The Rudolf Steiner Archive

The Theosophical Society (Adyar Madras Headquarter)

Dear Friends!

The members of the “Besant Branch” and all members of the Theosophical Society present in Berlin are hereby requested to come to the weekly meeting in Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motz-Straße No. 17, every Monday at 8 p.m.

Friends of the Theosophical Society who have not become members of the Theosophical Society can be admitted to these meetings upon purchase of a six-month ticket for 5 marks or a year ticket for 9 marks.

We request that friends of the Theosophical Society who are temporarily present in Berlin inquire with the undersigned secretary, Miss v. Sivers, about participating.

The Secretary: Marie von Sivers.
The Chairman: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The Theosophical Society (Adyar Madras Headquarter)

Dear Friends!

The members of the “Besant Branch” and all members of the Theosophical Society present in Berlin are hereby requested to come to the weekly meeting in Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motz-Straße No. 17, every Monday at 8 p.m.

Friends of the Theosophical Society who have not become members of the Theosophical Society can be admitted to these meetings upon purchase of a six-month ticket for 5 marks or a year-long ticket for 9 marks.

We request that friends of the Theosophical Society who are temporarily present in Berlin inquire with the undersigned secretary, Miss v. Sivers, about participating.

The Secretary: Marie von Sivers.
The Chairman: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The Theosophical Society (Headquarters Madras) German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear Friends!

The undersigned takes the liberty of inviting you to the eighth regular General Assembly, which will take place in Berlin on October 23, 24 and 25, 1909.

The proceedings will be as follows:

Saturday, October 23: 2 p.m. (Geisbergstraße 2): Lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on anthroposophy. 6 p.m. (Motzstraße 17): ordinary board meeting. In the evening, a corresponding free get-together at Geisbergstraße 2.

Sunday, October 24: The business part of the program will take place at 10 a.m. (Geisbergstraße 2) with the following agenda:

1. Opening of the meeting and welcoming address by the Secretary General.

2. Reports of the Secretary General, Secretary, Treasurer, Secretary and Auditors.

3. Motions from the floor.

4. Reports from the representatives of the branches.

5. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, October 24, at 4 p.m. (Geisbergstraße 2), there will be a factual-theosophical part with the following program:

1. Free lectures and discussions by members.

2. Free informal discussion.

The factual and theosophical part will be continued on Monday, October 25, at 10 a.m.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations from individual members for lectures and addresses etc. on Sunday afternoon and Monday are requested (to be sent to the address of the Secretary General) by October 20, 1909.

During the General Assembly, Dr. Rudolf Steiner will give four lectures on anthroposophy (the first on Saturday, October 23, at 2 p.m., see above. The other three will be a continuation of the first).

On Monday, October 25, at 8 p.m., a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner will take place at the Berlin Besant Branch (Geisbergstraße 2) on the “Sphere of the Bodhisattvas”, to which all members of the section are invited.

On Thursday and Friday, October 21 and 22, Dr. Rudolf Steiner will give two lectures at the Architektenhaus (Berlin, Wilhelmstraße 92/93) at 8 p.m. on: The Mission of Wrath (The Chained Prometheus) (on October 21): The Mission of Truth (Goethe's Pandora in the Light of Spiritual Science) (on October 22).

On October 28 and 29, the two lectures will take place in the architects' house: The Mission of Devotion. The Human Character.

Members are requested to notify the General Assembly of their attendance immediately upon receipt of this invitation to Frl. Marie von Sivers, Berlin W[ilmersdorf], Motzstraße 17, as this time the General Assembly is expected to be well attended and space may need to be provided.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the days mentioned above,

The Theosophical greeting,

The Secretary General:
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The following members have served on the Section Committee for the work of the International Congress of the Federation of European Sections:

Dr. Rudolf Steiner (ex officio)
Fräulein Marie v. Sivers as secretary of the national committee
Fräulein Mathilde Scholl
Herr Adolf Arenson
Herr Günther Wagner
Gräfin Kalckreuth
Miss Sophie Stinde.

The leadership of the German section proposes that this committee also be elected for the work of the 5th Congress in Budapest to be carried out within the German section. Those members of the esteemed board who agree with this committee do not need to reply to this letter. If no reply is received by January 12th, consent will be assumed. The programs will then be sent.

Marie von Sivers, Secretary
Berlin Wilmersdorf Motzstr. 17

Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Secretary.

