gathered here either to see each other again or to meet the newcomers, a warm , and to greet you in particular on behalf of the Berlin branch of Besant, which always finds it a special pleasure to be able to welcome not only the various Theosophical friends of the German Section, but also friends from out of town.

It has often been emphasized on other occasions that such a gathering has a completely different value for us Theosophists than a gathering of perhaps any other association. Other associations find, when they come together, like-minded people who agree with them on this or that goal of their external or internal life, on this or that question, in terms of their occupation, profession, perhaps also on some ideal in life or the like. Theosophists also come together to find like-minded people, and in their like-minded people, above all, to find bearers of their shared ideals. However, it may be said that a major difference between such a theosophical gathering and the gatherings of all other associations is this.

When we look at the theosophical movement and consider what it is primarily about, we see the innermost being and striving of the human soul and not a single activity in life, not a particular ideal, not something limited in space and time, but that which arises directly from the perception that those gathered here feel and think together about that which is most precious to them in life. That is what unites us. And to sense this in the soul of another, to see it realized in friendly fellowship, that is what each of us welcomes. In this way, other members of the association come together, knowing that they will find this or that in common with those they meet; this is how theosophists come together, knowing that they may find the innermost feelings and thoughts in themselves in others as well. This is what should permeate our gathering like a magical breeze; and it is out of the consciousness that such a spiritual and meaningful bond unites us that I warmly welcome you. We are not only together as representatives of the Theosophical movement; we are not only together in some external business sense, we are together in terms of being Theosophists; and the feeling and living of Theosophical ideas together is the soul of our being together. It is from this soul of our Theosophical togetherness that I would like to speak as I address these opening greetings to you.

During the past year, our German Section has once again made significant progress in our theosophical work. And when we ask ourselves the question whether we may look back on this piece in such a way that we can really call it progress – and not only ask our feelings, but ask: Do the facts speak for the fact that our life is a progressive one – then we must see above all how everywhere within our theosophical branches an inner life is beginning to stir more and more. Today, at the ninth General Assembly, after the conclusion of our eighth theosophical year of our German Section, we can say that the inner life within the German Section has been realized in a broader way.

The German Section consists of individual branches, and these show a lively inner life. When one looks into this life, one can only characterize in very general terms how this life has formed. And one may say that one cannot characterize it more deeply than by saying that it has become an intense one. In some branches, the inner life has even grown out of itself, as in the Berlin Besant branch and in some others, particularly the Munich and Stuttgart branches. There we, like the members of a branch of Theosophists, also cultivate Theosophical enterprises, which are not, so to speak, fanned in a rash way by the Theosophical Society itself, but which flourish from the Theosophical inner life of the branches. These are the various events that go beyond lodge life, in the so-called art and music rooms, where popular Theosophy is also partly practiced. It shows how, as everywhere, theosophical life can be kindled if we only try to speak to humanity in the right way. It would be going too far if I were to name all the members who have rendered outstanding services in a way that cannot be appreciated highly enough by us. In particular, I would like to express the wish that these activities, which take place in art and music rooms, continue and expand as much as possible. This is the best way for us to make a certain impression on our time, if we are able to have an effect on the outside world.

The next step is, of course, the development of theosophical life within the branches; and here I would have to speak for hours if I wanted to characterize how the most intensive work is done within the individual branches, in that gradually organizing this inner work in the form of courses, as is already the case in Berlin, Stuttgart, Munich, Cologne and other places, so that individual members take it upon themselves to convey theosophical truths to new members in courses. Such courses have been set up, and it is certainly permissible to express the wish that, on the one hand, this institute of courses held by members be expanded as much as possible. On the other hand, however, it may well be said that these courses should also be attended as much as possible so that members who are still new and have not yet familiarized themselves with the elementary content of Theosophy can do so. It will only be possible to make significant progress if such courses are set up for those members who have only been with us for a short time. Progress can only be made if the opportunity to learn about the wisdom of Theosophy is given again and again.

But if the content given to us from the source of the theosophical wisdom is to flow to the members again and again, then the younger members must ensure that they always catch up on what was given earlier, otherwise it would not be possible to continue in the appropriate way; and the older members would have to do without something new altogether. Perhaps I may parenthetically interject that one should not take this catching up too lightly. And the greater the reverence for the Theosophical truths, the greater is the possibility of a Theosophical movement penetrating within our culture.

The life of this Theosophical movement can also be seen further afield. I say expressly, the life: a living organism is not only alive when it draws more and more new life into itself, so to speak, but only when there is a lively exchange between the individual limbs, when the juices are exchanged between the individual limbs of the organism. And it is precisely in this respect that we can say that this has been most beautifully realized, that a kind of such material movement takes place among the individual limbs. Again and again, members from a wide variety of branches, not only from branches in Germany but also from abroad, come forward to carry out this exchange, so that with these Theosophical courses, which have become established, mutual inspiration and the mutual exchange of perceptions and feelings are generated in the most beautiful way. It is gratifying that every year we have a number of courses in front of Theosophical members abroad. I would like to mention the course in Stockholm, where a number of members of our German Section were present; and it can be said that the life that unfolded between the Stockholm friends and our members was a very lively one.

Then, above all, we experienced something in the course in Vienna that may be called the outward growth of our Theosophical movement. With this course, a lively and hopefully ever-expanding theosophical life has begun in Vienna, and, as it continues, has deepened the foundations of Theosophy that have been given for years by our friends there. This has also been demonstrated externally by the establishment of the Vienna branch. This adds a link to our work that will also carry Theosophy in an easterly direction. Following the Theosophical Branch in Vienna, a similar branch was also founded in Klagenfurt. And when we consider that the Czech Section was also founded at our suggestion, we can see a gratifying outward growth of the Theosophical Movement. It would again be going too far if all that was done by our dear friends to bring this life to the East were to be characterized in detail. Therefore, only the highly gratifying fact was pointed out in general that we are developing significant beginnings in the East with the Czech Section, the Vienna branch and the Klagenfurt Lodge. The Vienna cycle showed that with the Theosophical movement, with all the imponderables, with all the indefinable things that took place, that it shows something that can be called a fine, intimate progress in human cultural striving, in the mood of feeling that is brought to bear on today's cultural activity. It is characteristic of our time how modern man feels about all cultural activity. When he feels confronted by any kind of cultural activity, the modern man asks himself: Do I understand it, or don't I understand it? If he doesn't understand it, he rejects it. This was particularly characteristic of Basel, where a feature article was written on the occasion of a Theosophical lecture, which began with the words: “What is most striking about Theosophy is its incomprehensibility.” That is the right way to describe the imponderable mood that modern man brings to a cultural activity. This is particularly evident when the word is applied to another area. Imagine someone writing a feature article about mathematics that began in the same way. He would only be characterizing his personal relationship to mathematics. Nowadays, such a relationship is taken for granted, and people think they have said something with it; but they have not said anything at all. Because if someone has not studied mathematics, he simply knows nothing about it and cannot pass judgment on it. Thus the feature writer reveals nothing more than his own attitude towards Theosophy. It would be right to stop writing about it after such a sentence. In the past, if people did not understand something, it meant that they were bored; but that is not a judgment on what was presented. But this modern sentiment is gradually changing, and today one may dare to bring difficult things within the Theosophical movement for discussion. The Vienna course was indeed a particularly difficult one, and if only people who had given such a judgment, as we have just characterized it, had been present at that time, then the Vienna course would certainly have remained barren. But it did become fruitful; and we were able to go home at that time with the beautiful feeling that even from the unspeakable things beautiful flowers grew towards us.

This became apparent later at the Hamburg course. It is always difficult to discuss things that, so to speak, require a certain nuance of feeling for the understanding of everything that is given from the source of Theosophy. In principle, all this is certainly understandable to the scrutinizing reason and logic. But it would certainly take us a long time, and we would have to organize long courses if all these things were to be verified with logic. And in a way it is certainly not to be dismissed when healthy feeling develops in relation to what is offered. There are souls that are more mature than they realize, that bring something from the subconscious that they themselves are unaware of. And then those things that are highest are easiest to test by logic, and those that relate to practical personal life are most difficult. It is much more difficult to find convincing evidence when someone is looking for a connection between an obvious passion and an illness. This can be examined through logic. But it is a long way from what can be established through spiritual research to the convincing logical judgment. Then the subconscious reception comes into play, which manifests itself in the healthy sense of truth. This senses the truth, which could admittedly be proved, but can also be accepted even before the proof. Such a reception must be particularly presupposed in such courses. This will be able to happen more and more, and has just happened particularly in the courses mentioned. And one is taught how really another nuance of feeling and another spiritual nuance - as they did not previously exist in the physical world - now show up.

If we were allowed to point out a kind of new attempt within our theosophical movement, then perhaps I may also speak to you in this brief way about some of the progress we have made in our inner work this year. This leads us to Kristiania, where it was possible to speak about the processes in the life of the earth. There the spirits of the people could be called the souls of the people; it was possible to speak about racial development and its course. This course could only be built on the characterized prerequisites. This also provided the opportunity to present something inward to our members in an outward way.

This also happened in Munich, where we were allowed to dare something like first attempts, which was a direct transfer of esoteric things into exoteric artistic ways.

But then, as a consequence, we were also allowed to make the attempt to look at the writings that are available to us through the prehistoric wisdom of humanity in a broader light. This happened in the courses that made very special demands on the listeners. This was allowed to happen in the Munich and Bern courses.

It has been said of the Bern course that things were discussed there that only have their value in the moment in which they are spoken. This is, of course, intentional and justified. One could experience in these two courses, the Munich and the Bern, that there was something in them that cannot be reproduced in writing. In this, we have indeed made a certain amount of progress.

I have already spoken much more than I had intended, so I ask you to take this as a report of the inner activity and movement of our cause, and to kindly excuse me from thanking all of our members who have participated in this inner work. That these thanks are heartfelt by all of us can be taken for granted.

After the expiration of our seven-year period, we also have other things to report, which we Theosophists always characterize differently than the outside world. We have just in this past year to report that some of our oldest members, some of whom were particularly committed to the Theosophical cause, have left the physical plane. And when we remember these dear theosophical members, we think of them in the same way and with the same love that we regarded them as belonging to us while they were among us in the physical world. We want to say that for us Theosophists there is something that is considered a duty in the outer, non-theosophical world, but which must be a special consecration and a special permeation with the content of the nuances of feeling and thought acquired in the theosophical life for us Theosophists. This is the forwarding of love, the forwarding of our best feelings beyond the physical plane, to those who have left this physical plane. We should endeavor to develop such feelings, strengthened by the theosophical sentiment, for the departed. We should make ourselves capable of sending such feelings into the other worlds through our theosophical progress, so that we may constantly feel the love, truth, and good that has come to us in the case of such members as an ever-present quality, and so that these members themselves may constantly feel present so that we speak of them as those who continue to walk among us, and whose walk becomes more and more sacred to us for the reason that what they can send us from that world must be more valuable to them than what they could give us on the physical plane. In this active way we remember those of our dear members who left the physical plane in the past year.

In particular, we remember an elderly member who has been with us since the Section was founded. We feel a special closeness to her because the brother of this member, who is here as our dear friend Mr. Wagner, is close to us in turn.

Miss Amalie Wagner of Hamburg, who is well known to many of us, left the physical plane during the course of this year, and we will always look to what she tried to do for Theosophical life. Many of those Theosophists who were close to our dear Amalie Wagner have, in their innermost hearts, come to appreciate the work of Amalie Wagner in an extraordinary way and have an unlimited love for this friend. And that was only the beautiful reflection of the beautiful theosophical striving in the soul of Amalie Wagner. And in reverence and sacred consecration, we commemorate an important moment in the life of Amalie Wagner. That was the moment when her sister, who was a member of our movement with her in Hamburg, preceded her in death. At that time I was able to experience the beautiful, loving understanding with which Amalie Wagner's soul approached the event that took place when her sister passed away. I was able to receive Amalie Wagner's look up to her sister, so to speak, held in a genuine theosophical sentiment. How Amalie Wagner looked up to the higher worlds to form an idea of how a person lives on in these higher worlds, was much talked about in the dear, lonely living room of Amalie Wagner. And now we look after her in thought, as she in turn now receives from above what is coming to her and from below, from the physical plane, the feelings of love and devotion that we have for her from here. We can already see two sides to this soul today, how she lives up and down, how a person in the spiritual world lives when there was an impulse in her heart to join what passes through our movement as a soul. And so we look in devotion and love to the soul of this dear Miss Wagner as if she were always present to us.

Another old member has left the physical plane, who is indeed known to few, but these few are those who loved this dear member very much, who, whenever they met with him, felt anew the reverence-inspiring soul of our dear friend Jacques Tschudy in Glarus, who has belonged to our German Section from the very beginning. He has been met by a number of our dear members at the Swiss Theosophical meetings. And if I may use a word in this case that is meant very seriously, I would like to say that the soul of this personality worked in such a way that one could not help but love him. And those who often saw how this man was loved know that those who knew him will continue to send this feeling to him in the spiritual world.

Then there is another exceptionally ambitious member who, in vigorous energy, tried to penetrate into the exoteric and esoteric of Theosophy, and who only in the last few years joined our German Section, has left the physical plan. Our dear friend Minuth from Riga was present at the last Stuttgart cycle; then he reappeared in Hamburg, and by then his outer physical body was already afflicted with the germ that did not allow him to continue living. He was no longer able to attend the full cycle and soon after left the physical plane as well. We will also send him the feelings that we not only had when we decided to become Theosophists, but that we have acquired during our Theosophical life, to the higher worlds.

We have seen another personality depart from the physical plane; the wife of our dear friend Sellin. You all know our dear friend Sellin from earlier theosophical meetings. While he was working in Zurich, his dear wife passed away. Our dear friend understands his wife's passing in the most wonderful way, and anyone who has been privileged to feel what Sellin himself feels towards the dead knows how a true theosophist should feel in a true and beautiful way towards the dead. I would have to use words that would paint the most vivid colors to describe the feelings that surge up to the spiritual world, if I wanted to convey some of the beautiful words that were sent from the soul of our dear friend Sellin here on the physical plane to his beloved wife. But it is better if we merely evoke in ourselves an inkling of what can be expressed in such beautiful words, if we have not heard it ourselves. And those who, like me, have heard such beautiful words as those of our dear friend Sellin, which bear witness to his truly beautiful, real feelings, who have experienced this themselves, have the need not to profane such beautiful words by speaking them. But at this moment I have the need in my soul to awaken in your own heart a presentiment of what beautiful feeling, beautiful inner experience is for those who have physically disappeared in the direction of the spiritual world.

Another personality in Stuttgart has disappeared from those close to her in the physical world; our dear friend [Frentzel] recently lost his wife to the higher plans. When we see how we Theosophists begin to develop a real soul life, we need only think of our dear Mrs. Frentzel, who worked so beautifully on her soul to enter into the Theosophical life. Perhaps only those who were close to her soul, like myself, can appreciate this. And so we may send up what we have learned to our dear friend Mrs. Frentzel.

And so we also remember another friend who left the physical plane through a tragic fate, Mrs. Hedwig von Knebel, whose loving devotion to the Theosophical cause was noticed both when we were in Wiesbaden and by the Wiesbadeners themselves.

But then the image of a Theosophical personality who left the physical plane recently descends upon us with a special power, with a very special vibrancy from the higher worlds, who has devoted herself to the Theosophical cause with an intensity, an understanding and a devotion that truly cannot be described in words, with all she could do - and she could do a lot. I will never forget the moment after a Theosophical meeting when our dear Hilde Stockmeyer approached me for the first time to learn more about some of the things she had learned in Theosophy, which she had absorbed with all her strength. On the other hand, she tried – and she was allowed and able to try a great deal – to combine what she had learned in Theosophy with what external science offers in terms of truth and good. And it can be said that her extensive knowledge was also able to bear fruit externally, in that she passed the final exam shortly before her passing, to the satisfaction of the external world. Hilde Stockmeyer's knowledge can be seen as the first thing she brought us as a beautiful gift of her personal values. What Hilde Stockmeyer, the chairwoman of the Malsch lodge, was to us in the physical realm was due to her abilities and the way she processed these abilities. She was therefore called to work fruitfully, and to what Hilde Stockmeyer acquired through the development of her abilities in this way, she added something else, which, through its emanation, worked on those close to her, which could only reveal itself to us through its effect, how fruitful genuine, true theosophical feeling can become here in human life. This is shown by the way in which father, mother, brothers and sisters and friends accepted her departure to the higher worlds. This is in turn proof of the effectiveness of Theosophy in human souls in this case. It is proof of this in yet another way than was the case with the others mentioned. Personalities were everywhere around the others who had sought Theosophy. In the case of Hilde Stockmeyer, even her parents confessed: 'She brought us Theosophy, she was sent to us. The people who had preceded her on the physical plane, who had given her physical life, confessed what they could feel in response to what came to them from the higher worlds in their own daughter, of which they had to say: 'We could not help this to come into existence on the physical plane, we were the instrument for it. And it is one of the most beautiful feelings that has been expressed within our theosophical movement, that the parents of Hilde Stockmeyer expressed the magnitude of their gratitude and appreciation for the knowledge of their daughter, the knowledge of the daughter who brought theosophy into the home of the parents. And this is the glorious response of Hilde Stockmeyer's parents to their daughter, who has passed into the spiritual world. But we should learn to send up to the higher worlds especially for Hilde Stockmeyer what can only be sensed in such matters. And it is clear to me that I cannot send a better feeling up into the spiritual worlds than if I were to send up the feelings of Hilde Stockmeyer's soul myself now, making myself the tool of her soul for the beautiful things that our dear friend was able to say out of a beautiful feeling while she was still here with us. In two little poems that were entrusted to me and that came from the pen of our dear friend, which originated from her beautiful mind, she still speaks to us from the physical plane. How Hilde Stockmeyer felt about the eternal teachings of Theosophy may resound to us from her own little poems at this moment. Thus spoke Hilde Stockmeyer when she was still alive, and thus may what she herself said continue to resonate for us:

Are we really all alone?
Can one never understand the other?
Can he never look into his heart?
Ease his pain?
I think that when love speaks to love, From the heart with a loyal face, For the sake of love, to ease the torment, With loving words to ease the pain, Then I think it can't be in vain! Are we really all alone? Are there no bridges to every heart? Is there no balm for all pain?
When we sink eye to eye,
Not thinking of ourselves at all,
There is no need for words,
True understanding speaks without sound!
Even to the most hardened of hearts
There is a way.
If you walk courageously on a shaky path
With the one thought of being a helper
You will soon no longer be alone!

Let us try, after she has left, to develop such feelings in our hearts that we can send after her, feelings that are worthy of her own beautiful feelings. And let us learn to feel as she herself felt and as she expressed it in the other little poem:

I would be a pure source of blessing,
That always flows and never must dry up,
A heart full of courage I would call my own,
That never desponds and never trembles in pain,
And I would pour love through the worlds;
That all living things should rejoice with joy.
And so, giving, I would quietly sink into the universe, like a melody that fades away softly.

She spoke in life, and she died for the physical plane. It goes without saying that we should endeavor to send her something equally valuable as she, sensing her own death, spoke in her last words, the last little poem. Those who knew Hilde Stockmeyer as I did know that the death of this dear soul was:

And so I would give up and quietly sink away,
Like a melody that fades away softly.

The assembly honored the memory of the aforementioned persons by standing up from their seats.

Third item: Motions from the floor:

The first motion to be read is the motion of van Leer, Düsseldorf.

Proposal van Leer: The proponent refers to the appointment of members of the board who hold their office for life. This proposal has been made and adopted in order to bring continuity to the theosophical work of the section. It provides a safeguard against any tendentious efforts that would seek to break with the acquired property by bringing in new members. The idea should be further developed through this proposal, so that in the future two people cannot arbitrarily introduce as many members as they like into the society; rather, the signature of the lodge's chairman should also be required for each person wishing to join a lodge, in order to prevent the destruction of what has been built up over the years by tendentious influx.

Dr. Steiner notes that at yesterday's board meeting, the board decided to propose to the General Assembly that the admission certificate of new members should not only bear the signatures of two sponsors, but also the signature of the chairman of the relevant branch, and that in future the admission certificate for section members must be countersigned by the chairman of the German section. In this way, the situation that gave rise to the motion would be appropriately prevented.

Pastor Wendt says that if two thousand new people join the society, the old members could simply found a new society.

Dr. Steiner replies that this case should be prevented, that a society should not be forced to found itself anew.

Mrs. von Sonklar notes that every member has the right to propose new members, and that these two thousand people could also be converted.

Dr. Steiner: “The point is to ensure that the other case cannot occur, that two thousand new members who could be converted are not admitted. They would, of course, be accepted with the greatest satisfaction. It cannot be assumed that the newly admitted members will have the slightest objection. The motion can have no other effect than to deprive two thousand new members of the opportunity to destroy the Theosophical work done so far.

At the request of Mr. Tessmar, the debate is closed and the vote taken. The motion is carried.

The second motion was proposed by Horst von Henning in Weimar, in which the proposal is made to erect the central building of the German Theosophists in Weimar, as planned for Munich.

In response to this motion, Dr. Steiner said: “A motion that is framed in the form in which it is introduced cannot be a motion, it can only be an appeal, and can only be addressed to the meeting as such. It is not, in fact, an undertaking of the Theosophical Society, but a theosophical matter that is being undertaken officially by a number of theosophists in private. As you know, a number of our Theosophical friends have decided to build a house of their own for events like the ones we had in Munich last year and the year before. I just want to say that the intention is to build such a house as a kind of central building in Munich. And hopefully everyone who is able to will contribute their mite, from ten pfennigs to a million. That will hopefully be one consequence of the Munich works. Another consequence lies in the appeal.

I have made you familiar with the content of this appeal. It cannot be treated as a proposal because it does not concern the German Section. The German Section is not a legal entity, and only those who donate the money will build this central building.

The second point is the factual one. First of all, the appeal does not take into account the fact that we had intended from the very beginning to regard this as a purely internal matter for the Theosophists, which is why only those artists who are Theosophists were appointed. So what is emphasized in the motion is out of the question: that a city like Weimar has a large number of theatrical talent or excellent painters. What matters is to organize the matter in the city where most of the artists are Theosophists. Then, of course, choosing any other place than Munich would immediately contradict everything associated with the development of this idea. I would like to emphasize that it does not matter whether I am against it or not, but one must always take the real circumstances into account. In principle, something can be right, but in reality it is only right if one also takes the historical circumstances into account.

Someone in the meeting asks why Berlin was not considered. Dr. Steiner replies: “For the same reason that Berlin was not chosen when we wanted to host the congress of the European sections. The reason is that such a thing requires such a colossal amount of work from the members that those who are not involved have no idea at all. But the members in Berlin are busy with the affairs of the German Section all year round, and practical circumstances have simply shown that the Berlin members would collapse if they had to do this work as well. Something like this could only be done in Berlin if the members were released from the leadership of the German Section. But because this leadership will best remain in Berlin, it is natural that another city has been considered for this matter. I am certainly very sympathetic to Henning's proposal, but when you consider the real circumstances, you have to say that it just isn't possible. But there is also an inner reason for this, which corresponds to an occult law; and that is that those places that have already had a heyday are not actually fruitful for later epochs. The appeal specifically chose Weimar because the heyday of German intellectual life had already developed there. In Weimar, archival work can only develop in the present. Societies are being founded there to commemorate and elaborate on what has already existed. That would already speak against Weimar, the greatness that emanates from Weimar would resist our plan, and we would not be able to get up."

Fräulein Stinde adds: “The address to which the funds for the construction can be sent is: To the care of Miss Marie von Sivers and Miss Sophie Stinde, Deutsche Bank, Munich.”

The third motion, from Frau von Sonklar, Berlin, concerns the regular publication of the “Mitteilungen” four times a year and the expansion of the same.

Fräulein von Sivers notes that a regular, quarterly publication of the “Mitteilungen” was never decided, but that they should only appear when sufficient material had been received from the branches. The “Mitteilungen” should only deal with the internal affairs of the German Section. Incidentally, it could generally be observed that the less one reports about it, the more work is done. For those members who are unable to attend the courses, there is now a wealth of study material available in the form of the duplicated lecture cycles.

Mr. Scharlau expresses financial concerns about publishing the “Mitteilungen” four times. In response, Ms. von Sonklar proposes turning the “Mitteilungen” into a magazine in order to cover the costs through subscriptions.

Mr. Tessmar objects to Ms. Sonklar's proposal and suggests that the “Mitteilungen” continue to be published as needed as before. This proposal is accepted by the assembly.

After a short debate, Mr. Walther proposes that Ms. Sonklar's proposal to expand the “Mitteilungen” be rejected. Ms. Sonklar's proposal is rejected by vote.

There are no further proposals.

Dr. Steiner proposes an emergency motion by the Executive Board to postpone the General Assembly until the end of the year.

After a long and lively debate, Mr. Arenson proposes that November be considered for the next year's General Assembly for the time being. This proposal is accepted.

Dr. Steiner then read out a welcome telegram from the Italian Section and also announced that the Congress of the European Sections of the Theosophical Society would take place in Genoa from September 18, 1911.

Fourth item: reports from the various branches. Two reports have been submitted; in view of the late hour, it is decided not to read them out and to publish the reports in the next “Mitteilungen”.

There is no material for the fifth item, Miscellaneous. Dr. Steiner then closes the business part and announces that the theosophical part of the General Assembly will begin at 5 p.m.

Report in the “Mitteilungen für die Mitglieder der Deutschen Sektion der Theosophischen Gesellschaft (Hauptquartier Adyar), herausgegeben von Mathilde Scholl”, No. 13/1912

At 10:15 a.m., the Secretary General of the German Section, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, opens the tenth ordinary General Assembly with the words:

"It is my duty to begin by welcoming you all most warmly in the name of our Theosophical movement and in the spirit that brings us together. These assemblies always give us the opportunity to see many of our friends gathered in one place at the same time. And what is most important for a true Theosophist is undoubtedly to know that they are united with many friends and like-minded people, that is, with people who, in the spirit of our time, have filled their hearts with inspiring ideas about spiritual matters. That our thoughts and feelings are forces that already have meaning as individual meanings within reality is something that, as Theosophists, we hold dear. But that the confluence of a larger number of such individual forces means something quite different must be admitted by anyone who regards spiritual life in terms of reality. Anyone who thinks that the spread of Theosophy depends solely on how externally, on the physical plane, fellow human beings are convinced by an external propaganda or by words, is only just beginning to understand spiritual life. But anyone who has penetrated the meaning of spiritual knowledge knows that the forces that invisibly rule the world, the forces of good will, which flow together from genuine theosophical hearts, also yield in a supersensible way a stream that flows into the evolution of humanity. Thus we will be increasingly inclined to see an external assembly of Theosophists as a symbol of what takes place between and from the hearts, and cannot be perceived in the external world. This is what expresses the holiness and dignity of the theosophical worldview, but also what entitles this theosophical worldview to intervene in our human evolution in a very unique way as an element that draws its true power from the supersensible.

The fact that we also find some understanding in the world, in addition to the predominant misunderstanding of our view that we encounter, is perhaps attested to by the progress we have made this year. We need only point out that we were able to stage our performances in Munich with increasing interest, that our artistic endeavors, which we express in our mysteries, have been successful in the succession of recent years. In 1909 we were able to organize one performance, in 1910 two and in 1911 even three. This is just one of the symptoms that speak for true progress, not for a mere semblance of it, within our movement.

Another symptom is the fact that our Weltanschhauung has already built itself a home in Stuttgart. Those who have a real understanding of Theosophy do not need to be told what it means that the aspirations of Theosophy can be so circumscribed by spatial boundaries that are themselves born of the theosophical idea. I am not above confessing that I find the whole way in which this Theosophical home within Stuttgart came into being almost more significant than what ultimately emerged, because no reality corresponds to the ideal

has emerged, because no reality corresponds to the ideal

. It is a building that has been created in association with an understanding architect who knew how to give the theosophical ideas an external form. Even more, I consider another to be a touchstone of the theosophical attitude in our circles. The building has been created without the need for propaganda in the outside world. The whole matter remained among Theosophists and even today, after the building is finished, it is still a matter among Theosophists.

