The Rudolf Steiner Archive

that initiated the separation from the Esoteric School of Theosophy.

To the members of the German Section of the Theosophical Society

[Berlin, early July 1906] Dear Friends!

The President-Founder of the Theosophical Society sent the following executive note to me as the General Secretary of the German Section and requests me to communicate its contents to the members.

Serious accusations¹ which have been raised by the Executive Committee of the American Section of the Theosophical Society against Mr. C. W. Leadbeater, have caused the President-Founder to call a meeting for May 16 in London, at which were present the entire Executive Committee of the British Section and delegates from the American and French Sections. It was to be discussed with the President what measures should be taken.

After careful consideration of the charges, and after hearing Mr. Leadbeater's verbal explanation, the following resolution was adopted:

Having considered the charges preferred against Mr. C. W. Leadbeater and having heard his defense, the committee unanimously recommends to the President the acceptance of Leadbeater's resignation, which he had already tendered prior to any action of the committee.

Mr. Leadbeater's membership of the Theosophical Society thus ceases, as does his mandate as a presidential delegate.

H. S. Olcott P.T.S.

Dear Friends!

The above document contains an important message in a somewhat brief form for the members of the Theosophical Society. Mr. Leadbeater is not only a member of the Society; he is one of the most outstanding propagators of the Theosophical worldview. His books have become a guide to Theosophy and a guide within it for many. He has numerous disciples who follow his direction. He has just completed a long lecture tour, during which he achieved something significant for the Theosophical movement in America and Australia. And immediately afterwards, “serious accusations” were made by the American section, the section within which he had just been working so energetically.

In view of these circumstances, I must concede to the members of the German section the right to demand an explanation from me as General Secretary. It is indeed repeatedly emphasized from many sides that the Theosophical Society in its aims and tasks should not be confused with the achievements of some of its members. On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that the Society's overall activity is composed of the work of its individual members, and that it cannot be unimportant if trust in outstanding work must suffer a severe shock due to facts of the kind communicated in the President's circular. For with this trust in the workers, surely that in their achievements also falls away. And these achievements form the true living content of the Society. They are the means by which the Society is to fulfill a great task, from which its members want to draw spiritual nourishment. The Society certainly cannot live by the ever-recurring enumeration of the “three basic goals,” which are supposed to stand higher than any achievement of individuals.

But there are reasons for not talking in a circular about the things about which some of our American members have made serious accusations against Mr. Leadbeater, and because of which the members of the Executive Committee of the British Section and some delegates of the French and American Sections felt obliged to give their consent to the acceptance of Mr. Leadbeater's resignation.

I myself can now speak all the more impartially about this case of Leadbeater's, because from the standpoint of occultism, which I have to represent, I have always had to reject the methods by which Mr. Leadbeater comes to his occult realizations and which he also recommends as useful methods for others. I am not saying anything for or against the correctness of what Leadbeater presents as occult truths in his books. It is the case in occultism that someone can come to some correct insights, even though the methods he uses are dangerous and can easily lead astray. I must therefore trace the case of Leadbeater back to much deeper underlying causes. At the same time, however, I must explain that there is almost no one for whom there is no guarantee of falling into a disastrous error if he applies the methods on which Leadbeater's work is based. Because of my point of view, the case of Leadbeater was no surprise to me. But I do not think that anyone who agrees with the methodological basis of Leadbeater's occult research has any reason to condemn him now. Either the circular sent to the members should have clearly stated that the accusations concern matters that have nothing at all to do with occultism, or else Leadbeater's entire occult system falls with him. I am quite clear about the latter; that is why I have explained my point of view to the members of the German Section here, instead of making an official statement that is not included in the executive note.

As for the assessment of Mr. Leadbeater as a person, which might be important to some, it may be stated that he always emphasized the good intention he had in all of this, of which he is accused. And no one has any reasonable grounds for casting doubt on this assertion of Leadbeater's. It should also be considered in this matter that a large number of American members of the Theosophical Society have just sent out a circular letter in which they vigorously protest against the action taken against Mr. Leadbeater and in which they strongly demand his reinstatement in all his rights. From this it could also be concluded that one can have a different opinion about the charges against Leadbeater than the American Executive Committee has, and than those who simply make the opinion of this committee theirs.

I ask the esteemed members of the German Section not to be shaken in their commitment to the Theosophical cause, whatever the consequences of the Leadbeater case may be; and with that I send all friends

heartfelt Theosophical greetings

Dr. Rudolf Steiner
General Secretary of the German Section

I am happy to provide any member with further oral clarification of the matter should the opportunity arise.

• 1. Regarding the accusations against Leadbeater, see Gregory Tillet's biography “The Elder Brother”, London 1982.

that initiated the separation from the Esoteric School of Theosophy.

To Annie Besant, early July 1906 ¹

Dear Mrs. Besant.

I have received your messages dated June 9, 1906, from Simla, India, to the Wardens and Sub-Wardens of the E.S. Thank you very much indeed. Please allow me to write the following in response. Since you have granted me complete freedom in conducting E.S. affairs in Germany, I have so far not wished to take up your valuable time with letters; but the present case of Leadbeater is important enough to justify this letter. I would like to point out in advance that I am having my letter translated by Marie von Sivers to make it easier for you to read. This is certainly not a mistake, in my opinion, because this colleague of mine can no longer be misled by what I have to say; and as for the very last things I have to say, I will not say them in full. I think you will read them between the lines.

Now a word in advance. I will speak with complete frankness. And with this in mind, I ask you, dear Mrs. Besant, to include the following.

I was not surprised for a moment by what was said against Mr. Leadbeater. And neither what Messrs. Mead and Keightley were able to tell me in Paris, who were present at the meeting of the Executive Committee, nor the report sent to the General Secretaries from that meeting, were able to change my opinion – ultimately – from what it was before this whole matter became publicly known to a limited extent.

The whole matter presents itself to me in a much deeper light and context. I have to see the bad in the whole thing in the peculiarity of Mr. Leadbeater's occult method. This occult method must necessarily lead in certain cases to such or similar errors as those found in Mr. Leadbeater, because it is no longer applicable to the cycle of humanity to which the Western population belongs. It does not have to be the same errors in every case, but similar ones may arise that are no less serious. For these methods can lead to a sure result only when behind each one who enters the path stands the absolute authority of a guru, such as is quite impossible in the Occident because of the general cultural conditions. In the Occident, a person may be led to the stage of psychic development on which Leadbeater stood only if the part of the guidance that can no longer come from the guru is replaced by a certain degree of mental training. And this training is lacking in Mr. Leadbeater. By this I do not mean a mere intellectual-philosophical training, but the development of that level of consciousness that consists in inner, mental vision. This simply requires the level of brain development that the Westerner must have attained. In Germany, for example, the paths to this training must be taken from the thought mysticism of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel, which cannot be understood at all in view of their truly occult basis.

All this is the case because the thought itself is the same for all plans. Wherever thought is developed, whether on the physical or on a higher plane, it will be a sure guide for everything if it is free from sensuality and grasped in self-knowledge. If it is first developed on the physical plane, according to the Western brain disposition, then it remains the sure guiding thread through all stages of physical and superphysical knowledge. If it is lacking, then the Westerner is rudderless, whether he is moving on the physical or a higher plane. And with the close relationship at the present time between all higher human forces and the forces that belong to a lower level of the sexual sphere, a derailment similar to that of Mr. Leadbeater can occur at any moment. His “case” is not the only one, but something that belongs to the field that is currently being practiced in many occult groups that are more or less heading in the wrong direction. The Masters of the Rosicrucian School have foreseen the peculiarity of the fifth human sub-race and have worked out the “Path” for the Occident, which alone is applicable in the present cycle. As far as it may be brought before the public, this “path” has been communicated by me in the magazine Lucifer-Gnosis.³

It is not necessary to reflect on the individual case of Mr. Leadbeater, but on the dangers of his method. This danger lies in itself; and one should never assume that it cannot lead to such aberrations. What is not right does not begin with the fact that one or another person is led to do the things that have been mentioned here, but already with the way in which one arrives at the results in the sense of this method, as they can be found in Mr. Leadbeater's writings.

If I had stood alone, I would never have recommended Mr. Leadbeater's writings as suitable Theosophical reading. Since I joined the T.S. for deeper reasons, I naturally could not reject the books of a recognized leader.

So that is the merits of the case. But the treatment he has received at the hands of the British Section Committee is, in the occult sense, quite impossible. How can it not be clear that by such a judgment one has done something equivalent to the act of a man sawing off the branch on which he sits?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the exoteric character of T.S. must always collide with the occult point of view when it comes to an emergency arising from the occult worlds. It would have to be ensured under all circumstances that Mr. Leadbeater is not morally condemned in the ordinary sense, that everyone who hears about the matter also learns that this is a case that can only be understood by the occultist, and that Leadbeater has not “morally failed” in the ordinary sense of the word , but that he fell a victim to his method, that what the public morally condemns here is to be judged according to the principle that “where there is strong light, there must also be strong shadow”. Only through such an interpretation can one get over the shock into which, in the other case, society will inevitably fall.

