# The Expulsion Of The German Section From The Theosophical Society

If I were to follow my inclinations, I would no longer speak out in the matter of the exclusion of the German Section from the Theosophical Society. The work that I have attempted in the German Section, and in which broader circles of the Theosophical movement have also participated, has actually passed over into the Anthroposophical Society. In no objectively relevant direction has the slightest interruption occurred in this attempt at work, which for years has wanted to take on such a character that it should express what the theosophical movement can be under the conditions of the present. From all that I have presented so far in this matter, I believe I have shown for anyone who wants to examine the facts impartially that the true reason for the exclusion of the German Section was the intolerance of the system currently prevailing in Adyar towards independent life within this Section. The means used to bring about this exclusion can be recognized in their true character from my previous statements. They went to excess in their unlawfulness when the President, on the occasion of the last General Assembly of the Theosophical Society in Adyar, dared to make the absolutely objective truth directly contradictory, even absurd, assertion that I had been educated by the Jesuits and had not been able to shake off this fatal influence and so had not been able to allow freedom of expression in the Section. Since this claim is absolutely untrue, indeed the opposite of the truth, it is clear that the current president of the Theosophical Society is saying things in the most improper way, without even the slightest sense of obligation to take any care about the truth of what she says. It seems to me that one could have had enough with this one fact alone. For my person has nothing whatever to do with it as such. Whatever differences of opinion there may have been between the president and me is no longer in question when faced with the outrageousness of the fact that the person at the head of the society makes such a serious claim at the society's general assembly, a claim that is the objective opposite of the truth. But this act of the president's was only the crowning of a corresponding edifice. For me personally, this claim had a very special connotation. On the occasion of the Budapest Congress of European Sections in 1909, Mrs. Besant and I had a conversation in which the following was touched upon. Mrs. Besant spoke to me of a personality who had various objections to me. When I asked her why this person had something against me, she said that this person thought I was a Jesuit, and to emphasize how much she, Mrs. Besant, was amused by such an assertion, she added that this same person had already thought she, Mrs. Besant, was a Jesuit. So in 1909 Mrs. Besant knew that the accusation of being a Jesuit was a ridiculous one and considered it to be foolishness; in 1912, before the General Assembly of the Theosophical Society, the same Mrs. Besant makes the same accusation in order to prove that I am incapable of respecting free speech within the German section! Perhaps this little story can also help to show how well-founded the allegations of the President of the Theosophical Society sometimes are, of which President Mr. Leadbeater said he had stood before the director of Globus. Perhaps it is still allowed – even if only in a very modest way – to express the opinion that one could learn a different way of handling the truth from the director of Globus.

It may seem understandable that further illumination of a matter in which one has already experienced such things is not something one would seek out. After all, it would seem that the matter is truly settled simply by the presentation of this one fact.

However, there are a number of things that make it necessary to say a few more things. Among other things I could mention, the following is important. I have assumed that once the exclusion of the German Section and its background had become known, the feeling must arise quite naturally in everyone who had gained understanding for the way I tried to work that I should not be allowed in future to give internal lectures for the Anthroposophical Society to personalities who still regard themselves as members of the Theosophical Society led by Adyar. Nevertheless, concerns arose here and there that all members of the Theosophical Society under Mrs. Besant's leadership should initially be excluded from all internal events of the Anthroposophical Society.

Since such a judgment could be formed, and since it is still considered possible by some individuals that I would give internal lectures to members of the Theosophical Society, and since there are many other reasons, I must once again select a few facts from the abundance of evidence in order to perhaps counter some of these misunderstandings.

It should be started with a circular, which Mrs. Besant sent in response to my presentation of the facts and also had printed in “Theosophist”.

