The Rudolf Steiner Archive

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

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

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

Absolute majority 21 votes

Two-thirds majority 28 votes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section members 22

Reports from the individual branches:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Steiner resumes the chair.

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

The results of the election are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Bresch, Dr. F. Löhnis

Dr. Steiner reports that the following is available:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilhelm Eggers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A further motion is made in this regard:

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal from the Leipzig Lodge:

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

The motion is adopted.

Proposal Scholl:

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

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

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

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

This proposal is rejected.

Scholl's proposal is rejected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following have resigned from the Theosophical Society:

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

Newly admitted are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was then decided:

I. (with all 9 votes cast)

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

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

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

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

Richard Fränkel as secretary.

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

Obituary for Countess Brockdorff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Report on the Paris Congress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the Leadbeater case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The treasurer's report by Mr. Seiler follows.

[IMAGE REMOVED FROM PREVIEW]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The General Assembly has passed the following resolution:

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

Item V: Motions from the floor.

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

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

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