Such a confirmation of our Theosophical thought is surely the best welcome that we can receive here today for our souls; and in this sense, that the Theosophical movement may not lose that which is most important is that the Theosophical movement may only work where it encounters this attitude and not where it has to work with the outer advertising drum. In this sense, let our Theosophical thoughts flow through this association.

So, after welcoming you most warmly, we have arrived at the business part of our General Assembly, and I ask you to treat it as such.

First item on the agenda:

Determining the voting ratio of the delegates from the individual branches.

It was necessary to clarify the voting rights of members of the Swiss branches within the German Section.

Dr. Steiner: “I must note here that we are now obliged to allow the Swiss branches to vote in the German Section, to which they still de facto belong. A Swiss Section has been founded. Those Swiss branches that belonged to the German Section refused to join the Swiss Section. So the alternative was either for the Swiss branches to join the German Section or to leave the Society. Yesterday I received a letter from the President of the Theosophical Society stating that these branches had the right to form a new, independent body. Before this is formed, according to all previous practices of the Theosophical Society, the former Swiss members of the German Section must still be counted as part of the German Section. Otherwise they would be left in the lurch if we did not grant them the right to vote within the German Section.

I now have to ask whether delegates have been elected by members who do not belong to any branch.

Mr. Krojanker remarks that the section members do not know about each other. Dr. Steiner replies that it is up to the section members themselves to get to know each other; they have the right to elect delegates according to previous resolutions of the general assembly. He suggested forming a center where all section members can report. This would be a start towards unification. Mr. Krojanker declared himself willing to accept reports from section members so that they could be united in the future and the election of delegates could be arranged.

The voting ratio was then determined. The representatives of the individual branches and the bearers of their votes are as follows:

Second [agenda item]: Reports of the General Secretary, the Secretary, the Treasurer, the Recording Secretary and the Auditors.

Dr. Steiner: “In previous years, I have given a factual report on the work of the German Section at this point. However, in view of the fact that, according to what the Executive Council can foresee, a number of lengthy matters are to be brought before the meeting, I would like to dispense with the usual address at this point. Instead, the business report will be given.”

The report of the secretary, Fräulein von Sivers, on membership trends follows.

Number of members: 2318 compared to 1950 in the previous year
New members: 458
Those who have left or can no longer
be found and have therefore been deleted: 67
Those who have transferred to other sections: 3
Those who have died: 20

Six new branches were founded:

Bochum, Graz, Heidenheim, Linz, Neuchâtel and Tübingen.

Two new centres were formed: Hamburg and New York.

Total number of branches: 53, of centres: 5.

Dr. Steiner: “There is something to be added to this report. It is a matter of commemorating our dear members who have passed away from the physical plane this year.

This year in particular, we have lost a large number of members who have left the physical plane through death. It is fitting that we remember these members in a heartfelt way.

Above all, I would like to remember an old member of the German Section and the Cologne branch, our dear Miss Hippenmeyer, who combined an ever-increasing warmth for our theosophical thoughts with an extraordinary amount of activity for the broadest world interests. Those who knew her better were as drawn to her beautiful, good, theosophical heart as they were to her world interests. Miss Hippenmeyer did not pursue these interests in a philistine way, but undertook extensive journeys that could be called world tours. Considering only the external, purely technical difficulties of these trips for a single traveling lady, and Miss Hippenmeyer was still a frail lady, then this is something to be admired. She was extremely active in our theosophical cause in a very likeable way, and it was painful for all those who had known her to hear that she left the physical plane in Java on one of her great journeys.

Furthermore, I have to mention an extraordinarily active co-worker, who also belonged to the Cologne Lodge, our dear friend Ludwig Lindemann. I still have the impression I had when I saw Ludwig Lindemann for the first time, who vividly presented his tendencies to me. Since then, it has grown day by day, despite the fact that the greatest obstacle for him was present, namely a serious illness. Nevertheless, he had no other thought than to stake his entire existence on the dissemination of theosophical thought. And when he had to go to Italy for the sake of his health, he worked there to cultivate the theosophical idea. He founded the small centers we have in Milan and Palermo. He was able to establish the most intense and heartfelt Theosophical life in these places. Ludwig Lindemann was loved by all who knew him, with the kind of love that can arise from the naturalness of the spiritual connection with a person. Lindemann pursued his great theosophical interests intensely, and I could feel, when I visited him in the last weeks before his death, how a deep, heartfelt, theosophical enthusiasm emerged from his decaying body. So it was a deep satisfaction for me to see how our Milanese friends felt deeply connected to our dear friend Lindemann. When I was in Milan, I was shown the room that had been prepared for Lindemann, where he could have lived if he had been able to come to Italy again. At the time, I was firmly convinced that he could have worked for a few more years if it had been possible for him to come to Italy again; everything was prepared for him there; karma willed it otherwise. But we look back on him as Theosophists look back on someone who has left the scene of his life and work in the physical world in our sense, in that we feel just as faithfully and warmly connected to him as we did when he was still among us on the physical plane.

I have to mention a third personality who left the physical plane perhaps unexpectedly quickly for many; it is our dear section member Dr. Max Asch. In his very eventful life, he had to endure many things that can make it difficult for a person to join a purely spiritual movement. But in the end he found his way to us in such a way that he, the doctor, found the best remedy for his suffering in the study of theosophical reading and thought. He repeatedly assured me that no other faith could arise in the soul of the physician, no other remedy than that which could come spiritually from the theosophical books, that he felt the theosophical teaching flowing like balm into his pain-torn body. He truly cultivated Theosophy in this sense until the hour of his death. And it was a difficult renunciation for me when, after our friend had passed away, his daughter wrote to me asking me to say a few words at his grave, but I was unable to fulfill this wish because that day marked the beginning of my lecture series in Prague, and it was therefore impossible for me to pay this last service to my theosophical friend on the physical plane. You can be assured that the words I should have spoken at his grave were sent to him as thoughts in the world he had entered at that time.

Furthermore, I have to mention a friend from Berlin, a member of our Besant branch, who, after various endeavors, finally found himself in our movement as if in a harbor. It is our dear friend Ernst Pitschner, who has been among us for a long time, afflicted with the seeds of decay, and was united with us in the most intense way in our theosophical work until his death. It was a peculiar karma that after a few weeks his wife followed him into the supersensible worlds.

Furthermore, I have to remember our dear member Christian Dieterle from Stuttgart. He has found his way into theosophical life with difficulty, but with extraordinary ambition, and in the last few months he was a man who thought in the most intense theosophical way.

Then we want to commemorate an older Theosophist who was snatched from the Mühlhausen branch, Josef Keller. It is one of those cases where, even though you have only met a person once in your life, you immediately recognize a deep state of mind and heart in him. Keller was a deeply convinced theosophist, especially in his last months, and all who knew him will keep him in faithful and loving memory.

Furthermore, I have to mention a man who, confined to his bed by a serious illness, was introduced to theosophy through the mediation of a person dear to us, Karl Gesterding.

I must also mention our dear friend Edmund [Reebstein], who was taken from us at a relatively young age after a short illness, and who those who knew him well came to hold in the highest esteem.

I have the same to say about Mrs. Major Göring, who worked with us in our branch for many years.

This time, the list of our deceased is so long that it would take too much time to say everything I would like to say.

I still have to mention our members Erwin Baumberger from Zurich, Georg Stephan from Breslau, Mrs. Fanny Russenberger from St. Gallen, Johannes [Radmann] from Leipzig, Karl Schwarze from Leipzig, Wilhelm Eckle from Karlsruhe, Georg Hamann from Hannover, Wilhelmine Mössner from Stuttgart I, Walter Krug from Cologne, Mrs. Silbermann from Heidelberg, Mrs. [Liendl] from Munich I.

Today, I still consider it my special duty to commemorate the departure from the physical plane of a personality who was well known in all theosophical circles, who was snatched from us by a painful death, who has done a great deal, and whom we remember with love, as we do the others. I am referring to Mrs. Helene von Schewitsch. You know her books, so I do not need to characterize her in more detail. I must emphasize that the circumstances were such that I always complied with her request when she asked me to give a lecture in her circle during my stay in Munich. I would just like to hint that for me this whole life presents itself as something deeply tragic; and I may well say that Mrs. von Schewitsch met me with extraordinary trust and that I am justified in saying: This life had a deep tragedy. I was also granted the opportunity to look into this heart; and please understand that what I call tragic is meant in the sense that most of you would understand it from my lectures.

We fulfill a duty of warmth to express outwardly how we are connected with the dead in our thoughts by rising from our seats.

Report of the Treasurer:

In this report, the treasurer, Mr. Seiler, points out that it is extremely difficult to complete the cash report in time because the branches send in their accounts very late, often only a few days before the general assembly. There was also a great deal of disorder and inaccuracy in filling out the pre-printed forms, so that the treasurer had great difficulties, especially because many reports were not received on time. Cash report for the 1910/11 financial year:

Dr. Steiner: “You have just heard how difficult it is, although it would be desirable, to do the right thing at the right time. But what use is it, even if it is desirable, to close the till on August 31 and send the report to the individual branches 14 days before the general assembly, since we only receive the documents we need from the branches a few days before the general assembly. It seems to me – and this is my personal opinion – that a theosophical fairness should also prevail in the Theosophical Society, which should consist of asking why something is not done when it is not done, and asking why it is not done. It could be said that it is the duty of the General Secretariat to urge the lodges to do so, but what is the use of that if the lodges do not do it anyway. We will lose little if we are not able to swear by the letter.

The Society itself must first gain an insight into the way in which this equity is understood.

I am obliged to read a letter at this point, and I ask you to assess it quite objectively. I am obliged to read the letter because it is expressly requested; however, I would ask you to form an entirely unbiased opinion and to wait to discuss the letter until we reach the third point: proposals from the plenary session. It is in the interest of the meeting to postpone other items, such as the granting of discharge to the entire board, until the third item. Therefore, I ask you to first listen to the reading of this letter. I put to the vote whether you agree to wait with the discussion until the third item.

The vote shows that the meeting agrees.

Thereupon Dr. Steiner read the following letters:

Leipzig, December 8, 1911

To the General Assembly of the Theosophical Society (German Section) Berlin.

Article 11 of the statutes states: The financial year of the Section ends on August 31. Annual accounts prepared by the treasurer and audited by the auditors shall be sent to each branch by the secretary general 14 days before the annual general meeting.

It is clear that the Secretary General has not fulfilled this duty for years. I therefore asked him at a members' meeting of the Leipzig branch on November 5 to ensure that the annual accounts are at least available to the delegates at the General Assembly. He rejected my modest request for trivial reasons. On November 27, I made a similar request at the Leipzig members' meeting, but it was also rejected. For this reason, I unfortunately see no choice but to approach the General Assembly itself with the request to raise the following motion at point 2 of the agenda (report of the General Secretary) for resolution:

Proposal: The Secretary General of the Theosophical Society, Dr. Steiner, is requested:

1) to fulfill the statutes of the German Section in the future with the utmost diligence and to send the annual accounts to each branch 14 days before the General Assembly for review and examination in accordance with S 9 and S 11, and

2) to formally request indemnity for this time due to his breach of duty.

If, contrary to expectations, the General Assembly ignores the constitution and statutes, that is, law and justice, and rejects my 'motion or an analogous amendment to it, I will consider whether I should not call on the supervisory authority, that is, the Royal District Court in Berlin, to help the statutes to their rights and thus have all resolutions of the General Assembly declared unlawful.

The inevitable consequence would be a new General Assembly, which would then have to be convened in accordance with the statutes of $ 11.

Dr. M. Haedicke, a practising physician in Leipzig.

---

Leipzig, December 8, 191[1]; Burgstraße 2 To the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society, Dr. Steiner in Berlin.

Dear Dr. Steiner,

According to the statutes, every member of the Theos[ophical] Society has a consultative (but no decision-making) vote at the General Assembly. Therefore, I ask you, in your capacity as General Secretary and executive officer of the Executive Committee, to read the enclosed letter to the General Assembly at point 2 of the agenda (report of the General Secretary) or to have it read by the secretary. Even in Saxony, there is an end to complacency and sloppiness when it comes to administrative matters. At the same time, I would like to remind you that I spoke here at the meeting in favor of tolerance and also said, among other things, that the Catholic Church is tolerant of lawbreakers and does not expel them. You disputed this. I remained silent because, as a Catholic, you knew or should have known better. And yet you were wrong. The Catholic Church does not excommunicate lawbreakers, that is, murderers and thieves! Of course, anti-modernists and other heretics are excommunicated, because there is no freedom of belief or conscience, only obedience to the Church.

How progressive and freedom-breathing and fraternally conciliatory our Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution appear in contrast: no distinction of faith or race, no “belief in any dogma”.

Dear Doctor! You have signed this constitution with your signature and therefore, as a man of honor, you must either keep the constitution sacredly and faithfully or have this constitution amended or resign from office. Since you have now publicly spoken of “theosophical dogmas” here, I ask you to recant or to draw one of the three conclusions mentioned above. For it is obvious without further ado:

1) that the Theosophical Society has no dogma at all and that such an assertion is therefore a blatant contradiction of § 3 of the Constitution, and

2) that your assertion of a 'theosophical dogma' is a contradictio in adjecto such as 'dark sun' or 'tolerant Jesuit'.

Please explain on this occasion that the Theosophical Society has no dogma and logically can never have one, just as Theosophy is not a spiritual science, but according to Blavatsky “the wisdom of those who are divine”.

With theosophical greetings! Dr. M. Haedicke.

The postponement of the discharge is accepted by the assembly by vote.

Dr. Steiner asks if anyone has anything to say about the cash report.

Pastor Wendt: “Where do the 789 marks 75 pfennigs of congress taxes go? And why was the congress canceled at the last minute when most of them were already on their way to Italy?” Dr. Steiner: “Since I have been interpellated in this way, I have to answer this question. I will do so as best I can. However, I have to go back to the events that led to such congresses.

In 1904, the decision was taken to hold these congresses of the then-founded Federation of European Sections of the Theosophical Society. At that time, the decision was taken to hold such a congress every year. The way in which these congresses are to be prepared was determined, and how the section leaders of the country in which they were to be held were to participate in the event. It was also decided that each section should send a certain amount of money, I think 50 pfennigs per capita.

Now I come to a point that seems important to me, namely that in Paris – on the occasion of the 1906 congress – not only was the decision taken to hold a congress only every two years, but that another matter was also discussed at the same time. Specifically, they discussed – and I ask you to pay particular attention to this – whether they could evoke bitter feelings by asking our then-living president Olcott to found a European congress. The question arose through Commander Courmes, who was particularly close to Olcott, and it was of great concern to everyone involved at the time that Olcott might feel hurt if a separate body of European sections were established in which Olcott had no say. It was clear to everyone that the Federation was established in this way, that the president had no say in it. It was extremely difficult for us to make such a decision; but it had to be made, and it clearly showed that only the Federation of Sections itself and not the President of the Society had a say in it; and as far as I know, Olcott never felt this decision to be a painful one. This decision meant that the external events were taken over by the section of the country concerned, which was chosen for this congress in each individual case. This year, Genoa was chosen. Our friends have devoted themselves with the greatest intensity to the preparation and organization of this congress. Of course, money was needed for this, and since this money is usually spent eight days before the congress, we have no right to talk about the money that has been dutifully paid over in any sense here.

Certain difficulties arose beforehand, namely cholera. I did not rely on what was reported in the newspapers and so on, but above all trusted in the reports of our friend, Professor Penzig, who repeatedly assured me that it was not possible to speak of an epidemic in Genoa. I was therefore able to determine the number of German participants in Munich with a clear conscience and give it to Professor Penzig.

I was obliged to travel for a few days after the Munich cycle and arrived back in Munich on September 10th to make my preparations for Genoa. There I found a letter from Professor Penzig, in which he expressed his pleasure at being able to welcome so many of our members to Genoa and assured me for the last time that there was no risk of illness or quarantine difficulties. On the evening of September 10, I received a telegram: “Congress is canceled, please notify members.” Now the various addresses had to be found, and that was of course very difficult; we did not find about seven or eight, and I am sorry, Mr. Pastor, that you were among them.

But at the time, it was my responsibility to also find out the reasons why the congress was not taking place. Therefore, on the morning of the following day, after I had received the telegram on Sunday evening, September 10, I sent a telegram saying, “Since the cancellation must be extremely strange, please state the reasons.” In the evening I received the reply, “I have acted on strict orders from the President and the Secretary of the Congress. Please contact them.”

The section as such is of course authorized to cancel the congress, and we had to comply. If I had received a cancellation from London or somewhere else, I would still have traveled to Genoa, but in this case the cancellation was legally binding, even if it was incomprehensible. But I am not talking about justifications, but about facts. This has happened, and you will see from it that we could not possibly have objected to the sending of our congress funds, which have been used, and we cannot object to their use in the slightest."

Report of the auditors:

Mr. Tessmar, as auditor, stated that he and Ms. Motzkus had duly examined the books and found them to be correct, and he again came to speak about the reports not sent in on time by the branches.

Third [agenda item]: Motions from the floor:

Dr. Steiner: “There is a motion in two parts. One motion regarding Dr. Hugo Vollrath. The first part of the motion reads as follows:

Proposal:

The undersigned members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society hereby submit the following proposal to the General Assembly to be held in Berlin on December 10 of this year:

a) The General Assembly resolves to re-examine the events that led to the expulsion of Dr. Hugo Vollrach of Leipzig at the General Assembly of October 26, 1908, and to elect a commission of seven members for this purpose.

b) The selected commission should begin its work no later than six weeks after this year's General Assembly and forward the results of its investigations to the Secretary General of the “German Section”.

c) No members are to be included in the selected commission who, without knowing the exact circumstances, voted for the exclusion at the time.

d) The elected commission shall decide whether the resolution of October 26, 1908 is to be upheld or annulled.

Weißer Hirsch, December 6, 1911, signed H. Ahner, Chairman of the Lodge of the Grail in Dresden. Paul Krojanker, M.d.D.S.

Proposal:

The undersigned members of the German Section of the hereby submit the following proposal to the General Assembly to be held in Berlin on December 10 of this year: a) The General Assembly shall resolve to that led to the exclusion of Dr. Hugo Vollrath in Leipzig from the “Theosophical Society” at the General Assembly on October 26, 1908, and to elect a commission of seven members for this purpose.

b) The elected commission shall begin its work no later than six weeks after this year's General Assembly and shall forward the results of its examinations to the Secretary General of the “German Section”.

©) Only those members who did not vote at the exclusion conference of the board can be elected to the commission.

d) The elected commission has to decide whether the resolution of October 26, 1908 should be upheld or annulled.

signed Curt Richard Müller

[Rudolf Steiner:] “Regarding these proposals, it is necessary to present to the General Assembly a pamphlet that Dr. Hugo Vollrath has written on the same matter.

Some time ago, Dr. Vollrath sent this pamphlet to the members, in which he first printed what I had to say on behalf of the board at the 1908 general assembly on the matter in question, so to speak as the mouthpiece of the board; and to this Dr. Vollrath adds special remarks. The board has now decided – so that it cannot be said that we are keeping anything from the members – to have Dr. Vollrath's remarks read out.

Mr. Selling reads out Dr. Vollrath's statement, which has the following content:

To the board and members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society: At the Seventh General Assembly of the Section, at the request of the Leipzig Lodge, represented by Mrs. Wolfram, the decision was announced that the undersigned had been expelled from the Section.

At the time, I did not attach much importance to this decision, as I recognized the purpose of this event and was not directly prevented from working for the Theosophical Society. Based on the good law of karma, I saw it as a test that informed me about the Section's ethical view of the Theosophical Society and was to prepare me for even more difficult tasks. My close environment knew that I had been sacrificing my honour and reputation, as well as my property and work, in the service of the Masters, the founders of the Theosophical Society, since 1902.

But as it turned out, my expulsion was the source of an incalculable flood of hatred of the worst kind. The harmless friendly relations that I had with many members were immediately and hurtfully broken off, and people believed that they now had a duty to insult me as soon as my name came up. Since Ms. Wolfram has recently stated completely new reasons for my expulsion that were not possible at the time, and since the agitation is increasing, even against my new colleagues, who are also being systematically worked against me, I would certainly now incur a great karmic debt on my work by omission if I remained silent any longer.

According to the protocol, I was excluded because the Leipzig lodge felt its neck was being choked. But now that the throat was free again, they didn't leave me alone to work, and they continued to stir up hatred against my colleagues, worse than before.

I therefore submitted the following motion to the Section Executive Council and the General Secretariat:

1. to drop the motion by Ms. Wolfram regarding my expulsion in a dignified manner,

2. to elect a court of honor to decide and clarify existing misunderstandings and rumors.

My reasoning for point 1 is: Mrs. Wolfram submitted her application shortly before the start of the 7th General Assembly, instead of at least 14 days in advance, contrary to the statutes of the section. The delegates and board members present in Berlin were surprised. They did not have time to examine Mrs. Wolfram's accusations. Especially when such serious decisions are made that shake the very foundations of the Theosophical Society, the members, or at least the chairpersons, should be consulted. Furthermore, in the life of an association, it is incorrect to attack a member without giving him the opportunity to defend himself against the secret attacks. I demand the right to defend myself. By defense I do not mean justification, but an opportunity to present evidence against the attacks, so that the Theosophical Society as such is not karmically burdened by false representations of facts.

My reason for point 2 is: The Court of Honour has to establish a balance between the tensions that arise within the German Section. If this natural authority is ignored, brutality and lawlessness will prevail. But arbitrariness is not freedom! The arrangers of my exclusion have claimed that I absolutely need the German Section, which is why I am trying to get back into it.

Those who are under the spell of this phrase, consider my work after the period of my exclusion as head of the board of directors of the Bund für Gesundes Leben and the board of directors of the German Society for Psychic Research, as editor of good theosophical literature and as editor of “Theosophy” and as editor of four other ethical journals, all of which are in the service of the lofty cultural idea of the Theosophical Society. When Mrs. Annie Besant appointed me as the secretary of the “Bund des Sternes im Osten” (The Starry East), I do not consider it as a personal merit, but as a sign of trust that honest great people have placed in me. These are people who, free from fear, have the courage to renounce realpolitik and remain true to principle, for only in this way are they worthy and suited to hold in their hands the great message of redemption from the White Lodge and to proclaim it to the spirit of the age.

I shall comment only very briefly today on the most serious accusations and slanders. I therefore ask you to read the protocol carefully, as I must assume that you are familiar with it. Dr. Steiner and Fräulein von Sivers had had bad experiences with the Secession of the Theosophical Society, the so-called International Theosophical Fraternity (L.T.V.), as well as with the Theosophical Society of Paul Raatz in Berlin. I had no connection with these associations, neither commercially nor as a collaborator. Dr. Steiner was well aware of this. He knew that I had moved from Wilhelmstraße 120, the headquarters of Paul Raatz's association, to Motzstraße 17 because I did not agree with the principles of the society, which takes an oppositional stance. This happened before I even became his student. I was often with Dr. Steiner three to four times a week. As soon as Dr. Steiner saw me somewhere, he would inquire about my relationship with his antipodes in Leipzig, the representatives of the I.T.V. When I told him, when pressed to take action against these people, that I felt obliged by certain friendly relations to let people work in peace, and that in such important matters I left the course of events to the law of karma, to which Dr. Steiner replied: “I should bear in mind that after all this was about money, about hard cash. We are karma, it cannot work if we do not want it to. It is not acceptable that I sit on the fence.” I told him that I was financially independent and that it was important to me not to sit on the fence, but to work for our cause. However, I allowed myself to be influenced by Dr. Steiner's objections because I believed that without him, working for the Theosophical Society would be very difficult for me. He also knew that it was only at his and Frau Wolfram's instigation, for they were both well informed, that I demanded the return of my capital from the Theosophical Central Bookshop of the I.T.V. in Leipzig, by means of which the bookshop was maintained at that time, and which indirectly led to its collapse, which soon occurred. It was only as a result of this that the lawsuits were possible, for which I was reproached shortly afterwards. In these lawsuits, my opponent was always convicted. My opponent was sentenced to prison five times. I was never punished. Dr. Steiner wrote part of my first court submission with his own hand; only when his opponents accused him of wanting to use me to gain possession of the bookstore did he withdraw from me and suddenly no longer understand me, as he said.

Mrs. Wolfram was always annoyed by my seemingly passive behavior towards the work of the Theosophical Society at the time, and occasionally offered me offices and positions. She wanted to make me chairman of the Leipzig Lodge when Mr. Bresch resigned and before Mr. Jahn took over the position. Since I was returning to Berlin that same evening with Dr. Steiner, I had to give up the negotiations for the position of chairman. I never forced myself on Dr. Steiner to work with him. I constantly emphasized to him that I live and die for the Theosophical Society, that the interests of the Theosophical Society are mine, and that if the Master can find a place for me somewhere, he will find ways and means. My only evening lecture at 17 Motzstraße took place at the request of Miss Sivers, who publicly invited me to do so at an earlier evening lecture.

The idea of starting a bookshop matured in conversation with Dr. Steiner. He complained that Miss von Sivers was wearing herself out with work that was not paying off. She had a lot of book orders to fulfill, while the publisher M. Altmann in Leipzig only gave her a small discount, and she had to add postage, packaging and labor costs to this. I was told something similar by Miss von Slivers herself. Since I was now in a position to intervene here, and since I am not ashamed of any practical work, even of the kind that could lead to the accusation that it is done for the sake of profit, I naturally considered it an act of philanthropy to provide a remedy, and Dr. Steiner promised me to publish his manuscript “Die Geheimwissenschaft” and to give Fräulein von Sivers her translations. At the time, we had considered publishing Schur's La pretresse d'Isis. With great sacrifices, I immediately launched the existing bookshop, the Theosophical Publishing House. Allegedly because of the “incredible red” of a brochure, Fräulein] von Sivers wrote me a rude letter, I still have it in my hands, and both she and Dr. Steiner broke off all relations with me without any discussion, , despite the fact that I personally brought the entire print run of the brochure to Motzstraße 17 for destruction and despite the fact that I promised to fire my managing director A. Strauch immediately if he were to write a brochure again without my exact instructions.

I was Dr. Steiner's student and got to know the exercises of his system thoroughly, both those that I received personally and those that he distributed to others. I was amazed at the handling of these sacred things, but most of all at Steiner's inconsistency. He once told me, verbatim, that the tablecloth between us was completely cut, while he told another student, a young lady who wanted to leave his circle, that he could not sever the connection himself.

Since I believed that I had the trust of Dr. Steiner and Fräulein] von Sivers, and since both were quite sovereign in the section at the time, I created a literary department that would serve to provide good translations by foreign contributors. Anyone who provided their contributions free of charge was to be listed as an honorary member. Two members in the Netherlands and Russia who were personally acquainted with Dr. Steiner were listed as honorary members. If this department proved to be practical, it should become viable, and at the next general assembly I hoped to be able to officially hand over this department to the section as a valuable working group. In the meantime, however, I was expelled, and this work was thwarted because they did not ask what was achieved, but what your actual motives were for doing it. But if you look for motives, it is easy to be deceived into seeing your own thoughts.