I emphasized in my account that Mrs. Besant wrote to me in 1909 regarding the Dr. Vollrath affair: “Since an appeal has been made to me, I, as President, approve the action of the German Section...” and that, on the other hand, Mrs. Besant wrote in 1912: “Dr. Vollrath made no appeal to me; therefore I had no duty to pay attention to right or wrong in this matter, and to this day I do not know it.” In order to “shed light” on these two directly contradictory assertions, Mrs. Besant now does the following in the aforementioned circular (dated January 12, 1913). First, she introduces the little word “it” into the fray. She fights with this “it” in relation to her words of May 8, 1912, which read: “A few years ago, the German Section expelled Dr. Vollrath, and the General Secretary informed me of the matter. Expulsion from a section does not mean expulsion from the Theosophical Society. I was not asked to ratify this (it) and thus make it – here the battle word “it” appears again – an exclusion from the Society. Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me. ...” In her latest circular she now says about this: ‘It is quite obvious that the ad, which ’ch was not asked to confirm, was the ”exclusion from the TS. Dr. Vollrath had appealed to me merely against his expulsion from the German Section, and his letters dealt with that only. («It is fairly obvious that the it which «I was not asked to ratify» was expulsion from the TS. Dr. Vollrath had appealed to me merely against his expulsion from the German Section, and his letters dealt with that only.»)

Let us first limit ourselves to simply reading the two sentences one after the other, the one that Mrs. Besant wrote in May 1912 and the one she writes in January 1913, not only that, but the one she writes on the same page (repeating the first one) one after the other:

May 1912: “Exclusion from a Section does not mean exclusion from the Theosophical Society. I was not asked to confirm this, and thus make it an exclusion from the Society.

January 1913: “It is quite evident that the ‘iv, which ’I was not asked to certify‘ was the ’exclusion from the TS.

So Mrs. Besant claims that she was not asked to confirm the “exclusion from the Theosophical Society”; insert this explanation into her sentence from May 1912, and it reads: “I was not asked to make this - that is, the exclusion from the Theosophical Society - an exclusion from the Theosophical Society.” Anyone who accepts such a justification truly deserves to remain a follower of the one who justifies himself in this way. It is clear to anyone but the most obtuse that only someone who wants to save himself from having to defend objectively untrue assertions that he has made would resort to such a blatant sophistry. But that could still be dismissed as a formal matter. But now the actual facts. Who asked Mrs. Besant to turn the expulsion from the German section into an expulsion from the Theosophical Society? I did not ask her for anything. In 1908, I simply reported the expulsion to her. This mere report contained nothing, not even the slightest suggestion that she should also expel Dr. Vollrath from the Theosophical Society. And when she then sent me Dr. Vollrath's appeal in a letter in which she touched on this exclusion from the Society in general, I wrote to her, “As far as Dr. Vollrath is concerned, I am far from wanting to have any influence on what you, as president, consider to be right to do in this case. I only said further that in the event that she, as president, now accepted Dr. Vollrath as a member of the Theosophical Society, it could easily be said that the president was disavowing the German Section. I expressly added that I was not worried about what Dr. Vollrath might say about me in the future, but that it was important to avoid the interpretation that the German Section had been disavowed by the President of the Society. After all, this interpretation would still be possible on the opposing side.

In view of these facts, Mrs. Besant now writes on January 12, 1913: “Dr. Steiner replied objecting to Dr. Vollrath being a member of the Theosophical Society at all, and saying that it would be very awkward for him if I allowed Dr. remain in the Theosophical Society since he had been expelled from the Section.“ (”Dr. Steiner replied objecting to Dr. Vollrath being a member of the TS at all, and saying that it would be very awkward for him, if I allowed Dr. Vollrath to remain in the TS when expelled from the Section.") Compare this sentence with what I have quoted above, and you will see that it contains a complete objective untruth. I have explicitly emphasized that I personally do not care about any attacks; Mrs. Besant writes that I said it would be very awkward for me if she allowed Dr. Vollrath to remain a member of the Society. So let the facts be what they may, Mrs. Besant does not trouble about facts; she announces to the world what she wants, without any regard for the facts.

And now for the appeal. The appeal that Dr. Vollrath addressed to Mrs. Besant is five pages long. It is so composed that it does not clearly show how Dr. Vollrath wants his affiliation to the Theosophical Society to be handled in general; but at the end it contains the words: “If you, dear Madam President, consider it necessary to submit this case to the General Council, then I request that you do so.” In her letter of 1909, Mrs. Besant says: “Having been appealed to by Dr. Vollrath, of Leipzig, against his expulsion by the German TS.”