The way in which the author of this work speaks approvingly of my own attempts, both in the field of the theosophical world view and in my other scientific work, makes it difficult for me to express my agreement with his comments in the appropriate words. And since these comments in particular inevitably urge me to say something in response, I find myself in a somewhat difficult position. The assurance that I do not wish to face opposing views with less understanding than those that, like Max Seiling's, are so strongly affirmative, will certainly not be taken from me without further ado. At the same time, this is what suggests to me that there is something to be said in an epilogue. I would like to tie in with the passage on page 23 of this writing, where it is said that objections to Theosophy, which are raised again and again, are “anticipated” by Theosophy itself. It is, in fact, extraordinarily simple and easy to “refute” Theosophy. Take, for example, the view of reincarnation and karma. The adherents of this view speak of an individual human core of being. This remains as a supersensible being when the bodily organization, which serves it as an instrument in the physical world between birth and death, falls away from it at death. After a period of purely spiritual existence, this core of being reunites with a bodily organization in order to be born again for a physical life. In the building up of the bodily organization, not only are the forces at work that call man into existence as a being of his species, but these forces are joined by those that have been appropriated by the human core of being in previous lives. Now many an adherent of Theosophy, in support of the idea of re-embodiment, will point out how the children of one and the same family differ individually from each other. He will say that these individual differences cannot have been transmitted by inheritance alone, for the children have the same ancestors after all. The individuality must therefore be due to the entry of various individual nuclei of being into the same hereditary conditions. But now the thought easily arises that refutes such an explanation of the facts mentioned. The child carries within itself qualities that are inherited from the father and mother. What is transmitted from the father and mother produces a result in the child. And depending on whether one or the other element is predominant, depending on how it affects the other in either case, the predispositions of each child of the same parents can be quite individually different. One can then add: the diversity of human characters is based on the conditions in the chemical structure of the germ. And how should this not be different for different children, who descend from the same parents at different ages, etc.? Even the diversity of twins proves nothing, considering that, despite their simultaneous development, the conditions of development before birth cannot possibly be completely the same. Those who see the mental and spiritual characteristics, the character, etc., of a person as the result of variously nuanced hereditary conditions, and who thus believe themselves to be standing on the firm ground of natural science, will find the objections only hinted at here - which can be multiplied at will - quite compelling.

Those followers of Theosophy who appeal to such facts of human life as lie, for example, in the sense of one's own responsibility, in conscience, etc., seem to have more weight to bring forward. They will say: If a person feels responsible, he cannot ascribe this feeling to an inclination that organizes him from the outside, but only to his own core being, which comes into existence through birth. For how could one consider oneself responsible for something that one has not caused oneself? But all that can be said in this respect does not prove anything against the theory of reincarnation. There are many ways to explain the sense of responsibility, conscience, etc., even if one sees in man nothing more than the result of the inherited predispositions and what has been acquired in the course of physical development by the individual or the human community. Among the many possible explanations, only one shall be given here. Let us assume that human psychological development is simply a more perfect stage of animal development; that, for example, his moral feelings are only an intensification of what is found in the animal world as moral impulses. Then this higher stage will be able to bring about a situation in which human society demands certain things from the individual. If he does not do so, he comes into conflict with the outside world. He must develop the need to make himself the starting point for thoughts, feelings and actions that bring him into harmony with the life around him. Through experiencing such a need, the need must then develop to make oneself the starting point for actions that are appropriately shaped. From such thoughts then arises the development of the sense of responsibility, of conscience, of the sense for perfection, etc. Indeed, perceptive attempts have been made to explain the stated facts of the soul's life in such ways. (Among many, Paul Ree's interesting book “The Origin of Conscience” is worth mentioning.)

Furthermore, how obvious it must appear when it is shown that the corresponding expressions of the soul also cease with the loss of certain parts of the brain. Admittedly, the most diverse refutations have been put forward in this regard by thinkers who do not profess Theosophy. However, these do not seem at all suitable to convince. One can say, for example, that if a piano player has his piano strings cut one by one, he can no longer produce a sound. But that does not prove that when the sounds cease, the piano player has also disappeared. In the same way, a person's spiritual soul essence cannot reveal itself if the tools, the brain areas, etc., are destroyed. But the fact that the spiritual-soul core of the person cannot reveal itself does not prove that the disappearance of the instrument means the end of the spiritual-soul core. Expressed in this way, this thought is not convincing. After all, the pianist can still follow how the instrument is destroyed; he is not destroyed along with it. But the latter cannot be applied to the spiritual-soul core of the person. It seems quite impossible to prove the independence of the spiritual and mental core of a person's being to someone who, from his point of view, does not believe he can admit it. Nor has the idea put forward, which has been put forward countless times, been able to convince any opponent of the independence of the human soul individuality. Such thoughts will always have a value as explanations for those who, for deeper reasons, are believers in the supersensible; they have no conclusiveness for non-believers. This applies to all the “proofs” already given here for the supersensible in man. They can be adduced in connection with the decisive arguments for the supersensible; but nothing will be “proved” by them.

The opponents of Theosophy have an even easier time of it with what is said about the development of higher cognitive abilities for the supersensible. It is as obvious as can be to point out that someone who has visions, hallucinations, etc., considers them to be no less real than someone who claims facts about the supersensible world on the basis of his supposedly methodically developed cognitive abilities. One can also claim that even if something in the world of facts can be explained on the basis of such abilities, this proves nothing. Because even such an explanation could be an imagined one. One has examples of how some things that could only be explained by extrasensory powers for a certain time later found their explanation through the sensually observable conditions. These are certainly only hints; but it is easy to see how, by developing them in the simplest possible way, the assertions of the advocates of Theosophy can be 'refuted'.