The Theosophical Society is not responsible for the private lives and opinions of its members. Dr. Steiner should know that. Anyone who wants to form an objective opinion about Dr. Steiner's polemic regarding the open letter can obtain any copies from me free of charge. Dr. Steiner did not even read the letter properly before trying to generalize some of what he had read. This lack of objectivity would already be enough to discredit a modern scholar as being unscientific. But an occultist has a duty to show much greater objectivity than a modern academic. What I said in the open letter is based in some points on the Secret Doctrine, and anyone can accept what corresponds to their reason and conscience. As is well known, scholarly disputes and blind faith have no place in the Theosophical Society. What I have said about the nervousness of certain circles is my personal experience, which I do not allow Dr. Steiner to reinterpret or generalize. As the saying goes, “battled dogs bark.” Since I have not committed myself to any particular system, but see the revelation of truth in all systems, I have a much freer judgment of the entire Theosophical movement in Germany than Dr. Steiner. Dr. Steiner, through his many speeches in support of my expulsion, has given even the most uninformed observer a truly vivid picture of restlessness and over-excitement. A section that finds its calm and stability in divine law and in the spirit hardly needs to be stirred up by a single member who does not even hold an office, either on the executive committee or in any lodge. One has only to read between the lines of the protocol. The purposeful worker does not let others upset him. When I explained my motives in an open letter regarding the acceptance of a publishing house logo, a relatively unimportant thing, I was accused of all sorts of evil motives. The sharp condemnation of Dr. Steiner, as an occult teacher, is out of place. His words: “Nonsense, grandiose amateurism, drink your own concoction, rolled out tin” are no proof of understanding and tolerance towards the opinions of aspiring members. Anyone who wants to be a soul-carer and claims such a position for himself must show leniency. But tolerance is the basis of all joint work. What would happen if Dr. Steiner were to be judged and his divorce matters made the subject of a general assembly? Dr. Steiner is not to be slighted here in any way, for he has already dramatized his criticism in this case in his 'Rosicrucian Mystery', in which, on page 38, he has the exiled wife of John clearly describe the situation. I have not slighted any member of the German Section, and anyone who claims the opposite can come forward. I have not allowed myself to interfere in the inner life of others. When I spoke to Dr. Franz Hartmann a few weeks ago, he complained that he was very often harassed with letters in which the most severe accusations were made against Dr. Steiner's occult training, which had already sent a number of people to the insane asylum and to their deathbeds. Dr. Hartmann gave me various names. I too have received addresses from people who have lost their physical and mental health as a result of Steiner's training.

Certain manipulations by Steiner's management are in direct violation of commercial law. Is it up to the majority of the section to decide whether this is good or not? As long as such and similar matters, which are of a deeply invasive nature, are still occupying public opinion in Germany, does Dr. Steiner have the right to discredit members and expose them to the ridicule of his section without any defense?

Occultism is the practical science of love and wisdom. Why then does Dr. Steiner alone have the right to polemics and condemnation? He made ample use of this right during the time of his agitation against his colleague in the Theosophical Society, C. W. Leadbeater, in the private sessions of the German members with Fräulein von Sivers during the Paris Congress of 1905. I was surprised at Steiner's devastating polemic; and although I held him in the highest esteem at the time, I could not refrain from pointing out the state of the Theosophical Society in entirely objective terms. However, I was sharply rebuffed by Fräulein von Sivers and Dr. Steiner. After the meeting ended, both assured me that they had no personal animus towards me.

It is untrue, if I am to speak in the terms of Dr. Steiner, that I send my things out into the world as 'Adyar things'. I have always upheld the principle of the Theosophical Society that each member is responsible for what he writes, and not the Society or its official representatives. The success of my work to date confirms the correctness of this principle.

It is untrue when Dr. Steiner claims that my expulsion was the result of a majority vote. Dr. Steiner abstained from voting in the board meeting. The representative of the Dresden Lodge was against it. One could only speak of a majority decision if Mrs. Wolfram's application had been properly submitted to the chairmen of the lodges at least 14 days before the general assembly so that the members could have been informed of its contents. Of course, it is difficult to do this now because the members have already been influenced against me. With this exclusion manipulation, the section has shown that its association morality is even lower than the social-democratic association morality. When one of its members is expelled, the reasons for the expulsion are officially announced so that the person concerned can defend himself. It is common practice at general meetings, as evidenced by the minutes, to spend hours discussing trivial matters, but when it comes to an expulsion, which is not a trivial matter, public opinion is feared.

It is generally incomprehensible how an occultist can believe that spiritual progress can be achieved by majority decision. Anyone who believes this is not only uneducated but also superstitious. Belief in the majority is a delusion.

However, I had great patience with Mrs. Wolfram. As long as I listened to her lectures on Friedrich Nietzsche – she gave me this private lecture twice – I was her good friend. I had to confront her several times when she attacked representatives of the Theosophical worldview in her lodge lectures, and I did so in a considerate manner. She was constantly dealing with some person. She made certain demands, according to which she judged the value of the members. For example, when I did not want to blindly admit that Dr. Steiner was the greatest initiate in Europe and that at the next presidential election, Dr. Steiner must take the place of Mrs. Besant, because Dr. Steiner was a much better speaker, as she wanted to convince various, even older, members at the Munich Congress members at the Munich Congress, and when I did not ask her for advice at every opportunity, when founding the Theosophical Publishing House, this woman's hatred was poured out on my head, a hatred whose energy is all the more admirable because it revealed a great negative power that must ultimately serve the Master's work indirectly. To avoid all slander, I decided to found a lodge in Leipzig myself, as had already been done in Munich, Stuttgart and other cities. However, this only increased Frau Wolfram's hatred. When Dr. Steiner gave a series of lectures in Leipzig in 1908, she banned my colleagues and me from attending, even though the lectures were public. Dr. Steiner later lifted the ban. She informed her members that they would ensure that Dr. Vollrah would not only be removed from the German Section, but also from the Theosophical Society altogether. She used the sanctity of the inner circle (E.S.) to cause one of my co-workers, under the guise of silence, to abandon me shortly after the founding of the Theosophical Publishing House, so that the company would be forced to file for bankruptcy. Dr. Vollrath, she claimed, was insane and now his father would still be able to place him in a decent mental institution. (The witnesses are still alive.) She based this atrocity on the testimony of her teacher, Dr. Steiner. She promised my colleague a position in Dr. Steiner's general secretariat. Another colleague suffered, in her opinion, from dangerous megalomania. This poor man, in his physical organization, could not protect himself against the occult attacks of this woman as I could, and his delicate, sensitive constitution suffered from the most terrible mental depressions for months. These experiences were a terrible chapter in the history of the Theosophical Society for me. Over the past three years, Ms. Wolfram's bullying has spread throughout the section. When I was seen at the Budapest Congress, a real witch hunt began. It was only when I explained to the General Secretary of the Hungarian Section that I would appeal to our esteemed President that I was graciously allowed to attend the congress, even though I had already had the admission ticket for months.

In her report, Mrs. Wolfram says that I cried and screamed. It was certainly enough to make me scream. I cried once, and I am not ashamed of that even today; the others present at the time are still on the physical plane today. It was a moment when the sublimity of humanity and the dignity of womanhood seemed to fade in one of its representatives. The immediate proximity of unsuspected malice triggered a pain in me that I could not hide at the time, although I almost did not know tears! Today, after four years, despite a lot of work, this mental result is still vivid in my mind.

I knew the source from which Mrs. Wolfram took the money for the education of her two children, she had two at the time. This was very embarrassing to her, and she feared my knowledge, which partly explains the bold effort to get rid of me.

The subtle psychic tact of the occultist, who looks deeper into the psychic life of others, does not allow him to completely reveal the psychic life of his opponents before the public, because by doing so he draws the attention of others too much to the unimportant, the person, at the expense of the essential, the principles and the tasks of the Theosophical Society, which, however, are the primary focus of attention and concentrated interest. I have therefore only attempted to give a few brief explanations that may serve to clarify to some extent the deliberately veiled circumstances of my expulsion. However, I cannot yet foresee what the consequences will be, as that depends on the response I receive from the German Section.

It is in my nature as a representative of the Aryan race, after three years of trying to remain silent, to enter the realm of gentleness and peace as an undefeated warrior, not as a learned, diplomatic couch potato by the warm stove. Where should we go in the Theosophical Society to decide by majority vote whether a general secretary can eat old cheese, wear an artist's tie, or send his wife a bill of divorce? The authority of an occult teacher, a master or a theosophist cannot be established by a majority vote! Do we have the right to see only the lowly in our members? Or is it our duty to expect great things from them, since we are not the heralds of greatness, truth, beauty and strength? Are we not working on a civilization based on brotherhood, love and wisdom? Should we not therefore be the first to praise and practise these qualities in ourselves, in our environment, in our circles? Should arbitrariness, majority decisions and realpolitik take the lead in the Theosophical Society, and members who take the side of principle be ridiculed? No, “A limit has tyrants' power! When the oppressed can find no justice anywhere, when the burden becomes unbearable, he reaches up into the heavens with courageous courage and brings down his eternal rights, which hang above, unalienable and unbreakable like the stars themselves.

In order to finally put an end to the terrible and fruitless attacks on my colleagues and my work, I am having this petition to the section printed in large numbers and sent to all members of the section in order to awaken the public conscience in them and to of an arbitration tribunal, where at least the grossest expressions of organizational arbitrariness within the section can be discussed and where the rumors that have been circulated can be examined for their value and which can then make decisions on a just basis!

I have had an excerpt printed from the minutes of the seventh General Assembly, which literally records the entire proceedings and is necessary for an easier understanding of the matter.

Dr. Hugo Vollrath

[Rudolf Steiner:] “Dr. Vollrath wrote to me yesterday”:

Bund des Sternes im Osten. Secretariat for Germany: Dr. Hugo Vollrath, Leipzig, Salomonstr. 18. Date: December 8, 1911.

Dear Doctor!

I have heard that a number of members of the Section will be holding a meeting tomorrow in

in Berlin tomorrow to discuss a motion regarding my exclusion. Wouldn't it be better if efforts were made to ensure that the discussions that will be necessary to form this commission are as brief as possible? I have seen that more dust is being raised than is necessary, and that our opponents see this matter in a completely different light than I would like in view of your position. Because basically you are infinitely closer to me than to those who want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Should it be the order of things that I become a member of the section again, it would naturally be much more pleasant for me to be able to offer you the hand of reconciliation, which comes from a sincere heart, without much annoyance and without causing new ill will. However, should you be completely opposed to this, either because you still harbor the old mistrust towards me, then I am also prepared to take the measures that my mental self-preservation instinct puts into my hands. The holy beings will continue to stand by me.

However, I always consider it more appropriate to go to the root of the problem first in order to save time and effort.

Should the balance in the section be disturbed in any way by my possible re-admission, I would of course be prepared to resign voluntarily. The founding of the Free International Section, German Branch, would then be the natural consequence.

If you consider a meeting with me before the General Assembly advisable, I would be grateful if you would notify me, at the Evangelical] Hospice of St. Michael at the Anhalter Bahnhof.

With theosophical greetings! Yours sincerely, Dr. Hugo Vollrath.

Göttingen, December 8, 1911. Dear Doctor!

This letter is prompted by the fact that Dr. Vollrath has just written to me asking me to sign his application to the Section Assembly to appoint a commission to examine his exclusion from the Section.

In response to this, I am writing to you directly today: I support his application for the appointment of the examination commission for the following reason: I was not present at the 1908 meeting at which Vollrach was excluded. However, from the report and the further communications about it, I have gained the impression that the decision at that time was not taken in a satisfactory manner, even if it seemed appropriate at the time due to the circumstances. At present, both you and Ms. Wolfram herself would wish for this matter to be definitively settled formally, sine ira et studio.

Finally, I would like to mention something that is probably self-evident to you: I strongly disagree with the tone and content of Dr. Vollrath's printed response and the reasons for his request for a re-examination of his case. If his request for this requires my support, I hereby give it, because I am entirely in favor of him receiving impartial justice to the fullest extent. But I ask not to be identified with Dr. Vollrath; and since I am not aware of the actual circumstances myself, I ask that this support of my motion not be used factually either for or against Dr. Vollrach.

Sincerely yours, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden.

Mr. Michael Bauer wishes to speak:

If he objects to the expression “rolled sheet metal”, then I am convinced that sheet metal is much too good a thing; one could say cardboard lid instead. If you write such things, there is no need to look for a way to ridicule such a person. But there are many other things, so we cannot refrain from dealing with the matter in more detail. Not to mention all the logical contradictions.

What should cause us to look into the matter more closely is not the pamphlet itself, which was written outside the Theosophical Society; the reason why we have to deal with it is a very sad one, namely that, according to this pamphlet, there are people within our Society who share the same attitude. A year ago, one could still say, “I believe that Dr. Hugo Vollrath was justifiably expelled.” Today, one can no longer say that. Today one must say, “I know that Dr. Hugo Vollrath was justifiably expelled.”

Dr. Vollrath speaks of the deliberately veiled circumstances of his expulsion. Those of you who voted at the time are therefore complicit in the deliberately veiled circumstances. It would have been right to expel Dr. Vollrath simply because he sent those notes, and only for that reason.

Today we have heard about individual forces and effects; that is precisely the nature of our development today, that individual people can connect with one another, that is precisely the deepest moment of Christian development. But when one engages in propaganda, one appeals to feelings that do not go hand in hand with free humanity. Those who do this are not working in our interest. Any member who engages in propaganda must be excluded. They say: tolerance must determine us, brotherly love commands us to tolerate such members among us. – If they say that, then they clearly don't know what a society is. Of course we have to tolerate what goes on in the world that we cannot prevent, but we must keep far away from those who cannot work in our spirit.

Dr. Vollrath did not include a statement from the General Assembly in his pamphlet. He said: “A society that excludes anyone loses its cosmopolitan character.” But what does that mean! One could just as easily say: A garden from which a weed is thrown over the fence loses its existence as a garden. A society must reserve the right to expel members, because it is its duty to remove all elements that no longer belong if it wants to continue its work in the right way. From this point of view, we are a society. The tolerance that is always invoked should not only be practiced towards our opponents, but also towards our friends. It is necessary that we clear the air and clear our minds. If we let this continue, if we say, “We have to let these people in, what kind of society will we end up with?”

Of course, many things can be touched, but it does not belong in our society. I once experienced that someone said: We should deal with things in our lodges, such as the cooking box.

But all of this is actually not the most painful thing about the whole thing, when we say that the very foundations of society are under threat, and when we then still have to hear from members: “Maybe he was wrong after all.” The most painful thing for me is a completely different point. Clear your mind of everything you have gained in the way of clarification, elevation and strength through Theosophy, as we received it from Dr. Steiner, and imagine that your library contains only books that you knew before. then please consider for a moment what you have been able to experience over the years in terms of joy, upliftment, the joy of knowledge, and inspiration. If you compare that with the experiences you had before, you will have some idea of what society was like before and what it is like today. I belonged to it. It must be said that something tremendous has happened in these last years, for which I have only one expression of Rama Krishna: “When a saint comes, he can make buried springs flow; a messenger of God can make springs flow where there were none.”

We have experienced this, but we have also experienced that there were people among us who poisoned and defiled these sources. It has become very clear to me that we cannot continue in this way. We cannot simply let society grow without countering the danger that we will have a majority that actually does not belong in society and that can make it impossible for us to work in the right way in this society. Our society is an organism through which our inner life is meant to have an effect on the world. If the inner life is too lazy, too comfortable, so that it can no longer expel disease material, then it must face decay. Today we may still have the opportunity to make the body healthy, and I appeal to you to be energetic today in ensuring that we no longer have such things before us in a future General Assembly, that attacks can be directed against us from within society. The General Assembly must do something here; this is not about the person of Dr. Steiner, it is about society and its organism. Something must be done today that cannot be done later. We have no choice but to proceed radically.

I do not yet have the motion that may arise, and I have no intention of anticipating anything. What I wanted to do was give you an idea of the enormity of this moment. We must not approach this matter with complacency, with sleepiness. It is not a small thing, it is not enough for us to dismiss Mr. Vollrath; it is necessary that we unanimously enter upon a path to heal the organism by excluding from society what does not belong in it.” Mr. Ahner: ”You are looking in one direction and you expect me to give my opinion on what I have just heard. It is always a significant thing when those elements from all parts of our fatherland gather here who are called upon to carry forward the high goals that Theosophy pursues in order to offer something to all of humanity so that it may develop further, in accordance with the wishes of the high masters.

Today, we are dealing with a matter that, in my opinion, should not occur in a Theosophical Society. I do not want to go into the whole story here, as it is before us. I don't want to say a word about what Dr. Vollrath might have done wrong, because it is completely hopeless for me to give a clear picture. Dr. Huebbe-Schleiden supports these proposals, in that he actually wants a commission to investigate the facts again. At the time when Mrs. Wolfram's proposal to expel Dr. Vollrath was read, I myself was a member of the board of the German Section. I found no reason why such a zealous and active member should be excluded. I pointed out at the time what Theosophy is. One thing is important, and I refer here to a Bible verse that is true: “Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

There are hundreds of us here, shouldn't He be here among us? I believe He is, and I hope that He is in all our hearts, that Christ-spirit that says: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you.” And now, as we approach Christmas, this festival of love, where Christ was born, He should also be born in us. Let this birth take place, let us forget everything, let us act fraternally, love for love, heart for heart! I have taken care of the persecuted, I ask you to give me a hand, you have me completely. Let love be done for love."

Mr. Krojanker: (Initially incomprehensible) ”It is not possible, we have to go back to the facts. I must confess that I was very surprised by the reading of the Vollrath brochure, which is called a pamphlet here. This could not have been foreseen by us applicants. I also consider it a wrong decision by the board. If a commission were appointed, it could go into the details; here before the general assembly, that is not conceivable. We should decide to elect a commission; it should only re-examine what actually happened. The General Assembly should only decide whether a commission should be elected. I must emphasize that it is far from my intention as a petitioner to offend the board, but from what I have examined, I must assume that it has not been sufficiently informed. Therefore, a commission should now be elected so that these matters come to light. As for what Mr. Bauer said, I must confess that I found the theosophical part of his speech quite appealing, but we do not need Mr. Bauer to tell us what Theosophy is. He has allowed himself to make a judgment about the reasons that lead us to stand up for Vollrath. I have considered this for a very long time, and I assure you that if these things are not carried out on the basis of the theosophical movement, they will be carried out outside of it. If Mr. Bauer, in his capacity as a teacher, is upset that some sentences are not entirely correct, then I find that absolutely incomprehensible. I also strongly disagree with everything that is printed there. I ask you to accept the proposals, and they should not be mentioned again. I only ask that the facts be examined individually before the commission. But I emphasize that I do not want to identify with Vollrath's printed work at all. Do not forget that in Vollrath we have a person who is not yet mature inwardly, who is full of anger. He let time pass and only wanted to vent his feelings in this pamphlet, as it is called.

Dr. Unger: “Allow me first to address a few things that have just been said. The point is to come to the aid of our friend, Mr. Bauer, in the face of the accusations that have been made against him, and to underline, as it were, what he has stated. It was said: ”We do not want Mr. Bauer to tell us what Theosophy is.” But we were constantly told by Mr. Vollrath and his comrades what Theosophy is supposed to be. Furthermore, it was said that the applicant did not agree with the form in which the brochure was written; nevertheless, the application was made, as he says, in the interest of the Theosophical Society. It is important to me that this be stated. Because if someone morally supports what another person hurls as dirt and filth against the Theosophical Society and supports it with reference to an inadequate form, that is not logic. That is not acceptable. It is double-speak to say, “I don't agree with what is being said, I'm just supporting the motion.” It is claimed that the board members at the time were not informed about what they were deciding on. Either one or the other is true. If you do not agree with the pamphlet, then you cannot accuse the board of not having been informed. The applicants demanded that Dr. Vollrath be given the opportunity to justify himself. We have the justification before us. This is what it looks like, this justification. Smear, defamation, poison and threat, that is the content of this justification. Mr. Bauer said quite correctly: “We see from what lies before us what kind of spirit is behind it.” But if something like this is supported, then the person making the request is aligned with this spirit! That such support could come from our circles is something that must be said: it cannot continue. Mr. Krojanker objects to Mr. Bauer telling us what we should understand by Theosophy; but that does not prevent it from constantly happening from the other side. Mr. Ahner said he did not want to give us a lecture on Christianity. But now he has told us what his Christianity is and talked a lot about love, Christianity, brotherhood, and God knows what. But where is love in this pamphlet? Where is the brotherhood and Christianity? That is the question. Those who overflow with love and then apply this love in such a way that they support such a pamphlet must be told that they may be in the Theosophical Society, but they are not in the Theosophical movement! Someone who speaks with love on their lips but performs such acts has no idea of what we want Theosophy to mean. Anyone who has ever really been involved in our work knows that we have to stick together like glue to be able to share in the spiritual wealth that we have acquired over the past ten years. This work must be respected. There is no point in saying that our only conditions for admission are the three points of our statutes. We do not have to accept everyone who applies to us, in any way. Three years ago, the motion was adopted, with general understanding, to protect our work. This Society of ours should gradually become a body – that is the view of all of us – that should become an expression of what exists as the theosophical spirit. Let the Theosophical Society scatter, the theosophical movement remains. It would be better for the Society to scatter than for a little title to be lost from the spiritual wealth that we have conquered. It should be emphasized even more sharply: What we have gradually acquired as the theosophical movement, which can never be completed, can never be delimited in paragraphs, that really exists. But if we can get such proposals that, according to the statutes of the Society, the theosophical work can be thrown under the bus according to the rules of procedure, then we will just change the statutes.

The tasks are there, whether the Society will be able to fulfill them is decided by this hour. For what is to be formed in Munich in the next few years, for the growth of the theosophical work that we have conquered and that is to gain life in the world, we need a physical body, we need members, but not paragraphs, they will never achieve that. If it has been said today that it was a significant event that we were able to hand over a building to the theosophical life in Stuttgart, then it may be stated here from our own experience what Dr. Steiner said in the consecration speech for this building: “What is needed is trust.” It is not necessary for everyone to contribute their wisdom; a board has been created for this, as an expression of trust. And to beat the board at every opportunity is not on; we will achieve nothing in this way, and we certainly would not have built this Stuttgart building if the members had not generously exercised this trust. Through commissions, as demanded by today's proposals, we would not only have no building, but also no money for it.

As a result of this pamphlet and of what has happened today, the board feels deeply offended in what is the actual point of honor of the board. It must expect the rescue of its honor from today's meeting.

The idea has been mooted that a commission should be formed from this meeting, not one in the sense of the applicants, but one that may elaborate a draft for a new constitution that makes it impossible for anything like what is expressed in these proposals to ever happen again. I am convinced that if the members of the Theosophical Society were also members of the Theosophical Society, any statutes would be right. Since that is not the case, we have to adapt the statutes to the spirit of our movement. The board itself refrains from making such a request because it expects the meeting to restore its honor.

It would perhaps be better to dismiss such attacks by ignoring them. There is certainly something appealing about saying that we do not want to deal with dirt. But here it becomes a duty to call a spade a spade. If we want to have the opportunity to delve into our work, then we must first clear the table, and the sword of wrath must also be used.

It may be that some would rather hear objective theosophical discussions at the present time. But it is important to express one's indignation; it is important to me to emphasize that I am not ashamed of such indignation. I would be ashamed if, as our friend Bauer said, we were so sleepy that we could not be roused to action. It should be made possible to stop people from being kicked between the legs, and to protect the General Secretary and the Executive Board from such filth, in accordance with the statutes. That is why the Executive Board expects you to take action today!"

It was decided to take a break of one and a half hours at Dr. Steiner's suggestion, and to continue the meeting at four o'clock in the afternoon.

At half past three, Dr. Steiner reopened the session by reading a telegram with the following content: “I hereby send the German Section my respectful greetings and best wishes for their General Assembly. Kinell.

This was followed by a speech by Pastor Klein on the significance of Theosophy, based on the words of St. Paul about the “Wisdom of God”.

Dr. Steiner then announced the contents of the list of speakers, which included the following speakers: Mr. Arenson, Mr. Molt, Pastor Klein, Pastor Wendt, Mr. von Rainer, Mr. Schmid, the architect, and Mr. Walther.

Mr. Arenson was the first to be given the floor: “When I first heard about the proposals that had been put forward for this General Assembly, when I was told that the seemingly impossible had become possible, that there were members in our society who offered their hand to could be submitted, who supported, so to speak, what Dr. Vollrath demanded in his pamphlet: namely, to be heard here and to start again with an examination of this case - that's when I first had the thought, the impulse: to move on to the agenda; there is nothing else to do but simply ignore such things. But then, after careful consideration, the result was somewhat different. It is certainly a good thing to do positive work and, when we are confronted with something, to simply move on to the agenda. But we cannot possibly do that in this case. This is an act that must be undertaken with all our energy if we do not want to see ourselves fall victim to the dirt.

Now, if we proceed to the matter itself, one might ask: what is this request for a retrial actually based on? Such a retrial of a case is only justified if new material has been found that is to be examined to determine whether it is suitable to shed new light on the existing evidence. We know that this is not the case; we know that there is no reason to reopen a procedure that was carried out with all due care at the time. I can only say here very briefly that the members of the board who took the decision at the time examined the matter in a way that is no longer possible today. It is complete ignorance of the actual circumstances that simply wants to make us believe that we followed an instantaneous impulse and thereby caused the expulsion of Dr. Vollrath. On the contrary, we were privy to all the details and knew exactly what had happened. We knew every detail and knew it in such a way that if we had presented the whole situation in a few words, anyone else would have been able to make the same decision within a few minutes that was made at the time. So we were privy to what had to lead to the well-known decision. It is difficult to verify this now, because everything we had thoroughly considered at the time has been cast in a completely new light by what has since been made known in writing and word, and therefore can no longer lead to an understanding of the situation at the time.

We can say – and this is certainly not meant ironically, but is the bitter truth: the key to the truth can be found in everything that Dr. Vollrath says, simply by reversing the things he claims. Let us take a specific case to show what is meant by this. Dr. Vollrath says in his pamphlet that Dr. Steiner in Paris at the time took strong action against Leadbeater. The relevant passage reads as follows: “Occultism is the practical science of love and wisdom. Why then does Dr. Steiner alone have the right to polemic and condemnation? He made ample use of this during the time of the agitation against his colleague in the Theosophical Society, C. W. Leadbeater, in the private sessions of the German members with Fräulein von Sivers during the Paris Congress [1906]. I was surprised at Steiner's scathing polemic, and although I held him in the highest esteem at the time, I could not refrain from pointing out the state of the Theosophical Society in a completely objective manner. However, I was sharply rebuffed by Fräulein von Sivers and Dr. Steiner. After the meeting ended, both assured me that they had no personal animosity towards me.

The truth of the matter is as follows: At that time in [1906] Leadbeater was in very difficult circumstances, and Dr. Steiner was the only one who defended him energetically and factually. It should be said in this context, since most of our members in Germany did not even hear about the case, that even our president Annie Besant was a fierce critic of Leadbeater and, with regard to what it was all about, made the statement that it was a “moral insanity”, whereas Dr. Steiner justifiably took the side of Leadbeater and defended him. That Dr. Steiner acted in this way has later earned him many reproaches. What the case of Leadbeater actually was, is not our concern today. The fact stands, however, and can always be substantiated by witnesses, that exactly the opposite is the case of what Dr. Vollrath expresses in his pamphlet. So we can go from sentence to sentence.

Furthermore, when we read what Dr. Vollrath writes: “It was only when I explained to the Secretary General of the Hungarian Section that I would appeal to our esteemed President to intervene that I was graciously allowed to attend the congress, even though I had already had the admission ticket in my hands for months.” It should be noted that those who were present know that Dr. Steiner did not refuse him attendance, but made it possible. But when Dr. Vollrath says that he was not admitted despite having had the admission card in his hands for months, it must be explained that he had obtained this admission card by submitting his diploma from the German Section in Budapest, which had been invalidated by his expulsion, and was subsequently given the admission card.