Nowhere in the correspondence of 1909 was there any mention of an expulsion from the Society, and to claim in January 1913 that the appeal could only mean an expulsion from the Society in general is as absurd as can be. Dr. Vollrath's appeal was in protest against his expulsion from the German Section, and it was full of accusations against me, which will be touched upon later, and it certainly could not have been otherwise if Dr. Vollrath had sought membership in the Theosophical Society. Yet in 1912 Mrs. Besant says, “Dr. Vollrath did not appeal to me.” In order to prove that she was allowed to write this after all, she does the following in her circular of January 1913. She presents the matter as if Dr. Vollrath had not made an appeal to her because his appeal was not one for his admission to the society in general. But there was never any question of such an appeal. But since Mrs. Besant did write to me in 1909: “As an appeal to me has been made,” she now presents the matter in the following words: “The appeal was from Dr. Steiner to confirm the local action of the Section and from Dr. Vollrath against that confirmation.” This sentence is, again, as far as I am concerned, an objective untruth. I never made an appeal to Mrs. Besant for the confirmation. Such an appeal would not have made the slightest sense. The German Section considered itself fully entitled to expel Dr. Vollrath. She did not for a moment assume that this action required the president's confirmation. Rather, Mrs. Besant wrote two unsolicited documents – in response to my notification of the expulsion, not to an appeal – which are included in the preceding notifications – in which she confirmed the expulsion from the German section. At the time, I considered these documents to be so inconsequential that I did not include them in our reports. Why print on paper documents that were completely unfounded.

So in January 1913, Mrs. Besant does nothing less than turn Dr. Vollrath's 1908 appeal to her into an appeal that I am supposed to have made, but which I never made.

The highlight of this January 1913 circular, however, is the sentence that Mrs. Besant dares to write: “As to the pamphlet – meaning Dr. Vollrath's pamphlet, which was printed in the January 1913 issue of the Mitteilungen – I had assumed that it contained something important, since Dr. Steiner was obviously very annoyed by it, saying that if its assertions were true, “not a dog would take another piece of bread from us. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a reheating of the original points at issue, which were stated in his letter to me, then the expression seems a little strong.“ (”As to the pamphlet, I had supposed that it contained something important, as Dr. Steiner was evidently very angry about it, saying that if its statements were true “a dog would not take food from us”. If, as Dr. Steiner now says, it was merely a rehash of the original quarrels, stated in his letter to me, the language seems a little strong."

Mrs. Besant takes the liberty of writing down this sentence in view of the following fact. Dr. Vollrath claimed in his letter to her in 1908: 1. That I feared his (Dr. Vollrath's) opposition, for example, in that I had pushed through receiving a fixed salary of 2000 Marks from the section treasury. (I was always opposed to my being paid out of the Section funds.) 2. That I did not want him in the Section because he could not share Mrs. Wolfram's views, which are: Dr. Steiner is a high initiate and the only initiator for Europe and must therefore be elected at the next presidential election. (Mrs. Besant finds the expression I used, a “little strong”. I would like to know whether I would really be worthy of “a dog taking a bite of bread from me” if I had ever wanted to have a personality in the section not approved of the above crazy demands that I should make. Of course, Ms. Wolfram could not have made such absurd claims. 3. That I did not want him in the section because he had privately expressed the opinion that the hysteria of some Leipzig students of Dr. Steiner was probably due to the occult exercises that lead to a loosening of the etheric body. And Dr. Vollrath adds that he himself knows of some exercises that I give, but that they serve more to develop strength and neglect the development of virtue. (Had I heard such a “private” remark by Dr. Vollrath, which I did not even hear, it would have seemed to me to be truly irrelevant, since it would be just as foolish as if someone said that I had stolen silver spoons. Mrs. Besant does not find it “of some importance” that Dr. Vollrath writes such things.) These and other similar assertions were contained in the “appeal” that Dr. Vollrath addressed to Mrs. Besant in 1908. This will suffice to prove that I was absolutely right in what I said, and what Mrs. Besant's circular refers to, namely that Dr. Vollrath, as early as 1908, made similar allegations against me in a letter to Mrs. Besant herself, as can be found in his later pamphlet. Therefore, I stated that Mrs. Besant's claim that she was unaware of this pamphlet was irrelevant, because she was aware of the way in which Dr. Vollrath was acting against me and yet she made him an official in a matter she represented in Germany. It is now characteristic of the way Mrs. Besant assessed me that she later even emphasized that she had again worked for the dismissal of Dr. Vollrath as secretary of the Star in the East when she realized that his election was “seen as antagonistic to the general secretary.” So I am surprised that I could ever feel offended when she made an opponent of mine her official. That was never the point, but merely that the German section — not I — perceived Dr. Vollrath's appointment as a vote of no confidence against me by Mrs. Besant, and that I was deprived of the opportunity to defend myself if she did so. Apart from the fact that such an imposition made it clear how little Mrs. Besant is able to pay attention to the finer things of the heart, I must confess that I myself regarded the appointment of Dr. Vollrath as a matter of complete indifference to me, and that I only felt truly offended when Dr. Vollrath was dismissed on the assumption that I approved of or even desired this dismissal. On the contrary, I felt it was wrong to dismiss Dr. Vollrath because it was thought that I did not approve of him. For me, the fact that Mrs. Besant behaved in the way she did was proof that my words are air to her. And I could not change this judgment by subsequently doing Dr. Vollrath an injustice by deposing him, because it was believed that this would be a service to me. Because – according to my feelings – it is wrong to first appoint someone and then dismiss them because they are unpleasant to someone else.

