Re: theos-talk Re: adepts in the Greco-Roman world
Jan 10, 2011 04:23 AM
by M. Sufilight
My views are:
The following might explain thise issue further about what happened in 1907 in Munich.
Rudolf Steiner wrote:
"The form of the work at Munich brought it about that the theosophical congress of 1907, which was to be set up by the German Section, was held there. These congresses, which had previously been held in London, Amsterdam, and Paris, consisted of sessions in which theosophical problems were dealt with in lectures and discussions. They were planned on the model of the congresses of learned societies. The administrative problems of the Society were also discussed.
In all this very much was changed at Munich. In the great Concert Hall where the ceremonies were to take place, we - the committee of arrangements - provided interior decorations which in form and colour should correspond artistically with the mood that dominated the oral programme. Artistic environment and spiritual activity were to constitute a harmonious unity. I attached the greatest possible value to the avoidance of abstract inartistic symbolism and to giving free expression to artistic feeling.
Into the programme of the congress was introduced an artistic representation. Marie von Sievers had long before translated Schuré's reconstruction of the Eleusinian drama. I planned the speeches for a presentation of this. This play was then introduced into the programme. A connection with the nature of the ancient mysteries - even though in so feeble a form - was thus afforded; but the important thing was that the congress had now an artistic aspect, - an artistic element directed toward the purpose of not leaving the spiritual life henceforth void of art within the Society. Marie von Sievers, who had undertaken the rôle of Demeter, showed already in her presentation the nuances which drama was to reach in the Society. Besides, we had reached a time when the art of declamation and recitation developed by Marie von Sievers by working out from the inner force of the word had arrived at the most varied points from which further fruitful progress could be made in this field.
A great portion of the old members of the Theosophical Society from England, France, and especially from Holland, were inwardly displeased by the innovations offered them at the Munich congress. What it would have been well to understand, but what was clearly grasped at that time by exceedingly few, was the fact that the anthroposophic current had given something of an entirely different bearing from that of the Theosophical Society up to that time. In this inner bearing lay the true reason why the Anthroposophical Society could no longer exist as a part of the Theosophical Society. Most persons, however, place the chief emphasis upon the absurdities which in the course of time have grown up in the Theosophical Society and have led to endless quarreling. "
(The Story of My Life, Chapter XXXVIII, 1928 - by Marie Steiner)
So I guess Rudolf Steiner was not really so to speak a Blavatsky'an theosophist after all - at least he seemed to have a need for deviating from the original programe and the Constitution.
Theosophically speaking, and these are my views: If Steiner was anything, he was a "Golgatha Mystery" theosophist - and in that respect he, as I see it, failed to understand the multi-cultural impulses of the planet, when compared to H. P. Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine. However in Steiner's time a great number of persons had learned to read because of the school reform in the Western Europe, this was not the case in H. P. Blavatsky's days. So many newcomers of a quite different nature became interested in theosophical organisations and similar groups. This I think aught to be considered.
But then, again why deviate from the Original Programe and Constitution, as Steiner openly did, when there in fact was no real need for it in the name of altrusism and the first aim of the Theosophical Society? Was it because Annie Besant and others already had succeded in deviating from the Original Programe and Constitution? I think we there will find the core of the problem and all the later problems of idolizing behaviour both within the Theosophical Society up until today with its "hall of fame" (with a proclaimed Messiah in it) on the TS Adyar website - and - the Anthroposophical Society with its open idolizing of Rudolf Steiner. But, how to avoid idolizings within the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society - as well as the present day Theosophical Society or also the Anthroposophical Society? - It seems that - this idolizing behaviour or peculiar tendency to idolize others - has been a core motivator behind many of the various splits and schims, which the Theosophical Society has gone through since it was founded in 1875. And also the lack of understanding the importance of the organisational-structure given in the Original Programe for the Theosophical Society (exoterically) and its Constitution. These views I find important to touch upon, so we might reach a better Theosophical Society in the future - even among many of the other theosophical branches in existece today.
In fact what is it in the present day Constitutions of the various theosophical groups like The Theosophical Society, the ULT, the Pasadena Theosophical Society and others, that sets them apart? Why do they not just work together for a common cause in the name of altrusism, which they claim they all love? Is it because they in fact have deviated from the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society?
Why let "semantics" block altruism?
After all the first aim of the Theosophical Society was from the beginning - to promote altruism or heartflow in the search for the truth about life - and not bigotted secterian behaviour.
Either a given theosophical group has a theosophical philosophy its leaders promote on behalf of the members or it has not.
If it has, then it ís already deviating from the Original Programe of the Theosophical Society and has established a sect, most often with no real pledges.
As Vivekananda said:
"The proof of one religion depends on the proof of all the rest. For instance, if I have six fingers, and no one else has, you may well say that is abnormal. The same reasoning may be applied to the argument that only one religion is true and all others false. One religion only, like one set of six fingers in the world, would be unnatural. We see, therefore, that if one religion is true, all others must be true. There are differences in non-essentials, but in essentials they are all one. If my five fingers are true, they prove that your five fingers are true too. Wherever man is, he must develop a belief, he must develop his religious nature."
(Soul, God and religion, 1895)
Let us search for the truth about life together in the name of altruism.
Let people have their esoteric sections and various religious groups outside such an organisation.
But let us work together. Theos-talk or similar could be, or perhaps it already is, such a place from which to grow such a mutual work, a work together.
All the above are however just my views.
But, what do you think?
----- Original Message -----
From: Konstantin Zaitzev
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2011 9:37 AM
Subject: theos-talk Re: adepts in the Greco-Roman world
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, MKR <mkr777@...> wrote:
> Did he and German Section not split from TS when Besant announced JK
> to be the future vehicle of the coming Teacher?
It is the half of the truth, and the less significant one. Even before Krishnamurti was found he had the plans to secede. He believed that coming of Jesus Christ was the greatest event in human history, while most theosophists hold theory of cyclic avataras (though not all, including me, believe that Krishnamurti was one of them). When Order of the Star was founded, Steiner declined to admit its members to Theosophical Society, what was a violation of Rules, for he had no right to discriminate for religious views, no matter how foolish they were. Even earlier he didn't admit to the German Section people whose views and even "occult qualities" he didn't like. Noteworthy that old HPB-times theosophist Hubbe-Schleiden didn't support him.
Pisareva, who was a great Steiners fan in the beginning, wrote in her memoirs:
"In 1907 we with Anna Kamensky and the group of Russian theosophists came to the 4th European theosopical congress in Munchen. This congress made very bad impression on us. All the German Section headed by Dr. Steiner has radically changed its attitude to A. Besant.
M. Sievers, and then all the others became fanatical adherents of Steiner and believed that it was he, who should be the head of all theosophical movement, displacing Annie Besant. They abruptly broke all friendly relations with me, for I remained loyal to her."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application