It will not depend on our judgment of Mr. Leadbeater, whom so many now condemn, but solely on our finding the right way to continue our work fruitfully. And that can only consist in recognizing the Rosicrucian path as the right one for European conditions. If we do not do this, cases similar to Leadbeater's will be repeated, and the Society will disintegrate into its atoms. In the present phase of human development, occultism must be taught publicly, of course with all the restrictions that the holy masters impose on us; but in this teaching, too, we must take a truly occult point of view. It would be contrary to the demands of our time if we were to limit ourselves to a mere operation of things that can be controlled by the so-called “common sense”. This word “common sense” played a fateful role at the Paris Congress.

I do not wish to bother you further, dear Mrs. Besant, with specific suggestions regarding what needs to be done in Germany for the good of our great cause, because it is only possible if I have the full freedom I have been granted in this case as well. In Central Europe, the lines of occult activity have been clearly defined since the fourteenth century; and we must follow these directions here. Those in Germany who are still walking in the paths that were taken here before our section was founded have often said to me during my lectures: “Yes, but Leadbeater says otherwise...”. But it was always foreigners who had come to Germany on a visit who said this. I knew that I had to say something different.

In conclusion, I need only say that I am aware of my devotion to the masters in every word of this letter, and therefore I can also know that you, dear Mrs. Besant, will not see my candour in the wrong light.

With all my devotion and affection,

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Rudolf Steiner

• 1. Text based on the handwritten draft, for translation into English by Marie von Sivers. A. Besant does not appear to have replied to this letter; at least, there is no reply among her letters, a fairly complete set of which are preserved in the archive.
• 3. Refers to the essays “How to Know Higher Worlds?” which were first published in book form in 1909.

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

With the expression of the utmost respect, the undersigned, in his capacity as Secretary General of the German Section and as a member of the General Council of the Theosophical Society, would like to make the following comments regarding the January 1907 messages from the President-Founder and the resolutions of part of the General Council, as well as the letters from Mrs. Besant.

1. It seems completely impossible to designate a member as unsuitable for the Society because he holds this or that opinion and draws the consequences of his opinion in his teaching methods. The Society can only be an administrative body, in accordance with its present constitution; and it cannot form a tribunal of judges to decide whether any opinion is right or wrong. This principle could only be abandoned if members were obliged, upon admission, to hold certain opinions. But that would not be in the spirit of the Society.

2. In the case of Mr. Jinarajadasa, apart from any misunderstanding, there is nothing to justify his exclusion. His exclusion would be legal only if it were admitted that a member could be excluded because he does not hold the opinion held by another section of the Society. Therefore the exclusion of Mr. Jinarajadasa should be annulled. If it is not, it would be a failure to observe the above point 1). The undersigned therefore fully agrees that Mr. Jinarajadasa should continue to be considered a member of the Society.

3. The undersigned welcomes with complete satisfaction the nomination of Mrs. Besant as successor to the esteemed President-Founder. He only adds that the individuality of the esteemed President may continue to dwell in the physical body for a long time to come. He therefore sends his best wishes and thoughts for the President's recovery.

4. The undersigned, in his capacity as General Secretary of the German Section, cannot take any notice of the announcement that Mrs. Besant's nomination was made on behalf of the High Masters. However important the manifestation of the High Masters may be for the esotericist, the administration of the Theosophical Society is not concerned with it. And the latter has to regard Mrs. Besant's nomination merely as an expression of the will of the President-Founder. Whether the President-Founder is advised by the high masters or by someone else is a purely private matter for the President-Founder himself in the exoteric Society. The undersigned is therefore not in a position to officially communicate this justification of Mrs. Besant's nomination to his section. He can only treat this as an esoteric matter. On the other hand, he will strongly support the nomination of Mrs. Besant as President as the will of the President of the German Section, and he does not doubt for a moment that Mrs. Besant's great universal admiration will ensure her almost unanimous election by the German Section. The wishes and thoughts of the undersigned will accompany Mrs. Besant as president at every step, just as they have done in her work so far.

With the most respectful and theosophical greetings,

Dr. Rudolf Steiner
Secretary General of the German Section

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

Budapest, February 25, 1907

... I just wanted to add the following lines to the letter to the General Secretaries on a separate sheet: “The undersigned General Secretary of the German Section of the T. S. [Theosophical Society] has answered the letters of the General Council, the President-Founder and Mrs. Besant from January 1907 in the following enclosed manner. He takes the liberty of sending this reply as his opinion on the matters in question to the General Secretaries as well. With theosophical greetings, Dr. Rudolf Steiner.” This is how things can still be handled today. Only the passage regarding Olcott's survival must simply be left out. However things turn out, it will be disastrous for the T.S., but not unfavorably for the spiritual movement. Even the decline of the T.S. as such must not frighten us. You must understand that I myself must remain vague with you about the master affair in Adyar. But you will admit that it takes more than “blindness” to think that an administrative action of the Society can be enforced by appealing to the masters. Mrs. Besant will probably do nothing worse in her present situation than to make this appeal to her own impulses. She will thereby put precisely those who count themselves among her in a difficult position. For if we choose her, we will have to choose her for reasons that are not her own. Can there be anything more absurd? One should not misuse the sacred calling of the masters to support a cause that has been compromised by philistinism. For the masters have nothing to do with that “universal philanthropy” which is only the inverted hypocritical robe of the bourgeois egoism of our age. If you turn this selfishness around, nothing comes out of the nuance of shame that it bears on its right side, except the lust for pity and “universal brotherly love” on the left! The masters are dealing with knowledge and not with moral sermons.

You will understand me. Whether it is Sinnett or Olcott, it makes no difference. We must move forward.

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

Typewritten text, page 1 and signature missing.

End of February 1907

The President-Founder has been granted the right to make a proposal regarding his successor based on his personal preference. In the meantime, the Vice President is taking over the business and initiating the election process. Everyone can vote for whomever they choose. The President's suggestion is not binding. The election will not begin before May 1. No ballot submitted before May 1 will be valid. During the month of May, all members will elect the new President of the Theosophical Society. Sinnett is the acting Vice President until the election.

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

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

They would probably excuse me from discussing this matter precisely because I believe I know something about these things. However, I am in the special position of not being able to express myself further on all these matters. We would be in a difficult position if we were to refer to this communiqué. We must therefore treat it as if it did not exist. We must regard it as if it were only Colonel Olcott's personal wish. We will ignore the content of the matter and discuss only the formalities.

We must not care whether Olcott was advised by a Schulze or a Müller or by a Mahatma. It may well be that he was given the advice by a Mahatma. This is an administrative act, and it is true that the Masters do not concern themselves with administrative matters on the physical plane. On the other hand, we would be in a strange position if we opposed the decision of the Masters. So we simply have to write the name we want on the ballot paper. For those who live in the occult life, the Master's word would be absolutely binding. Olcott may have taken advice. That is his business as an esotericist, but not the business of the Society. If we were to regard it as the wish of the Master, we Theosophists would be in a very difficult position. If the Adyar Communiqué were correct, the President would be appointed and we would not need to elect him.

I would like to ask you urgently to do what you can to ensure that this matter is discussed as little as possible or not at all. However, it should be recognized that the German section at least understands that these things do not belong in public, and that if they must be discussed, they are treated like an intimate family matter in society. We can only serve the true, great cause if we not only try to remain silent about this matter, but also if we try to maintain this silence in such a way that the matter does not become public, so that it can never appear in our newspapers. Just think what a shock could be caused to our society if it became known in the world that the Theosophical Society has the President appointed by extrasensory means. This appointment is to be considered as non-existent. This is difficult, because it can be read everywhere and because there is discussion about whether it should be considered valuable or not. The only thing to do is to pay no attention to it. The high teachings of wisdom have nothing to do with the administrative affairs of society. The content is provided by wisdom, the framework for it is to be provided and formed by people.

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

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

Berlin, March 12, 1907

Dear Friends!

Certain events currently taking place within the Theosophical Society make it necessary for the following lines to be addressed to the members of the German Section. These events have not played a role within the German Section so far, and rightly so. Now, however, they are stirring up a lot of dust within other sections – unfortunately to the detriment of the Society – and it cannot be avoided that the matter will also be brought into our Section from outside and will disturb minds here. This is why this letter is necessary. The relevant events relate to the election of a successor to our dear and revered President-Founder H.S. Olcott. According to the statutes of our Society, the election of a new President could have been the easiest, smoothest thing in the world.

Now it is being made confusing for no good reason.

The statutes state:

The President-Founder, Colonel H.S.Olcott, holds the office of President for Life, and has the right to propose his successor. This proposal is subject to the approval of the Society. The vote shall be taken in the manner provided.

The President is elected for seven years.

Six months before the expiry of the term of office of a president, his successor shall be proposed by the General Council at a meeting to be held by the latter. And the proposal shall be communicated to the general secretaries and the general secretary of the Society. Each general secretary shall collect the votes of his section in accordance with its statutes, and the general secretary shall collect the votes of the other members of the Society. A two-thirds majority of the votes cast is required for election.

From this it can be seen that the founding president was granted special rights that will no longer apply in the future.

We must now vote in the spirit of these rights. That is, the general secretary of a section must inform the members of the proposal made by the president-founder regarding his successor. Furthermore, the general secretary must hand over or send a ballot paper to each member of his section, which the member may fill out at his or her own discretion.

Of course, no member is obliged to follow the president-founder's suggestion, but can put the name they consider most suitable on the ballot paper. The completed ballot paper is then to be returned to the Secretary General.