It can be said that there is absolutely nothing in Theosophy that could not easily be shown to be unproven assertions, flights of fancy, etc., in the manner described. Therefore, not much can be done with anything that is put forward by theosophists in the popular form of proof. It was therefore a good idea of Max Seiling to tune his remarks to a completely different tone. One will only notice what is meant here if one is willing to respond to this tone. The author of the work makes it clear throughout that what matters is not man's position on this or that theosophical assertion, but the grasping of the basis of this world view, which, in terms of its persuasive power, points beyond the boundaries within which ordinary proof lies. I myself have therefore had to lay the foundations of this world view in a purely scientific way, and then, by building up Theosophy accordingly, show how the individual truths arise from the fundamental premises. Thus, for example, in my little pamphlet 'Reincarnation and Karma', I cannot admit that someone says the same thing as me, who puts what is presented there into a different context. In this essay I show how the consistent development of modern scientific thought must lead to the idea of reincarnation and karma. If one does not see the essential in this continuation and in the whole “how” of the presentation, one does not agree with the opinion of the small writing. Dr. Unger has continued to work in the field of the epistemological foundation of the theosophical world view. And from his expositions, too, it will be seen how futile any attempt must be to demand a method of proof for Theosophy, or to apply one against it, which the Theosophist should not doubt for a moment, that it speaks just as little for him when he uses it as it speaks against him when his opponents use it as a method of refutation. ^{1For example, no scientifically observed fact contradicts Theosophy. However, countless facts can be used to “refute” Theosophy. To the more discerning observer, the above will not appear to contradict the fact that the statements of Theosophy are in themselves absolutely logically provable. Logical proofs are something different in the epistemological sense than the characterized “proofs”!} - What is indicated here will be further explained by me in the near future; I just had to add it here with a few words to Max Seiling's remarks, because the overall tone of his writing seemed to impose the necessity on me.

The Theosophical Society (Madras Headquarters) German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear Friends!

The undersigned takes the liberty of inviting you to the regular ninth General Assembly, which will take place in Berlin on October 29, 30 and 31, 1910.

The proceedings will be as follows:

Saturday, October 29, 3 p.m. (Motzstraße 17): ordinary board meeting. In the evening, at 7 p.m. (architect's house, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), the business part will take place with the following program:

1. Opening of the meeting by the Secretary General.

2. Reports of the Secretary General, Secretary, Treasurer, Secretary and Auditors.

3. Motions from the plenary session.

4. Reports of the representatives of the branches.

5. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, October 30th, at 4 p.m. (Architect's House, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), there will be a factual-theosophical part with the following program:

1. Free lectures and discussions by members. (Fran Elise Wolfram has announced three lectures about Paracelsus, the first of which will probably take place during this time, with the following lectures taking place in the coming days. Mr. Franz Seiler has also announced a lecture. We hope that many more lectures will be announced by members.

2. Free informal discussion.

Monday, October 31, at 10 a.m., the factual-theosophical part (free lectures by members) will be continued.

On Monday, October 31, at 8 p.m. (Wilhelmstraße 92/93, Architektenhaus), the Berlin Besant Branch will host a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner followed by a recitation by Miss Marie v. Sivers, to which all members of the section are invited.

On Tuesday morning and the following days, the factual-theosophical part can be continued as needed and desired.

For the evenings: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, lectures by Dr. Rudolf Steiner on psychosophy are also planned. (Since the time allotted for the General Assembly is to be devoted to the members' lectures, Dr. Steiner's cycle will only be held after the General Assembly, not during it as before, and more details will be announced during the General Assembly).

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie von Sivers, Berlin Wilmersdorf, Motzstraße 17, of their attendance at the General Assembly immediately upon receipt of this invitation.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations of individual members for lectures, speeches, etc. are requested (to the address of the Secretary General) by October 25, 1910.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the days mentioned above,

The Theosophical greeting

The Secretary: Marie v. Sivers.
The General Secretary: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The Theosophical Society (Adyar Headquarters) German Section.

To the esteemed members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society.

Dear friends!

The undersigned hereby take the liberty of inviting you to the tenth general assembly of the Theosophical Society, which will take place in Berlin on December 9, 10, 11 and 12, 1911.

The program is as follows: Saturday, December 9, 3:00 p.m. (Motzstraße 17): regular board meeting, 8

p.m. social get-together at the Geisbergstraße 2 branch.

Sunday, December 10th, at 10 a.m. (architect's house, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), the business part of the meeting will take place with the following program:

1. Opening of the meeting by the Secretary General.

2. Reports of the Secretary General, Secretary, Treasurer, Secretary and Auditors.

3. Motions from the floor.

4. Reports from the representatives of the branches.

5. Miscellaneous.

On Sunday, December 10th, at 4 p.m. (Architects' House, Wilhelmstraße 92/93), a Theosophical part will take place with the following program:

1. Free lectures and discussions by members. (Initially, Ms. Elise Wolfram, Ms. Wandrey, Dr. Unger, and Dr. Wagner, among others, have announced lectures. Hopefully, many more members will register to give lectures.

