Talk:Rudolf Steiner/Steiner and theosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Talk:Rudolf Steiner

[edit] Steiner and theosophy

Claiming Steiners visons are true and those of other theosophists are false is not objective. Denunciation of The Mahatma Letters and Annie Besant have therefore been removed.

It is also inacccurate to claim that Besant and Blavatsky saw Krishnamurti as the second coming of "Jesus Christ". Their neo-theosophy differentiates Jesus the man from the cosmic Christ principle (and in a different way than Steiner does) --Vindheim 11:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

First: the Theosophical Society - in fact, Blavatsky herself - admitted that these letters were not magically manifested from the Mahatmas, as had been claimed, but were in fact written by human beings (claimed to have been under the mediumship of or receiving communications from the Master):

In a letter to Frau Gebhard, Madame Blavatsky confessed that, to avoid complicated explanations, she had sometimes treated notes as having come directly from the Master in his own handwriting, when she knew that this was not really the case. Referring to the inadequacy of the chelas who were the real writers of most of the letters, she said that there were passages in some of the letters that were "expressed in such language that it perverted entirely the meaning originally intended". She said that " it is very rarely that Mahatma K.H dictated verbatim, and when He did there remained the few sublime passages... found in Mr. Sinnett's letters from Him " (C. Jinarajadasa, The Early Teachings of the Masters, foreword p.x)

Second: Besant and Leadbeater did in fact claim that Krishnamurti was the second coming of Christ: Mr. Leadbeater did not publicly proclaim these facts. Though he was the first to see and say that Krishnamurti would be the vehicle for the coming of Christ, with the reservation already mentioned ("unless something goes wrong," which I on the spot put down in writing), he left all the proclaiming to Mrs. Besant. see this article written by an acquaintance of Leadbeater's

Hgilbert 13:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the Mahatma Letters, Madame Blavatsky never claimed the mahatmas were anything but human. Anyway, the great controversies over these letters took place more than ten years before Steiner joined the Theosophical Society. They are not relevant to the breach between Steiner and Annie Besant another 13 years on in time.
Concerning the difference between Jesus and the Christ in Leadbeaters neo-theosophy, I got it the wrong way around, but the point remains that for Leadbeater (and, at one remove, for Annie Besant) Jesus and The Christ were different. This distinction remains also in Steiners anthroposophy. Leadbeaters claim was that Krishnamurti was destined to become the vehicle for the Christ. He did not claim that Krishnamurti was a reincarnation of "Jesus Christ".
--Vindheim 20:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


The new insertion (or rather assertion) by Hgilbert has no other point than attempting to strengthen the pro-Steiner bias in the whole article. Of course Steiner thought "there were a number of outright falsehoods being promulgated" by his opponents. Many people believe there are "a number of outright falsehoods being promulgated" by Steiner himself. Stating that he did not believe in the thosophical version put forward by Leadbeater and Besant should be enough (many other theosophists also did not accept the Leadbeater version). Strong language is not encyclopaedic. --Vindheim 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The strong language began with the assertion (which I believe you added) that Steiner's exclusion of Star of the East members was a breach with the theosophical principle of admitting members from all religions. This glosses over - or distorts - the fact that it had this exclusion had nothing whatever to do with any religious background of the members: Hindus, Buddhists, all were welcome. The exclusion was based upon Steiner's belief - rightly or wrongly - that there were outright falsehoods involved in both the Krishnamurti claims and the Mahatma letters (there was an active controversy over these at the time of the exclusions; see Steiners' lectures at that time to see how important this issue was for him). I propose we take out the discussion of the reasons for this assertion; it is too complex an issue for this overview article and belongs in a discussion of the origins of the Anthroposophical Society or the history of the Theosophical Society. (Otherwise a balanced presentation belongs in, not just one aspect.) I will provisionally attempt this excision, with the proviso that some material might find its way to another, more appropriate place through either of our efforts (or someone else's).
Of course excluding members of "the Star in the East" was excluding adherents of a particular religious faith. Personally I believe it was necessary for Steiner to take this action, but his faith is no more Truthful from an encyclopaedic viewpoint, than that of this opponents. --Vindheim 20:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theosophy