For the German section, everything necessary in terms of the statutes has basically already been done, except for the election itself. And this must be carried out in accordance with the instructions of the Vice-President, who is to perform all the functions of the President until a new President takes office. The current Vice-President is Mr. Sinnett. The election will now be carried out in our section in the proper manner at the proper time.

So far, then, everything is in perfect order.

But disorder is brought into the matter by the following.

Before his passing away, our revered President-Founder sent to the General Secretaries and to others all kinds of circulars in which he announced that he had received instructions from higher worlds to appoint a certain personality, namely Mrs. Besant, as his successor.

The President-Founder claims that certain Masters, who in Theosophical circles are referred to by the names M. and K.H., appeared to him and gave him the aforementioned instructions.

Whether or not these instructions are genuine is a matter for esoteric study. It would have been necessary to completely ignore this matter in the administration. For who advises Olcott in his proposal regarding his successor is nobody's business but his own. It does not matter whether Olcott took advice from an ordinary person or from a supernatural power.

One can be of the opinion that Olcott should not have communicated the whole matter. But this communication can be attributed to a weakness of his last seriously ill times. It is also due to this weakness that he said, contrary to the statutes, that he was appointing his successor. Because the statutes give him no right of appointment, but only a right of proposal.

It would therefore have been right to extract the right thing from Olcott's circular and ignore everything else.

This has not been done in various sections.

There is a lot of discussion about what does not belong to the election matter. This carries the risk that a purely administrative matter will be mixed up with esoteric matters. Particularly if one takes the correct esoteric standpoint, that our teachings go back to supersensible sources, then one should carefully avoid bringing a purely social matter, such as the election of a president, into any connection with supersensible powers. It would contradict all esoteric principles to drag the supersensible into the discussion, which can always arise in the case of a presidential election. It should be expressly emphasized here that it would not actually be necessary in principle to say the following, and that it is only said here to prevent misunderstandings that may be caused by discussions in which the leadership of the German Section is innocent, but which have unfortunately arisen.

None of the individualities that we can recognize in supersensible vision will ever interfere in a matter such as the present presidential election. That would be to bind our will, but these individualities, by the way they stand to us, actually want to free our will so that it can make the right decision in each individual case. Therefore, the currents of spiritual life never come to us from them in such a way that they can interfere with our free choice. I am saying something that goes beyond the powers of the General Secretary, but I must say it as a friend of the members.

The time will come when I will be able to say what the actual position is regarding the pronouncements made by Adyar. It would not be right for me to talk about them now.

I would now like to ask the members, especially in the present time, to carefully distinguish the official messages from the unofficial ones. A completely private message, for example, is the one Mr. Mead has now sent to the branches. It is to be understood as nothing more than Mr. Mead's personal opinion. All official messages can only be sent to the members by the General Secretary of a section. The Deputy President, Mr. Sinnett, will also forward all communications to me, and I will duly forward everything to the members.

This to clarify the situation. I will write again as soon as possible.

With theosophical greetings,

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

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

Private! Berlin, March 26, 1907

My dear Miss Minsloff!

Your feelings regarding the information about occult events being distributed by Adyar are correct. However, we are now facing difficult times, not only for the progress of the Theosophical Society but for spiritual life in general. There are many dark forces at work seeking to destroy the most sincere occult striving, which is so necessary for the present time for the good of humanity. At the present moment, I must remain silent about the actual deeper foundations of the struggle that is being waged behind the scenes. It may become a terrible fight and we must face with open eyes what is coming. Perhaps the time will soon come when I will no longer be able to keep silent about what is going on in Adyar. For the time being, it is best to simply ignore everything that is being spread by Adyar or elsewhere about occult events if it is in line with what has been published so far. It means really blindfolding oneself if one does as Miss Kamensky does and is glad to find a straw somewhere to lift a heavy stone from one's heart. One must ignore everything coming from that source.

Now, at the present moment, the important question is not who is elected, but the main thing is that the sacred cause of the masters should not be associated with something as trivial as an election. What matters is not whether Mrs. Besant is elected or not, but whether she can associate the election at all with the exalted masters. This is what must cause the greatest possible confusion, and what could lead to the complete loss of connection between the Masters and the Society in the future. For the Masters may no longer concern themselves with a society in which they are expected to play the role that is currently being attributed to them by Adyar.

What is much more important, whether Mrs. Besant is elected, is that she herself gets back on the right track. Unless some very special complications arise, Mrs. Besant will probably have to be elected. Of all the older members of the Society, she must appear to be the most suitable so far. Please do not tell anyone that you are thinking of me, because apart from the fact that this is as hopeless as possible, my task lies in a completely different area than the administration of the Society. It must surely be the aim that the position of President should increasingly turn him into a mere administrative figure. The best President will be the one who does the paperwork well, takes care of correspondence from Adyar and otherwise keeps his mouth shut about occult matters. The fact that Mrs. Besant will not perceive her office in this way seems to be the most important reason against her election. But such an understanding of the President's position will only come about after many years. Therefore, for the time being, it would probably be best if Mrs. Besant were elected. The practice of how we act and how we always strictly reject occult messages that are spread as widely as the current ones will determine whether the Society can be a spiritual guardian in the future. But for the time being, no member should decide yet. The election in the German section will not take place until May 1, and a lot can still happen then that could influence the vote in this or that direction. Until then, however, you will still hear from me what I believe to be right.

Your inner life continues in the right direction, as we have discussed it here. Since you are doing everything right, I have no new instructions to give you, but only from the physical distance, but the spiritual closeness, in thoughts to send what I am able to send to you.

In this sense, entirely yours

Dr. Rudolf Steiner

Regarding the election of Annie Besant, head of the Esoteric School, as president of the Theosophical Society, which led to the separation of the Esoteric School.

Berlin, April 28, 1907

Dear Friends!

From the letters that I have addressed to the individual members and to the chairmen of the branches, it is known that we will soon be obliged to elect the successor to our dear deceased president-founder. The circumstances of this election in general have also been discussed in these letters. Through these lines, I am now addressing the matter to the dear friends of the board. I would like to emphasize once again that, from a formal point of view, there is no ambiguity at the moment. This ambiguity could only arise later from an imperfection in the statutes, which I will discuss below.

I will first quote the relevant passages of the statutes for the election, in the version in which they have been laid down since April 1905. They read:

§9 The President-Founder H.S. Olcott holds the office of President for life and has the right to nominate his successor. This nomination is subject to confirmation by the Society. The vote shall be cast in the manner prescribed for the election of the President.

§10 Six months before the term of office of the President has expired, the General Council shall, at a meeting convened for that purpose, nominate his successor, and the nomination shall be communicated to the Secretaries-General and the Archivist. Each Secretary-General shall collect the votes according to the rules of his Section, and the Archivist shall collect the votes of the other members of the Society. A majority of two-thirds of the votes cast is required for election. Now I will also put the names of the members of the General Council here:

Ex officio: A.P. Sinnett, Hon. Sir S.Subramania Aiyer, W.A.English, Alexander Fullerton, Upendra Nath Basu, Bertram Keightley, W.G. John, Arvid Knös, C.W. Sanders, W.B. Fricke, Dr. Theodor Pascal, Decio Calvari, Dr. Rudolf Steiner, José M. Masso. In addition, the following assessors: Annie Besant, G.R.S. Mead, Khan Bahadur Kaoroji Khandalwala, Dinshaw Jivaji Edal Behram, Francesca Arundale, Tumachendra Row, Charles Blech.

Now it is clear that these provisions contain regrettable ambiguities, and that if the current election does not produce a positive result in the first ballot, we have no provision at all for this case, unless, as some seem to be doing, we assume that the General Council can make a second nomination. But in any case, nothing of the sort is stated in the above passages. Furthermore, it should be considered that if the statutes are interpreted literally – and we must undoubtedly adhere to such an interpretation – the member can do nothing but either elect the person designated by the president-founder or express on the ballot that he does not want the latter. It would therefore serve no purpose at all to write any other name on the ballot paper. Whether what is supposed to happen here can still be called an election seems at the very least questionable. After all, one can only say “yes” or “no”.

Now, of course, we can do nothing but abide by the statutes in the present case.

In January, the president-founder sent me a circular in which he announced that the Masters had appeared to him at his sickbed and had caused him to appoint Mrs. Besant as his successor. Nothing more was stated in this and similar communications than that the president-founder was nominating Mrs. Besant as his successor. Officially, no consideration could be given to the fact that the president stated that he had received the advice from the masters to do so. For by giving such consideration, we would have conjured up esoteric questions, such as those about the masters and the truth of their appearances at Oilcott's bedside during the handling of a purely administrative matter such as the presidential election. And we have had painful enough experiences to see where that leads. In other sections, they did not do what seemed to me to be the only right thing to do – to simply remain silent about the master apparitions, as esoteric questions in mere business have to be dealt with – but they talked about them. And that has also generated a flood of writings and counter-writings, a regrettable discussion in which things are discussed that can only be discussed in quiet esoteric work and certainly not during a presidential election. Officially, nothing could be considered other than the nomination of Mrs. Besant by the president-founder. Officially, nothing else concerned us, because it was Olcott's business to decide whether he sought the advice of an ordinary mortal or of a master when making the nomination. The members had to consider nothing other than the fact that this nomination had been made, and then they had to decide whether they considered Mrs. Besant to be the appropriate person or not. Of course, this is not to say that unofficially the appearances of the Masters could not have been announced after all, so that the Council, which for Olcott was one, could also have become one for those who believe in the Masters, and who can also believe that the appearances in Adyar were really the Masters. So it was quite clear what I had to do as Secretary-General. First officially announce that it is Olcott's wish that Mrs. Besant be elected. Then, after Olcott's death, carry out the election. And at the same time, unofficially, as a friend, let the confidential information about the Master's appearances reach the members. To initiate the election before Olcott's death would have seemed absurd to me. For if one could have spoken of Olcott's imminent death as an esoteric, it would never have occurred to me to base an administrative act on it. After all, in theory, Olcott could have lived for another ten years. Since the term of office for the new president is only for seven years according to the statutes, we would have had two presidents if Olcott had lived for another ten years, the second of whom would never have been able to take office. Now I must confess that it is completely beyond me how some sections were able to initiate the election while Olcott was still alive.