And so it goes on. It would take us too far to want to rush through everything that is written here in this libel. The only thing that can be said is that in such a way, every sentence contains some hidden malice. Take what you heard earlier. Isn't it the purest irony when Dr. Vollrath says on page 9 of his diatribe: “The subtle psychic tact of the occultist, who looks deeper into the psychic life of others, does not allow him to completely reveal the psychic life of his opponents before the public, for by so doing he draws the attention of others too much to the unimportant, the person, at the expense of the important, the principles and the tasks of the Theosophical Society, to which, however, attention and concentrated interest are primarily directed. I have therefore only attempted to give a few hints that might serve to clarify to some extent the deliberately veiled circumstances of my expulsion. However, I cannot yet foresee what the consequences will be, as that depends on the response I receive from the German Section.

This tells us who the investigator of souls is; someone who is tactful enough not to reveal the inner life of his opponents completely to the public. But this tactful investigator of souls reveals just enough to have an effect in his own way, according to the old principle: “Even if it is not true, something of it will stick.”

I did not offend any member of the German section of honor; anyone who claims the opposite may come forward.

To put this sentence in its proper perspective, I would like to say the following, which I regret to have had to say before: <501> <502> <503> <504> <505> <506> <507> <508> <509> <510> <511> <512> <513> <514> <515> <516> <517> <518> <519> <520> <521> <522> <523> <524> <525> <526> <527> <528> <529> <530> <531> <5 She was mortally embarrassed and feared I was in on it, which partly explains her bold attempt to get rid of me.

My friends, anyone who speaks in such a way is no longer considered a decent person. A person who says something like that, which, it must be said, is not only mean but also threatening, is not worthy of being heard among decent people. But we also stand for something other than just being decent people. What is generally considered a virtue in the world should be something we take for granted, something we don't even have to mention as something special. We have something to advocate that stands high above all that is recognized as an ordinary duty, as ordinary virtue. Therefore, it is also our duty to act in such a way that there is agreement and harmony, and that is why the previous speaker emphasized so energetically that we cannot simply go about our business or accept a vote of confidence as is usually the case. No, our esteemed leader, the entire board of directors has been outrageously offended by what has happened. There is only one thing to be done about this: the General Assembly of today must express itself in some characteristic way so that we may be sure in the future that such things will not take up our precious time again, that such things will not create an atmosphere in our meetings that should not really be present at Theosophical General Meetings.

Take everything into account. Isn't every word spoken, both by Dr. Vollrath himself and by his supporters in support of the motion, full of contradictions? Or is it not a contradiction when it is stated in the letter from Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden that he does not agree with the tone and content of Dr. Vollrath's statements, but that he nevertheless supports his application? Isn't it strange that Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden can't agree with either the form or the content - what is actually left? - but still supports the application? “I wasn't at the general assembly,” ‘the content of Dr. Vollrath's submission goes against my gut feeling,’ ‘the form goes against my gut feeling’ – but I support the man: these are contradictions in terms, there is nowhere to find a solid foothold. We are supposed to be hit by a bolt of lightning out of the blue. We do not want to reopen old issues, not something that has been decided and settled long ago and for which there is no reason to deal with it ever again, to subject ourselves to new negotiations. It is not a matter of dealing with something that has long been thoroughly settled, but rather of taking a stand against such currents that express themselves by proceeding in an incredible manner, sometimes even in a completely improper form. I would just like to remind you of the letter that was read to you, in which the submission of the cash report, as provided for in the statutes, is requested. They are threatening legal action and court proceedings; and then these people still claim to be doing all these things in the interest of Theosophy.

And then: Is there not a grotesque contradiction in the fact that the same person who wrote this pamphlet is also the author of the other letter, in which he extends the hand of reconciliation and expresses himself in a way that makes it almost unbelievable that these two documents came from the same person? For us, who have been active on the Executive Council for many years, it has become clear that we cannot continue to work in this way under any circumstances. We have done our duty in our time; we knew that then, we know it now. But today we can do nothing more. Today it is the Theosophical Society, that is, its German Section, that has it in its hands to work now for good or ill. We have just heard from an authorized source what it means for us to have entered this movement, which is manifested in our German section. We have heard words that will certainly have a lasting effect in the hearts of those who are Theosophists by nature, not because they pay their dues, but because they feel in their innermost being what a blessing it is to be able to serve such a movement. And also in the words that described this great and powerful thing, it sounded to us like a powerful reminder that such a good, which is entrusted to us, also imposes a great responsibility on us. The purpose of my speech is to make this responsibility clear to you, so that you can agree that we can only earn such a good if we remain aware at all times of the tremendous responsibility that we have taken upon ourselves. Let us be clear about one thing: it is not the opponents who can destroy our society, the external form of the Theosophical movement; nor Doctor Vollrath, nor those who want to support him. But we ourselves can destroy it if, in a false sentimentality, we fail to firmly reject those who want to shake the foundations of our movement and our beliefs. We want to stand up for our cause with all our might as people who do not believe that they are already Theosophists, but who are earnestly striving to become Theosophists.” Mr. Molt has the floor: “I believe I speak on behalf of everyone present when I express my sincere thanks to Mr. Arenson for his warm address, but at the same time I also make myself the mouthpiece of it by saying: There is no need for an appeal to take the right path in this case. I have the feeling that we are doing the author of the diatribe far too much honor by going into the details of it at all. I have the feeling that, on behalf of the vast majority here, we must refuse to allow our precious time and the beautiful mood with which we came here to be spoiled by such things. It must sound like a cry of outrage and indignation through our ranks that on such a day these things are still brought up; and I must confess that I regret those who have come forward as petitioners in this matter and dared to support such a thing. I believe it is self-evident that we close the debate, and I also believe that no vote of confidence is needed for the board to show that it acted correctly at the time. We only need to let the words from the diatribe sink in to see that Dr. Vollrath is quite rightly excluded. If he had not already been excluded, he would have to be excluded not once, but three times today. In order to shorten the debate and to express our feelings, I have taken the liberty of formulating a motion. I find it beneath our dignity to go into the matter again with even a single word. I have divided the motion into three parts. They read:

1. The tenth General Assembly hereby expressly expresses its outrage and indignation at the diatribe of Dr. Vollrath.

2. It therefore rejects the proposals of Ahner, Krojanker and Müller.

3. It requests these gentlemen, who by submitting their proposals have obviously opposed the spirit of the movement, to draw the conclusion by resigning.

Dr. Steiner: “Since the proposals made are substantive and not procedural, those esteemed friends who are already on the list of speakers will still have the floor.”

The next speaker is Pastor Klein: “Christian love and tolerance have been evoked with moving tones. This touched me as a Christian preacher, and I had to ask myself whether we are not violating a commandment by opposing the whole thing here. But I must also remind Mr. Ahner that he has only painted a one-sided picture of Christ. Christ Jesus was by no means always the “good savior,” and by no means always did words of forbearance and tolerance flow from his mouth. There was a point where this loving, forgiving Christ was adamant, and that was when the cause itself was at issue. The Pharisees were also good people; people who led honorable lives, who fought for their religion with complete honesty, in short, people who were excellent in many respects. But we also know that Christ took a very ruthless approach against these very people, who always raised the question, “What is true Christianity, what is true Judaism?” — in much the same way as we always hear from Dr. Vollrath, “What is Theosophy®?” in the most ruthless way. I only recall the expressions ‘brood of vipers,’ etc. These are strong words. And why was the mild, forgiving Jesus compelled to hurl them against these Pharisees? They believed that he acted out of false, evil powers, that he cast out devils with Beelzebub and so on, and they generally mistrusted his very appearance. That is the crux of the matter. So to those who appeal to our tolerance and leniency and say that we should make peace with Mr. Vollrath, I would like to remind them that those who were once zealous against Jesus, who so thoroughly misunderstood his nature, who so ignominiously rejected his nature, were fought with the sharpest expressions, and that by Jesus of Nazareth himself, in whom the Christ dwelt. We see here in our case, too, that the man who imparts God's wisdom to us is misunderstood and misrecognized in this way. But anyone who, in addition, ascribes such motives to him as has been done here, anyone who misunderstands him so thoroughly and pursues his opposition in such an ugly form, can no longer be in our ranks - for the sake of Christ and our cause. Christ Himself was the one who confronted the Pharisees when they misunderstood and misrepresented Him. We have a clear conscience when we confront these things in the same way. We, who knew nothing about the whole affair until now, could say: appoint a new court in the matter. Mrs. Wolfram should defend herself once more. We could do that if we were a bowling club or a war veterans' association. But we cannot do it because we are a Theosophical Society. Because we form a spiritual community, these things must be handled in a completely different way. If we were to stir these things up again, we would be saying that we have no confidence in our leader or our board of directors. “We weren't there at the time,” we could say, “we want to review the matter again.” But in doing so, we would be saying that we do not trust our teacher to see through Dr. Vollrath. But if he can't, then he's not our teacher, he can't be our leader. But if he does have this ability, then we must not apply the usual standard, the standard of other associations, and say: Here, another investigation is needed, here an honor court must be set up, and so on.

This afternoon, I have already explained what I understand and think about this matter. Therefore, under no circumstances can we allow our leader to be disparaged in this way. After all, an association can proceed in the proposed manner if its chairman has been attacked. But when a man who imparts divine wisdom to us is attacked in this way, then this is something we cannot tolerate under any circumstances.

Mr. Bauer said that it is bad that such a procedure has still found defense in our own ranks. There is something else that is bad. And that is what I will say now: I find that despite being expelled from our section, Dr. Vollrath receives tremendous support from the President of our Theosophical Society, in that she honors him with her trust in a very special way and gives him offices, so that his action against us through President Annie Besant still receives special support and strength. We must therefore go to the root of the evil. We must make Adyar aware that we consider any support for Dr. Vollrath, whether directly or indirectly through Adyar headquarters, to be a detriment to the Theosophical work in Germany. We will not tolerate the General Secretary of our section being constantly insulted here, and that such personalities find protection and support there. And that is the crux of the matter. I feel very strongly that we are at an important point in time and we must make it clear to Adyar that we will not tolerate such behavior and that we support the man who has insulted our leader and general secretary.

I ask you to accept the following proposal: After the General Assembly in 1911, after extensive negotiations, once again approved with great unanimity and determination the revocation of Doctor Vollrath's membership pronounced by the Executive Board and the General Assembly in 1908, the General Assembly shall give headquarters in Adyar that from now on any direct or indirect support of Dr. Vollraths, as has occurred recently, must be regarded by the German Section of the Theosophical Society as damaging to its reputation and its work.

Molt: “I move that the debate be closed.”

Ahner: “Since the whole matter has come to this, I would ask that the debate not be interrupted. It would be a disadvantage to the accused if they did not get a chance to speak after being exposed in such a way. This is required by the dictate of justice and consideration for each of the attacked. It is no art to fight someone whom you know cannot defend himself."

Dr. Steiner: ”I have resolved not to intervene in this debate in any way and have therefore refrained from transferring the chairmanship to someone else during the debate. I think it is not important that I transfer the presidency to someone else during this debate, but rather that you agree with the objectivity with which I am trying to conduct the matter. You will therefore also agree that I now say a few words to you.

It is impossible for us to accept a motion to end the debate now. The matter must be discussed, and we have no right to propose or accept a motion to close the debate at this stage, after so many questions have been raised in the course of the debate. There are matters of the utmost importance to us and to our Theosophical Society. What would really do harm here would be to conveniently sweep the matter aside by accepting a motion to close the debate. Although this method of avoiding overly long debates has been used frequently, I ask that you not postpone the debate in this convenient manner today, but consider it your duty to actually bring the matter to a conclusion. With the comments that Pastor Klein has made, so many new aspects have been introduced into the debate, and now we are supposed to accept a motion to end the debate? That is impossible. I do not understand why, in the course of such a debate, when there is still a long list of speakers to come – quite apart from the question of who is the defender and accuser, the accused and the attacker here – they should not be given the fullest opportunity to speak? Since further discussion of these matters is desirable, I would ask you not to put forward the impossible motion to end the debate.

What I have just said also applies to the motion, which I will receive in writing and which I still have to read out.

On behalf of the Hamburg and Bremen branches, the delegates of these branches propose “that, after the discussions that have taken place appear to have sufficiently clarified the situation regarding the motions that have been tabled, the discussion be closed, the motions that have been tabled be rejected, and the executive committee of the section, in particular Dr. Steiner in particular, express its thanks and trust by standing up from their seats; the General Assembly may further authorize the Executive Council to bring similar motions before the Executive Council for final decision in the future, while at the same time preparing appropriate amendments to the statutes that would make similar occurrences impossible in the future.

G. F. Scharlau, J. G. Schröder, Sister Louise Hesselmann, Albert Dibbern, Leinhas.

[Rudolf Steiner:] 'Today it is not a matter of obtaining a vote of confidence, but of bringing the matters of principle at hand to a decision. It is not about the board, not about the person of Dr. Vollraths, not about me, but about matters of principle, and there you cannot express your opinion by rising from your seats. We cannot deal with the matter in such a convenient way today.

The motion to end the debate is rejected.

Thereupon the motions of Molt, Hamburg and Bremen are withdrawn and the debate continues.

Pastor Wendt: “Three years ago, I was the one who proposed that we no longer consider Dr. Vollrath as one of our own for the time being. I said to myself at the time that the young man could improve in three years. He has not done so, on the contrary, he continues to drill. But now it is high time that we got to the bottom of this rabble. I am an old man today; but in the past we often had to drag foxes through our student fraternity. But if the boys wanted to back down from a duel, they were thrown out without mercy. For us, that was a matter of course. But if today our cause is denigrated as it has been here, then I say today too: throw them out. I don't want to sit in hell with such boys, with such vermin, let alone in heaven.

Dr. Steiner: “We want to avoid the expressions ‘boys’ and so on.”

Pastor Wendt: “The fact of the matter is that someone wants to remain in our society even though he is working against it. If we work against the truth, we have made a mistake, we know that. But if we also deny the mistake, then we cannot move forward at all. It is far too sacred, far too serious a matter to bring the Christ-Principle into the world for me to consider it justified to use it in this way in the debate. I also said to the Lord, after I became aware of these things, earlier: Now we are divorced people, now it is over between us. How can you say such things and then threaten to expose us in this way? My dear son, I said, there is something else involved here. I would like to point out that the best way out of this situation – so that we don't have it every year – seems to be to protect ourselves in the future by adopting the following motion: Any member who has violated the spirit of the Theosophical Society, as judged by the General Assembly, shall be expelled. If necessary, I could explain the seriousness of the matter to you in more detail. It is an old matter: if you don't exclude, you don't include. However, under the prevailing circumstances, we have to protect and preserve our work and not carry water on two shoulders. We have to say very clearly: man, you don't belong to us.

Ahner: “It is regrettable that we have to deal with this matter here, and it is not really a matter of considering what happened at that time in this old story. I myself was on the board at the time: when the motion to expel Dr. Vollrath was tabled by Mrs. Wolfram. But I must openly admit that I had not received the slightest information about the matter before. I was simply faced with a very dark story and was indeed highly astonished to hear this motion from Mrs. Wolfram. At the time, I could see nothing more in the matter than personal matters between these two personalities. And for this reason, I said to myself: You cannot exclude someone from the Theosophical Society because of personal misunderstandings. Dr. Vollrath was never given the opportunity to defend himself. He was not invited to the board meeting, he was not given the opportunity to present material to the board members so that they could have gained insight into the matter. Only Ms. Wolfram was heard. “But a man's speech is not a man's speech, it must be heard by both.” That is, I believe, an old German saying that is still valid today among people who love justice.

I must also confess here that I do not intend to speak out personally for Dr. Vollrath or to somehow oppose any member of the board. For me, people mean nothing in this matter. I consider people to be irrelevant in this matter. Only in people in whom the person has the upper hand, in whom the person wants to be everything, can the personal have validity, because, as you know, before God the person has no value. So I say: personally, I consider this matter to be of no consequence. I would drop the motion if my suggestion were accepted. Let the spirit of Christian love prevail and let Dr. Vollrath be a member of the section. Then all will be well. Would he be able to do any harm? No. If that is what you mean, then check the 2000 members of the Society, check their hearts, and start with the principle of social democracy: those who don't toe the line get the boot. Do what you want, but I have to say: today is a decisive day for the Theosophical Society. Annie Besant, if she were here, would certainly speak in favor of peace, and the old doctor Hübbe-Schleiden, who is now eighty years old, also supports the motion. The petition, which was written by Dr. Vollrath, is something I completely negate. We did not write this and do not need to represent it. But I say: do not judge according to the earthly mind, but reach into your heart, think that your intellect is something transient, and that we let go of the personal, which has no standing before God. Let Christ speak in you. The ministers have presented everything quite nicely. But I must confess: There are always passages in the Bible that can be used to prove the opposite of what is said. I understand what is said about the spirit of love in the Bible. I believe the reverends will also have read the chapter of the first letter to the Corinthians that deals with the high song of love; or if they have not read it, then take a look at it.

Arenson: “It is not true that only Ms. Wolfram was mentioned in this matter; it is quite as described in the protocol. We have had the opportunity to thoroughly examine the matter. Mr. Vollrath has had the opportunity to speak. It is not for us to decide whether Mr. Ahner was able to get involved in the matter. If he says that it was not the case, we believe him immediately. But the rest of us have gained a complete insight into the matter and were able to make our decision.

Dr. Steiner: “It should be a custom here to point out the truth even in seemingly insignificant things: Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden is not 80, but about 62 years old – Mr. Günther Wagner corrects 65 years. I ask not to consider this pedantry when I emphatically defend his youthfulness.

Mr. von Rainer has the floor: “As the Chairman mentioned, the debate is not to be regarded as a personal one, but as one of principle, and I see this whole debate not as a question to be decided that affects persons but rather the question of whether the constitution of the association can continue to exist in its current form, whether it can continue to exist in our society in the same way as it generally exists in associations. If we consider what has been said today and the way in which proposals have been put forward and justified, we have to say to ourselves: there is something about it that is characteristic of our current association and public life and that is based on a misunderstanding of universal human rights, in that every person in an association or in public life should be granted the right to say anything they want. It is simply an abuse of the word. We have to admit that fine words have been used to support the proposals, but we must also say that they are only words, misused in the way indicated. It is not a matter of the proposal being based on good and fine reasons, but something else, and the proponents and defenders of each of the proposals say that they want nothing to do with this. It is about the content and form of the proposals that have been put forward here. Therefore, we have to say that a statute in the form it is today cannot continue, and so I propose: The tenth General Assembly shall decide that a commission be set up to revise the statutes in line with the views expressed by Mr. Bauer and Mr. Unger, whose members are to be appointed by the board.

If you adopt this proposal, you will support the positive side of what has been discussed here today, and emphasize it. You will show that you have confidence in our leadership. Because we have this, we put it in his hands to write a statute that is right for our society. The board will then also be able to find an expression that our assembly is beginning to understand what is offered to us here as members of the Theosophical Society. It will be a powerful impulse that will be born of us, in which the board will have a powerful stimulus and which at the same time must give it the confidence for its further work. If someone reads something like this pamphlet, then on the other hand he should also have the opportunity to know what is to be thought of the ramblings about Theosophy and its leaders. Then the words that have been spoken will not be in the least able to affect the relationship to our leader in any way. I therefore recommend that this motion be unanimously adopted.

The next speaker is Mr. Walther: “This morning, the supporters of the document that has been presented to us so often have argued that Dr. Vollrath was wrongly expelled. In response to this, I, as a participant in that General Assembly, can state that Dr. Vollrath was allowed to voice his objections at the General Assembly, i.e. publicly before all members, that we all heard his objections and were also allowed to hear the reasons that led to his expulsion, and these reasons were of a very serious nature, because they concerned the life of part of our society, namely the Leipzig branch. When our board said that our Leipzig branch could no longer exist if a member like Dr. Vollrath continued to harass this branch, then we had to come to the aid of this branch, also out of our Christian duty. We had to support this proposal, and we supported it almost unanimously at the time. There may have been a few of us who did not agree with it at the time, but the vast majority certainly did. Today we are faced with an even more weighty matter. Today we have to defend our entire body against the attacks that have been made against our section from another side. It is not about personalities here, it is not about whether this or that person is on the board, or whether this or that person teaches among us, but about what is taught. As members, we have the duty to examine the teachings that are offered to us and then to decide after the examination has been carried out. Speaking for myself, I believe that this decision is not based on personal affection for my teacher, but rather on my innermost realization, in the same way that it was described by our dear member, Pastor Klein, based on an insight that was gained through hard spiritual work. It was not the person of the Führer that led me to him, but the cause. Based on this fact, I feel compelled to speak to you and say: examine the truths that are given to you here, compare them and then decide. And when you have examined the issues with all your intellectual power, you will find where you have to go, then you will decide according to the matter at hand, then you will see that it is important to protect a body of wisdom here, which is to be stolen from us by falling into the hands of the uncalled. The danger of such a possibility has already been pointed out. Therefore, I request that the last proposals, which were communicated here, be put up for discussion, so that a new statute can be worked out, which offers the possibility of protecting this wisdom. Even if we had to work all alone in our theosophical groups, we still want to stand firm, because we have recognized that it is wisdom from divine heights that is in question here, and that we must work towards forging a shell, as it were, for the German Section by drawing up a statute that will no longer allow elements to enter or act within our society that want to breach the building we have built with so much effort. Therefore, I ask you to comment on this proposal, so that we can have the statute of our board of directors, in which we have had and still have confidence, drawn up, so that it will also carry out this work for our benefit.

The next speaker is architect [Schmid]; “In response to the words of the previous speakers, or rather the proposal of Mr. von Rainer, there is only one thing to be added, (at this point Mr. Krojanker interrupts to say that he had earlier requested to speak , to which Dr. Steiner replies that Mr. [Schmid] is already ahead of him on the list of speakers), that it is not said that it is left to the discretion of the board to elect a commission, but that the board may carry out this work itself. It is very important to me that the motion be adopted in this form, because in a way it allows us to express what we want from the whole thing, namely that we consider our board to be fully capable and trustworthy, both in the past and in the future, to work out all such things on its own. In this way, we also point out what has already been suggested this evening, that only the board should process such documents among themselves. In view of Mr. von Rainer's new motion, it will not be important to maintain that. However, I ask that a vote of confidence be expressed – although we have no need of it – that we consider the board sufficient to make these amendments to the statutes itself.

Dr. Vollrath has the floor: “So much has been said back and forth that I still have something to say. Above all, Dr. Vollrath has been accused – and downright bad motives have been attributed to him – of wanting to damage Dr. Steiner's reputation. I feel qualified to say that this is not the case. Dr. Vollrath would not have made this submission in any way if he had not repeatedly heard from members who had come to us from the Leipzig Lodge that Ms. Wolfram claimed in her courses that Dr. Vollrath had stolen intellectual property by compiling lectures by Dr. Steiner and then publishing them. Dr. Vollrath was very upset about this. I told him at the time: It's no use to stir up the whole exclusion affair again. But he said: No, it must be done, I can't let it rest; because, first of all, only translations appear in my journal Theosophy, and secondly, it would never occur to me to interpret Dr. Steiner in any way. All I care about is that the matter be hushed up in some way. As for the state of the matter, and how much of the information he received was true, Dr. Vollrath was not sure.

But even the meeting at that time only knew to a very small extent that Mrs. Wolfram did not have a good motive for her actions against Dr. Vollrath. That she did not have one can be seen from the fact that she received me in a way when I visited her as a result of her invitation that can no longer be described as theosophical. She received me with the words: “Do you already know the latest? Dr. Vollrath has gone mad.” This was very painful for me, who had known Dr. Vollrath for ten years. I believe that if someone is really ill or has a nervous breakdown, you should not talk about it in a Theosophical Society, because as a Theosophist you must know that such things affect people. It may well happen that a person goes mad, not from illness, but from the bad thoughts of others. I am convinced that all those who have a hand in this created a heavy karma for themselves. I would just like to say here that Doctor Vollrath is being accused of improper motives. Consider this: you don't distribute Theosophical writings if you want to harm the Theosophical Society. We have lost many thousands of marks in our work, and we are losing more every day; we have not yet earned anything. But Dr. Vollrath is also differently inclined than the others. He does not want to cling to the coattails of Dr. Steiner; he does not want to be led. I think that's why he could still have been considered a member. Then they could have told him at the time: Leave it alone, don't bring these things into the world. Doctor Vollrath is a strange character who always does the opposite of what the other wants if you don't tell him the truth and say everything openly. But if you had told him, “Leave it alone, it's no use, stop it,” and explained the reasons for it, then he would have been open to reason. I am convinced of it. In a movement as large as ours, no one should expect that all their companions are equal to them, equally intuitive, equally courageous, and so on. But the first step on the path is to be gentle with people of highly dissimilar character and qualities and so on. One sign of regression would be to expect the other person to love what you love and to act as you do. As Mahatma Kuthumi says: “Until you have developed a complete sense of justice, you should show compassion rather than commit the slightest injustice.”

Mr. Krojanker has the floor: “Even in a political association, it is not customary to attack opponents as personally as has been the case here. If there has been regret that a general assembly of the Theosophical Society was forced to deal with such matters and to come to terms with them, then I must certainly shift the blame from the applicants. We left it up to you to simply elect a commission. The details did not need to be discussed here; and despite this discussion, you do not yet need to be informed. In order to be sufficiently informed, such a commission would have to be elected. Why does the board feel personally offended? Because such a commission is to be elected? Just look around the world and consider the matter in comparison to a court outside. Of course, it is taken for granted that a judge passes sentence to the best of his knowledge and belief. But can he be angry if a matter is referred to another court for reconsideration? No, because it may be that the first judge did not see this or that at all. It seems very strange to me that this wish should be attacked in this way. It is not a question of offending Dr. Steiner, it is not a question of offending the Theosophical Society. A distinction must be made between Theosophy and a General Assembly of the Theosophical Society. The General Assembly is there to deal with worldly matters. If you don't want that, then why not just get rid of the General Assembly? If you call a General Assembly, then you assume that there will be negotiations, and the things that have been brought up here are things that are quite possible within the framework of a Theosophical Society. But that's no reason to tear down those who swim against the current, as has happened here. No one has the right to judge how much of a Theosophist I am or am not, no one can judge how I can or cannot benefit the Theosophical Society. Here you have just heard Mrs. Vollrath, and she spoke with infinite care. If you expel the matter from the Society, it will continue to exist as such, and in particular the Vollrach-Wolfram affair should not yet be terminated.

Why have personal hostilities been directed against us? Are our names under the proposal of Dr. Vollrath or under our own? Does it perhaps have something defamatory? Does it violate the essence of the Theosophical Society? No, everything in it can stand and is factually justified. If you do not want to accept our proposal, then the matter will not come before the commission. But the personal attacks should be able to be avoided.

Dr. Steiner: “In a certain respect - and that is why I have to say a few words here - there is a hidden attack on the management of the day in what Mr. Krojanker says, since this is the second time he has criticized the fact that these things are being dealt with so broadly. There is a hidden attack against the management in this, as well as in Mr. Krojanker's statement that the whole brochure did not need to be read out. A proposal was made here that I could not have taken responsibility for submitting to you if the documents had not been created at the same time, which allowed you to make a decision to a certain extent. I would like to ask you whether, with regard to the judgment of this application, some of the facts on which the application was based were not really brought to your attention after all. You had to know why you were supposed to agree to a commission of seven members. Certain documents were needed to reach a decision, and I must confess that from this purely business point of view, which I will maintain for the time being, I do not see how, on the one hand, a decision should be made on the motion that has been tabled, and how, on the other hand, we should not do what can enable individuals to find the right position and the right judgment in relation to the matter. The other would be: we make the proposal, you accept it under all circumstances. I would just like to ask here what the authors of the proposal would say if the proposal had been rejected outright? The authors of the proposal should see it as a great concession on our part that we have spent the whole day dealing with it so that we are familiar with all the documents that can serve to form a correct opinion. We did not drag out the matter for our own pleasure, and it is good that the possibility of speaking two languages in the world is being done away with. For on the one hand it would mean that in the Theosophical Society there is nothing but blind faith, and one knows nothing but to repeat what is said from certain places. But if certain authorities appeal to the members in a corresponding manner to really carry something through to the end, then on the other hand, it is said: Why not cut the debate short and just read us the necessary documents for reaching a decision. This just against the hidden accusations against the management. Meanwhile it has become six o'clock. Mr. Tessmar and Ms. Wolfram are still on the list of speakers. I very much regret that the facilities at the architect's house did not allow for a different schedule. I therefore ask you to now get to work on the items outside and, when everything has been consumed, to gather here again for a get-together. There are two possibilities: one is that we receive the scheduled artistic performances, the other is that we continue the debate we have started today and postpone the social evening until tomorrow. In the latter case, we would be able to continue the interrupted debate at eight o'clock. Otherwise, the debate would have to be continued tomorrow morning at ten o'clock. I ask you, since we are now voting on the time of day for the meeting, to consider yourself the original meeting."