2. Sunday, December 10, 7 p.m., social gathering of members at the architects' house (Wilhelmstraße 92/93).

Monday, December 11th, at 10 a.m., the factual-theosophical part (free lectures by members) will be continued.

Monday, December 11th, in the afternoon, the factual-theosophical part will be continued.

On Monday, December 11th, at 8 p.m. (Wilhelmstraße 92/93, Architektenhaus), the Berlin Besant Branch will host a lecture by Dr. Rudolf Steiner, followed by a recitation by Miss Marie v. Sivers, to which all members of the section are invited.

On Tuesday morning and the following mornings, the factual-theosophical part can be continued as needed and desired.

On Tuesday, December 12th, at 10 a.m., the Johannes-Bauverein will hold its general assembly, for which special programs will be issued.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner's lectures on Pneumatosophy are also planned for the evenings of Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. On Thursday evening at 8 p.m., there will be a public lecture by Dr. Steiner in the architects' house. (Since time during the general assembly will be devoted to the members' lectures, Dr. Steiner's cycle will only be held after the general assembly, and more details will be announced during the general assembly).

Members are requested to notify Miss Marie von Sivers, Berlin W[ilmersdorf], Motzstraße 17, of their attendance at the General Assembly immediately upon receipt of this invitation.

Proposals for the General Assembly and registrations of individual members for lectures, addresses, etc. are requested (to the address of the Secretary General) by December 10, 1911.

Hoping to welcome as many of our dear members as possible on the above days,

The Theosophical greeting

The Secretary: Marie v. Sivers.
The General Secretary: Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

It is my duty to inform the esteemed members about this letter from Mrs. Besant. I will do so objectively on the basis of the true facts.

1. Mrs. Besant writes in May 1912: “Dr. Vollrath made no appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to consider right or wrong in this matter, and to this day I do not know it.”

The exact opposite is the objective truth!

The facts are as follows: Dr. Vollrath addressed an appeal to Mrs. Besant in the form of a five-page letter regarding his expulsion in October 1908, as early as December 1, 1908. This letter from Dr. Vollrath was sent to me by Mrs. Besant, enclosed in a letter she wrote to me on January 7, 1909, in which Mrs. Besant wrote: “Dr. Vollrath is sending me various complaints; I enclose his letter. Kindly let me know whether you consider that there is anything in his case which should prevent his being a member-at-large? A man is sometimes troublesome in a Lodge or Section whose membership is harmless in the General TS and a Section can expel a man from itself but not from the TS, as a Lodge can expel a man from its own body but not from the Section. I am not in favor of expelling a member from the general TS, but I shall not answer Dr. Vollrath definitively till I hear from you.” This means in German: “Dr. Vollrath sends me various complaints. I enclose his letter. Please let me know if you think there is something in his case that would prevent him from remaining as a member in the broader sense. A person is occasionally disturbing in a lodge or in a section whose membership is harmless in the General Theosophical Society, and a section can exclude a person from itself, but not from the Theosophical Society, just as a lodge can exclude a person from its body, but not from the section. I am not inclined to expel a member from the General Theosophical Society; but I will not answer Dr. Vollrath definitively before I hear from you."

In response to this letter from Mrs. Besant and the appeal addressed by Dr. Vollrath to Mrs. Besant, which already in 1909 contained things of the very same kind as Dr. Vollrath repeated in his pamphlet of 1911, I replied to Mrs. Besant at length, presenting the case to her and also writing to her about the reasons which then led not me but the Section's Executive Council to take the step.

In response to this, Mrs. Besant replied to me on 18 March 1909:

“As regards Dr. Vollrath. I fully recognize that it is sometimes necessary to exclude a man from the smaller working areas of a lodge or of a Section. As an appeal to me has been made (these words are underlined by me, Dr. Steiner). I, as President, confirm the action taken by the German Section, and enclose a note to that effect, which you can use or not in your official organ as you please. I also write by this mail to Dr. Vollrath, so informing him.”

The above-mentioned note, which was enclosed with this letter, reads: “To Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German TS. My dear Colleague, under Rule 36 of the General-Constitution of the TS which vests in the President alone the power of issuing and cancelling Charters and Diplomas; and having in view Rule 37, which gives to each National Society the power of making it own Rules; I, as President of the TS, having been appealed to by Dr. Vollrath, of Leipzig, against his expulsion by the German TS and having heard all particulars thereof, (These words are underlined by me. Dr. St.), decide that his expulsion from the German TS is valid, and that Dr. Vollrath has ceased to be a member of that body.» This is the English translation: “To Dr. Rudolf Steiner, General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society. My dear colleague. In accordance with Rule 36 of the General Constitution of the Theosophical Society, which gives the President alone the power to grant or revoke charters and diplomas; and bearing in mind Rule 37, which gives national societies the right to establish their own rules: I, as President, having Vollrath of Leipzig has appealed to me (these words are underlined by me, Dr. St.), because of his expulsion from the German Theosophical Society, and after hearing all the details of the case (these words underlined by me, Dr. St.), I decide that his expulsion from the German Theosophical Society is well founded, and that Dr. Vollrath has ceased to be a member of this body.