Now, immediately after the passing of our dear President-Founder, I received an official letter dated February 22 [21] from Vice President Mr. Sinnett, which decreed that the election should take place in the month of May, and that only those ballots sent to the Secretaries-General between the first and the last of May would be valid. This gave me a certain indisputable directive. I had to make the election in May. For Mr. Sinnett is rightly in charge after the President's death. It is therefore also up to him to lead the election.

In the sense of this letter from Mr. Sinnett, the German section will now also be proceeded.

Each member will receive their ballot with the necessary information at the appropriate time.

Had nothing else happened, I would not have needed to write to our dear Theosophical friends about this. After all, everything is actually clear.

But now, as a result of the unusual communications mentioned, extensive discussions have taken place. Outside the German Section, people have spoken out against the authenticity of the Masters' appearances. Even the oldest members of the Theosophical Society have done so. There has been quite a fierce backlash against Mrs. Besant. It was said that Mrs. Besant already had too many offices. She could not have others as well, and so on. Finally, fierce attacks on Mrs. Besant have appeared because of an article she wrote in the February issue of the Theosophical Review. It is, of course, not possible here to reproduce the content of this article in detail, and a brief summary could all too easily be criticized as subjective. I would therefore like to relate what I said about it in the 33rd issue of the magazine “Lucifer-Gnosis” not in my capacity as General Secretary, but as a friend of the members.

The Theosophical Society demands that its members recognize the universal brotherhood of humanity. Anyone who recognizes that the Society has a duty to work towards the realization of such a brotherhood can be a member of the Society. And one should not say that a member can be excluded because of actions that cause offense here and there, provided that he recognizes the above rule of the society. For the Theosophical Society has no moral code, and one finds actions among the greatest minds of humanity that might offend someone, depending on the circumstances of his time and country.

I must confess that that I regarded this essay as a correct, even obvious expression of an occultist attitude, and that I assumed that other Theosophists also think so, until I came across the April issue of the Theosophical Review, in which it is said from many sides and in endless repetition that such an attitude is the height of immorality and must undermine all good morals. And again and again the refrain, spoken or unspoken: Can anyone who preaches such immorality be president of the Society? It is probably not the time to modestly raise the question: Where is the transference of the doctrine of karma into life, which shows us that man is dependent on his karma in his present actions, but that he will depend on his thoughts in the present with regard to his future actions? As Theosophists, should we judge as people do who know nothing about karma, or should we see the actions of our fellow human beings as conditioned by their past lives? Do we still know that thoughts are facts and that those who work for right thoughts in our ranks are laying the very foundation for overcoming what clings to people from the past? What Mrs. Besant has dealt with in this essay is nothing more than an ancient occultist principle, which is expressed in the otherwise certainly disputable novel “Zanoni” ¹ is expressed in the following words: “Our thoughts are the part of us that is angelic, our deeds the part that is earthly.” In quieter times Mrs. Besant's essay would have been taken as much of what the occultist often has to say to popular morality. From all this and much more it will be seen that there has been an antagonism to Mrs. Besant in the Society for some time. This has been known for a long time to those who have had an opportunity of observing certain proceedings. It has now only come to the surface, with Olcott's unexpected nomination of Mrs. Besant for the presidency. It will be strange to many, however, that even old friends of Mrs. Besant have now deserted her or taken sides against her.

Now, as far as possible, I would like to avoid influencing anyone in this case. However, I do feel obliged to say a few things that may be useful in forming one's own opinion.

It has been said that Mrs. Besant acts on the advice of the masters or even on their orders. It is certainly a confusing fact. It has been pointed out by some with all their might that the existence of the Masters is not a dogma for society, that one can be a perfectly good member of society without believing in the Masters. It was further said that one could generally be convinced that there are Masters, but that one could therefore still consider the revelations at Olcott's sickbed to be deceptions or the like. It was further emphasized that if something like the orders given with master authority were issued in a matter that, like an election, must be left entirely to the discretion of each member, it would inevitably lead to psychological tyranny.

These are things which the opponents have put forward. Now we shall set here what she herself says on this main point. Her own words in a document dated Benares, March 24, are:

These sentences clearly express two things. Firstly, that Mrs. Besant wants to do everything she does in the spirit of the Masters, and that she believes in the Society only insofar as the work of the Masters is expressed in it. But secondly, that she considers the revelations of the Masters to be absolutely authoritative.

One can now fully agree with the first point, but not with the second. I can only give the assurance that I myself am not yet allowed to say what I know about the phenomena in Adyar. But the time will certainly come when I shall be able to speak openly to Theosophical friends about the matter.² So the decision will not depend on what I know.

Now I must immediately say openly that I foresee many difficulties that could arise for our work in the German section because of Mrs. Besant, precisely because of the things that, to my regret, are connected with her occult position and with many other things about her. I do not hide the fact that I also have serious concerns. And few realize how difficult it is for me to express such things here.

I would now like to say something that could be useful to some people. One can want to be a servant of the Masters, one can firmly believe that society only makes sense if it does the work of the Masters, and yet one does not need to take the revelations that are now being proclaimed from Adyar as one's guiding principle. It is not correct, as many seem to believe, that these revelations either come from the Masters, according to whom one should act, or that they are illusions. There is, as every true occultist should know, a third possibility. But since, as I said, I cannot speak about the revelations themselves, these hints will have to suffice for the time being. In any case, however, it is the case that one might not agree with Mrs. Besant's particular spiritual direction, but one could still admit that under the present circumstances she is the only possible candidate for the presidency. For it must be borne in mind that the opposition to Mrs. Besant is not based on her personality, but that those who are now turning against her are turning against spiritual life in general. They will certainly not admit this so readily, but it is so nevertheless. There is a current in society which, if it were to prevail, would gradually extinguish spiritual life. As a result, society would perhaps become an association for the comparison of religions, for philosophical considerations, for ethical culture or the like, but would not remain a spiritual brotherhood. One can also take the position that one cannot go along with Mrs. Besant's spiritual direction, but one wants the spirituality of the Society to be preserved, and therefore, under the present circumstances, one must vote for Mrs. Besant, even if it might later lead to conflicts over her spiritual direction. We must accept this fact as conditioned by the circumstances of the Society.

In the near future, I will send each member a ballot paper with information, and thus initiate the election in the appropriate manner.

If you would like to write to me about my remarks, I would be very grateful if you could do so as soon as possible so that it reaches me before the election.

With warm theosophical greetings,

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

• 1.
• Note num. Note text
• 2. No definite statement on this point has been handed down; but cf. the transcript made a little later in September for E. Schuré, pp. p. 347 ff.

An Introduction by Hella Wiesberger Concerning Rudolf Steiner's Place in the History of the Occult Movement

Rudolf Steiner has become the pioneering leader in the field of esotericism, in which man should be given freedom through him.¹

As the first modern scientist of the supersensible, Rudolf Steiner was completely on his own. He only ever taught what he could give and take responsibility for from personal experience. Far ahead of his time, he recognized that the turn of the 19th to the 20th century would usher in not just a new century, but a completely new era in which humanity would be confronted with social upheavals of unimaginable proportions. With the ever-increasing individual consciousness, a tremendous struggle for freedom would begin; great technical and economic progress will be achieved through the increasingly life-dominant agnostic-pragmatic way of thinking of the mechanical-materialistic sciences, but at the same time the last remnants of the ancient knowledge of the connection with the world of the creative-spiritual as the true origin and goal of all existence will be lost. The inevitable consequence of this must be worldwide spiritual desolation and a feeling of meaninglessness in life.

From this insight, Rudolf Steiner gained the conviction that this historical process, necessary for the sake of general progress, can only be met by one thing: by a new world and life view rooted in modern individual consciousness, but oriented towards the Creative-Spiritual. And so, from his personal experiential knowledge of the supersensible world and life purpose, he developed the modern spiritual science of “Anthroposophy” and lived and taught in accordance with the spirit of the new age, according to the principle: freedom through the modern spirit of science, also in the field of the supersensible, of esotericism.