The meeting decided to continue the debate at eight o'clock.

Continuation at eight o'clock in the evening:

Ms. Wolfram wants to state that she never said anything that could have harmed Dr. Vollrath. She had only answered questions truthfully. These answers had been spread by lodge gossip, of which she herself had known nothing. She had only found out about it at the general meeting of the Leipzig lodge. The claim that she had accused Dr. Vollrath of intellectual theft was groundless, since Dr. Vollrath himself was not the author. Furthermore, Ms. Wolfram objects to Mr. Krojanker's threat that the whole matter would be continued outside of the Society if all motions were rejected within the Society, stating that she has long been prepared to face the kind of eventuality that seems to be meant here. Ms. Wolfram also emphasizes that she refused to provide the publisher Wahres Leben with information that had been requested about Dr. Vollrath.

Dr. Vollrath admits the possibility of lodge gossip. She believed what she was told. She also informs Mr. Krojanker, who is not present, that there has been a misunderstanding on his part, as he believed that the brochure should first be submitted to the commission to be elected, not to the General Assembly.

Dr. Steiner: “Please excuse me for intervening in the debate at this point with a few necessary comments. I would like to say what I would like to say at this moment in the form of a few questions. Of course, it is entirely up to Dr. Vollrath whether or not to give the answer.

In what I am very happy to admit is an extremely likeable way, Dr. Vollrath has addressed a number of issues that are important to me in two ways. On the one hand, it gives us some insight into what Dr. Vollrath is actually complaining about, because we couldn't find that in the document. On the other hand, what was said is interesting to me because we can see from it how the proceedings of that commission would be conducted. They would keep bringing up new things and there would be no end to it. So let me ask the question, and I would like Dr. Vollrath to answer me. Dr. Vollrath stated that her husband complains that he has been accused of publishing things that come from my books or my lectures. I would now like to note that I myself have never discussed such things, or at most only ironically. I would have to go back quite a long way in my not only theosophical but also pre-theosophical time if I were to regard as plagiarism everything that has been taken from my ideas by others. I would only seriously object to it if it could lead to error. In this case it has not led to error. Within certain limits, I regard what is produced spiritually as a good that is brought into the world for the purpose of being spread. But it has been said today, and this is not in the brochure, that Dr. Vollrath felt offended by this accusation; why did Mr. Vollrath not include this matter in his brochure, but did include, for example, the matter of Leadbeater, when objectively speaking the opposite is true? It is not the same thing that while old members did indeed speak about Leadbeater as if he had to be thrown out with the heels of one's boots, I defended him at the time. If Mr. Vollrath feels attacked by what Dr. Vollrath has said, why doesn't he write about this, but write something that is not true. It is not the same thing whether a strange picture is created by Dr. Vollrath's brochure, if it is sent to Adyar, when people there hear that I attacked Leadbeater and did not defend him. Now I ask the question: Why does Dr. Vollrath not say what he really has to complain about, but instead says something that is not objectively true?

I would also like to note at this point that it would be rather strange of us to be intimidated and influenced by threats. It would be important, and very important to me, if everything that could be said were said. We do not want to be spared in any direction. We just want to get to the bottom of the truth. That it could be said that something would happen if we did not do the will of the minority, that is, I must admit, a strange way of conducting a debate.

Please, Dr. Vollrath, do not take this in any other way than that I am trying to conduct the matter as objectively as possible. It would be very easy to bring up many more things, but I will refrain from doing so. Of course it is not my opinion that we want to force you to answer in any way. Of course, this does not have to happen immediately.

Mrs. Dr. Vollrath: “I do not know the specific reasons that led Dr. Vollrath to write this. The impetus is that he has been attacked again. That is why he wanted to present the earlier events.

Dr. Steiner: “Does anyone else have anything to say that could help us to form an opinion on the motions that have been put forward?”

Pastor Klein: “I would like to ask to what extent Dr. Vollrath has recently been harassed and attacked by members, and what the insults that have been inflicted on him are supposed to be?”

Dr. Vollrath: “They only ever spoke about the Leipzig Lodge. Dr. Vollrath says that he became aggressive because a knife was held to his throat. He had to defend himself.

Would it be possible for me to make a request? Is it not possible to hear Dr. Vollrath before a commission or the board so that he can defend himself? Permission should be granted to bring about a debate. If it is possible, I will make this request; that is the only thing I would like to do.

Dr. Steiner: “I note that, following the events that have taken place, I personally have the following to say about them. However, I ask that this be taken as my own personal opinion. I understand the whole matter in such a way that I do not think that being excluded from the Society should be seen as a condemnation in this case. It is not a matter of denying someone the right to be in society; it is a matter of the fact that Dr. Vollrath's views were in conflict with those of the Society. There is nothing dishonorable about that. At the time, I myself asked that the measure be mitigated and that Dr. Vollrath not be excluded, but rather no longer considered a member of the Society. That clearly states what it is about. It only says that we cannot work with him. It was meant in a highly objective way that I made this request to the board at the time. I would like to note that I am naturally inclined to listen to Dr. Vollrach, but that every word would have to be absolutely established. Consider that Dr. Vollrath presented exactly the opposite of what actually happened at the Paris meetings. I would consider a discussion fruitless if every word were not precisely fixed. Furthermore, you yourself, Dr. Vollrath, would have to be present at such a discussion, since you are the applicant. I consider the matter itself to be completely fruitless, but I take the position that it should not be omitted for that reason, because it could bear fruit if this fruitlessness were established.

I would like to make a brief interjection. According to one proposal, only those who did not vote at the time should be elected to the commission. I did not vote.

Of course, I now have to treat Dr. Vollrath's statement as a proposal. The board will have to comment on it. However, this is not possible immediately; it would first have to be discussed.

Pastor Klein: “I request that the motion be rejected, because I consider an agreement to be out of the question after what we have heard from the pamphlet today.”

Dr. Vollrath: “Doctor Steiner is above such things. Doctor Vollrath should just be given the opportunity to make amends.”

Pastor Klein: “Although Doctor Steiner is, of course, above such things, we are not. We must protect our leader.”

Dr. Steiner: “It would be really quite good if we did not put things on a personal level. Here, there is the possibility to separate the person from the matter quite easily. We would have viewed the matter in a completely wrong light if anyone could have the opinion that personal matters had been discussed here. What do we have to do with Mrs. Wolfram and Dr. Vollrath, what do we have to do with Dr. Steiner? They could be three completely random people. Take, for example, the designations, signatures A, B and C. Signature B refers to a lady; it does not matter whether this is Mrs. Wolfram or someone else. Something has been written about this lady. It is not important that it was written by Dr. Vollrath. I am asking you now, quite objectively, without regard to the person, what the person who has a sense of feeling in their body, who takes things as they have come before our ears, what that person thinks about the moral quality of this sentence: “I knew the source from which Mrs. Wolfram took the money for the education of her two children; she had two at the time. She was very embarrassed about this and feared I was aware of it, which partly explains the bold effort to neutralize me.

So the fact is that the motion has been tabled: a person who has written such a sentence is to be reintroduced into society. One can assume that there would be nothing else at all other than this sentence. I now ask you whether it is possible for someone to write this sentence and be within our society. If anyone is of the opinion that there should be someone within our Society who is allowed to write such a sentence about a lady, then there are two possibilities: either there is some truth in it – and then nothing at all should be said about it – or this sentence has been written down, perhaps without thinking. I now ask you: is a Theosophist allowed to write something like that without thinking? Should only love and the like be spoken of? Should we not even ask whether someone who belongs to our society is capable of developing this love if they are able to write this sentence? Is it acceptable for such a sentence to be written in a Theosophical Society? I would consider it a great misfortune if such a sentence were to fall from the sky and rain down here. In our case, it is about the fact that one reads a thing, that it is taken as a discharge of some human manifestation. I ask you to note that the violation of the feeling that is given with this sentence is almost monstrous, so that I do not understand how one can even come from a human point of view to defend such a thing. It is not just that this is written here, but that it is possible to write such a sentence at all. This would also be considered a serious insult in civil society. These are things that come into play as nuances of feeling. Disregard everything else and consider whether it is possible for such a sentence to be written in a brochure that is associated with our society. Today it is not a matter of sitting in judgment on anyone. It is not a matter of these things being said, but rather of realizing that in Theosophy the main thing depends on feeling and sensation. There we do have a standard that we can apply. Therefore, I think it is really necessary that we look at the matter from this objective point of view. It is a fruitless task to want to communicate with someone who speaks a different language. There is no basis for understanding. It is really like speaking German and the answer being given back in Chinese. We could listen to Dr. Vollrath, but nothing would come of it. The law of karma is the law; one must stand up for what one has done. You cannot make such a statement to the world today and apologize for it tomorrow. That is why Dr. Vollrath's letter was read to you.

Please consider this as my personal opinion. I would not have mentioned it if I had not felt that it had not been sufficiently taken into account. Apart from everything else, please consider what has been put into the world here as an objective document; then it is a basis for reaching a decision on Dr. Vollrath's request. This cannot be dealt with immediately. It must first be discussed by the board.

Pastor Klein: “But the general assembly can request that the board does not vote on it.”

Dr. Steiner: “But the board can still hear Dr. Vollrath if it sees fit.” Mr. Tessmar: “I could not speak here as a board member, because I have no mandate to do so. But I would like to give my personal opinion. I have a favorable impression of the way in which Dr. Vollrath has spoken, but I consider a debate with Dr. Vollrath to be completely fruitless. What more should be said on this matter? Mr. Krojanker spoke of instances. In the external world, the Reichsgericht can decide as the last instance in the German Reich; it cannot go any further. But something very similar has happened here. The General Assembly sanctioned the decision of the board as the last resort. So something has been done. Then Mr. Ahner said that he was on the board at the time and had no idea what Dr. Vollrath was accused of. But that is not true. You can't make such a decision if you don't have something to base it on. When Dr. Vollrath says that Dr. Steiner is defending Mazdaznan, and we are all very surprised, and it turns out that Dr. Steiner was talking about Ahura Mazdao, then it all just stops. There are some things that are impossible. If the opposing side does not understand this, it cannot be explained to them in words. If you do not have the feeling that it must then be over, you cannot be helped. What would happen if we said, “Well, here is the brother hand, come, Mr. Vollrath?” Then we would have the same story tomorrow. The applicants do not trust the board. I personally have no trust in Dr. Vollrath. If Mr. Vollrath were to be readmitted, it would be said: “You see, the board was wrong!” Secondly, however, there is still the threat of external judgment. This is such a mean and hidden threat that it is quite impossible to negotiate with this party. It is about the theosophical cause, which is above our feelings. It is about the theosophical life. This morning, during the speeches by Mr. Ahner and Mr. Krojanker, some members applauded. This shows that misfortune has already taken effect. If you own a garden and want to have beautiful strawberries, then you have to throw out the weeds. You have to kill the caterpillars or you won't get any strawberries. It is bad enough that someone like me, who is no parliamentarian, has to speak in this hall where we have already been privileged to hear so many wonderful lectures. I would much rather not have to speak. I would also much rather help Dr. Vollrath. But it is impossible. “Diem perdid”, this day is lost. Some action must be taken to ensure that it does not happen again. What Dr. Steiner has given us, I have let flow into my heart; and when Mr. Krojanker brought forward a matter years ago, I said at the time: It is not the person that is important here, but the matter. So create the possibility that a person like me no longer needs to speak here before you."

Dr. Steiner: “It is now really necessary to get down to business. So consider the motion tabled that the board respond to Dr. Vollrath's motion tomorrow. It's just a matter of a yes or no. But the motion cannot be dealt with at this moment. The board must be able to come to a decision. That's a matter of course. I suggest that you let me ask the board to say either yes or no tomorrow. I can't possibly have a vote on the matter here under the rules of procedure.

Fräulein von Sivers: “We could come to an agreement about this right away. We know that Dr. Vollrath cannot present true facts and often distorts the truth.”

Dr. Steiner: “It is impossible under the rules of procedure for the board to comment now on something that can only be discussed by the entire board.”

A motion is made that the board withdraw for five minutes.

Dr. Steiner: “It would of course be much more clever if that didn't stop us.”

The motion is put to the vote and rejected.

Mr. Ahner: “I would like to correct something. Mr. Tessmar said that the board was fully informed at the time and that I must also have been informed. However, I did not have the opportunity to hear Dr. Vollrath myself at the time, so I cannot vote with a clear conscience. You have to hear both parties. In response to my vote, I was no longer elected to the board.” Pastor Klein proposes that Dr. Vollrath should no longer be heard in the matter.

The proposal is put to the vote and adopted.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to a number of proposals, most of which are highly complex. There are four proposals. First is the Molt proposal, which actually consists of three sub-proposals. The first point is: The tenth General Assembly should express its outrage and indignation.”

Fräulein Stinde: “So much indignation has already been expressed here that it would not be necessary to explicitly repeat it.”

Fräulein Brandt: “There is no need to express one's indignation, since one can only feel sorry for Dr. Vollrath.”

Dr. Steiner: “It will be necessary to say what we have to say more forcefully than by expressing our outrage and indignation. It is necessary that we do things that are less directed against a personality. The diatribe was not read for judgment, but for the purpose of reaching a verdict.”

Mr. Hubo: “I would like to ask Mr. Molt to withdraw this part of the proposal.”

Mr. Molt: “I believe it was enough to state our outrage earlier, and therefore I believe I can withdraw this point.”

Dr. Steiner: “We come to the second point of the Molt proposal, that the meeting reject the proposals by Krojanker, Müller, Ahner.”

Mr. Hubo supports this motion and proposes that a vote be taken immediately.

This motion by Hubo is put to the vote and adopted.

The Molt motion is put to the vote and adopted by the meeting with all but one vote against. The Krojanker, Müller and Ahner motions are rejected.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to the third point of the Molt motion: ”The gentlemen who, by supporting the Krojanker, Müller, Ahner motions, have violated the spirit of the Theosophical movement, would like to draw the consequences of their actions by declaring their resignation from the Society.” Mr. Ahner: “As I understand from this request, it is considered un-Theosophical to have a different opinion from the majority, and to come to the aid of a brother in distress who has done no little for Theosophy and whose activities have received full recognition at headquarters in India. He has been appointed secretary of the Star of the East by Mrs. Besant. If you cite a person's personal opinion as a reason for no longer recognizing him as a brother, that is your prerogative. For me, that is not a reason. I take the Christian position. I do not consider it a disgrace to stand here as Dr. Vollrath's defender. I have already said that it is very convenient to go with the flow. But I will not accept the accusation of not helping the helpless. I do not need a Theosophical Society or a Theosophical meeting to arrive at true knowledge. All spiritual development must come from within. You can cram your brain full of dogmas, but that won't help you see the light. Judge as you will, I see no reason to resign."

Dr. Stein: I am reluctant to intervene in the debate because it is about the decision. I would like to note that today must be seen as an extraordinarily meritorious one. Something has been done, because the most important thing that has happened is that a number of prominent figures have spoken here so that we could hear opposing opinions. Words are also deeds in a sense. Let me now also present my opinion. I see absolutely no reason why this point of the proposal, which has just been read, should be accepted. I do not see that this point achieves anything other than the exact opposite of what the proposer would like to achieve. We have the proof of my belief from the speech of our dear friend Mr. Ahner. You only succeed by such a motion in saying out in the world what has just been said here: In the Theosophical movement, the one who helps a helpless brother is thrown out. — I ask you to examine these words a little. As Theosophists, we must always stand on the ground of truth. The question, then, is whether one has the right to say, “We have come to the aid of a helpless brother.” This sentence contains an accusation in which there is no reality, namely, that the others had mistreated the helpless. But in truth, has anyone done anything to Mr. Vollrath? What happened then? A society of more than 1000 members declared that they no longer considered Dr. Vollrath to be one of them. This is identical to saying that I cannot associate with a certain person in my home. Of course, everyone is entitled to their own theosophy. So in reality nothing has happened, except that it has been established that everyone has the right to say that they cannot work with this or that person. If you then call this person helpless and say that you have stood by him, this is a very serious accusation. At the time, I told Dr. Vollrath: “If you were a member of the Berlin Lodge, the matter would be quite different; it would not be necessary for you to resign.” We would have digested him. Now, when someone comes and says that he stood by this helpless person, it is a serious accusation that does not testify to a very loving disposition. But it is also objectively untrue, it is not a reality. Because nothing happened to Dr. Vollrath. It would be a real overestimation of the Theosophical Society to declare it a corporation in which one must be a member to be a Theosophist. I may also have a reason for not being able to work with someone because he is much too brilliant for me. I find it quite incomprehensible when someone comes and says: “I want to be in a society that doesn't want me at all.” What tyranny would come into the world if everyone could force a society to have them at all costs. If tyranny could go so far that anyone could be in a position to force themselves on a society that doesn't want to work with them, where would we end up? If you agree to this third point, you will achieve nothing more than that words such as “I stood by a helpless person, so I was thrown out of society” would be heard out in the world. I believe that if every member is aware of what has been expressed today, that words are deeds, that is enough. It is not possible to reach an understanding if words are used that are not objectively correct.” Mr. Molt withdraws his proposal. Pastor Wendt's proposal concerns the exclusion of those members who supported the proposals regarding Vollrath.

Dr. Steiner asks that this proposal not be accepted because its content is identical to that of the Molt proposal, which has already been withdrawn.

Pastor Klein (submits a resolution): “I would like to ask you to listen to a few very urgent words from me. I attach the greatest importance to you considering this resolution very seriously. It is not possible for Adyar to award Doctor Vollrath special titles. It is not possible for this to continue. Adyar must be aware of what happened in 1908. It is quite incomprehensible that Doctor Vollrath was appointed Secretary of the Order of the Star of the East. It is either/or! If Dr. Vollrath insults the General Secretary in such a pamphlet and the General Assembly vigorously declares its opposition to this fact, then such an honor is impossible. This is not about Christian brotherhood, but about clarity. Christ said, “I am the truth.” But surely Adyar knows how this has been handled. Adyar headquarters is not acting clearly. And it cannot be that Adyar headquarters continues to operate in the same way as before. I want it to be known in Adyar that we are not willing to tolerate and consider it damaging to our work when Dr. Vollrath is supported by Adyar in this unclear way, to put it mildly. I am well aware of the implications of this step, but I believe that we would only have done half the work today if we did not send a signal to Adyar that the trust placed in Dr. Vollrath there after the events of 1908 were known, has wounded us to the quick; that you can't do everything with the German Section, and that it cannot agree with the awarding of the title to Dr. Vollrath.

Dr. Steiner: “It is necessary, since this point is a very serious matter and I am the General Secretary, that I comment on this matter. For me, this is not in the least about me personally. However, it may indeed be necessary to protect the Society if its living conditions are cut off and the Theosophical teachings can no longer be spread as before. On this point, we can more easily and more definitively than before separate the factual from the personal. The factual is as follows.

At the end of October or the beginning of November, the document from Dr. Vollrath that has been read to you today was published. This document is now available and has been printed in as large a number of copies as possible. It contains a number of things that, if they were true, would be enough to justify the claim that not a single dog would take a piece of bread from us. Imagine that the things written there were true! I would ask you whether there is no blemish on those of whom they are said? No dog would take a piece of bread from those named. At around the same time, an 'Adyar Bulletin' appeared. It listed Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden and Dr. Hugo Vollrath as representatives of the Star of the East. We, the German Section, are an integral part of the overall society. Is it right to stand up for the president wherever possible, or is it an abnormal state of affairs not to be able to stand up for her? Let us assume that I myself was faced with the question: “Do you stand up for the president?” - Jab. - Will I then be told: “But then you are agreeing with the person who wrote this brochure. Because the President appoints as her representative someone who acts against you? But let us assume that someone would say: “You don't need to do that. You can stand up for the President even though these things are in the brochure, because the President can make a mistake. - But the President was, as was her duty, fully informed about the facts from the very beginning. She was told with the necessary clarity from the outset what had happened. Nevertheless, the President has delivered this vote of no confidence against the General Secretary of the German Section. So either one or the other is in every way fragile. Misses Besant had to know how things stand. The situation is such that Adyar has currently put the General Secretary in the impossible position of having to defend the President. This is an abnormal state of affairs, and I assure you that there can hardly be a more painful alternative for me. It is a very painful matter for me. You know how far I have always gone in defense of the President whenever possible. But there is one thing that must be absolutely decisive, and that is to be absolutely sure of the truth. I have set myself this one task and I may mention it. He who may not know the occult basis but only the history of the occult movement knows how closely connected charlatanry and occultism have always been. It is a fundamental occult experience that there is only a thin cobweb between the two. But there is one thing I can ascribe to myself, this ideal I have set for myself: it is to be tested whether absolute sincerity and honesty in all details can be combined with an occult movement. If everything else we can do here fades away, I want one thing to never fade away: that a Theosophical movement once existed that set itself the motto: It shall be shown that one can truly be an occultist and at the same time a representative of unadorned, absolute truth. Anyone familiar with the history of religious movements will agree with me.

I therefore consider it a serious anomaly – if I may express my personal opinion – when it has become impossible to defend the president due to the short-sightedness of Adyar politics. The most painful thing is that this could have happened in our Theosophical movement. It is a deep pain for me, more painful than anything else, because I must confess that no one loves Miss Besent more than I do. But the pain is wrung from the truth and the truth is what can be called the highest. But, measured against love, it is, as a poet says, cruel. This is something that needed to be said.

Now one could easily say: Then we will just leave the Adyar movement. The Adyar policy is not identical with that of the Theosophical Society. But we cannot take the position that we don't like it or that we are no longer playing along. Rather, it is a matter of knowing positively what we really want to represent in the world. Either what we want is the truth – and then it will prevail – or it is not the truth, and then no one can save us. So I cannot see that resigning would be a necessary consequence for us. If we are always aware of what we want, then we can always say what we want. No matter how many members we are, we know what we want and can express it.

Theosophy stands above any office in the Theosophical Society. So we can say it to the President in Adyar. Our job is to say: This is what we want. And whatever they may think in Adyar, we want to do this, if we make a start with this motion to place ourselves on the ground of a sovereign will. If we use such language, it is only the consequence of what has been said today. So if only a hundredth of the things discussed today are justified, then we may well say: We want that, and no matter how many members of the Society are against it. This does not apply to teachings, but to administrative matters. And if we start not just repeating every word from Adyar, then we have something to say. In a way, it will depend on our understanding of how to speak clearly with Adyar. We will find the continuation then already. It is always only about administrative issues, other things do not belong here.

Theosophy is cosmopolitan, as it spans the globe, but at the same time it is excessively individualistic. There is no point in setting up as many sections as there are national borders. In that case, we could also set up as many sections in Switzerland as there are cantons. These current institutions do not correspond at all to the theosophical spirit. But that is not the whole story. The point is that a painful anomaly has been created, and that we have no choice but to face it. But we must also express this. Therefore, I ask you to comment on this proposal.

Fräulein Stinde: “I would like to support Pastor Klein's proposal. If he hadn't made it, I would have done so.”

Dr. Unger: “I would like to ask whether it would not be worth considering whether this resolution should be drafted a little more carefully. It would be a further suggestion or request that a smaller group be appointed to discuss the way in which this protest is to be expressed, and that this group be given a certain amount of time.”

Pastor Wendt requests that the drafting of the resolution be entrusted to the board.

Dr. Steiner: “I once again request that the matter be carefully considered from the point of view that I have just stated. It is impossible to defend Adyar now if one does not want to distort the truth. This can, of course, also be distorted in the outside world. I also ask you to consider that things that have happened cannot be erased by apologies. So we are faced with the question of whether the resolution should be considered.

A vote is taken.

The assembly approves the adoption of the resolution.

Pastor Wendt's proposal that the board be entrusted with the task of drafting and promoting the resolution was also adopted by the assembly.

Mr. von Rainer:

I would like to propose the appointment of a commission to draft the statutes in line with Mr. Bauer's and Dr. Unger's statements.

A vote is taken on this proposal.

The proposal is accepted.

Dr. Steiner: “In order to avoid any grounds for this General Assembly being declared invalid, it is necessary that the Assembly grant me indemnity, since according to the statutes, the accounts are to be sent to the individual lodges by the Secretary General fourteen days before the General Assembly, but this has not happened.”

Mr. Arenson: “It is my opinion that such a declaration by the General Assembly would have to be linked to another, namely this one, that the Assembly forbids itself from speaking to our Secretary General in such a tone, quite apart from the fact that one could have inquired as to what reasons led to the delay; that something like this would happen in other expressions.”

Mrs. Wolfram: “I would like to add that Dr. [Haedicke] was fully informed of the difficulties of such matters.”

Dr. Steiner: “I also told Dr. [Haedicke] that if there is any leakage, it is not our fault, but that of the individual lodges. It would therefore be futile to talk to a gentleman who has heard these reasons multiple times and yet continues to raise the issue again and again. So Dr. [Haedicke] writes: As a man of honor, you have signed the constitution with your signature and must therefore either uphold the constitution, change the constitution, or resign from office. Now that you have publicly spoken of “theosophical dogmas.” This is an assertion that does not even appear to be correct.

We will not go into the logic. We see from these things that are possible that one has to accept these impossible, palpable things as an instruction: So please explain when you get the chance that the Theosophical Society has no dogma and logically can never have one, just as Theosophy is not spiritual science, but according to Blavatsky, the wisdom of those who are divine.

So someone comes along and says: There are no theosophical dogmas. But then he claims that I should have to declare that Theosophy is divine wisdom.

So what we have here would be to give indemnity for breach of duty this time.

Mr. Seiler: “I will not go into the fact that the district court is being threatened. I would just like to say that you cannot prosecute the General Secretary. If someone is at fault, then it is me. If anyone has to apologize, it is me. This can only come from the fact that Mr. [Haedicke] is a very young member who does not even know how things are done here. He should know that you can't approach Dr. Steiner with such things and understand that we have to make every effort to keep the General Secretary as free as possible from such things. It seems to me to be a gross impropriety for members' intentions to reach this point, so that Dr. Steiner should publicly apologize. Surely that cannot be demanded of our General Secretary.

Dr. Steiner: “But according to the paragraphs, there is no other way than for you to grant me indemnity, because otherwise Mr. [Haedicke] could declare the General Assembly invalid. I think we have all had enough of this meeting; we would then have to go through the whole thing again. Therefore, it is necessary that we formulate the point as it must be formally formulated. It cannot be that we make an incorrect decision today. It is necessary that you give me indemnity because the statutes have been violated.

Mr. Tessmar: “It is clear that Mr. [Haedicke]'s motion is based on correct facts. It is just not formally correct because the gentleman in question does not know how the cash report is created. You have the wonderful situation here that we auditors can now also justifiably say: No, it's our fault! The fact of the matter is that Dr. Haedicke is actually right in his proposal. Here in the statutes, the words are: “Shall be delivered by the Secretary General.” But he must first have something to deliver. My personal opinion is that it doesn't really matter that much, but that theosophical work is being done.