In the face of these facts, I will simply summarize and say: On March 18, 1909, Mrs. Besant writes: “after Dr. Vollrath has appealed to me and after I have heard all the details of the case...” On May 8, 1912, the same Mrs. Besant writes: “Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to consider right or wrong in this matter; and to this day I do not know it.”

Mrs. Besant now continues: “In the summer of 1911, when the question of a representative of the ‘Order of the Star of the East’ in Germany arose, I suggested Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. The Order is not part of the Theosophical Society, and Adyar has nothing to do with its administration. The whole attack on Adyar is not nice, because the Adyar administration had no knowledge and did nothing for Dr. Vollrath or the order. When talking to Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden about possible secretaries in Germany who would work under him, I suggested Dr. Vollrath, not as a representative of the president – who cannot be represented within the order – but as a secretary under Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden.

This was agreed to, but on his return to Germany the good doctor found that Dr. Vollrath was regarded as an antagonist of Dr. Steiner, and so the election was rescinded. This is what actually took place, and I cannot possibly see in it any injury to Dr. Steiner or to the German Section. We had no reason to think that his exclusion from the German Section should be taken to mean that he should be excluded from any kind of useful activity outside the Theosophical Society. But when we found that his election was regarded as antagonistic to the General Secretary, it was withdrawn to avoid injury.

Dr. Steiner speaks very strongly about Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet and brands this pamphlet as the cause of the injury. But I have never read a line of this pamphlet and have no knowledge of what it contains. Had I known what a damaging pamphlet was being prepared against Dr. Steiner, I certainly would not have proposed Dr. Vollrath's name as secretary, for I have always shown respect for Dr. Steiner, both as General Secretary and as a friend. It might have been better to ask me if I knew the pamphlet before such speeches were made.

Again, the following is the objective truth: It did not matter that Mrs. Besant had read the pamphlet, because in many respects it was a repetition of things that Dr. Vollrath wrote to Mrs. Besant two years earlier and which were refuted by me in a detailed letter to her at the time. I therefore never assumed that Mrs. Besant had read the 1911 pamphlet, but that she had not responded to my 1909 letter. In a detailed letter that I addressed to her in March 1912, I now expressly explained to Mrs. Besant that I certainly did not claim the right to give her instructions regarding measures relating to the “Star of the East”, which I never took care of and which therefore does not concern me at all. I myself did not say a word against Dr. Vollrath's appointment. What was expressed at the general assembly of the German Section was only the stating of the fact that Mrs. Besant, who has known the relevant facts since 1909, expressed a vote of no confidence to the German General Secretary by completely disregarding his judgment. This expression of opinion came from the German Section assembly; it did not come from me.

For some time now, Mrs. Besant has been taking action against me that is very similar to that in this letter. What I do as General Secretary of the German Section, what I undertake as a lecturer, is treated in this way and repeated and reprinted in numerous Theosophical communications in the Theosophical Society. What the present assistant of Mrs. Besant in Germany, Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden, is doing in Germany in this direction, goes beyond all bounds of possibility to such an extent that it is difficult for me even to write about it. Only one thing may be mentioned, namely, that he calls the German Section an organization like the Catholic Church, with a Pope at the head and with branches resembling dogmatically governed bishoprics. He compares my and my colleagues' approach to that of the Jesuits. And all this after he has used the most unctuous words about brotherly love, peace, and the like.

My dear friends, anyone who is familiar with my writings and lectures can see how far I am from anything that could be described as dogmatism. I certainly do not refrain from emphasizing often enough, not only in words but in theory, how little should be taken dogmatically, what I have to represent, but how it should be examined; I always try to point out possible serious objections myself, in order to give everyone the opportunity to make their own assessment through the whole approach of what I assert. Examiners, what is happening against me from Mrs. Besant's side and her helpers, and it will hardly be possible for a different judgment of real impartiality to arise, than that my work is precisely the obstacle to allowing the Theosophical Society to become a mere Leadbeater-Besant sect. It is incredible that we are spoken to about things that are not really important, but treated in a way that is, for example, the following. I am forced to discuss the objective fact of the cancellation of the Genoa Congress at the last general assembly of the German section. I say that after the cancellation, I contacted the General Secretary of the Italian Section to find out the reasons for the cancellation. He replied to me in a telegram: “I have acted on strict orders from President Mrs. Besant and Secretary Mr. Wallace; please contact them.” This is the strict, objective fact. Mrs. Besant is now spreading the following: I had misrepresented the whole matter, for she had never canceled the congress, but only reported to Genoa that she would not be coming there. As a result, the opinion is forming in wide circles of the Theosophical Society that I said something incorrect at our general assembly, while I did not say anything about my view of the matter, but only communicated to my members the clear wording of the official telegram from the responsible General Secretary. I never said that Mrs. Besant had canceled the Congress, but only that she could not have canceled it because she had no right to do so.