With this basic intention, he also brought about a turning point in the history of the occult movement. For the wisdom of the occult movement came from other sources of consciousness. It went back to the so-called original wisdom that had been revealed to mankind in the days of the primeval world and had enabled it to gain a very extensive mastery of the material forces of existence. As long as man still acted without personal responsibility in full agreement with the intentions of the spiritual worlds, this wisdom formed a common fund of knowledge. But when, in the course of the development of personality, egotism made its appearance and the natural connection with the supersensible worlds gradually disappeared, the supersensible knowledge conferring power had to be protected against misuse. It was withdrawn into the mysteries. But from there it continued to influence public cultural life well into the early days of the Christian era. It was only when, through Christianity and the rise of intellectualism, progressive cultural awareness became increasingly focused on the knowledge of material laws of the world that the old mysteries gradually lost their dominant position and were finally eradicated as public institutions. Since then, the old mystery wisdom could only be cultivated in secret, small circles. There it was strictly guarded until in the 19th century the signs of the times demanded that a spiritual counterpole be created to counter the exclusively materialistic-agnostic cultural thinking.

This task had raised a question that had become a serious problem for the occult movement of the 19th century. It was the question of whether the wisdom should continue to be kept secret under these circumstances, or whether it would not be more correct to popularize it. This question touched so deeply on the lifeblood of the working method practiced so far - since one was obliged from time immemorial to pass on the higher truths only to those who were prepared to receive them, in order to protect them from abuse - that one could not immediately decide to popularize it. They tried a compromise solution, first of all to test, so to speak, how public awareness would react to the knowledge of the existence of spiritual worlds and beings. This is how the manifestations of the spiritualist mediumistic movement of the forties to the seventies of the 19th century came about. The result was, however, different than expected, but the dam of strict secrecy had been breached and so it became inevitable to at least popularize the basic truths. This happened through the Theosophical Society, founded in 1875 by the Russian Helena Petrovna Blavatsky and the American Henry Steel Olcott.

Although these two attempts had led to sensational movements, in the deeper sense they had to be considered a failure, mainly because the culturally dominant scientific thinking rejected the mediumistic path as unscientific. This was justified to the extent that the mediumistic path not only meant a return to earlier levels of consciousness, but also an impairment of the free right of self-determination. On the other hand, mediumship was the only method for supersensible research that had existed until then.²

While the occult movement was still facing this dilemma at the end of the 19th century, Rudolf Steiner had already solved the problem on his own spiritual path. Not through the traditional teachings preserved in the secret societies, but through his own experiences since childhood, he was quite naturally connected to the supersensible and, as a result of his scientific education, also mastered the mechanical-materialistic way of thinking of the sciences, he had gained the decisive insight that supersensible knowledge and beings can only be beneficially combined with modern cultural consciousness if the method can guarantee the same certainty and independence as is the case in modern natural science.

On the basis of this realization, he made it his first task to develop a method for supersensible research that was based entirely on scientific principles. Through a process of strict self-education, he transformed his thinking from a sensual to a supersensible level, and in so doing, he attained the necessary certainty of knowledge about the spiritual realm. At the same time, he discovered freedom as a real experience and as the basis of morality. Thus, for him, thinking free of sensuality became the starting point for a scientifically clear connection to the supersensible world and to a science of freedom as the basis of an “ethical individualism”.

The consistently further developed experience of the nature of the I led in turn to the realization of the macrocosmic representative of the I, the spirit of Christ, whose nature reveals itself in true freedom and love. Thus Rudolf Steiner had also paved the way for a contemporary understanding of the two greatest Christian ideals, freedom and love, as they are later repeatedly expounded by him as the basic impulses of the central event of human development, the mystery of Golgotha and the deepest task of humanity connected with it: to shape the earth into a cosmos of freedom and love (Düsseldorf, April 18, 1909).

The later statement that the ethical individualism of the “Philosophy of Freedom” is already built upon the Christ impulse, even if this is not directly expressed there (Dornach, May 24, 1920), as well as the other statement that there is no other way at present to “impart original wisdom of initiation directly than by keeping fellowship with the Christ” (Stuttgart, March 7, 1920).

On the basis of this community with the “emancipation of the higher consciousness of humanity from the fetters of all authority” achieved through thinking free of the senses, ³ Rudolf Steiner had created the conditions for a healthy liberation of esotericism from the era of its ties to particular circles. Whereas in the past it was only possible to penetrate to the world of spiritual realities with a subdued consciousness under the guidance of a spiritual leader whose authority had to be unconditionally recognized, today, through Rudolf Steiner's pioneering work, every serious seeker, in a clear consciousness and in free self-responsibility, can do so.

The only requirement for this, which everyone has to set for themselves, is spiritual activity. This is essential not only for individual but also for general progress, to such an extent that civilization must perish if each individual is not willing to give civilization a new impetus through the new spiritual knowledge. This was already stated by Rudolf Steiner more than six decades ago (Dornach, July 2, 1920).

It is precisely this aspect of activating the will of the individual with regard to social co-responsibility that fundamentally distinguishes anthroposophically oriented spiritual science from the ancient wisdom preserved in the occult movement. For no new fundamental social impulses can come from the ideas of the occult movement, which arose from the revelations of an epoch of humanity that was still rooted in group consciousness. On the other hand, social thinking cannot be developed without knowledge gained through initiation. For this social necessity, anthroposophy sees itself as an instrument of new revelations of the spirit that take personality consciousness into account. To make these new revelations, which have begun especially since the end of the Kali Yuga in 1899, understandable to humanity and to open up anew through them the meaning of the greatest human event, the mystery of Golgotha, has become a cultural-historical task that Rudolf Steiner took on and about which he once said: “Anyone who does not understand anthroposophy in this sense does not understand it at all.” (Dornach, December 20, 1918). That is why, at the time when he began to present his social insights, he appealed to the ability to distinguish within his own ranks by pointing out:

“Where, then, can one find a truly modern and effective way of addressing the burning issues of the present day that is in touch with reality? You will not be able to find these things in the rituals and precepts of one or other masonic or confessional community. One would like to see discernment taking place!” (Dornach, December 15, 1918).

In this same connection, he also asserted that the spiritual movement he represented had never been dependent on any other and that he was therefore under no obligation to anyone to keep silent about something he himself felt should be said in the present time.

“There is no commandment of silence for one who is not indebted to anyone for his spiritual knowledge.” This alone is enough to distinguish this movement from all others. Anyone who claims that the teachings of anthroposophical spiritual science are proclaimed differently from the sense in which the word “theosophy” , that I stand up for it purely personally, may not know the circumstances for my sake and often not have been there, but look at it from the outside, but he proclaims untruth, out of malevolence or not out of malevolence. But anyone who has been here often and says something different, for example, asserts some kind of past or a connection between this spiritual movement and another, when he knows the conditions here, is lying. That is what it is about. Either he will tell an untruth out of ignorance of the circumstances, or he will lie when he knows the circumstances. All opposition to this movement is to be understood in this way.

Therefore, I must emphasize again and again: I have only to withhold that which I know cannot yet be communicated to present humanity because of its immaturity. But I have nothing to withhold for any reason because a vow or the like would have been made to someone. Nothing has ever been taken into this movement that came from another side. This movement was never spiritually dependent on any other; the connections were only external.

On the basis of this statement, the question arises as to why Rudolf Steiner then joined other movements at all, if he felt obliged to reject both the old practice of secrecy and the old method of research?

This contradiction can only be resolved if the two main laws of esoteric life are taken into account, which Rudolf Steiner always tried to follow as far as possible. These are the two commandments of absolute truthfulness and the maintenance of continuity. Rudolf Steiner repeatedly presented these two laws to his esoteric students.⁴ He himself followed the commandment of unconditional truthfulness by teaching only what he had recognized as true through his own research, and the commandment of continuity by not simply replacing something incomplete with something completely new and more perfect, but by building on what already existed and seeking to transform it into something more perfect. For him, this meant bringing to life the most profound Christian idea, that of resurrection, in the realm of the imagination. If we experience the living continuation of the present in this way and thereby fulfill the words of Christ, not only to bind the bodies with the blood, but to the souls with the spirit, then this can become a path to the knowledge of the mystery of Golgotha (Berlin, April 24, 1917).

According to Rudolf Steiner, much would be gained if those who lived later were to orient themselves in this way towards the deceased, in order to consciously maintain continuity in development. When he wrote about Goethe, he himself had completely disregarded his own opinion and tried only to express the thoughts that could come from Goethe; he had written an epistemology of Goethe's, not his worldview. Just as he had delved into the world of Goethe's thoughts, so had he also delved into those of Nietzsche and Haeckel, since one can only arrive at real insight if one does not want to represent one's own point of view absolutely, but rather delves into foreign currents of thought. And only after he had endeavored for two decades to work from such insight, to acquire, so to speak, the right to influence the living, he advocated the public dissemination of spiritual science. For now no one could rightly claim that “this occultist speaks of the spiritual world because he does not know the philosophical and scientific achievements of the time.” ⁵

This path of Rudolf Steiner's, which is so unusual for ordinary thinking and feeling, could not be understood at all by opponents, and only with difficulty by friends of his spiritual-scientific worldview. Aware of this difficulty, he repeatedly endeavored from time to time to make it clear, at least to his anthroposophical friends, that the spiritual current he represented was never dependent on any other and that certain connections had only been superficial. He admitted that the distinction was complicated by historical events. But even if, from an external point of view, it might have been wiser to found the Anthroposophical Society without any relationship to other societies, the relationships were nevertheless justified by fate (Dornach, December 15, 1918).

