# To the Branches of the German Section of the Theosophical Society!

Dear friends!

To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to point out from the outset that I do not consider this letter to be an official one from the Secretary General, but rather a private statement that I feel obliged to make because a number of members of our section would like to hear my opinion on the following matter.

Our Stuttgart I branch has expressed in a circular letter to the German branches of the TG that it does not agree with the arguments of “Vâhan”, of which Mr. Richard Bresch is the editor, insofar as these refer to individual events in the society. This circular also contains proposals for a settlement between Vâhan and the German section. So far, the Leipzig and Besant branches in Berlin have commented on the rally of our Stuttgart I lodge in circulars.

I would now like to say the following about this:

I respect every foreign opinion as justified, provided that it is based on the principle of serving the truth; and I also seek to understand an opinion that I personally must consider wrong if it *does not* arise from the above principle. This is demanded by the theosophical tolerance, and such is also made quite clear to us by the true law of karma. It is not intended to cast the slightest doubt on Mr. Bresch's desire to serve the truth with his remarks. And I certainly do not want to criticize his view. I just want to put my opinion alongside his.

Regarding the Fuente bequest, I believe that Colonel Olcott and Annie Besant have handled it so well that it could not have been done better. The sum has been used for Theosophical purposes in the most eminent sense. And the Theosophical Society has not only the task of spreading Theosophical dogmas and teachings, but also of serving the culture of the world through Theosophical life. The two things that the legacy is used for, however, are foundations of the most beautiful theosophical kind. In any case, if there had been a general vote on the matter in the TG, I would not have voted in favor of a different use. So the only remaining objection is that such a vote should have taken place. But I am of the opinion – another person is entitled to a different opinion – that in the TG much cannot be based on formalities, but on the trust we have in the proven personalities. And Colonel Olcott and Annie Besant have done so much for the TG that I think they can be given *trust* in such a matter.

But even if one does not hold the matter in such a way, I am of the opinion that one should take a different path to change certain circumstances than through a magazine that - even if it is Theosophical - is still published publicly. Otherwise we will end up introducing the less than pleasant newspaper style into our society as well. And that would be a fatal mistake. I agree with many people that some aspects of the TG, especially the way the congresses are organized, need to be improved. But I think that this should be treated as an *internal* matter and that we should work towards improvement by working personally on it. I can only assure our esteemed friends that I spoke with many personalities at the last London Congress and found much understanding in this regard. It seems to me that the same approach should be taken with regard to the number of lodges. An exchange of ideas by letter with Colonel Olcott would have been quite sufficient. I do not believe I need address the matter of the publication of books in luxury editions. Besides the motives asserted by Mr. Bresch, artistic motives also come into consideration. And how far one goes is a matter of taste. But no one should set themselves up as the arbiter of taste for the whole world. We can only hope that our judgment will be given some consideration if the judgment of others is also allowed and one's own is not considered infallible.

With the kind of criticism that Mr. Bresch practices, it is all too easy to run the risk of violating the empirical law that “something always sticks” when it comes to accusations made by strangers. And whatever Mr. Bresch's opinion may be, I cannot admit its relative justification, but I will not quibble with it any further. I hope he will not claim that Colonel Olcott and Annie Besant have *ill will* in any of their actions. If I cannot assume that, then it would be impossible for me to take the critical tone that he does.

Regarding the proposal of the Stuttgart Lodge I to regulate the relationship of Vâhan to the section, I would just like to say that I, too, like Mr. Bresch, consider it impossible for an editor to be dependent on the Society. Quite apart from the fact that you cannot edit according to votes, such a thing is technically unfeasible. The situation is different with a newsletter, which can be discussed at the General Assembly in October.

I will soon be sending a circular letter to the branches about the proceedings of the London Congress and some other Society matters.

With brotherly Theosophical greetings,  
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.