I think I am now in a position to summarize how I feel about the whole matter of the exclusion of our section, and the preceding remarks and those already contained in the “Mitteilungen” serve as proof. I would have to write a detailed paper if I wanted to add to this evidence everything that has been in preparation and taking place for years.

When I was elected General Secretary of the German Section of the Theosophical Society years ago, I saw myself working within the framework of this society for the dissemination of the results of spiritual scientific research, and in connection with this, leading the office of General Secretary in a way that arises from the consequences of this research. I knew that I was in full agreement with the principles of the Theosophical Society. I tried to work in a way that was natural in this field: I expressed what I thought the results of my research were, and I waited quietly to see what this or that person would say about it. I organized my work so that no one could take pleasure in what I advocated who did not see what I said as correct on the basis of his or her own judgment. I did not put forward anything other than what I had to acknowledge as true on the basis of my own research, or what was accessible to me through spiritual sources. It came about that within the German Section, and then also in other circles of the Society, there were personalities who, on the basis of their own convictions, were interested in my research results, a current within the Theosophical Society that felt independent of other currents in that Society. This group did not demand anything except to be able to develop and operate freely within the Society in accordance with its statutes. Within the German Section, there were circles that wanted nothing to do with us. They held different views. We let them be. They could work in their way, just as we wanted to work in ours. No attempt was made to interfere with their work through my will.

From the time when Mrs. Besant showed more and more that she had no understanding for what we wanted, it became more and more necessary for me not to count on our being supported by the central leadership of the Theosophical Society. We had to get used to counting only on our own resources. This led to the fact that in free agreement with Mrs. Besant on the occasion of the Munich Congress in 1907, it was determined that the current within the Society that was interested in my research results should develop as an independent and self-contained circle. Such independence could exist regardless of the fact that within the German Section, branches with a different type of work developed freely and also created new structures. Anyone who knows my way of representing spiritual science will find the claim completely absurd that anyone could have been disturbed in the representation of a different opinion by this representation.

Some time after the Munich Congress, the claim of the “coming Christ” as represented by Mrs. Besant emerged in the Theosophical Society in a form that I initially had to consider amateurish based on my research results. I presented my results and did not care about the effect of Mrs. Besant's claims. Then came the time when Mrs. Besant “paraded” with Krishnamurti, to use Dr. Huebbe-Schleidens expression. Everything connected with this, I had to, according to what I had come to know, no longer consider merely amateurish, but reprehensible. It became my duty, when asked, to express my thoughts on the matter seriously. And it also became my duty to adhere to what I had recognized. As late as the summer of 1912, I was still expected to do the following by Mrs. Besant's followers: I could say: I do not agree with Mrs. Besant's opinions, but I should still recommend her books by saying that they represent different views from mine. I had to reply that I would be acting against my convictions if I were to do so in relation to Mrs. Besant's more recent writings. For I do not consider them merely to be works that represent “different” opinions, but I consider them to be bad and full of easily verifiable errors, which I could not say are merely a different opinion. I could not be dissuaded from this appropriate behavior by Mrs. Besant's occasional emphasis that she was in favor of the free development of my opinion and her encouragement to read my writings. From what I could verify myself of what Mrs. Besant said about my “opinions,” it was clear to me that she did not understand them. It would have seemed to me to be a lie to admit that I did not want to have anything in common with Mrs. Besant's doctrines. In a spiritual movement, truthfulness must prevail. And it would have seemed true to me if Mrs. Besant had not praised me, but had sharply criticized me from her point of view. There would have been no need to prevent my research results from establishing their validity through their inherent value.