This remark makes it clear that the connection with other societies at that time was founded on the tension between the polarities of freedom and love in their form of truthfulness and continuity as applied to esoteric life. The striving for truth and knowledge requires freedom, but at the same time what is recognized as true should connect fraternally with what already exists in the world. It is obvious that even Rudolf Steiner's strong power was not always able to balance the pole of a free, truthful life of knowledge with the pole of continuity as brotherhood. This was objectively impossible because the world is involved at the pole of continuity and this was respected by him to an extent far beyond the norm, based on his ideals of freedom and love. However, he was unable to cultivate brotherhood at the expense of truthfulness. When this became a problem in the Theosophical Society, it led to a split.

Only by ignoring Rudolf Steiner's subtle behavior towards the two poles of esoteric life can misunderstandings and misjudgments regarding his spiritual independence arise. But beyond all such passing judgments, the historical significance of his cultural achievement will be more and more confirmed, which lies precisely in having created a science for the study of supersensible realities, through which freedom also became possible in the field of esotericism.

It could be objected here that Rudolf Steiner also practised secrecy with his Esoteric School. This objection would not be justified, however, because for Rudolf Steiner, even in the Esoteric School, it was never a matter of secrecy in the usual sense. He was always concerned only with maintaining a genuine scientific spirit, which in public education quite naturally requires that serious knowledge can only be imparted in stages. For example, higher geometry cannot be presented to anyone if they do not know the basics. While this is clear with regard to geometry, there is a widespread belief in relation to supersensible knowledge that one can understand and judge everything in this field without any prerequisites.

Rudolf Steiner's teaching activity was structured solely in terms of this factually determined, gradual teaching, from public teaching with no prerequisites at all to teaching with prerequisites. All levels of teaching had their common root in what he described as his “inaugural act” before the public beginning of his work for a science of the supersensible:

"I will build on the strength that enables me to bring spiritual students onto the path of development. That alone must be the significance of my inauguration act.⁶

The Esoteric School served this purpose in a special way, because here the students were taught according to their individual predispositions and needs. But when the Esoteric School was re-established as the “Free University for Spiritual Science” in 1924, the esoteric teaching was also structured in a strictly methodical and generally valid way. However, this could only be done for the first class. The failure of his physical strength in the fall of 1924 made it impossible for Rudolf Steiner to complete his last great work.

• 1. Marie Steiner, Foreword to Rudolf Steiner “The Stages of Higher Knowledge”, GA 12.
• 2. Described in detail in 'The Occult Movement in the 19th Century and its Relationship to World Culture', CW 254. Cf. also 'Spiritual Soul Teaching and World View', CW 52.
• 3. Letter to Rosa Mayreder dated December 14, 1893, in “Letters I”, Dornach 1953 (GA 39).
• 4. As related by a member of the esoteric working groups, Adolf Arenson, in a letter dated December 24, 1926, to Albert Steffen.
• 5. See the autobiographical sketch from 1907 in “Briefwechsel und Dokumente 1901–1925”, GA 262; also the lecture Zurich, December 3, 1916.
• 6. Letter of August 16, 1902, to Wilhelm Hübbe-Schleiden, then representative of the German Theosophists (in “Briefe II”, so far only in the 1953 Dornach edition).

by Hella Wiesberger

At the re-establishment of the Anthroposophical Society at Christmas 1923/24, Rudolf Steiner spoke of his plan to establish the new esoteric school in future as a “Free University for Spiritual Science” with three classes and pointed out that such three classes had existed before, only in a slightly different form. These were the three working groups or departments of the Esoteric School, as they had existed from 1904 until the outbreak of the First World War in the summer of 1914. In keeping with the precept of maintaining continuity as far as possible, he had also linked these groups to what already existed at the time and which lay in the direction of his own intentions: for the first group to the Esoteric School of Theosophy of the Theosophical Society, for the second and third groups, from which the department of the cult of knowledge was formed, to a society with masonic cult forms. ¹

Structure

The Esoteric School of Theosophy – abbreviated as E.S.T. or simply called E.S. – was founded in 1888 by H.P. Blavatsky and was under her sole leadership until her death in 1891.² After that, Annie Besant and W.Q. Judge took over together, and from 1895 A. Besant alone.” The few German Theosophists who were seeking esoteric training were affiliated with this E.S. in London. It was only through Rudolf Steiner that a German Esoteric School was established together with the German Society.

The following can still be reconstructed today about the successive development of the first circle initially affiliated with the E.S.T.

On October 20, 1902, the German Section of the Theosophical Society, based in Berlin, was officially founded with Rudolf Steiner as General Secretary and Marie von Sivers as Secretary. Annie Besant, one of the most active representatives of the Theosophical Society and then head of the Esoteric School, came to Berlin and delivered the certificate of foundation. On this occasion, Rudolf Steiner asked her to admit him to the E.S.³ He reports on this in his “Life Course” (chapter 32) as follows:

"In this context, I must discuss something that the opposing side, shrouded in a fog of misunderstanding, repeatedly brings up. For personal reasons I need not talk about it at all, because it had no influence on my development or on my public work. And compared to everything I have to describe here, it remained a purely “private” matter. It is my admission to the “Esoteric School” within the Theosophical Society.

This “Esoteric School” goes back to H.P. Blavatsky. She had created a place for a small inner circle of the Society where she shared what she did not want to say in the general Society. Like other experts on the spiritual world, she did not consider it possible to communicate certain deeper teachings to the general public.

Now all this is connected with the way in which H. P. Blavatsky came by her teachings. There has always been a tradition of such teachings, going back to the old mystery schools. This tradition is cultivated in all kinds of societies, which strictly guard against the teachings of the societies from leaking out.

But from some quarter it was thought advisable to communicate such teachings to H. P. Blavatsky. She then connected what she received with revelations that arose within her. For she was a human individuality in whom the spiritual worked through a remarkable atavism, as it once worked in the leaders of the mysteries, in a state of consciousness that, compared to the modern one, was pervaded by the consciousness soul and tuned down into the dream-like. Thus, something in Blavatsky was renewed that had been at home in the mysteries of ancient times.

For the modern man there is an infallible way to decide what of the content of spiritual vision can be communicated to wider circles. This can happen with anything that the researcher can clothe in such ideas as are proper to the consciousness soul and as, by their very nature, also come into play in recognized science.

The situation is different when spiritual knowledge lives not in the consciousness soul but in more subconscious soul powers. These are not sufficiently independent of the forces at work in the physical. Therefore, for teachings that are brought from subconscious regions in this way, the communication can become dangerous. For such teachings can only be absorbed by the subconscious again. And teacher and student are moving in an area where what is beneficial and what is harmful to the human being must be treated very carefully.

All this does not apply to Anthroposophy because it draws its teachings entirely from the unconscious region.

Blavatsky's inner circle lived on in the “Esoteric School”. I had placed my anthroposophical work within the Theosophical Society. Therefore, I had to be informed about everything that was going on in it. For the sake of this information and because I myself considered a narrower circle necessary for those who had progressed in the anthroposophical spiritual knowledge, I allowed myself to be accepted into the “Esoteric School”. However, my narrower circle was to have a different meaning than this school. It was to represent a higher section, a higher class for those who had absorbed enough of the elementary knowledge of anthroposophy. Now I wanted to tie in with what already existed and what had been established historically. I wanted to do this with regard to the Theosophical Society and also with regard to the Esoteric School. That is why my “inner circle” initially existed in connection with this school. But the connection was only in the institutions, not in what I communicated from the spiritual world. So in the early years, my inner circle looked like a department of Mrs. Besant's “Esoteric School”. Internally, it was not at all like that. And in 1907, when Mrs. Besant was at the Theosophical Congress in Munich, the external connection between us also ceased completely, according to an agreement between Mrs. Besant and me.

The possibility that I could have learned something special from Mrs. Besant within the “Esoteric School” was out of the question, because I did not attend events of this school from the very beginning, except for a few that were intended to provide me with information about what was going on.

At the school at that time there was no other real content than that which came from H. P. Blavatsky, and that was already printed.⁴. In addition to this printed material, Mrs. Besant gave all sorts of Indian exercises for the advancement of knowledge, which I rejected.

Thus, until 1907, my immediate circle was, in a sense, related to what Mrs. Besant cultivated as such a circle in terms of the institution. But it is completely unjustified to make out of these facts what opponents have made out of them. They went so far as to assert the absurdity that I was led to the spiritual knowledge only through the esoteric school of Mrs. Besant."

The letters summarized in the first part of this volume document that Rudolf Steiner was asked for esoteric instructions immediately after the founding of the German Section, that is, even before he was officially nominated Arch-Warden (National Leader) of the Esoteric School in 1904. The formation of a circle, which he considered necessary and which his first students hoped for, is hinted at in the letter to Marie von Sivers of April 16, 1903, which states: “Without a core of true Theosophists who, through the most diligent meditation work, improve the present karma, the Theosophical teaching would only be preached to half-deaf ears.” (GA 262), as well as by the answer to a corresponding question from Mathilde Scholl: “It would be quite nice if the newer members of the E.S. in Germany would somehow come together more closely. We need that especially in Germany. For the E.S. must become the soul of the Theosophical Society.” (Letter dated May 1, 1903, $43.