This is how it goes with statements that Mrs. Besant makes about me in almost every issue of The Theosophist. Dear friends, do not ask me to refute all these errors in The Theosophist. It would lead to nothing but a series of replies, and in the end no one would understand anything. You can refute errors, but when it comes to the issues at hand, you refrain from refuting them for reasons that are easy to understand. I truly have better things to do than refute things that are not there.

I would like to tell you only one thing. Your trust alone allows me to hold out at the post of Secretary General of the German Section. Because what I have had to endure for years in this position is bitter, and only to avoid being called sentimental do I not say that it is a martyrdom.

Anyone who has followed how the relevant things have developed in recent years can see how little it is true when the attackers and accusers now claim that I represent an intolerant dogmatism. This does nothing more than shift the main points everywhere. Those who have followed my lectures know how things were a long time ago. I held to a certain view, for the reasons I had to put forward, of the Mystery of Golgotha, for instance. I initially presented these things in isolation. I hardly touched on other views; I wanted to let everything speak for itself on its own merits and on its own grounds. Then individual personalities approached me and repeatedly bombarded me with questions about the mismatch between my presentation and that of Mrs. Besant. I hardly engaged in such questions at first. For it seemed to me that the audience should decide which account was supported by the stronger arguments. I could understand that some of the prominent figures in the Theosophical Society found it difficult to come to terms with themselves when they saw the contradictions in the accounts. But I wanted nothing to be said for this account other than the internal consistency of this account itself, which can be seen from the publication of my book: 'Christianity as a Mystical Fact'. Everything I presented after this book was nothing more than a further elaboration of what was given there. I had good reasons for simply stating what I believed I had recognized, and leaving it entirely up to each listener to decide how to relate to what I had presented. That is how I wanted to continue. Nothing should have any effect except what my listeners found convincing in my presentation. I cannot be blamed for the fact that a number of listeners found something useful for themselves in my presentation.

In the following period, I would have done nothing other than continue with what I have just characterized. Then quite different things happened. People not only began to attack what I had said. Everyone had every right to do that. I would have done nothing in the face of these attacks except let my statement work through its inherent reasons. But what came from the other side was not at all an attack on what I had said, but something quite different. I will mention only a very few of the many things that were said against me here. I could see from an official account of a speech Mrs. Besant had given at the Annual General Meeting of the Theosophical Society in Adyar that she was not polemicizing against what I had said, but that she was putting forward things as peculiar to my account that no one could match with this account of mine. She presented, for example, what I had said as something specifically German-Christian in a way that had never occurred to me. I wanted to maintain the peace, so I initially confined myself to pointing out Mrs. Besant's error in a letter. I did this at great length. I also wrote to her that what was at issue here was not applicable to the fact that the most diverse points of view can coexist within the Theosophical Society. This, after all, is self-evident. What I had to do was to teach Mrs. Besant that it is quite another thing to tolerate different points of view and to say something about another point of view that has nothing to do with that point of view but distorts it. I wanted to make it clear that truth should prevail when one person is talking about another. After all, the versatility of points of view cannot also include the possibility that something incorrect can be said from a different point of view. Mrs. Besant did not answer me when I wrote to her that she had always emphasized that different points of view in the Theosophical Society were useful and not harmful. So it was finally with many; on what it comes down, one did not go in, the answers were taken for granted that meant nothing. I had now, despite all this, the intention to quietly continue in the manner described above and to let what I had to say take effect through its own reasons alone.

The following period showed that Mrs. Besant's words at the general meeting were repeated in many places. In addition, many other similar things happened. Of the numerous cases that occurred, only one of the most recent ones will be highlighted. A pamphlet by one of Mrs. Besant's helpers, “The Message of Peace,” was published. In it, various statements are made against the descriptions I have given. If you look more closely, you will make the astonishing discovery that the quotations from my writings mean something different, and in several cases even the opposite of what I have had printed. In addition, the passages that are not in my writings are quoted. This or that is then presented, not against what I actually said, but against things that I did not say. I must confess: the experience of such quoting, as practiced in the “Message of Peace”, must first be made to even consider it possible. Well, I will limit myself, as I have already done in various branches, to merely reporting this kind of behavior towards other views and making it clear that one really has no reason to go into such an “alternative point of view” in any more detail. But it will be interesting to see whether anyone is found who does not shy away from the judgment: I am aggressive because I tell people that I am being quoted incorrectly. It will also be interesting to see whether someone can be found who is willing to say, among those who find something useful for them in my descriptions, there is intolerance towards other opinions because of the compulsion to say that Mrs. Besant said the opposite in a letter in 1912 of what she said in a letter in 1909. It will be interesting to see whether people will realize that you are not fighting viewpoints when you simply present facts. And it will also be interesting to see whether anyone will be found to accuse us of being aggressive and unchristian for stating the facts of important matters and saying: this is how things are. Or is it also possible to have different points of view about what has happened on the physical plane, which can be established as fact by anyone?