You, Dr. [Haedicke], are now the one who has done what I have wanted for eight years. You have done something good by this. Because now the statutes will be changed; and that is for the benefit of those who have not understood the theosophical cause and have therefore become clause sniffers. A Lex [Haedicke] will no longer exist.

I would like to make a motion here that the General Assembly grants the Secretary General indemnity.

Mr. Hubo: “Following Mr. Tessmar's motion, I would like to request the addition that this alleged omission be considered unindebted, and that we move on to the agenda regarding all other points of the [Haedicke] motion.

Dr. Steiner: “A motion has been made to grant the Secretary General immunity. Whether or not he is at fault is irrelevant.”

The General Assembly grants the Secretary General immunity by vote.

Dr. Steiner: “There is another proposal, the Arenson proposal: 'The General Assembly should express its disapproval of the tone adopted by Dr. [Haedicke].”

The proposal is adopted.

Dr. Steiner: “We now come to the granting of discharge to the board. I would like to explicitly note that it is not at all important to me to resign from the office of a General Secretary at any time, if it should become necessary for the reason that the two offices, the leadership of the Theosophical Society and the office of the General Secretary, would no longer be compatible with each other due to the way in which the Society must be run. This could arise if a certain equity did not prevail between the lines of the theosophical life. Why should that not be possible? You must consider what I am saying now in the light of the fact that I never want to be anything other than a theosophical teacher and that everything must be done by me that must be done in the interest of representing the theosophical truth. Anyone who finds himself in such a position must, of course, say something unpleasant to this or that person. He is obliged to speak the truth. But the truth does not always have to be understood. Since the Theosophical teacher is obliged to tell the unvarnished truth to each individual person, he must naturally have enemies and opponents. It cannot be otherwise. The nature of this antagonism, which is caused by the activities of the theosophical teacher, may under certain circumstances be incompatible with the activities of the General Secretary of the Theosophical Society. If the time should come when a combination of these two offices is no longer conceivable, then it will be necessary to consider another arrangement.

I would also like to note that no one has the right to say that I have said anything against the President of the Theosophical Society today. It has only been said that it is impossible for me to defend the President.

We now come to the granting of discharge to the board in its entirety.

The meeting grants discharge to the entire board.

Dr. Steiner: “We now proceed to the election of the new board, insofar as the board members have not been elected for life. The Board proposes the following members of the Board whose terms have expired for election: Mr. Bauer, Dr. Grosheintz, Mr. Tessmar, Dr. Unger, Ms. Noss, Ms. Wolfram, Ms. Smits. Furthermore, the Board is to be expanded by twelve new members, since one member of the Board must be elected for every 100 members, and the Association has grown by 1180 members since the last election. For this election, the board proposes: Ms. von Bredow, Ms. Völker, Ms. Wandrey, Mr. Del-Monte, Dr. Peipers, Dr. Noll, Countess Kalckreuth, Mr. von Rainer, Count Lerchenfeld, Prof. Gysi, Mr. von Damnitz, Ms. Mücke.

The following are proposed by the assembly: Pastor Klein, Mr. [Walther], Mr. van Leer, Ms. Winkler, Ms. von Eckardtstein.

Mr. Molt on the agenda: “I would like to ask that the proposals of the board be accepted. I believe that would be the best expression of a vote of confidence.

Dr. Steiner: “This motion must be voted on immediately.”

The motion by Molt is adopted.

Fourth item [on the agenda]: Reports by the representatives of the branches: There is a report from the Zurich branch. It is proposed that, due to the late hour, this report be included in the “announcements”.

The proposal is adopted.

Fifth item of business: Miscellaneous:

Dr. Steiner: “I would also like to note that the first general assembly of the Johannesbauverein will take place, if possible on Tuesday. The time will be announced.”

Since no one has anything to add regarding the fifth point, the Secretary General closes the business portion of the General Assembly. The Board's response to Dr. Vollrath's motion will be made the following morning. (The Board has declined to negotiate with Dr. Vollrath for well-founded reasons).

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

You have heard some very beautiful thoughts and ideas from the circle of those gathered here and have been made aware of certain difficulties of the Theosophical movement. Indeed, we have even had to hear that there are numerous people who, in the existence of the society, see an obstacle for themselves in joining this society, but also find that the movement as such is perhaps being hindered rather than promoted by the existence of the present society. These are important considerations, especially for those who are truly concerned about theosophical satisfaction in the right way.

The question may arise: Yes, Theosophy, as we understand it, is something real, which has to some extent flowed into the development of humanity in our modern times, and which has created a vessel in this Theosophical Society, as we have created a vessel; and what about the fact that this vessel has emerged from Theosophy after all, and that it does not really fit in with this movement at the present moment? This is a question that, I believe, many of you are entitled to ask myself, so to speak. For some might say: Why do you represent what you call the Theosophical movement within this society?

I cannot, because I don't want to take up much time, go into detail about what anyone can easily see when they examine the facts, namely that the way in which Theosophy is disseminated, as I do and as Baron Walleen meant, actually has very little to do with what we call the Theosophical Society. Anyone could easily see this for themselves from the facts of recent years. For what of all that has happened and of which Baron Walleen has spoken depends on the, well, let's say central points of what is called the Theosophical Society?

'Even the most rigorous scrutiny would find very little that has flowed out of the Theosophical Society for the movement that is meant here. In a sense, this question can only be answered historically. I have already done so for individuals and would like to point out a few purely factual aspects here. From these facts, everyone can then draw their own conclusions as to what they need to assess the issues at hand.

Firstly, I have already given the theosophical lectures here in Berlin, which were then published in a brief outline in my Mysticism in the Awakening of Modern Spiritual Life. I have also given theosophical lectures of a different nature in these or also given other kinds of theosophical lectures in these or those circles, and also – at the request of theosophists and non-theosophists – a part of those lectures that led to the book 'Christianity as Mystical Fact', without my even being registered in the Theosophical Society at that time. That means that for me, nothing depended on being enrolled in the Theosophical Society or not in order to practice Theosophy as I practiced it.

Then people became aware of this fact [that I was not a member of the Theosophical Society]. And at that time I got to know a person, Fräulein von Sivers, who has remained connected to this kind of theosophical movement [as advocated by me] ever since, but who had joined the Theosophical Society much earlier than me. And at the time when Miss von Sivers was already a member, but I was not yet, we had a conversation in which she asked why I did not join the Society. And I answered in a long discussion, the content of which was: It will always be impossible for me to belong to a society in which such a theosophy is practised, which is permeated to such an extent by misunderstood oriental mysticism as the case of the Theosophical Society; for it would be my profession to recognize that there are more significant occult impulses for our present time, and that it would be impossible, with this knowledge, to admit that the Occident has something to learn from this orientalizing mysticism. What I have to represent would expose itself to a false judgment if I were to say: I want to be a member of a society that has orientalizing mysticism as its shibboleth. That was the content of that conversation.

Then another fact arose - and I only relate facts and leave the judgment of them to you. I gave those lectures on “Mysticism in the Dawn of Modern Spiritual Life,” which soon appeared in a considerably abridged form in book form. This book was in turn published in extract form in the then-published journal The Theosophical Review, which was edited by Mrs. Besant and Mr. Mead. The extract, or actually the review of this book, which Mr. Keightley gave at the time, is somewhat different from the translation he has now [1911] provided. I define this fact, and I defined it at the time, as meaning that the Theosophical Society did not demand anything from me, did not demand that I should have anything in common with any tenets, principles or dogmas that were to be advocated, but rather accepted something that was given from outside, from me. So it was the most kindly invited that could be given.

Then further facts emerged. The prospect of founding a German section had arisen. Now, due to what had happened, there was simply a kind of connection between the Theosophical Society and me, in that the movement expressed itself in the Society. This led to the fact that while on the one hand the tendency existed to establish a German section, on the other hand the then leader of the “German Theosophical Society” [in Berlin], which was a branch in the [European section] of the general Theosophical Society, made me the proposal to accept me into the society and at the same time to become the chairman of the “German Theosophical Society”. This meant that I was not joining a society, but that I was entering it to give what was not previously in it, what it did not have before. I never made any request to become a member of the Society, but said to myself: if the Society wants me, it can have me. I also took the precaution - and this also has an external aspect - of freeing myself from all payments. I paid nothing. I was then sent the free diploma from England, and at the same time I was president of the German Theosophical Society. If I could speak in more detail, I would show that it was a necessary consequence to continuously acknowledge this fact, that I never wanted anything from the society and had no need to take on any of its principles and dogmas, but that it was agreed that they wanted something from me.

Then the establishment of the German Section took place, with much hesitation and fear, with terrible discussions, I will spare you the details. At that time, a personage who has since left the Society was also a mediator of karma. Much could be said about this in an occult context. It so happened that Mr. Richard Bresch, the then chairman of the Leipzig branch, after conferring with various personalities, came to Count Brockdorff one day and said: Now that Dr. Steiner is already chairman of the Berlin lodge, he can also be general secretary of the German Section. Now all kinds of necessities arose for this application to become chairman of the German Section to be accepted, and I will summarize all these necessities for you in a few words so that you can recognize them as such:

First: the necessity to represent Theosophy in the way it is meant here and to bring it into the world.

Second: the other necessity, not to make things too difficult for those who should work, because we started in very small circles.

Now, in line with much of what has happened on occult ground at all times, I had to say to myself: This society, with all that has developed in it, is actually only an obstacle to the theosophical movement. And I believe that Miss von Sivers still remembers how I took this view in a conversation about Schur and his relationship to H. P. Blavatsky. In this conversation, I thoroughly discussed with the person closest to me how much of an obstacle this society is for the movement. The other thing I had to say to myself is what had to happen in many periods on occult ground in order to cope with resistance: you absorb it, you take it into your own body, and in that way it is in a sense eliminated. Those who were in the movement in Germany at the time will be able to confirm that we would have faced the most incredible obstacles from society in those years if we had not become that society ourselves. We would not have had time enough to carry out everything that was necessary at the time to clear the obstacles piling up on all sides and to fill the movement with positive content. It would have been impossible not to go with society. Because you must not forget that the concentration of obstacles, as they are now occurring at first at one point – there will be others, but that does not matter – which were represented within society by two people in particular, that these obstacles and then the much chatter of brotherhood were spread in the widest circles; it shot up everywhere. And you see, the same thing happened to me methodically with one person [Hugo Vollrath], but at that time it happened to an entire society; namely, that exactly the opposite of what I told them was put forward and spread in the form of brochures. That was the method within the various societies that had developed through the principle of society itself.

In the same year that I had been admitted to the Theosophical Society, where I had been made chairman without a vote – there was no such thing at the time – there was a congress in London of the European sections, to which the German section was just about to be added. There I had a conversation with Mr. Mead in the presence of Mr. Keightley, which mainly revolved around my “mysticism,” which he had learned from Keightley's presentation. At that time, Mr. Mead's words came up - I have to mention them as a fact, because it is enlightening: “Your book contains the whole of Theosophy.” Of course, in such a thin book, not all of Theosophy is contained. In such a case, it means: it contains that from which the whole of Theosophy can arise as a consequence. Basically, everything that has since been secreted away is contained in my “Mysticism”. I would like to tie the question to this: does it not lie in this saying that one might assume that this particular current of theosophical intellectual life will be met with longing? Because if one says, “the whole of theosophy lies in it,” then a surprising amount is said.

After this pronouncement, it was reasonable to assume that the Theosophical Society might gradually develop into a framework that could be used for what was said in London: “That is where the whole of Theosophy is to be found.” For nothing that is currently said “No” to in the Theosophical Society is even remotely in this book.

So you can see that there was a necessity to act as we did at the time. From the most occult point of view, this can be justified; for the Theosophical movement, which we mean, has indeed succeeded in preparing the Theosophical ground that we were able to prepare for it. Without this having happened at the beginning, none of the following could have happened.

Actually, it is nonsense for me to say this, because I could say the opposite: in order for everything that happened to happen, it had to be done the way it was done.

Over the years, I have tried hard to create an understanding for everything that arises as a kind of consequence of feelings and emotions. No one, if they analyze conscientiously, will be able to say that I have treated society differently than in terms of the consequences of the facts at the time. And something else has emerged. This emerged clearly and distinctly in the beautiful words of our friend Baron Walleen, that since that time, not within our movement, but outside of it, circumstances have changed. Nothing has changed within our movement at all, but everything has been carried out step by step. I will cite facts here again.

Take the situation of the Theosophical Society as it was at the time I became General Secretary of the German Section. At that meeting in London I also met Mrs. Besant, and at the second congress, a year later, I met Colonel Olcott. I mention this because it is necessary to emphasize that nothing emerged from any of the facts that took place at that time other than a confirmation of the view that we represent Theosophy in our way. Olcott said at the time that he was quite surprised to see me – that was a fact that made me think a little for a moment – he said that, having known about me for a year and a half, he had expected me to be at least as old as he was.

The facts that had taken place up to that point were such that every time obstacles arose, they always existed in the most diverse things, but they often took on those forms that this or that person said: “We cannot join the Society because everything is dictated to it from Adyar, it has an autocratic principle.” I always said to people – and this is one of the consequences that arise from the conditions: I find it unfounded that people in the German Section talk like this, because I treat the “Ukases” of Adyar in such a way that I put one down and leave it one by one, and otherwise do what seems right to me. And I told Colonel Olcott during our first conversation, even at the risk that he would have preferred to hear it from a man of the same age, that I would proceed in this way so that he would not be left in the dark. I have always spoken warmly of Olcott, because he truly was the ideal founder of such a society. He immediately understood every impulse of freedom and never opposed such a thing; it did not even occur to him. He did not talk much about such things, but when someone wrote to him, the General Secretary of the German Section put the ukases of Adyar down one after the other and ignored them, he also put down such a letter of complaint and ignored it. You see, it was excellent to work at that time. Then, little by little, different times came. And you see, I am not really talking about what is somehow represented as a doctrine; nor am I talking about the fact that it should have seemed important that the program of my mysticism should have been taken into account to a greater extent, but I am talking about the fact that it happened. Then, little by little, other things happened. It would be going too far to relate all the other things that happened. I would have to start with the fact that Olcott died, and that something happened even then, which can certainly be interpreted as being in line with the spirit of the Theosophical Society, but which is extremely difficult to subject to such an interpretation. Briefly, I can say that it was spread from Adyar that at the time of Olcott's death, the Masters had appeared and determined who should be Olcott's successor.

Now there are two ways of looking at such things; I am not talking about the substantive view. One possibility would be to say that it is absolutely necessary in all circumstances, regardless of how one views the content, to keep this fact to the very inner circle and not to talk about it in society. The other possibility is to talk about this fact. In that case, such a fact naturally gets passed from mouth to mouth and cannot be contained. That is how it happened.

Even if no personality has done anything against the spirit of the Society, even if no personality can be reproached – for Mrs. Besant had the right to think as she liked and to act accordingly, thus to use this manifestation and in this sense to lead the Society – it is still a fact that since that time we in the Society have no longer stood on healthy ground. That is also a fact.

What our friend Walleen said refers to the judgment of outsiders who may wonder whether they want to join or not. What I am saying now refers to the internal, to the ground on which we ourselves stand. It was no longer healthy soil, and from then on the question was no longer resolved as to whether one can be within society at all, or whether one should not leave. You know that many people around the world have left, for example, one of the most outstanding of them being Mr. Mead. Since that time, we have no longer stood on solid ground – for a variety of reasons – and it is certainly only since that time that the outside world's judgment of society has become as negative as

it is now. For since that time, the strangest things have happened, which do not in fact belong to the administration of the Society, but which bear the signature of the Society. Various things happened: first there was the Leadbeater case, but not the case as such. Those who know my position will know that I have taken the view that As a personality, Leadbeater must be defended to the greatest extent. The only bad thing about the Leadbeater case is that it was also attributed to the Society. That was the second time that I emphasized: One can no longer work with this Society. It is also known, through indiscretions, that Mrs. Besant first personally condemned Leadbeater and then, after a short time, converted to him. This is a fact that has also been publicly included in the Society's signature. Now comes something that, strictly speaking, does not belong in the administrative affairs of the Theosophical Society either, but which, if I were to remain silent or fail to mention it today, could be interpreted as a kind of dishonesty.

Furthermore, to mention just one of many things that would lead us too far afield, Annie Besant said in Munich in 1907, in front of a witness [Marie von Sivers] who is prepared to testify to this at any time, that she was not competent in matters concerning Christianity. And so, at that time, she effectively handed the movement over to me, in as far as Christianity was to be incorporated into it. After Annie Besant had told me this, various things were done which, from this point of view, could have brought order into the Society. But at the time one could hear from many sides: Now Dr. Steiner has separated from Annie Besant; now there are two currents; this brings discord into the Society. - That made people wonder. And now a peculiar method began to be put into practice, which consisted of actually reversing the matter. And since that time, reversing the facts has been rampant in a strange way. It is difficult to make it understood what this reversal means. At the time, people said: Yes, many people will leave because of the disunity! The truth was that many people would have left if this so-called disunity had not occurred. They only remained because that current left in a completely socially legal way after Annie Besant had made that agreement. Another fact is this, which suddenly emerged two years later, in 1909. Please do not misunderstand, but accept this as a fact without any criticism, which should of course be presented as a fact in such a way that it is absolutely justified - in 1909 Annie Besant announced a lecture on the nature of Christ for various places. At that time it slowly emerged that the idea of a Christ coming in the flesh was also heard, and this idea became more and more powerful and finally developed into the one you know. And if recently the judgment of outsiders has become even less favorable, the story of the Christ coming in the flesh undoubtedly contributed to this judgment to a great extent.

Now a fact has been created – also in the wake of that fact [at Olcott's death] – which makes it seem impossible today to separate the purely administrative and the doctrinal. It is a fact that has brought about the impossibility of such a separation, and that is the fatal situation in which we now find ourselves in society as a whole. This is only a symptom, of course. You will have gathered from what I have said that I do not dispute that Mrs. Besant has the right to appoint whomever she wishes as her representative in matters concerning the “Star of the East.” Not only do I not dispute her right to do so, but I do not for a moment resent the fact that she has appointed Vollrath to this position. She is well within her rights to do so, because she is entitled to have a different opinion of Vollrath than I do. But that was not the point at issue, although I know for a fact that it will be mentioned in the near future, as if that were the case. Of course I don't see why someone who tells me I stole silver spoons can't represent something else; but the fact is that this has created the impossibility of representing the president, of standing by her side when she is doing so at this very moment when such a pamphlet is appearing. Because by doing so, one will have the right – if the President continues to be represented, even if one only says what is a fact, that one loves her – one will have the right to say to me: So, you are standing by Mrs. Besant, so you agree with her; you are a fine fellow! That is the fact of the matter; or one would have to say on the other side: Mrs. Besant does not know that. – But that is not true, because she knows the case very well. In a detailed letter, I had to inform Mrs. Besant of these facts in response to a letter she received from the other side [from Vollrath]. Besides, everyone would say: What about the judgment of this president you represent, if she does not realize that she cannot do that? – In other words, you are faced with an impossible situation. And we are faced with such situations all the time. This is now the signature of society.

I don't even want to talk about the Genoa Congress, which also means an impossible situation. But you see, when two people hold opposing views from a podium, as was the case in Budapest in 1909, this is possible in a society built on the equal right of opinions. But you cannot do otherwise within a society of people. I would like to ask you first: Imagine you are invited somewhere and you bring along someone who is extremely valuable to you. You attach great importance to bringing this person with you. You then arrive at the place where you are invited and the host says: I don't want to know anything about that person, it's none of my business. Yes, how should we understand such a thing? As a kind of insult to your personality. There is hardly any other way. If you introduce someone to someone else who is valuable to you, and the other person rejects them, it is not possible. Suppose it had come to the Genoese Congress: Then we would have been in this case. No matter what the others represented, we would not have had to reject out of hand, that is, ignore, a person that Mrs. Besant brought with her, and only because she saw something very special in him, and it was sufficiently ensured that we learned about this special thing. Any other possibility was excluded. We would have been forced to insult the president in this way. When you mix the things of society with the personal, the personal comes out. You can teach the opposite; but when you put people who are intertwined with it, you have the fact that society is radically driven into the personal. How does that fit with what Olcott once said: It is not about H. P. Blavatsky, not about me, but about the cause, personalities are not allowed to play a role there? - Is it right then, when personalities are presented as belonging to the teaching? Isn't that a breach of the principle of the society in the most unequivocal way? Yes - even if unconsciously. Likewise, when one represents the brotherhood in the way that has been criticized today. Where in the three points originally set out by H. P. Blavatsky and Colonel Olcott is it written that such fraternity should be practised, as people say in the Vollrath case, it would be in the first sentence? But it says that a “core” is to be formed, not a general mishmash, but the core of individually fraternally connected people who have the task of carrying Theosophy into the world. This is different from saying that one is primarily obliged to practice brotherhood. Brotherhood is something that can arise by itself, about which one remains chaste and silent; then it is most present. When one speaks of it loudly, then it is least present. But it is connected with all other things, so that this general stir-fry has gradually come about as a matter of our statutes.

You see, I have presented you with a few facts. But it was perhaps necessary to talk about these things in order to establish the opinion, to evoke the reasoned judgment, that we are now, after all, facing an extraordinarily important situation within society, without having done anything about it. And the only thing that is decisive for me, up to this moment, is that I know – not that you consider it justified for me to speak in this way, but I say it because it is decisive for me – that the individuals who are the leaders of our Theosophical Society are of the opinion that the Society should be maintained as long as possible! And that is what makes it difficult for me to recommend any immediate initiative to destroy society. One could say: Of course, the things that were there then are no longer there today – that would not be entirely correct – but on the other hand, it is true that we have something with this society that has arisen – not through us, because we did not come into it, but joined it – from the founding of the Theosophical movement of modern times. So that the destruction of the society as such is certainly not the right thing to do at this moment; but the right thing is the positive. And as far as this is concerned, it is more difficult to do than the negative, that is soon done, it only requires a resolution. But a positive requires actions that are not only at the starting point, but must continue to happen. That is the essential point that must be clear to us; and so it will be a matter of our coming to such things that are really positive, that is, that in a certain way gradually result in what is a realization of the fine word of Baron von Walleen: that content always creates the framework when the content is there. But it is always necessary to take the first step. It just seems to me that this is an extraordinarily important and significant matter, and that it should not be taken as lightly as it sometimes is. Therefore, I take the liberty of saying one thing already today: that tomorrow at eleven o'clock from this place I will be obliged to speak to you about a matter that already exists as such, that has already been established on particularly solemn occasions in recent times, but in such a way that it is intended to become a kind of common property in a very peculiar way. What can be announced in this direction will happen tomorrow. We will then see how the matter is intended.

Address by Rudolf Steiner at the General Assembly of the German Section of the Theosophical Society, Berlin, December 15, 1911 (morning)

Foreword by Marie Steiner to the private reproduction published by her in 1947 and entitled “A Future Impulse Given by Rudolf Steiner and What Came of It Initially”:

In view of the gravity of the times and the little that remains of our lives, it seems an urgent duty to salvage what can still be saved from Dr. Steiner's impulses and words. This includes some of the things he only spoke about in intimate circles in serious conversation at certain turning points in events about the further tasks and work goals of the movement he inaugurated. Transcripts are available, but not complete and comprehensive. Even if they contain gaps and perhaps some finer nuances are not captured in them, one can still well feel how varied the language is, corresponding to the assigned task, in each case vividly contoured and firm, or dissolving, letting a light shine through the language, which still has to be half-veiled because words are not enough. It covers it like a soft shroud, but through which the impulses can work that point to the future. He repeatedly placed in our souls the guiding forces for later action, seeds of the future that could unfold after surviving the sleep of the soul; all too often they were buried by the hustle and bustle of everyday life or swept away by the whirlwind of events. Among the souls that had been blessed with such seeds of the future, there were certainly some from which they would one day arise to new life and struggle; but there were also some that would be like the stony ground of the gospel parable, offering no nourishment to them at first. Not only nature, but also souls are subject to organic laws. Some of the spiritual influences that fall on them harden or corrupt them, while others prove to be full of germinating power and transform themselves into new forms of existence. The passage through death and the submergence into chaos, with its whirling, churning forces, guarantees the later resurrection of the spiritual impact through metamorphoses to higher levels of existence. In microcosm as in macrocosm, in earthly as in planetary existence, the law of transformation to new forms of existence prevails. By following this path and, depending on race and nationality, picturing and explaining it, religions have always climbed higher levels of knowledge, spanning the globe and, in keeping with the times, shining a light into the hidden depths. When a certain high point of this development had been reached and at the same time the danger of philosophical abstraction had arisen, when the old images and signs were no longer sufficient to capture the newly pulsating life, the Christian impact occurred, bringing the great turning point. But when it emerged from the darkness of the catacombs into the outer world, the danger of its consolidation into dogmas also began, and the driving living forces sought new paths. They found them in the secret societies that did not want to bow to the authority of the princes of the church and the decisions of the councils; now they were persecuted as heretics themselves. Their content, veiled from the outside world, was expressed in signs and symbols. They gave art a new slant, which first appeared in Gothic architecture; organic growth of the plant - to which stones were added. The new life also flowed into the names; these contained what the soul was to absorb as guiding forces in order to develop healthily before it achieved independence. But the education of humanity to independence, into which the newly awakened ego power had to pour, first demanded the passage through abstract intellectualism, which separated the souls from their spiritual source for a time, so that, passing through the cold of isolation, grasping the higher ego, they would be able to find themselves in the spirit. Knowledge of nature, divorced from spirit, no longer gives the soul the power to rise up. In order for this to be experienced and recognized, spirits had to break worlds. We now stand in the midst of shattered worlds; a new search for the solution to the riddle of fate has begun. Rudolf Steiner's life's work can provide answers to this searching and questioning. He mastered the scope of today's exact science; he can also reveal to us the spirit that is hidden behind it and was once shrouded in the old names. Through him we are able to divine the impelling forces that lie behind the names. Lifelines had been handed to us for the inevitably approaching shipwreck, but we were not mature enough to grasp and use them. The souls were not awake enough, were still caught up in the old ideas. The attempts made in social terms met with the strongest resistance from the outside world. We can be seized by a tremendous pain when we see how little we were able to make the teaching fruitful and be suitable instruments for the fire spirit of the helper sent in times of need. Standing on the ruins of shattered worlds, we must now try to bring the preserved and insufficiently fiery word to consciousness through the remaining traces of writing; by individual work, raising it to the human ego. Rudolf Steiner tried to lead us to freedom not only through the paths of philosophy and science, but also through education within the esoteric life, which would gradually transform the old relationship of dependency on the teacher into the impulse of freedom and responsibility before the spirit. Souls that feel anchored in the spirit must be tested. Such a self-sought test always precipitates karma; what would still prefer to remain hidden from itself must also come to light. Such tests often caused the failure of experiments by spiritual powers, brought about for profound cosmic reasons, which aimed to raise human development to a higher level. This was the case with the French Revolution, and also before the world wars of our century.

Rudolf Steiner first spoke of such future tasks to a very small circle of his students and tried to direct their souls to the significance of those distant tasks that must arise from human will freed from selfishness. He repeated these words before a larger circle at the General Assembly on December 15, 1911. This did not take place during the proceedings of the General Assembly itself; he declared that it was happening outside of its program. He began this address in a particularly solemn and impressive manner. This is perhaps the reason why the first part of the address is only noted down and not reproduced in his words. He emphasized that the content of this lecture was completely independent of everything that had been given before. It was, so to speak, a direct communication from the spiritual world. It is like a call that is brought to humanity, and then they wait to see what echo comes back to them. As a rule, such a call is made three times. If the call goes unheard the third time, it is taken back to the spiritual world for a long time. This call has already been made to humanity once, but unfortunately it found no echo. This is the second time. These are purely spiritual matters. With each unsuccessful time, the conditions and circumstances become more difficult. Continuing with what is preserved as a set of keywords in the postscript, he said:

My dear friends!