He was a theosophist, why are you reverting ? Wjhonson 16:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, he wasn't; he never joined the Theosophical Society, though he led a branch of their work, and his group broke away completely in 1912. I don't think the theosophists consider him one of theirs (see this list of famous theosophists or this one here, and he didn't consider himself one of theirs...Hgilbert 16:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That is false. He did join, he led the German section. He wrote many letters to Besant. I don't know where you're getting this from but he is named in several Theosophical documents. Wjhonson 16:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
It was only *later* that he rejected Theosophy, after Krishnamurti was proclaimed to be the awaited vehicle. His own letters state that. He led the German TS from 1902 to 1912. Ten years of being at the head of the entire German section of many people, isn't the same as "he never joined".Wjhonson 16:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Weird as it sounds, he led them but never joined them.Hgilbert 16:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other web links for you to peruse

I would say that Steiner is closely related enoiugh to Theosophy for the template to be included. On thre other hand, Wjhonson, you chose an extremely poor location in the article to place the template. — goethean ॐ 16:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust it :) Wjhonson 16:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way you should view those "lists" with scepticism. I just looked at the first one. What a hoot! Doesn't even name Krishnamurti for one thing. I mean really. He was the focal point of the entire movement. Wjhonson 16:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't name him for good reason. He was only associated with the theosophists as a child, by their choice not his, and rejected the movement's pretensions as soon as he was an adult. He is a similar case to Steiner: belongs to the history of the movement but was never a theosophist.Hgilbert 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Read his biography, its linked. He was found at the age of 14, and rejected them when he was in his thirties. Not as "soon as he was an adult". Wjhonson 17:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, OK. Nevertheless, to call Krishnamurti a theosophist is to do great injustice to his whole life, and especially his emphatic rejection of the theosophists.Hgilbert 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm a historian. I'm not that interested in how people tried to spin their lives *later*, but rather in how their lives played out in-context. And Krishna was about as deep into Theosophy as a person can get. To not call him a Theosophist would be to do an injustice to truth :) Wjhonson 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


Steiner's autobiography (chapters 31-33) and letters make it clear that he regarded Theosophy solely as a forum, a group that might listen to his spiritual ideas, not a group that he belonged to in any sense (and he mentions explicitly that he never joined -see this reference or this one or this one). He informed Besant that he'd be going his own way, and teaching his own insights, not those of the rest of the Theosophical movement, from the very beginning - there were extreme tensions because of this.

It's a peculiar situation, and he certainly belongs to the history of the Theosophical Society. Perhaps you could find a citation to support your contention that he was a theosophist.Hgilbert 16:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Given his explicit rejection of Theosophy (see chapters 31-33 of his autobiography), it seems clearly untrue to label him as a theosoph-ist. An -ist is a follower of a movement; he never followed theosophy. In addition, his philosophy diverged widely from theirs, sometimes extremely, and the template makes it appear that he worked within their ideas.Hgilbert 17:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the exact situation (my translation from the definitive Steiner biography, by Lindenberg):

“Marie von Sivers asked Steiner why he didn’t join the Theosophical Society, and he answered that there were more significant spiritual influences than oriental mysticism….Steiner evidently avoided requesting membership in the Theosophical Society, and made the condition that he would be released from all membership contributions. ‘Then I was sent a complementary “diploma” from England and became at the same time General Secretary of the German Theosophical Society.’…Steiner’s membership “diploma” bears the date Jan. 17, 1902.”

So he was formally a member, but did not regard himself as one and refused to be treated as one. In addition, as he joined he was already making it clear that he would not follow the direction of their movement.Hgilbert 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So he joined. That's what your quote says. What he thought about it is irrelevant. Everyone else thought he was a member. Wjhonson 17:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read it more closely. He did not join. He was granted honorary membership. That's quite a distinction. Hgilbert 18:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So if he said "I don't believe I'm a German and I don't want to be treated as a German" then suddenly he's not a German for the encyclopaedia ? That makes no sense. What a person thinks about the facts of their life, doesn't change those facts. Wjhonson 17:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
The quoted passage needs to be added to the article. — goethean ॐ 17:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between being a member of a society and being an -ist. The latter implies belief (you can be a Communist without joining the Communist Party, and be a Communist Party member without being a communist...for example, you could be a U.S. spy). Can you comprehend the distinction?