I continue to believe that points of view can coexist, but that this has nothing to do with the obligation to accept the facts as facts and to treat them truthfully where these facts have nothing to do with any opinion or theory.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

The undersigned are obliged to inform you that the Executive Council, in extraordinary session on December 8, 1912, has passed the resolution set out below. This decision has not been taken because of any existing differences of opinion or divergent standpoints, which may of course be represented in the Theosophical Society, but solely because the way in which the leadership of the “Star of the East” has related to the German Section appears to the latter to be completely incompatible with the first paragraph of the Constitution of the Theosophical Society. If it were to be said, for example, that the German Section excludes certain opinions and points of view, this must be dismissed from the outset as incorrect.

The above-mentioned decision reads: The Executive Board of the German Section of the Theosophical Society regards affiliation with the Order of the Star of the East as incompatible with membership of the Theosophical Society and requests members of the Star of the East to resign from the Theosophical Society.

The executive committee of the German section will be forced to expel members who do not comply with this request from the German section.

On behalf of the executive committee of the German section of [the] TG.

The General Secretary.
The Secretary.

Re: Ferdinand von Paungarten: The marriage problem as reflected in our time, Munich

Rudolf Steiner, Berlin

Dear Baron! In your circular letter, the first question is whether one can have the opinion that there is a crisis in the marriage question that urgently needs reforming. The answer to this question depends on one's ideas about the conditions under which the marriage question can be discussed at all. These conditions are given by the fact that through marriage, man places himself in a whole of humanity in two directions. Therefore, he cannot by any means claim the full right to make demands on the marriage question based on personal considerations. The one whole in which man places himself through marriage is the social context in which he lives: religious community, state, etc. Not only the person who enters into the marriage has an interest in the marriage being a success, but also the context. If a person wants to serve this context, they must be able to make sacrifices for the whole with the institutions they enter into. Therefore, any discussion of the marriage question is impossible if only the individual interests of the people entering into the marriage are included in this question. But the social context, for example, must have an interest in ensuring that marriage, which by its very nature is so closely linked to the maintenance of this context, can be considered a stable relationship that can be counted on once it exists. Of course, individual interests can come into conflict with general interests; but the solution to the problem lies in the individual not placing his or her interests above those of his or her social context. The second whole into which man places himself through marriage is the family, and with that into the whole development of mankind. The normal thing is that marriage with children leads to the family. Therefore, the relationship between a man and a woman is only part of what comes into consideration when considering the question of marriage; the more essential part is, normally, the care for the family, and thus for the following generations. But this makes the question of marriage a family question. Anyone who correctly assesses the forces that are at work in this regard in the present and will probably also be at work in the distant future will realize that with the child, on whom the hearts of the man and the woman should be equally dependent, a bond is given that has a retroactive effect on the stability of the marriage; and this undoubtedly demands it. But I cannot see anything else in the modern marriage question at all but the question of greater or lesser firmness and indissolubility of the bond. All other questions always go back to this one, even if one is not aware of it in all cases. And as soon as marriage is placed in its necessary context, it becomes clear that both the social and the family context always force us to recognize stability, however personal interests may tend otherwise. In such matters, man cannot shape institutions according to individual needs; he must adapt these institutions to the whole.

For someone who thinks this way, the “crisis in the marriage question” cannot appear as one that can be judged for social, historical reasons, etc. The fact is that in many areas of life, people are confronted with a certain contradiction between the whole of a context and their individual experience. This contradiction affects many relationships in the present, and only one of these relationships is the institution of marriage. What follows from this fact for many marriages does not depend at all on the essence of marriage, but on things that lie outside of it. For example, marriages can end unhappily; but this unhappiness does not necessarily depend on the marriage, but on the fact that one or both spouses have not been educated to get along with each other at all. Here we see how the focus can be shifted from a single institution to the great intellectual and cultural issues of the present day. And as long as these are in such a state of flux as they are at present, the discussion of a single issue will not lead to anything significant. A world and life view that gives people inner peace and harmony will also have an effect on marriage; and the form of marriage will then have no influence at all on this effect.

From what has been said, however, it follows that the “marriage question” should have nothing to do with the modern women's movement in the deeper sense. Both should be kept quite separate from each other. Whatever is intended and achieved by the women's movement has no direct effect on the family issue. Because, for example, whether improving the social situation of women can also have a favorable influence on education belongs to a completely different area. It certainly can. But all the demands that are given by the nature of the family remain in place for themselves, as do the demands of the one part that enters into marriage, in the rest of social and intellectual life.

For all these reasons, I must express my opinion to you, Baron, regarding your main point of inquiry and, at the same time, regarding the fourth point, namely that the “form of marriage,” as it has developed among the civilized peoples of the West, could never, by its very nature, contribute to any decline in culture, nor to any such decline in ethical, aesthetic or racial hygiene; such a decline would have to arise from quite different things, e.g. questions of world view, of inner soul harmony, etc. It could express itself in marriage, but could never be brought about by the “form of marriage.