It is my duty at this moment to carry an intention from the inner circle of those who already know about it out into your wider circle. And before that happens, let me say a few words in advance. It should be emphasized, however, that what is said now has no connection with what has preceded in this General Assembly, or what otherwise somehow relates to the previous negotiations - which does not preclude, if there is a tendency to do so, to take it into account in later negotiations.

If we look around the world today, we will have to say: The present world is actually full of ideals. And if we ask ourselves, “Is the representation of these ideals on the part of those who believe in them and place themselves at the service of these ideals sincere and honest?” we will have to answer “Yes, that is the case!” in very many cases. It is the case precisely with that faith and devotion of which individuals are capable. If we now ask: “How much is usually demanded when such a representation of ideals is brought into being by someone or something, be it an individual or a society?” then, based on our observations of life, we will have to answer: “In most cases, everything is demanded, so to speak; but above all, it is demanded that the ideal that has been set up receive absolute, unconditional recognition.” And it is almost always the case that the very basis for the creation of such an ideal is the demand for the most absolute assent. And usually the failure of such assent is expressed in some disparaging criticism of the non-assenter.

These words are intended to characterize how the principle of the integration of people has emerged in a completely natural way in the course of human development, and no doubt is to be cast on the justification of such a principle at this moment. But here an opportunity is to be presented to you to add something to all that has been striven for in the world within the framework of the organization of people, societies, associations and so on, something that actually cannot be expressed in words, since what can be said can never be decisive for the correctness of such a thing. According to what a person is able to think, he can, at the moment when he expresses what he has thought, be forced by the very act of expression to fall into contradiction with reality. At this very moment, many things must be said that do not agree with much of what is valid in the world. So it must be said: It is possible that the confession of a thing can no longer be true when this confession is uttered. I would like to give a simple example from which you can see that there may be a danger of simply becoming untrue by uttering a thing. And I would like the simple, straightforward example I give to be understood in accordance with the Rosicrucian principles since the 13th century.

Let us assume that someone expresses their state of the immediate present by saying, “I am silent.” This is something that absolutely cannot be true, that they are not speaking the truth. But then, my dear friends, I ask you to realize that there is the possibility of negating this thing itself by literally confessing it. For from what is expressed here by the simple example of “I am silent”, you can conclude that it is applicable to countless things in the world and can happen again and again.

But what follows from such a fact? It follows that when people want to join together in any way to represent this or that, they are in an extraordinarily difficult position, that people cannot join together with the most precious thing they have, except when the reasons why they join together are such that they do not belong to the world of the senses but to the supersensible world. And when we understand what we have been able to assimilate over time from all that has been brought forth from modern occultism, we will realize that it is an absolute necessity for the near future to advocate certain things of this occultism, to carry them before the world. Therefore, in contrast to all the principles of societies and all the organizations that have been possible up to now, an attempt must be made with something completely new, with something that is born entirely out of the spirit of the occultism that is so often spoken of in our circle. But this can only be done by turning our attention for a change to something positive, something that already exists in the world as a reality and can be cultivated as such. But in our sense, realities are only those things that primarily belong to the supersensible world. For the whole sensual world presents itself to us as an image of the supersensible world. Therefore, an attempt will be made that is such as it must be made from the supersensible world: the attempt not to found a community of people, but to endow it.

I have emphasized the difference between founding and establishing on another occasion; it was many years ago. It was not understood at the time and since then hardly anyone has thought about this difference. Therefore, those spiritual powers that are represented by the symbol of the Rose Cross have so far ignored the fact that this difference has been carried out into the world.

But recently, and this time in an energetic way, an attempt must be made to see if it is possible to achieve success even with a community that is not founded but established. If this success is not achieved, well, then it has failed again for a while. Therefore, it shall be proclaimed to you at this moment that among those people who will find each other in the appropriate way, a way of working is to be founded that, through the manner of the foundation, has as its direct starting point the individuality that we have been designating as Christian Rosenkreutz since ancient times in the West. What can be said about this foundation today remains preliminary. For what has been founded so far relates only to one part of this foundation, which is to enter the world in a comprehensive sense when the opportunities arise. What has been founded so far relates to one department, to one branch of this foundation, namely to the artistic representation of Rosicrucian occultism.

The first point I have to communicate to you is that under the direct patronage of that individuality, whom we refer to by the name he gave to the outer world during his two incarnations, that under the patronage of this individuality, a working method is to be brought into being as a foundation. This method will initially be characterized by the fact that for some time, for the time being, it will bear the provisional name: “Society for Theosophical Art and Art”. This name is not the final one; a definitive name will take its place when the first preparations for launching this foundation into the world can be made in an appropriate manner. However, that which is to comprise the “theosophical art” is still completely in its infancy, because it is only now that the preparations for it are being made that could lead to an understanding of what is meant by it. But what can be grasped by the concept of the theosophical art has already begun in many ways through our attempts at the performances in Munich, and above all has made a significant start through the attempt at our site in Stuttgart and a further significant start in relation to the understanding of such a thing precisely through the establishment of the Johannes-Bauverein. All this is something that has been started. In this respect there is something that, having been tried out to a certain extent, may be sanctioned.

It is a matter of awakening a purely spiritual task within the working group, a task that will be exhausted in a spiritual way of working and in what results from such a spiritual way of working. And it is a matter of no one being able to become a member of this working group from any other point of view than solely through the fact that he has any will to use his powers for the positive side of the matter. You may say: I am speaking in many words that may not be fully understood. That must be the case with something like what it is about here, because the matter must be grasped in its direct life.

Now, what has already been achieved within this foundation is actually the fact that, according to purely occult principles, an initially very small, tiny circle has been created, which should see its obligation as being to contribute to what this is all about. This tiny group is initially designed to make a start on this foundation, in order to, in a sense, separate what our spiritual movement is from myself and give it its own, self-established existence, a self-established existence!

So that initially this small group comes before you with the sanction that it has received its task as such, by virtue of its own recognition of our spiritual current, and that it sees in a certain sense the principle of the sovereignty of spiritual striving, the principle of federalism and the independence of all spiritual striving as an absolute necessity for the spiritual future, and to carry it into humanity in the way he considers appropriate. Therefore, within the foundation itself, I will only be considered the interpreter, first of all, of the principles that, as such, only exist in the spiritual world, and of what is to be said in this way about the intentions that underlie the matter.

In contrast, a curator is initially appointed for the external care of this foundation. And since the offices that will be created first are associated with nothing more than duties, no honors, no dignities, it is impossible that any rivalries or other misunderstandings can arise immediately with the correct understanding of the matter. It will therefore be a matter of the foundation itself initially recognizing Fräulein von Sivers as curator. This recognition is no

different from that which is interpreted from within the foundation itself; there are no appointments, only interpretations: Fräulein von Sivers is interpreted as curator of the foundation. And it will be her task in the near future to do whatever can be done in the spirit of this foundation to recruit a corresponding circle of members for it - not in an external sense, but only in such a way that she will attract to herself those who have the sincere will to participate in this way of working.

In a broader sense, a number of side branches will be created within this one branch of our foundation. And individual personalities who have proven themselves within our spiritual movement will be appointed as leading personalities of these side branches, insofar as they already exist. This too is an interpretation for the time being, in the sense that the office of leadership of such an individual side branch is transferred to a personality. It is interpreted that there will be an archdeacon for each of these individual sub-branches. We will have a sub-branch for general art. It has been publicly announced that Fräulein von Eckardtstein has been appointed archdeacon for general art in a small circle – and this was done in express recognition of what this personality has done for this general theosophical art over the last few years. Furthermore, it was provisionally announced that the curator Fräulein von Sivers would be archdeacon for literature. It was also announced that our friend Dr. Felix Peipers would be archdeacon for architectural art; our friend Mr. Adolf Arenson would be archdeacon for musical art; and our friend Mr. Hermann Linde would be archdeacon for painting.

The work in question is essentially inward-looking, and for the first time what is to be presented to the world is work done in absolute freedom, particularly by these individual personalities. It will be necessary for those who belong to this way of working to come together in a certain way; this coming together will have to take place in a very different way than has been the case so far with any kind of organization. And we will need a supervisor of this union. To supervise this union, the position of conservator is created, which is initially given to Miss Sophie Stinde. The way in which the union is to take place will be linked to this union itself. All this still requires work in the near future; it will still have to be done. But in order for the type of union, in other words the principle of the organization, to take place, to be able to enter the world, we necessarily have a seal curator. Miss Sprengel has been appointed as the seal curator, while Dr. Carl Unger will be the secretary.

This is, for the time being, the small, tiny circle involved. Do not regard it as something that immodestly wants to step into the world and say, “There I am,” but regard it as something that wants to be nothing more than a germ around which the matter itself can organize itself. It will initially organize itself in such a way that by the coming Epiphany a number of members of this community will have been identified; that is, by then a number of members will have received the message that they are initially being asked to get their connection ready. So that for the very beginning the greatest possible freedom in this respect is to be secured by the fact that the will to become a member can come from no one other than the person concerned who wants to become a member. And the fact that he is a member is brought about by the fact that he is first recognized as such a member. This only applies to the very near future, only for the time until the next Epiphany, January 6, 1912.

So in this matter we have something before us that, through its very nature, betrays itself as something that flows out of the spiritual world. It will continue to present itself as flowing out of the spiritual world in that membership will always be based solely on the representation and recognition of spiritual interests and on the exclusion of everything, absolutely everything personal.

There is a deviation here from older occult principles, which is made in this proclamation, and this deviation consists precisely in the fact of this proclamation. Therefore, no use will be made of that claim, which might exist with a person if he were to say, by referring this to the present: “I am silent.” The matter is indeed proclaimed; and in full awareness that it is proclaimed, this should happen. But the moment someone shows that they do not understand today's proclamation in any way, it goes without saying that it cannot be suggested to them in any way to belong to such a way of working - I am not saying to a society or the like. Because there can be nothing other than the absolutely free will to belong to such a circle, to such a way of working. But you will see that if such a thing should come about - if, that is, our time, with its peculiarities, should allow such a thing to come about - then work can really be done in the sense of recognizing the spiritual principle; the principle that not only all nature and all history, but also all human activity entering the world, is based on the spiritual, supersensible world. And you will see that it will be impossible for any decent person to belong to such a community if he does not agree with this community as such. If you think that what has been said is rather strange, then please accept it as having been said with full

is that everything that belongs to the laws, to the eternal laws of existence, is observed. And it is also part of the eternal laws of existence that the principles of becoming are taken into account. My dear friends, you can sin against the spirit of what is supposed to happen here if you now go out into the

go out into the outside world and say, “This or that has been established.” Not only has nothing been established at all, but the fact is that it will not be possible to give a definition of what is to be done at any given hour, because everything is supposed to be in a state of continuous becoming. And what is actually to happen as a result of what has been said today cannot be described now, no definition or description can be given now, and anything that would be said about it would be untrue at this moment. For what is to happen is based not on words, but on people, and not even on people, but on what these people will do. It will be in a living river, a living becoming. And so today, too, nothing more is established as a principle than the one principle that consists of: recognition of the spiritual world as the fundamental reality.

All further principles are to be created in the process of development. Just as a tree in the next moment is no longer what it was before, but has begun to grow anew, so this matter is to be like a living tree. Never should that which this matter is to become be in any way compromised by that which it is. If someone were to define what has been designated as a beginning, as this or that reason, this or that thing out there in the world, then he would immediately succumb to the same untruth that lies in the expression “I am silent” when it refers to the state in which he is and uses the words “I am silent”. So anyone who uses these or those words in any way to characterize the matter is saying something that is not right in all circumstances. So first of all it is only important - because everything will be in the process of becoming - that the personalities who want something like this come together. It is only important that those personalities who want something like this come together. Then the matter will continue! From all that has been said, you can see that the matter will then continue. It will differ in its deepest principle from that of the Theosophical Society. For not a single one of the characteristics that have been expressed today can apply to the Theosophical Society.

I had to speak about this matter for the simple reason that those things which are organically connected with this foundation have already come before the public of our Theosophical Society, and because through this foundation – in the sense of intentions which truly do not lie in the physical world and which truly have nothing to do with Ahriman - an ideal-spiritual counterweight must be created against everything that is connected with a foundation in the outer world. Only in this respect can a relationship be seen with what is already there, so that this branch of our foundation, the branch for theosophical art, should achieve something that is a counterweight to what is linked to Ahriman on the physical plane.

It is hoped that an excellent example will be set by the existence of this branch of our foundation - and the other branch will serve in a corresponding way - because what is to figure as art within the theosophical movement, if we use that expression today, must actually flow into our culture from spiritual worlds. It must be the case that spiritual life is the basis of everything we do. It will be impossible to confuse this spiritual movement with any movements that come from the outside world and also call themselves a “theosophical movement” and want to participate. It is essential that the spiritual is the basis of everything we do. This was indeed attempted at the festival in Munich, in the building of the Lodge in Stuttgart – within the limits of what is possible under present conditions – but everywhere it was attempted in such a way that the spiritual moment was the determining factor. That is the conditio sine qua non, the condition without which nothing should happen (gap in the transcripts).

Those who have already gained some insight into what is at stake will understand me in this regard. These words are said less because of the content than because of the guidelines that were to be given.

Postscript by Marie Steiner to the reproduction she edited:

When no further nominations were announced after the end of the year and the next Epiphany, a member of the audience asked Rudolf Steiner when this would happen. He replied: “The fact that this has not happened would also be an answer.

The year 1912/13 was overburdened by the disputes with Annie Besant, her proclamation of the new Messiah and her “Star of the East” now also active in Germany.

The followers of the Western spiritual movement inaugurated by Rudolf Steiner demanded that the president make a precise statement in the disputes that were taking place, in accordance with the agreements reached in Munich and Budapest, instead of her evasion, her hiding and acting behind her back. This demand was taken up by the “Bund”, which was founded around 1912 with members from many countries, and in 1913 the Anthroposophical Society was founded after the expulsion of the German section by the president of the Theosophical Society.

Meanwhile, the nomination of the intimate circle had led to further work in some areas: in the Johannesbau Association, in the completion of the Stuttgart Society House, and in the so-called Art and People's Rooms in Munich and Berlin, an initiative started by Miss Sophie Stinde. The most outstanding spiritual publication was the Soul Calendar, the result of a collaboration between Dr. Steiner and Fräulein von Eckardtstein; the wonderfully transparent nuances of the language here really do allow spirit and soul to flow into each other and become one with nature. Many other things sought a quiet unfolding into the future. But the world war came, and with it the associated upheavals, which deeply affected the external circumstances of life and the mutual relationships of the members belonging to the most diverse nations in Dornach.

They tried to overcome the surging of the blood as best they could, but every now and then there were shocks and derailments.

The most exciting crisis for Dornach was that of the summer of 1915. Dr. Gösch, a typical pathologist and representative of psychoanalysis, came to the fore. He persuaded himself that the Seal-keeper had opened his eyes to promises that Dr. Steiner made and did not keep. He set this out in a brochure using psychoanalytical methods. At the same time, he wrote a letter to Dr. Steiner in which he developed his theories on the basis of the “revelations” made to him by the Keeper of the Seal. The Keeper of the Seal could not have understood the task assigned to her by this name other than in a very personal sense. She felt that she was the inspirer of the spiritual teaching given by Dr. Steiner to humanity. Since she had also played the role of Theodora in Rudolf Steiner's mystery dramas in Munich, she drew from this the conclusion that the marriage vows given to her were symbolically given and that she had been waiting for their fulfillment for “seven years”. Her many accusatory letters, revolving around this point, gave Dr. Gösch the opportunity to compile a psychoanalytical treatise in the Freudian sense to elucidate her case. He himself had been given Freudian treatment for a long time due to his morbid nervous condition, which had deeply infected his being. His open letter of accusation has now given rise to numerous, strictly and precisely conducted negotiations within the Society, through which the membership should gain clarity about this case. Transcripts of these are available and also provided the basis for the book published as a special edition of the journal “Anthroposophie” in Stuttgart: “Anthroposophie und Psychoanalyse”.

We shall mention here only what relates to the case of Sprengel – alias Proserpina – alias Theodora – alias Siegelbewahrer (Keeper of the Seals), and which in her case took on such a mystically personal form as megalomania. Of course, even before the war she had already shown symptoms of self-arrogance. This unfortunate megalomania put paid to the possibility of further nominations to the circle of eight personalities. One stone had been lost through egoistic arrogance and a descent into mysticism.

The Keeper of the Seal broke the seal in the most ordinary human sense. The necessity of involving women as active collaborators in the cultural tasks of the future is undeniable and will have to be achieved despite the failure of these efforts in individual cases. This is what happened to us with the Keeper of the Seal.

Dr. Steiner expressed himself about this case in a speech during the so-called crisis of 1915 in the following way:

The circle of nominees, as an inner esoteric matter, was shattered; outside the world war raged; in Dornach, despite the external circumstances, the practical work continued no less intensively. With the conscription of so many artists and helpers, the burden of the work fell heavily on the women. Only a few men had been able to stay behind, including Hermann Linde. But the women stood their ground. From early morning, the hammering and chiseling could be heard in the construction of the precious wood, which grew out of the concrete substructure, up to the vaulting domes. The organically moving forms grew out of the outer and inner walls, warmed and undulated by the human hand that furrowed them. In the interior, the columns rose with their bases and capitals, their architraves, at the end of which the two domes joined together, thus separating and connecting the symbolism of the soul's experience from that of the cosmos at the same time.

The painters and their helpers were grouped around Hermann Linde. Dr. Steiner had designed the motifs for the painting of the domes, and we have these images in the reproductions by Alinari. With diligence and zeal, new grounding possibilities were tried out, through which the effect of the plant colors could unfold into radiant luminosity; a group of helpers eagerly ground the plants from which the new colors for the dome painting were to be created. The programs designed for the weekly eurythmy performances provided an opportunity to develop personal imagination and to train in the templates designed by Dr. Steiner for this purpose.

In Germany, the field of work assigned to the circle-bursting seal keeper had very soon found a more than adequate replacement in the person of Miss Bertha Meyer. During the months we spent in Germany during the war, she was often able to come from Bremen to Berlin to perfect her knowledge of the art of jewelry, in which she had a technical command, through the advice of Dr. Steiner. The extensive gem collection of a member who had returned from the Orient provided a happy opportunity for new inspiration. Stones were selected from it whose luminosity and inner substance were to be particularly emphasized by a setting corresponding to their nature and material. It was a strange experience to let your hand glide through their abundance and to feel the penetration of their powers into your own etheric body through the cool trickling of the stones. This grasp into the coolness of the stone kingdom and the almost exciting glow of the metal melting in the fire, especially of gold, brought the elementary nature of the forces of nature forcefully to consciousness.

The seals sketched by Dr. Steiner for the mystery plays provided the basis for the spiritual study of this predestined keeper of the seals, who left us so many exemplary works of art. Death snatched her from us at the moment when a place for her work, a 'Kleinodienschule', could have been established in Dornach. The formative forces of eurythmy, which is carried and moved by the etheric impulses, and of the musical art that seeks new paths in connection with it, also tested themselves through these seals. They now wanted to go beyond the inner experience of major and minor, beyond the fifth, to catch a glimpse of the original forces in the tone to which they owe their existence, thus feeling their way towards the lost word.

The new architectural style created by Dr. Steiner, which had absorbed the movement of the plant kingdom and did not close itself off from the outside world but opened itself wide to it, had to remain true to this principle in the treatment of his glass windows as well. A flood of colors had to stream into the room; their basic tone, differentiated according to the rainbow but each kept uniform, brought the floating and weaving of the intersecting light colors into the room. The delicacy of the nuances was intensified by the different densities of the glass that resulted from the grinding and etching of the motifs into the glass material; their spiritual content related to the path of initiation of the human being into the future. While the motifs of the large and small dome traced the macrocosmic and microcosmic path of human development to its self-fulfillment.

The art of black and white in a newly defined line by Dr. Steiner developed alongside that of penetrating into the world of creative colors. And all these artistic possibilities, arising from the most diverse elements, came to life in the art of the spoken word, of speech formation, which allowed the original forces of the lost “word” to be sensed and grasped to a certain extent. Through the little that has been achieved in this way, through rigorous work, something of what Dr. Steiner had described as the task of the spiritual movement he had inaugurated could be realized: to allow the forgotten spiritual current surrounding Goethe and Schiller to flow again into culture in a new and living way.

We have lived in the abundance of the impulses we have received. He himself was snatched from us by death in 1925. With death, he had to pay for the immeasurable wealth of his gifts. We have been invigorated and sustained by his inspiring spiritual power. Through suffering and trial, through stupefaction and moral obscurity, we must now seek the paths to inner freedom and independence, for which he wanted to awaken an understanding in us. May we be granted to find it.

The Munich Congress, the fourth – after Amsterdam, London and Paris – should in a certain respect be a stage in the development of our Theosophical movement. It will create a kind of connection between the different nations, also in relation to our Theosophical cause within Europe. I do not want to give a proper report of the congress today, but just a few remarks for those who could not attend.

It should show one thing that I have emphasized over and over again with regard to our Theosophical cause – it should show that Theosophy should not be just a matter of personal brooding and introspection. The Theosophical cause should intervene in practical life, should be a matter of education, a matter of becoming immersed in all branches of practical existence. Only those who have a deeper understanding and a deeper concept of the actual impulses of the theosophical cause already know today what possibilities this 'theosophy will offer in the future. It will be the harmony between what we see and look at and inwardly feel. For those who can see more deeply, an important reason for the distraction of people lies in the disharmony between what is and what Theosophy wants. Not only Theosophists have felt this, but also other important natures, such as Richard Wagner.

In earlier times, every door lock, every house, every structure was a structure of the soul. Soul substance had flowed into it. In ancient times, the work of art belonged to human feeling and thinking. The forms of Gothic churches were in ancient times corresponding to the mood of those who made the pilgrimage to the Kitchen. They were the expression of their own spiritual mood. Those who made a pilgrimage to the church felt at that time that the forms were like the folding of hands, just as the ancient Teuton felt in the folding of the trees a folding of hands. In those times, everything was more familiar to people. You can still see this wonderfully expressed in Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci. The gathering of the entire village around the church was nothing more than an expression of the life of its soul. The whole ether currents gathered at the place where the church stood. The materialistic age has cleft all that. Those who cannot contemplate life do not know that. But the seer knows that today, when you walk through a city, there is almost nothing to see but things that concern the stomach or the obsession with cleanliness. He who can follow the secret threads of life also knows what materialistic culture has brought to this cleft. A recovery of the outside world can arise from the fact that it becomes an expression of what our most inner soul moods are. One cannot immediately reach for the most perfect, but an example of this was given in Munich. The theosophical world view was expressed in the room. There was nothing but theosophy to be seen. The whole hall was decorated in red. There is often a great misunderstanding about the color red, but the red could not be mistaken in its deeper meaning.

The development of humanity is a process of ascent and descent. Look at the original peoples. They live in a natural environment of green. And what do they love most? Red. The occultist knows that red has a special effect on the healthy soul. It releases the active forces in the healthy soul, those forces that inspire action, those forces that are to move the soul from the comfort into the discomfort of doing. A room with a festive atmosphere must be papered in red. Anyone who papers a living room in red shows that they no longer know what a festive atmosphere is and profane the red color. Goethe has said the most beautiful words about such things: “The effect of this color is as unique as its nature. It gives an impression of both seriousness and dignity as well as of grace and charm. It does this in its dark, condensed state, and in its light, diluted state. And so the dignity of age and the loveliness of youth can be clothed in one color.”

These are the moods that are triggered by red; moods that can be proven in an occult way. Look at the landscape through a red glass and you get the impression: this is how it must look on Judgment Day. Red makes you happy about what man has achieved in his further development. Red is an enemy of retarding moods, of sinful moods.

Then there were seven column motifs for the time when a building could also be built for Theosophy. The motifs of the columns are taken from the teachings of the initiates, from ancient times. Theosophy will have the opportunity to give architecture truly new column motifs. The old columns have actually no longer meant anything to people for a long time. The new ones relate to Saturn, the Sun, the Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter and Venus. The laws were expressed in the capitals. Between the columns we had placed the seven apocalyptic seals in the Rosicrucian manner. The Grail seal has been revealed to the public for the first time.

Theosophy can also be built: it can be built in architectonics, in education and in the social question. The principle of Rosicrucianism is to introduce the spirit into the world, to do fruitful work for the soul. We will also succeed in elevating art to a mystery art, for which Richard Wagner had such a great longing. An attempt has been made in Edouard Schuré's mystery drama. Here Edouard Schur has tried to recreate the Greek mystery plays.

The program showed the festive color red and bore a black cross with roses entwined in the blue field. Rosicrucianism carries forward into the future what Christianity has given. The initials on the program reflect the basic ideas.

The underlying intention was to crystallize theosophy in the construction of the world.

The subject of our study today will appear at first comparatively remote; nevertheless, these things can interest us in a certain sense even for our everyday life. The motif of today's lecture will be what is called by a name borrowed from ancient times; namely, Chaos. What this word really refers to lies even beyond what we understand as Heaven. Not only the wonderful old Grecian myth speaks of Chaos when it says that the most ancient Gods were born out of the Chaos; the legends and myths of other nations, too, are acquainted with this Chaos, albeit under a different name. In the Norse Saga we find it designated as Ginnungagap, the Yawning Abyss, from which there arises on the one hand the cold Niflheim, and on the other hand, the hot Muspelheim. The beginning of the Bible also refers to it in the words: “In the Beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth; and the Earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the waters. Then there resounded the Word of the Godhead: “May Light become.” And it became light. And the Godhead perceived the Light and perceived that it was beautiful, and severed the World of Light from the World of Darkness.”

“The earth was without form and void”—these are only other words for the Chaos out of which the highest Spiritual Beings are born. What is the Chaos? With these old words for very lofty concepts things have taken a strange course in human evolution. For a long time past men have lost the right feeling and right conception of them; they no longer know what was meant when such words were said. The materialistic age scarcely has words any more to truly characterize what underlies such concepts as of Chaos. Indeed, many words have assumed quite a different meaning. Formerly it was different; the word corresponded to the spiritual meaning of the object; that is to say, to the concept. Our words today have been divided and distributed, so to speak, into so many materialistic meanings, referring, as they do, to the outer and material objects. They are no longer applied to the spiritual meaning. Whoever hears a word today applies it to what it represents in the sense world, and no longer thinks of relating it to the Spiritual World. Among the manifold reasons for the founding of this spiritual movement is one that is connected with the transmutation of the word. If this spiritual movement, this spiritual stream, did not find entry into the world before the end of this century, such a movement would probably be quite impossible in a hundred years' time. We have just been able to catch at the favourable conditions. Why so? In a hundred years' time it would be no longer possible at all to express in the words of ordinary language the ideas of super-sensible facts in their true nature. We should no longer understand them, for the words are more and more assuming the character where they can only be applied to material things and conditions. So it would gradually have come about that people would no longer understand the spiritual teachings at all, because everything would at once be applied to the material world. Spiritual knowledge must bring about an actual renewal of language. The words must be given a new stamp; new values must be lent to the words once more. Men must once more gain the feeling that there is something inherent in these words, that certain words intend something that points to higher worlds. It is the task of this spiritual movement to carry up into the higher worlds not only deeds, but words. In former ages this was done; and we must try to find again the feelings of those human beings who were far more directed to the non-material ideas—far more attracted to the Spiritual World than the feelings of our time.

It is very interesting to take up an old book and enter into it, and transplant one's feelings into such an ancient work, and read out of it the spirit of the author. Take, for instance, the Physica by Amos Comenius, who lived from 1592–1671. His Physica are physics of which the man of today will not be able to make very much in his way of thinking. He speaks of physical things, yet always referring to the spiritual background of spiritual forces and beings. Many things are described in this book, which were objects of real knowledge at that time. Comenius, the great educationist and thinker of the 17th Century, not only comprised all the knowledge of his time, but developed deep and original thoughts of his own on men and events, and discovered deep spiritual relationships. He is a remarkable and very strange personality.