For example, a follower of Mrs. Besant wrote to me that Krishnamurti would now first complete his studies and then perhaps also be sent to my school, with the strange addition: “After all, Jesus could have learned something from the Essenes,” I mention this only in passing.

The “Star in the East” movement came. I would have had to deny everything I believe to be right and healthy if I had wanted to have anything to do with this movement. I had to ignore it. It was transplanted to Germany. Its representatives behaved in such a way that their actions consisted of outright attacks against the German Section. It was spread that the German Section was intolerant of any opinion that differed from mine. These attacks originated with individuals who had always been treated within the German Section in the same way as all those who were now presented as blind followers of my opinion. I was written that those who presented from our circle only repeated word for word what I said. Similar things were printed. Things happened that, if one assumes full awareness on the part of the people involved, would have to lead to a rather dire characterization. My writings were incorrectly reproduced and then polemicized against the caricature of my statements, which they themselves had first made, in an outrageous manner. Nothing was clearer than that only a strict separation and the strictest possible ignoring of the “Star in the East” movement was necessary for us.

Now it became apparent that Mrs. Besant always speaks of tolerance and free speech, but that her whole being wants to exclude from society any opinion that differs from her own. She then made a series of objectively untrue allegations about the German section and about me, some of which have already been discussed. Her followers blindly repeated these allegations. It became necessary to write a lengthy defense, which I sent to the general secretaries of the various sections and to the General Council. Of all the General Secretaries, only the Scandinavian one responded to my defense. What the others said amounted to a complete disregard for what I presented, not in terms of views, but of objective facts. I had spoken completely into the air.

The behavior of the Star in the East movement forced the German Section to declare that it could not regard the personalities belonging to this movement as members of the German Section; not because of their opinions or their program, but because of their behavior, which violated the highest principles of the Theosophical Society. This measure, which was initially imposed on the German section as a kind of self-defence, was then taken by the General Council – ignoring all the facts that had been presented against Mrs. Besant's ability to preside – as an opportunity to make a decision that amounted to the exclusion of the German section from the Theosophical Society. This exclusion was then carried out by letter of Mrs. Besant (which will be communicated below).

All these things, when viewed impartially, cast a thick veil over the true facts of the matter. These are that the current leadership of the Theosophical Society only wants Mrs. Besant's views and cannot tolerate any other way of thinking or working. My research results were perceived as heretical and could not be tolerated within the Society. The fact that they did not want our way of working was twisted into the claim that we did not tolerate any other opinion. And so the almost unbelievable fact took place that the Theosophical Society expelled a working group from itself under the pretext that this working group was intolerant. As if this were not even a contradiction in terms. Any other way of working could have developed alongside us according to its strength.

Now, anyone who can be unbiased wonders whether I may continue to give internal lectures in front of personalities who want to continue to belong to a society that excludes me as a heretic. The Theosophical Society has spoken, and anyone who continues to belong to it speaks in the same way: We don't want you in our ranks. Anyone who demands of me that I should give internal lectures before the members of the Theosophical Society should realize that his demand would be the same as saying: We expel you from our house; but we demand of you that you continue to behave towards us as before.

Furthermore, it has always been a strict duty in all occultism not to impose teachings on anyone who does not want them. The Theosophical Society has said that it does not want what I have to say; I would be violating my duty if I did not say at this moment: So I am not allowed to give lectures for members of the Theosophical Society for which I have been expelled from it.

It must seem incomprehensible how anyone can think that it would only be possible for me to give internal lectures to members of the Theosophical Society. It is completely impossible to speak of intolerance on the part of the Anthroposophical Society, since anyone who does not dispute its origin can join it. But anyone who, by belonging to the Theosophical Society, declares their agreement with Adyar's ban on heresy disputes its origin.

Rudolf Steiner.