One year after this statement, in May 1904, Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers spent a week in London to discuss with Annie Besant his role in the E.S. Marie von Sivers was always present as an interpreter during his personal conversations with Annie Besant. In a circular letter dated May 10, 1904, sent to all members of the E.S. in Germany and Austria, Annie Besant announced that Rudolf Steiner had been authorized to act as Arch-Warden for Germany and Austria. According to his statements, he was also responsible for German-speaking Switzerland and Hungary.⁵ Annie Besant's circular letter of May 10, 1904, read as follows (see facsimile on page 26):

To all members of the E.S. in Germany and Austria.

I hereby appoint Dr. Rudolf Steiner as Arch-Warden of the E.S. in Germany and the Austrian Empire, with full authority, as my representative, to call meetings of the school, to organize groups and appoint Wardens, and to do all else necessary for the welfare of the school, remaining in direct communication with myself. Annie Besant.

(To all members of the E.S. in Germany and Austria.

I hereby appoint Dr. Rudolf Steiner as Arch-Leader of the E.S. in Germany and Austria, with full authority as my representative to hold meetings of the school, organize groups and appoint leaders, and to do everything necessary for the welfare of the school in direct communication with myself. Annie Besant.

Upon his return from London to Berlin, Rudolf Steiner began to build up his Esoteric School in addition to his activities for the public dissemination of spiritual science and the development of the Society. Since he placed the main emphasis of his activity from the very beginning on public work, he began to present the Christian-Rosicrucian path of training that is necessary for the West in a series of articles in the public Theosophical journal “Lucifer-Gnosis”, which he founded and edited: “How to Know Higher Worlds?” (June 1904 to 1908, 1st edition 1909). The earliest date of an E.S. event undertaken by him in his capacity as Arch-Warden of the E.S.T. also dates from this month of June 1904. It was during the days of the Theosophical Congress in Amsterdam, which lasted from June 18 to 21, 1904, and in which, in addition to Rudolf Steiner and Marie von Sivers, several German Theosophists also participated; among them were Mathilde Scholl from Cologne, Sophie Stinde and Pauline von Kalckreuth from Munich, Günther Wagner from Lugano and his sister Amalie Wagner from Hamburg. Mathilde Scholl reports that Amalie Wagner was to be accepted into the E.S. at the time and that Rudolf Steiner organized this acceptance in her hotel room. However, this can only have been a kind of anticipation, since the official E.S. work was only established from Berlin after the Amsterdam Congress. The first esoteric lessons took place there on July 9 and 14, 1904; at any rate, these are the two earliest known dates for esoteric lessons in Berlin, and from the available notes it can be seen that the E.S. work in Berlin began at that time. But these lessons must actually still be counted among the preliminary stages, which basically extended into the fall of 1905. For it was only when the second and third departments were established that the school was fully formed.

During the month of August vacation in 1904, Rudolf Steiner addressed personal letters to various external members, admitting them to the school or inviting them to join. Another E.S. meeting was planned for the beginning of September (according to a letter dated August 29, 1904 to Günther Wagner); however, it is not known whether it actually took place.

In the second half of September 1904, Rudolf Steiner accompanied Annie Besant on her lecture tour through several German cities and repeated the public lectures she gave in English in German. At the last stop on this trip, in Cologne, where both were staying with Mathilde Scholl, a meeting of E.S. members also took place, according to her account: “Mrs. Besant, Dr. Steiner, Fräulein von Sivers, Miss Bright, Mr. Keightley, Mathilde Scholl in Mrs. Besant's room. Before we left the room, Mrs. Besant spoke with Dr. Steiner about the study material for E.S. students. She recommended Leadbeater's “The Christian Creed.” Dr. Steiner replied politely but firmly that he could not use this book for his students.

In the period that followed, until May 1905, a few esoteric lessons took place in Berlin. But the first official orientation through the “long-prepared circular letter to the German E.S. members” with rules did not take place until the beginning of June 1905.

In October 1905, when a large number of members travelled to Berlin at the express request of Rudolf Steiner for the general assembly of the German Section and the School was expanded to include the second and third sections of the Knowledge of Religion, several E.S. lessons were also held. Steiner personally wrote down the content of the lesson of October 24, 1905 for Anna Wagner, the wife of Günther Wagner, who had been unable to attend for health reasons. ⁶ This is the only esoteric lecture recorded in his handwriting, apart from the short summary in a letter from the lecture on October 4, 1905 for Adolf Kolbe in Hamburg. All other records of such hours were made by participants afterwards from memory, since it was not allowed to take notes during the hours themselves.

From this autumn of 1905 onwards, more and more esoteric hours took place not only in Berlin, but also in other German cities and later in other countries, where Rudolf Steiner's students worked in this way. After the outbreak of the First World War in the summer of 1914, the esoteric work was discontinued because strictly closed events could be mistrusted, but also because it was not possible to work esoterically in a time so burdened by strong emotions. It was only ten years later, in connection with the re-establishment of the Anthroposophical Society, that an Esoteric School was re-established.

The rules

From the relevant documents it can be seen that during the period of the establishment of the first esoteric working group, “rules” were set up that were based on those of the E.S.T. The latter were originally very strict, but over time they were modified several times. At the time of Rudolf Steiner's affiliation, admission to the T.S. could be requested after two years of membership. The school was divided into grades, which could be worked through in four different ways or methods (disciplines): a general one, a special yoga one, a Christian-Gnostic one, and a Pythagorean one. Before one was admitted to the actual training, however, one had to belong to the probationary or hearer order (Shrävaka order in Indian) for at least one, and later two, years. Upon admission, a written “promise” had to be given to treat the received papers confidentially and to return them upon request. After the prescribed probationary period, one could be admitted to the actual first degree, provided one was willing to make the written vow to make Theosophy the all-determining factor of one's life.

Since Rudolf Steiner's first esoteric study group was outwardly affiliated with the examination order of the E.S.T., and within the general discipline therefore in the first rules issued by him the designation “Shrävaka-Orden” - was connected, his students also had to give the obligatory “promise”, as can be seen from various letters. He ran his working group completely independently of this. For example, there were no electable disciplines, even though the four disciplines are mentioned in the letters to Anna and Günther Wagner dated January 2, 1905. But at that time everything was still in the process of being formed and soon after it had obviously become a matter of course to follow Rudolf Steiner's intentions. For example, on January 23, 1905, Mathilde Scholl, who through his mediation in May 1904 had been accepted by Annie Besant into the first degree of the E.S.T. in London, but had not yet received his instructions, wrote to him: “Personally, it is now of no importance to me at all whether Mrs. Mead sends the writings or not, because everything I need you give me and is given to me, and that is so much that I can only raise my eyes with awe and wonder at all that is coming.” Similar words are spoken in a letter from Günther Wagner, who wrote to him on April 3, 1905: “Months ago I received from Mrs. Oakley an English E.S. pamphlet containing messages about the four paths that are taken in the E.S., which you also mention in your kind and loving letter to my wife. My wife and I have decided to follow the 'Christian' path and now ask whether we should also start on April 1 in Germany, as stated in the English pamphlet. Will a German instruction be issued? Probably, since you cannot give written instructions to all E.S. members living abroad. I would also like to know whether there are any other regulations for students in the first degree (according to the old regulations) than those in the English brochure, or whether everyone should follow these from now on. On January 2, you wrote to my wife, instructing her to do the exercises for four weeks from around January 6. She did that and continues to do so, but she too is asking for further instructions.” These questions were answered more and more with the first E.S. circular letter of June 5, 1905 and the further instructions given.

Thus far, the gradual development of the first circle can be reconstructed. However, the question of how the oath of the E.S.T. was handled remains open, since Rudolf Steiner's pupils did not go through the degrees of the E.S.T. and yet there are some such oaths that, as far as they are dated, date from 1906. Whether they were given at the time of admission to the first degree of the Section for the Cult of Knowledge or in some other context is not known. In any case, in the same year, 1906, Rudolf Steiner also wrote to an esoteric disciple: “Please do not regard the keeping of secrets as an obligation in principle, but as a temporary one, due to the confused present circumstances in the E.S. and T.S. ... I myself would be glad if this too need not be.” This statement is consistent with the fact that nothing of it has been handed down - although the circle of students had already grown quite large - that after the separation from E.S.T. in May 1907, Rudolf Steiner had written promises made. In fact, when the Esoteric School was re-established in 1924, the only appeal made with regard to the obligation to treat the teaching material received confidentially was to the sense of responsibility of the individual. In this sense, Marie Steiner wrote after Rudolf Steiner's death: “He did not believe that esotericism could be practised as in earlier times, in the deepest seclusion, with strictly binding vows. These were no longer compatible with the sense of freedom of the individual. The soul must come before its own higher self and recognize what it owes to this self and to the spiritual world in reverent silence.” ⁷

The teaching material

The teaching was divided into three parts, so to speak: the rules and exercises that applied equally to all students; the personal exercises; and the esoteric lessons, in which the intimacies of the training path were discussed and the consciousness was directed to the great teachers of humanity, the masters of wisdom and of the harmony of feelings, as the actual leaders of the school. The ideal goal of the training was, through the higher consciousness developed by the exercises, to gradually find access to the Masters themselves.

The descriptions of the nature and work of the Masters, as imparted in esoteric hours, were intended to help on this path. The little that has been handed down is summarized in the section on the Masters. However, since Rudolf Steiner not only spoke about them in esoteric lessons, but also in lectures for members of the Society and even in public, a sufficient idea can be gained from the picture that he painted of the Masters. See the attempt at an overview in the appendix to the section 'From the teaching material on the Masters...'.