In the 14th and 15th centuries there were quite a number of such people. In that time the Rosicrucian Order was founded; it guarded and preserved the occult secrets in their form for the New Age. Originally it consisted of seven members only. Down to our own times it has secretly carried on and handed on the great occult teachings. No one in the outer world ever discovered anything about Rosicrucians—no one who was not a Rosicrucian himself; no one could write about it. Whatever has been published on it is either quite unreliable, or if correct, came out of betrayal. Only today has the time come when something of the teachings of the Rosicrucians can be published and can be communicated to the world in general. But there are, and there were in those times, many ways and means of letting such spiritual movements flow into the general life of culture. It was, for instance, through such an influence, from a secret Rosicrucian stream, that Lessing said at the conclusion of his essay, The Education of the Human Race, that man is born again and again in the world: “Is not the whole of Eternity mine?” For one who knows, this is a sign that something of the Rosicrucian Movement worked upon Lessing, albeit in a way of which he himself remained unconscious, when he wrote these words on reincarnation. There are, in fact, many ways and means whereby this influence was poured out on men without their even knowing it. Nor does it matter if the work that is done, the influence that is wielded, is or is not attached to a name. Nowadays lawsuits are enacted against the stealing of thoughts, of the spiritual property of others. Lawsuits against plagiarism were never instituted by the Rosicrucians. They did not mind what the personal source was from which such things went out; the main thing was that they came into the world. It is a vicious custom of our time to institute legal proceedings against the stealing of thoughts.

Amos Comenius, the great educationalist, was among those who possessed higher knowledge as a result of a high spiritual development, and who, in consequence of the Rosicrucians, raised himself into the higher worlds by a strong and energetic will. It is very useful for mankind to enter into the thoughts of Comenius. Likewise it is useful to enter deeply into the thoughts of John van Helmont, a contemporary of Amos Comenius, who was also a Rosicrucian.

We all of us are familiar with the word which many people believe to be very old—the word ‘gas’. Many people today are only familiar with it as the gas we use for lighting. But we know from Physics that most substances can be transformed into gas. Without further thought one might imagine that the word was as old as any other. Gas and ‘gaseous’ were unknown concepts before the time of Comenius and Helmont. Helmont was the first; he invented the word ‘gas’. It was in 1615 that he wrote the work in which this word first occurs.

When one uses a new word, one must have some definite occasion to do so. Helmont was the first to give to mankind the idea, the concept of a gas which is current today. What occasion had he for the concept of a gas? When you heat water, and cause it to evaporate, water vapour or steam arises in the first place. Steam is not yet a gas; it is something you can still see with your eyes. It is the same substance which was formerly there in the water, divided there into finer particles. You can divide the great majority of substances into vapour. But you can heat them still further. By further heating you can get a condition where the substance is no longer visible; it passes over into quite another form. This new condition, the vapourous state in a higher form of development, is what we call the gaseous state; it is a vapourous condition at a higher level of temperature. Helmont, who was also a Rosicrucian, worked like Comenius, and with similar results. Before the Rosicrucians Helmont and Comenius, the gaseous state was unknown in this form. It was in the case of carbonic acid gas that Helmont first realized the nature of the gas. Helmont came to the idea that among the states of substance there is also the gaseous state, and in his work Ortus Medicinale we find the following sentence: “This spirit which was hitherto unknown, I will name with a new name: ‘Gas’.” We can learn a great deal from this sentence. Helmont calls what he describes as gas, “Spiritum”; that is, a Spirit. That is to say, the transparent substance he has constituted is for him the instrument for a spiritual being. He sees in it the expression for a spiritual being, and he calls this Spirit by a new name: Gas. He was well aware that when the gas was cooled, strange, cloud-like phenomena appeared. The gas became vapourous and watery again. To him the gas was a transparent and clear foundation from out of which something more dense and condensed arises. To him the gas was a parable in the sense of Goethe's saying: “Everything transient is but a parable.” Hence we can understand how much Van Helmont recognized in the process wherein a gas is cooled and condensed. Miniature worlds went forth from the gas, for Helmont. A human being who could feel in this way could also say: This unknown Spirit, I name “Gas.’ In contemplating this world he said to himself: How did all this that is here, originally come to be? Originally it arose from something that one cannot see, from out of which, however, as from a gas, the Universe was formed. Once upon a time, the whole Universe was Spiritum, purely spiritual. As the clouds of misty vapour are formed out of the gas, so out of the transparent, radiant, unclouded infinity of the Spiritual, all things that now exist emerged.

Already in primeval times and among primitive peoples we find good parables and comparisons for that which we have just described. Primitive peoples sometimes see even the material world still in a spiritual way. In the breath that flows from the mouth, that turns to steamy vapour by contact with the outer air, they see something arising out of the soul's nature, and condensing. This was regarded as a parable of the origin of the world out of the Spirit. The breath, for them, came from the inner being, from the soul; thus the whole world to them was the result of the outbreathing of the Godhead. This ancient idea contains quite another concept of Spirit than man has today. Space, to them, was not a great infinite void in which there is absolutely nothing, as it is to the man of today. For those who stood on the ground of Occult Science, space was the all-spreading spirit whose parable they saw in the unclouded gas. In it they saw the source from out of which all seeds of things are created, and spring forth through the Word of the original Divine Spirit. Not endless emptiness is space; space is originally Spirit. We are ourselves condensed space, for space is Spirit. If all things were dissolved again, seemingly there would be an endless void around us; but this apparent void would contain all things that have ever been. It is no empty nothingness. The visible world is space condensed. This was clear to Helmont, too; he knew the world foundation, the world origin, from out of which all beings are condensed. Van Helmont had this thought: the gas is very thin, transparent; the light goes through. You do not even divine its existence. But in relation to the world origin, even the gas is a condensation. Nevertheless, one can understand, one can conceive the cosmic origin thereof. You can gain an idea of the Spiritual if you imagine that the gas is itself a vapour of the Spirit, just as the steam is vapour of the gas. With this conception in his soul, Van Helmont said: “I have described this vapour by the name ‘gas;’ it is not far removed from the Chaos of the ancients. Helmont coined the word ‘gas’ from the word ‘chaos.’ It is an extremely interesting connection in the world order. We are thus led by Helmont to a living conception of space, not empty and infertile like the concept of space for the man of today, but a concept of space appearing infinitely fertile, bearing countless seeds. The infinitude that is spread out is the seed from out of which we issue. Everything that is in the world is space condensed; it is the infinite Spirit who shows Himself to us in place of a mere empty space.

When we transplant ourselves into the condition of space (when space was still altogether spiritual) and we trace its condensation out of the laws of this space itself, then we shall clearly feel the beautiful words of the Bible: “In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth, and the Earth was without form and void, and the Spirit of the Godhead brooded and weaved over the depths.”

Imagine how originally the pure, spiritual transparent space was there. What happened in this pure transparent space? In this same space is also the extended gaseous air. As the thoughts that rise from our soul, when they are spoken in the word, bring the air around us into vibration, and every word shapes itself into forms in the air, quite silently and unseen by us, so did the Spirit of God hover over the waters. Into the waters the creating words of the Godhead were spoken. Now let us imagine the empty widespread cosmic space; fertile, rich in seeds, and resounding into it, the Word of the Godhead, working formatively into this space. Then we hear the words of the Bible. This Chaos, this cloud mist of the earth that was emerging was still waste and void: and the Spirit of the Godhead worked and wove, brooding thereover. First was the Spiritual World; then the Chaos revealed to begin with, in a kind of cloudiness, all that was to become. So do we recognize the depths of the religious documents. Human beings must gradually regain the feelings with which we understand such things.

But the Chaos works not only in the beginning of world evolution; it works on and on; it is present even today. Just as around us are the harmonies of the spheres, the harmonious heaven, so all around us is the Chaos, all things are permeated by it. It was the first and original foundation. Then it became cloudy; the seeds were formed; the shapes and forms arise; worlds were formed out of the Chaos. But just as when a gaseous mass condenses, something remains behind that works on between the single condensing particles, so likewise of the original Spirit something remained behind. And so the Chaos works on and lives on, along with the world. Everything is still permeated by the Chaos—every stone, every plant, every animal is permeated by the Chaos. Our soul and our Spirit are permeated with the Chaos. Such as he here is, the soul and the Spirit of man also partake in the Chaos.

This Chaos is at the same time the essential reason of the constant and ever-present fertility in nature. Let us take a simple example: the working of Chaos appears wherever animal excrements occur. The New Year's crop springs from the ploughed land, after manure has been put into it—manure which lends the land fertility and causes the crop to spring and thrive. What has happened in such a case? What was the manure, to begin with? The manure, too, was perhaps at one time a beautiful, marvelously-formed plant, an entity in the world that had also once been formed out of the Chaos. Then it served as nourishment for the animals, and the useless substances were excreted again. Now the manure mingles with the soil; it is a return of beings into Chaos. Chaos is working in manure, in all that is cast out; and unless, at some time or other, you mingle Chaos with the Cosmos, further evolution is never possible. The process we here have before us on its lowest level will enable us to rise to an understanding of the word ‘chaos’ with respect to higher realms. Cosmos cannot work alone. Everything in the Cosmos has grown from causes, from things that went before—not only all physical things, but intellectual and moral teachings, too, arise from causes that were planted once before.

It is Cosmos when a Goethe, a Schiller, a Lessing have done their work. When a schoolmaster comes and assimilates and passes on all the beautiful things that are found in the works of these great men, he can only do so because the causes are already there for him. But with the man of genius it is not so; he works out of the Chaos. New impulses, new entries into evolution, new concepts arise and begin to take effect. Genius is like a fresh spark; it is out of the ordinary just because a union there takes place between the Cosmos and the Chaos; thereby a new thing arises not connected with the laws of evolution that come from olden time. It enters in from other worlds like a Divine spark. Genius is the marriage of the past with the present, of the Cosmos with the Chaos. Hence the peculiar feeling and influence which the occult pupils of olden times experienced when the name ‘Chaos’ was spoken. It is only felt as merely waste and void by those human beings who stand entirely on the ground of what is working from the past. But something new must arise out of the Chaos; there must be a union with something new to work in this spiritual movement. This movement has arisen because mankind needs to be fertilized with a fresh spiritual seed; and we must realize that it is not a question here of carrying on and merely evolving existing things and past things, but that entirely new seeds must spring forth from the Chaos. He who would understand this movement must understand that in this movement we cannot work out of the Cosmos of our worthy forebears, but that new things must come into the world as if out of the Chaos. Thereby humanity is spiritually fertilized. Spiritual Science realizes concepts and ideas that are not taken from the past, as when the geologist, for instance, derives his knowledge from the past of our earth. For Spiritual Science the future form is the important thing. There are laws of the future that must flow out of the Chaos into the Cosmos. It is important for man to receive into himself ideas, feelings and impulses of will, taken directly from that form which the Spirit had, before it took shape out of the Chaos. Such ideas out of the Chaos, taken from the higher worlds, are the signs and symbols. Such symbols and signs were intended to be given to us among those things that underlie all occult science, all imaginative knowledge. In the Cosmos that is about to become, there are the Spiritual Beings. Out of the Chaos they work in upon the human soul in new impulses; new condensations arise and take effect.

That which is presented in the Seven Seals is not yet in the Cosmos, but it is in the Chaos. Out of the Chaos they work upon the human soul. If they work in the right way, then the Chaos works livingly, and leads the human being into worlds that lie beyond the Cosmos. This is what it means when the human being has recourse to such pictures. We feel the overwhelming influence of the Chaos that contains the seed of all things, when we let these things work upon us. Thus we can see how comprehensive the idea of Chaos is for anyone who understands it in the right way. It is the Chaos from out of which the physical arises. Whether it be the Greek Philosophy or the Bible, or the Indian Philosophy of the A-Chaos, the Akasha—all this shall remind us that that which was in the Beginning works throughout all time. To him who is bound to the sense world, the Chaos appears waste and void. But he who penetrates it in a spiritual sense can hear the harmonies of the spheres resounding through it. Today it is still possible for single human beings to get a feeling for some of these words that come from the spiritual world. Hence it is the time to speak of these things.

... What we were also responsible for in international terms was the holding of the Munich Congress. You were able to get an idea of our intentions from the design of the congress hall, the images of the seals and columns with which the hall was decorated, and the nature of the entire program. The intention was to make a start, to allow Theosophy to be more than just a collection of abstract dogmas, but to give it influence over the life that surrounds us. No one can be under the illusion that the way in which we have succeeded in harmonizing the entire organization of the congress was more than a weak beginning compared to what lives as Theosophical thought. But everything has to start somewhere. If the German Section has only shown what intentions could prevail at such a congress, shown how the life that lives in the soul can also be expressed in form, in art and in being together, then the German Section has done what it was able to contribute on this particular occasion. From such inspiration, the strength can arise that will gradually make it possible for the Theosophical Society to be not just a place for spreading these or those dogmas, but to intervene deeply in the whole life of the human being.

What also needs to be mentioned is the fact that the budgeted expenditure for the congress, which amounted to 4,500 marks, has been greatly exceeded. The congress has become all the more beautiful as a result. It is deeply gratifying to note that on this occasion in particular there has been such a spirit of understanding, especially in the German Section. We needed a lot of money; but it has been shown that where it matters to sustain the Theosophical life, there is also understanding and a willingness to make sacrifices. Therefore, there is no deficit to report.

No less emphasis should be placed on the deeply satisfying fact that those who were able to have worked in an incredibly dedicated manner. Everything that had to be done was done by our dear friends in Munich in a way that was not only dedicated but also thoroughly understanding, so that what is called Theosophical unity and harmony was most beautifully realized in this work. There was no one who was not willing to do the most demanding spiritual work alongside the most menial work, which is necessary at such a congress. People who had never done such work in their entire lives carried large items that were intended for this or that purpose; others hammered, others painted large columns; in short, it was all dedicated work. Donations ranging from the thousand-mark note to the ten-pfennig piece were collected. The administration, which had been taken over from Munich, was prudent in everything except the work that showed how real achievement, real cooperation, harmonizes people. We brought it to the point where the deeply satisfying performance of the Mystery Drama of Eleusis could take place. If you could realize what had to be done to make it happen, from the translation from the French to the sandals on the feet of the actors, who were all members and had to undergo weeks of rehearsals; if you knew how it all went , how beautifully and harmoniously everything went, how the work was carried by the common idea and the devotion of the feeling, then you could appreciate the practical value that arises when a common bond of work embraces everyone. Just as the plant harmoniously strives towards the sun, so people become harmonious when they are ruled by the same feelings.

We have the good spirit of this corps of contributors to our Munich Congress to thank for the fact that everything has turned out as it has. The spirit of harmony really did live in the Munich working group during all these preparations, and in this respect it could, to a certain extent, serve as a model for the way in which people in the Theosophical Society can work together and collaborate in general. It is to be hoped that this somewhat different way of working, which the German Section has been trying to achieve for five years, will not only be recognized in the International Theosophical Society, but will also have a somewhat fruitful effect. The International Theosophical Society can only flourish if each section contributes its share on the altar of joint, theosophical international activity.

It hardly needs saying that the most heartfelt thanks of the German Section of the Theosophical Society go to Fdonard Schure, the author of the mystery drama. However, it should be emphasized that we are deeply indebted to Bernhard Stavenhagen, the famous pianist and sensitive composer, who, in the midst of his busy and demanding workload, took it upon himself to provide the musical part of the dramatic performance at my request. The deep impression that this composition made on all those present will remain in their memories. The beautiful harmony between the musical creation and the mystery was felt by everyone.

These are the greatest riddles of existence, where sympathy, antipathy and all sorts of other feelings so easily cloud the view. As far as human thinking reaches, this question has always been thought of. When the spiritual researcher looks at what has been thought, said and researched in this regard by those who take the modern point of view, a point of view that is already over 200 years old, he finds that scholars and non-scholars, the educated and the uneducated, have very peculiar views on the character traits of women and men.

Lombroso's description of woman caused a particularly great stir. He attributes to woman a sense of devotion that permeates the entire female character. Others, in turn, emphasize the feeling of domination and rule in woman: the most important thing in woman's character, as history has shown, is the desire to rule. Two judgments are juxtaposed here. A completely different direction attributes humility and gentleness to the woman's character, and energy to the man's. Others claim that the woman's basic character is patience. Finally, a neurologist describes the female as a pathological nature: “On the Physiological Imbecility of Women”. Some describe the woman as a conservative, Hippel as a revolutionary element in history.

But perhaps it is not reasonable to ask the question at all. Let us limit ourselves to the objective observation of the facts. There are similarities between men and women that are actually much more similar than between men and men or women and women. If you look at life from this point of view, what stands out to you the most, what stands out to you in the strongest way? The female or male character – or other qualities that have nothing to do with male or female characteristics? And is it not perhaps a sign of higher education to be able to recognize that we can also look at a person of the opposite sex and consider them in terms of qualities that have nothing to do with their gender?

Is it justified to attach such great importance to gender in human relationships, as is the case today, or is it not perhaps one of the many consequences of materialism that gender characteristics are given such a prominent role today?

Let us look at the matter objectively! Those who consider human beings only from the external, sensual point of view have only the external in mind. But there is also a supersensible. If we were to turn to the invisible, then perhaps something could arise that stands highly exalted above mere sexual relations. For the one who observes with all the powers of the soul, it is clear that the great importance attached to sexuality, which would like to make everything else devour these sexual relations, is the result of the materialistic way of thinking of our age.

Let us see where the truth about the masculine and the feminine lies! Spiritual science sees many members in the human being: the physical body and the etheric body fight against the disintegration of the human being, the astral body against overwork. The plant, which has no astral body, does not tire either. The astral body is the constant fighter against fatigue; sleep is called upon to remove the fatigue of the etheric and physical bodies. We are confronted here with an extraordinarily important fact!

It is easy to laugh and find it grotesque when naming what is at stake here, but on the other hand it is something that has a deep, deep significance for the knowledge of the true human being and of life on earth. Every human being, whether man or woman, consists of the four elements, but now we have a strange contrast in human nature: the physical body of man is male, the physical body of woman is female; but it is different with the so-called ether or life body: in man the ether body is female, in woman it is male, so that each sex continually carries the other within itself.

As I said, however grotesque this may appear to those who know nothing of these facts, it is all the more enlightening for those who are aware of these things. How profoundly significant this is for many, many phenomena in our everyday and social lives. When we look at the individual human being, can we not see the beautiful harmony of masculine qualities, harmonized by his feminine qualities coming from his etheric body, and vice versa in women? Why is it that the strongest men in particular have certain feminine qualities in certain respects? Or do we not also see heroic qualities in women? Are they not qualities that they develop in war, for example? This fact, which is an ancient spiritual one, is sensed by some people, but how they utilize it is quite characteristic of our materialistic age.

Perhaps most people know that an unhappy young man's book – Weininger's book “Sex and Character” – made a big impact not only because it contains many paradoxes, but also because of the fate of the unfortunate author, who soon after the book was published took his own life. No matter how capable one is, one cannot have judgment at such a young age; one must have patience to form an opinion on these matters. It is not for nothing that the great poet Dante says that he reached the middle of life at the age of 35. Before the age of 35, it is not at all possible to have a sound judgment on this important matter. Well, this Weininger had some inkling of the dual nature of every human being, of the masculinity of women and the femininity of men. However, he conceived this in a materialistic sense, quite literally, by seeking twofold substantiality in every germ cell, a male and a female character in every cell! Thus the visible had to contain the invisible in a mysterious way! One can hardly imagine anything more grotesque! Because he knew nothing of the etheric body, he attributes the invisible to the visible! He does not know that there are higher links, and so he tries to characterize people as falling into two categories: male and female. This leads Weininger to the conclusion that there is a certain difference between the female and the male: the female is physical, and the male is spiritual. He draws the conclusion that women do not have an ego or individuality, personality or freedom, character or will! But then he must also deny the same to the other half! Then he attributes half of this to every woman and takes it away from every man! This is what happens when one wants to apply materialistic theories directly in practice.

Let us now consider other human qualities, for example, the I! Let us look at the sleeping person. When we have a sleeping person in front of us, then all sentient life sinks down into an indefinite darkness; the physical and life bodies remain in bed; from this, the astral body rises with the I. It is in this spiritual world. If we now consider this astral body and the ego in relation to gender, what then emerges? Only spiritual science can provide information here. What we call man and woman here in this world in the physical world and also in the world to which our ether body belongs is not recognized by the astral body, and not by the ego. Masculine and feminine remain connected to the physical and etheric bodies when the person is alive, and without the sexual the person is in a state of sleep, in his actual home, in the so-called astral and spiritual worlds: initially, neither feminine nor masculine is the human astral body and the I.

Now we ask ourselves: Is there nothing at all in this astral world, where we are at night, that corresponds to gender? Here lies a great and significant mystery that man must understand if he dares to make a judgment about it at all! The question is this: What is there in the world that is in the same space as we are here, in a world that we call astral or spiritual, that corresponds to the masculine and the feminine of physical nature? After all, bear in mind that this spiritual or astral world is not in a cloud cuckoo land, but around us. If we now ask what corresponds to the opposition of male and female in this world, we find two essential words that penetrate deep, deep into our soul. If we understand them correctly, they can solve many, many secrets of the astral world.

There, the opposition of life and death, of destruction and development, corresponds to the sexual opposition.

This polar contrast corresponds to it! Two elemental forces are indicated, which go through the whole cosmos and must be there. If man wants to understand here, only the horrors and all the peculiar feelings that are associated with the words death and life in man must cease! He must see the great significance of death and life! Goethe said: “Nature has invented death in order to have many lives!”

What does death mean for a person? Spiritual science shows us that a person does not just die this death once, but that they go through it repeatedly! This life is a repetition of many lives that have preceded it, and many follow the present one, in the alternation between birth and death. And each embodiment means progress for the person in some respect: with each embodiment, the person rises higher. At that time, when the Earth planet emerged from the darkness of life, man first came into the stages of existence in which he now is, into his first physical embodiment, into his first earthly existence. His limbs were imperfect, his ego was a slave to the astral body. Man would never ascend to the higher stages of development if he did not pass through death. Only that can make him ascend.

He had to destroy this body, but what remained for the person from the first form of embodiment? What he had heard and seen went into the spiritual world from which he had come, and now he builds the foundation for his second embodiment in this spiritual world. If he remained in the first, he could never use what one has conquered here in the spiritual world as a creator.

So one must always pass through death again, and an image of death is the solidification of form, the hardening of form. Consider what is called life and death out in nature, look at the tree! How does it approach death? It becomes woody, it dries up. And so it is with everything that must succumb to death! You can follow it in your own human life! You can see very clearly in a person an ascending line of life up to the middle of life, where more and more of the forces developed in the previous incarnation come out, and then the descending line in old age, a hardening. Compacted matter is deposited in various places and so on. Here on this earth, every life is subject to hardening, and hardening is the sister of death.

But hardening is nothing other than that which one side presents, the form, the figure. Imagine life being taken out of a person – what remains? Figure! Study a wonderful picture of life, and what remains is only a picture without life, which you admire, for example, in the great, significant Zeus, and so on. There you have the form, the work of art without life, the image of life, but not filled with life. The form eternally strives to emancipate itself from life, and this emancipation of the form can be seen in the astral world at every moment, there it is what the seer perceives as the image, as the rigid image of life, as the dead form of life. It is a power, like positive magnetism, like electricity; and so this form leads through the astral world.

If it seeks to embody itself here in the physical world, it is beauty! The opposite poles constantly repel each other, push and push, every form that arises is immediately dissolved and transformed into a new one, an eternal metamorphosis. This is brought about by the other pole; it is that which confronts man in the night: will, energy. Form and beauty are the two phenomena here in the physical world, and they surround us in the astral as death and life. Form comes and goes, and life is eternal. The principle of dissolution and that of crystallization are eternally at work. These are two fundamental forces, and in man the images of these two fundamental forces must prevail: the pure astral body is surrounded by death and life in the astral world, and when it enters this world of day, of waking, it is absorbed by the physical body and the etheric body.

The female aspect of the human being is the image of the form, of that which on the astral plane is continually seeking to shape everything into existence; the male aspect of the human being is the image of that which continually seeks to shape everything into something eternal.

In this physical world, the relationship between death and life is determined. What are two poles on the astral plane – death and life, is here an ongoing struggle. The image of all physical life is embodied in the female form - when the progressive principle triumphs, death comes. Here, man's life is determined as dividing between birth and death, in the feminine, which is the image of the formed, of that which pushes towards the solid, that wants to become permanent. If only the feminine were to work, then the human being would have the tendency to live in the physical body for as long as possible, to remain in the form. Through the influence of the masculine, death is instilled into the form. This is the secret of the work between man and woman – through this, life and death are judged in the relationship between the feminine and the masculine. The feminine gives us life, and the masculine limits this life, sets death against life. Thus that which in ordinary life is called an expression of love touches directly on the mystery of death. As a sign of this, beings exist that, in the moment when they love and bring forth a new being, also depart from this world with death.

Thus we have come, as they say in spiritual science, to the edge of a great mystery. The mingling, and what is connected with it, death, shows us the possibility that the sexual antagonism – male and female – is only a specialty, only something special of a great antagonism. We see this antagonism arising on the astral plane as eternally changing life – powerful will and formed beauty. Sexual polarity is a special case. There is a law in the world that is much more significant than sexual polarity. Such laws are present in all worlds, and they work their way down into this world of ours. If people only knew about the most important riddles of existence, they would see that these laws are there, for their consequences are there in the ordinary world. There is the same measure of the masculine and the feminine on earth, of great cosmic forces flowing through the world. Man is immersed in many worlds, and whether a male or a female child is born somewhere does not depend on the parents, but on the forces that are outside of them.

Imagine, for example, two vessels; one filled with a red liquid and the other with a blue liquid. If you immerse any object in the vessel with the blue liquid, that object must come out blue, and vice versa. It is the same with the sexuality of human beings.

The physiologists are doing good research; if they are unable to see and investigate more than what their eyes can see, the secret will never be revealed to them.

Remember the words: In heaven there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. (Matt. 22,30; Mark 12,25; Luke 20,35f.) Therefore man, by his nature, which is neither male nor female, reaches into the higher world, thereby transcending the opposition between male and female, and each of us carries, in addition to our own, a super-male or super-female nature, through which we stand face to face with another human being. The more the higher part of us develops, the more we can stand face to face with another human being in this way.

Theosophy is not about preaching asceticism, not about deadening the senses, but about allowing the feminine and the masculine to flow through and permeate everything. Spiritual science is called upon to bring this back to consciousness in people, and that will be the future coexistence of men and women longed for by the best of men today, when people will be aware of what stands above gender, what carries the highest interests and connects man and woman in itself. Then it will be impossible for the relationship between man and woman to resemble a struggle. And the spiritual-scientific current will be one that will flow through the development of humanity and take hold of people. Then the time will come when people will no longer talk idly and in clichés about whether there is a difference between men and women. The difference cannot be denied in many respects, because we are firmly on this physical plane: if we are a man, we are in the male physical body; if we are a woman, we are in the female physical body. This gives the shading to our outer existence; but when we recognize that we have an innermost core of being, then we will accept this shading with joy, for it gives us the delightful diversity and multiplicity. And precisely when we understand how to find the eternal, the essence, then we can also rejoice in the temporal. Then a great, practical perspective opens up and we see how spiritual science can intervene in life, in art, education and so on. We see that spiritual science is not a gray theory, but a living weaving and working. Those who take it up permeate their whole being with it and ennoble, beautify and uplift the relationships of people, which express themselves in the generations of humanity, by bringing them into harmony, into a collaboration for the great progress and forward movement of the human race.