Yours sincerely
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Time is experienced through the changing phenomena of the world. This change connects the new with the old in the course of the world. Night follows day; day follows night. The new day brings forth what has not yet been from the womb of existence; but it also repeats the previous day in its own essence.

The light of the moon penetrates the darkness of night, brightening it. In fourteen days and nights, it waxes and wanes again to the same extent. This, too, is repeated over and over again, preserving the old in the new.

From the earth's soil, the power of the sun draws forth plant life. This unfolds, fades away, withdraws into hidden depths, like daylight at nighttime, or the moon's radiance in new moon nights, and rises anew, revealing the essence of the old in the new.

Man stands face to face with this world evolution, changing and yet preserving itself in change. He must bring his own experience into harmony with this life of the world. The calculation of time on which the calendar of various peoples is based is the expression of this fact.

The repetition of the old in the new is most characteristically expressed in the position of the stars in relation to one another. These positions always occur in such a way that the new ones are similar to the old ones. Man can express his experience at a particular time by speaking of the position of the stars at that moment. The simplest way to do this is to express the experience of the morning in the words: the sun rises. All time calculations are based on the same process. The experience of spring can be expressed in the words: the sun appears to the human eye in such a direction that when the eye turns in that direction, it also finds this or that constellation.

Just as a particular written character is the expression of a human sound, so the position of the stars can become the written character for the experience of a particular moment in time. Take a look at one of the pages of the following calendar. Take a particular day, for example in May, and then another in August. The overall experiences that a person has on these two days in his interaction with the becoming of the world are quite different. He can express this difference by relating, for example, the position of the sun in relation to a constellation of the zodiac to the experience, like a written character to its sound. In the calendars of different ages and peoples, the position of the sun in relation to a constellation of the zodiac at a particular point in time is expressed by a symbolic sign. Thus, the sign found for the constellation of Pisces on a particular day refers to the fact that on that day, at a certain hour, the gaze directed towards the sun also falls on the constellation of Pisces. If characteristic positions are chosen for such a designation, then the repetition of these positions provides the basis for the division of time.

In the following calendar entries, the fact that the gaze that follows the rising sun also falls on a constellation is expressed in the continuous monarch figures by a symbolic figure.

During a month, approximately, the position of the sun in relation to a zodiacal constellation can be considered. After a year has passed, approximately the same positions recur. The term “approximately” is justified because a shift in the positions occurs as time progresses. For example, whereas centuries ago the rising sun in March coincided with the constellation of Aries, at the present time the rising sun coincides with that of Pisces.

In this calendar, instead of the usual signs for the positions of the sun in relation to the signs of the zodiac, there are signs that bring the experience of the world phenomena that a person can have when the sun rises in the corresponding months into a characteristic intuitive image. Thus, in the consecutive monthly images, one finds expressions for the soul experiences that a person can have who compassionately follows the changes in the world's evolution and expresses them as if in a script through the position of the sun. Just as the simple experience, “I feel the nightly darkness giving way to light,” can be expressed in the words, “the sun rises,” so the more complicated soul experience, “I feel the earth preparing for new growth in a spring-like way and increasing solar power,” would find expression in the words, “the rising sun is seen in the direction of Pisces.” And this relationship between the soul experience and a cosmic process is symbolically expressed in the monthly pictures for the following calendar dates. If one experiences the co-experience with the world becoming in these continuous pictures, as with a character the corresponding sound enters into consciousness, so one will feel the meaning of these pictures correctly. Less emphasis is placed on abstract astronomical relationships.

The pictures that are added to the days are characterized by similar conditions for the moon as for the pictures of the months for the sun.

The number of a year is always determined by one part of humanity in such a way that the count is started from an event that is perceived as particularly important for that part of humanity. The Jews count from the point in time they call the “creation of the world,” and the Christians from the “birth of Jesus.” This calendar counts from the year 33-34 of the Christian era. It is based on that date in the development of the earth that is significant for all of humanity without distinction of race, nation, etc. The assumption of “spiritual science” is based on this, which sees the moment in the year indicated when the forces entered the development of mankind through which the human ego can grasp itself within itself and bring it into relation with the world through the forces of its own life of ideas, without any symbol. Before this point in time, in order to understand himself and think his way into the world, the human being needed images taken from external perception. The preparation for this point in time lies, on the one hand, in ancient Hebrew culture, which first brought the “God within” without images; on the other hand, in Greek intellectual life, which, both in its artists and in its world sages, prepared the time by grasping the human being through the presentation of himself as an earthly creature and characterizing world-becoming in his philosophy not through external images but through ideas that originate only in the human mind as a thinking consciousness (Thales to Aristotle). The Christian confession expressed the feeling towards this human fact by placing the “death and resurrection of Christ”, the “mystery of Golgotha”, at the corresponding point in time. From this point on, the years are counted in the following information. And in keeping with this, the day of remembrance of this year is assumed to be the first in the year count. Whether there is any right to this, in relation to the counting from January 1, is of course debatable. This should not be done here.

The annual remembrance days do not aim for completeness. They are provided with names in such a way that what is mentioned can be useful to those who want to follow the spiritual development of humanity.