Knowledge about the masters has been of fundamental importance in the Theosophical Society and its Esoteric School since its inception.⁸ For Rudolf Steiner himself, the existence of the masters was a reality that he had personally experienced decades before his association with the Theosophical Society. He testified to this on several occasions.⁹ He also taught from his own experience the necessity of teaching the truths of occultism to the world, as he received them from his master. Beiträge zur Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe», Heft 83/84, 1984. There is also personal testimony that he was convinced by his Master of the necessity of teaching the truths of occultism to the world:

”... if the Master had not been able to convince me that despite everything [the immaturity of the time for the high truths of occultism], Theosophy is necessary for our age: I would have written only philosophical books even after 1901, and, speaking literarily and philosophically.” (Letter of January 9, 1905 to Marie von Sivers, GA 262).

And he had only joined the Society after he had realized at the “endpoint of a long inner development” that “the spiritual forces I must serve are present in the T.S.” ¹⁰

However, while in the T.S. the Masters were always spoken of as the “Masters of Wisdom”, he spoke of them as the “Masters of Wisdom and Harmony of Feelings” or also the “Feelings of Humanity”, because they not only possess a high degree of wisdom, but also an “unlimited source of love for humanity” (letter of August 2, 1904, p. 62). This nuance, like everything in his work, points to the central point of his spiritual knowledge: the unique significance of the Christ principle for the development of all humanity and the Earth. For Steiner, Christ was the Master of all Masters and the “Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings” were those who “stand in direct connection with the forces of the higher hierarchies” (Düsseldorf Lecture, June 15, 1915) and who have grasped that “the progress of humanity depends on the comprehension of the great event of Golgotha” (Berlin, March 22, 1909).

The most enlightening thing about Rudolf Steiner's personal relationship with the masters is probably what he said in one of his very first public lectures in Berlin. Referring to the description of these highly developed individuals in Sinnett's “Secret Buddhism”, he tried to make it clear that, if one bears in mind that there are endless possibilities on the ladder of development — from the least developed to, for example, Goethe and beyond — the concept of the master need not be strange to European thinking. And then follow the words that are so decisive for him:

”...that the so-called masters are great inspirers for us - nothing more - great inspirers in spiritual realms. However, their development goes far beyond what is offered by popular culture. They are great inspirations for us; but they do not demand faith in any authority, not faith in any dogma. They appeal to nothing but one's own human insight and provide guidance on how to develop the powers and abilities that lie in every human soul, through certain methods, in order to ascend to the higher realms of existence.” (Berlin, October 13, 1904)

In the following lecture, he characterizes the masters in such a way that it can be understood how they, in particular, respect human freedom to the highest degree, so that no kind of dependency can arise. For example, no one can suffer harm from the rules in “How to Know Higher Worlds,” in contrast to much of what is touted in such fields today. But because so much is being advertised that is not only worthless but can also be harmful, “the Masters have given permission to publish such rules.” (Berlin, December 15, 1904).

Taking the various statements about the Masters, at first glance they seem to contradict each other. In particular, what was said in the lecture of October 13, 1904 seems to contradict what is to be read in letters to esoteric disciples: “I can and may only lead so far as the exalted Master, who guides me Himself, gives me the instruction” (Letter of August 11, 1904); or when it is said that the theosophical teachings go back to the Masters:

"We say rightly that Theosophy did not come into the world through this or that book, nor through this or that sum of dogmas. Theosophy comes from those exalted individuals whom we call the Masters of wisdom and of the harmony of intuitions, because they have opened the sources of spiritual life, which can henceforth flow into human beings.

“Spiritual life ultimately goes back to those sources that we seek in those individualities whom we call the Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings. In them we find the impulses, if we seek them rightly, of how we are to work from epoch to epoch, from age to age.” (Berlin, December 26, 1909)

However, if we delve into these various statements, the apparent contradiction between them disappears. It becomes clear that Rudolf Steiner himself belongs to those initiates who receive the impulses of the masters with their free powers of thought and have to elaborate them for the progress of humanity. The world of the supersensible, and thus also of the masters, has its own language. It reveals itself in signs and symbols, the study and interpretation of which is only possible through special training. The way in which occult revelations are translated, interpreted and applied depends entirely on the depth of the person's ability to comprehend and on their sense of moral responsibility. Rudolf Steiner's achievement for cultural progress lies quite obviously in the fact that he was able to translate the sign language of the underlying creative-spiritual of all existence into the conceptual language of anthroposophy, which is in keeping with modern consciousness. He had to represent this personal deed in the world without having to invoke the authority of the masters. He was personally responsible for his teaching. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why Steiner, especially in the years after the First World War, no longer spoke of the Masters in the intimate way of the earlier years, the stronger the scientific character of Anthroposophy was developed. ¹¹

The way of teaching in the Esoteric School

While Rudolf Steiner personally took responsibility for the way in which he publicly taught his supersensible knowledge in the sense described above, the same did not apply in the same way to the Esoteric School. He himself stated that the school was under the direct leadership of the masters and that it must therefore be a basic commitment of the school that everything that flows through it originates only from the Masters of Wisdom and of the Harmony of Feelings, while the basic obligation for the students would be to apply their entire reason to everything that was taught and to ask themselves whether it is reasonable to follow this path. (Esoteric Lesson Düsseldorf, April 19, 1909, p. 223).

Apparently not always, but in certain esoteric lessons or in certain moments of esoteric lessons, Rudolf Steiner spoke as the direct messenger of the masters. A participant in the Düsseldorf lesson of April 19, 1909 reports that this particular lesson began with the words: “My dear sisters and brothers! This esoteric lesson is one that is not subject to the responsibility of the one who speaks!” And this was said because in the following description of how Zarathustra was once initiated by the spirit of the sun, Rudolf Steiner was said to have been Zarathustra himself at that moment. It could have been perceived as a tremendous experience, how “our great teacher, who had shared with us the results of his research, now showed us himself how an ancient leader and teacher of humanity could reveal himself in an inspiring way,” how Rudolf Steiner was the first person in modern times to be trained, not as a medium, but as a fully conscious spiritual researcher, through his own strict schooling, to become a serving tool for spiritual beings."

Only a few have passed on something about this very special way in which Rudolf Steiner could be experienced as a messenger of the masters in the esoteric hours. One of them put his memory into the words:

Another reports the deep impression he received when he was able to attend an esoteric session for the first time, with the following words:

"Everyone was sitting in silence. When Rudolf Steiner entered, an unearthly light seemed to shine on his face, from the realm from which he came to us - it didn't just seem like it: it was there. He spoke as if he knew the great masters who guide our lives and aspirations from an immediate knowledge: Kuthumi, Morya, Jesus and Christian Rosenkreutz - the “Masters of Wisdom and Harmony of Feelings”.

Suffice to say that the consecration of this hour was indescribably beautiful. Here Rudolf Steiner appeared entirely as the messenger of a higher world. The impression is unforgettable.¹³

In his book of memoirs, “Transformations of Life” (Basel 1975), the well-known Russian poet Andrei Bely describes in the most detailed and linguistically subtle way how he experienced the task of training attention more for the how than the what in the “Class of Hearing”. For there was no external difference between the esoteric lectures and the other lectures, since everything had an esoteric tone, all the more delicate the more popularly Rudolf Steiner spoke. But what could have been experienced in a concentrated way in the esoteric lectures was precisely how the how became the what and radiated everything.

• 1. See “On the History and the Content of the Gnostic Section of the Esoteric School”, CW 265.
• 2. For the history of the E.S.T., see the preliminary remarks to the second part of this volume.
• 3. On October 23, 1902. Marie von Sivers had already become a member of the E.S.T.
• 4. "Esotericism” (3rd volume of Blavatsky's “Secret Doctrine”), published as posthumous writings by Annie Besant (1897)
• 5. See “Rules”, page 144
• 6. In “From the content of the esoteric lectures”, GA 266/1.
• 7. Preface to the first edition of the lectures “The Karmic Connections of the Anthroposophical Movement”, Dornach 1926, reprinted in “Contributions to the Rudolf Steiner Complete Works” No. 23 Christmas 1968.
• 8. For more on this, see the preliminary remarks to the second part.
• 9. See the Notes for Edouard Schur and letters to Marie Steiner-von Sivers, both in Briefwechsel und Dokumente... (Correspondence and Documents...), GA 262; also the autobiographical lecture Berlin, February 4, 1913 in Beiträge zur Rudolf Steiner Gesamtausgabe, Heft 83/84, 1984.
• 10. In a draft of the first circular letter to the German Theosophical lodges in the summer of 1902, before the official founding of the German section. In Briefwechsel und Dokumente... (Correspondence and Documents...), GA 262, note on page 17.
• 11. Elisabeth Vreede in a lecture given in Stuttgart on July 9, 1930. See Elisabeth Vreede/Thomas Meyer: Zur Bodhisattvafrage, Basel 1989.
• 12. Jenny Schirmer-Bey in “What is happening in the Anthroposophical Society. News for its members”, 1974, No. 35 dated September 1, 1974
• 13. Ludwig Kleeberg, “Wege und Worte”, Stuttgart 1961