The template is totally out of place; it refers to a complex of people and beliefs that were totally foreign to Steiner's world-view and philosophy, and against whom and which he fought for years.Hgilbert 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree, you should add the quote, plus even your comment about it to the article to make your argument clear, since this is an area with conflicting claims. I don't understand your problem with the language. The Theosophist template is a template for all people who were connected to the movement. "Ist" or not. And he wasn't just a *theosophy* teacher with a small 't', he was a member of The Theosophical Society. So that's why the use of the template. And whether he fought them "for years" as you claim, bears no point on whether he was a member for years as well. Wjhonson 17:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Theosophist template makes sense to display if this has some relation to the article. It simply doesn't here. The information it displays it irrelevant and misleading in this context. If someone wants information about theosophy, they can click on a normal link.

I can live with the category tag following your justifications above; this is more plausibly for all people connected to the movement. The template has to go.Hgilbert 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

If Kandinsky was a member of the Theosophical society - as he may have been - does it make sense to include the template in the article about him? It only makes sense if the content it displays relates to the person. It clearly does not for Steiner.Hgilbert 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed. Steiner wasn't just some Theosophist, he was the *head* of the German TS. That is, he was the head, of many German lodges, across the entire country. Not just a few diletantes meeting in a tavern once a week. Not every Theosophist needs the template I agree, but the major players should. And for Germany, Steiner was *the* major player, of all time. There is no German Theosophist who you could say was ever higher in the system than he was. Can you name any? Wjhonson 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, there were diverse groups claiming to be the German Theosophical Society at the time, so there were many (at least 4-5) people who were the head of "the" German T.S.

I wonder what the template adds to the article? Can you answer that?

By the way, this section you just added needs a citation and quote marks. It appears to be excised from a published work. You can quote it but you should cite it properly. Wjhonson 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The section is my own text. Why does it appear to have been excised from a published work? I have found a supporting source for it, however, and added more material (Switzerland) found there.Hgilbert 19:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The facts you cite are not first-hand knowledge. And if they were they wouldn't be appropriate for wikipedia anyway. You should add citations as to *where* you got this information from. That would be both helpful and more standard since you've added such a large set of new statements. Even if you read it in five sources and re-edited it, you still have statements of fact that need citations to back them up. Don't you agree ? Wjhonson 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Entirely, which is why they are all sourced. What in the world are you referring to?

To be absolutely clear, the first paragraph of the section on the split from Theosophy is an extended passage excerpted and quoted (as marked) from Lindenberg (as cited). The second paragraph is in my own words, and I have cited Lindenberg as one source backing it up (there are many others possible, but he was at hand). What's the problem?Hgilbert 22:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Theosophy box relates exclusively to one section of this article, and there chiefly as a demonstration of what was being dismissed. It really should go; this is not an article about theosophy.

To illustrate: should the article on Jesus have a Judaism box? He was a member of the Jewish faith for thirty-three years and never rejected it, while Steiner was a member of the Theosophical Society for only ten and even during that time rejected it.Hgilbert 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, if there's a Jewish template, then Jesus' article should certainly have that template. Steiner wasn't just some, on-the-sidelines, Theosophist. He was, *the* Theosophist responsible for the creation of the German TS. Prior to his involvement there *was* no German TS, just a few scattered groups like the Berlin TS. And he was the head of the German ES as well. In short he was the most influential and highly placed German in the entire TS. I mentioned this before and you had no rejoinder to my most salient point :) Wjhonson 19:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

He was the leader of the German society, as you say. The article explains exactly why this does not mean he was a theosophist; he took the job saying that he would not teach theosophy, but his own, Western approach. He left the job ten years later saying the same thing.

Look. Steiner also was:

  • A teacher for a Marxist/Leninist school for about the same period of time.
  • A leader of a Freemason esoteric group and a high degree mason for about the same period of time.
  • A Catholic for his whole life (formally: he was baptised and never left the faith).

and probably numerous other things. We don't need to put templates in for everything a person was ever associated with, even if it was at a high level. The information it offers is essentially irrelevant to the article, and even misleading; certainly contrary to the sense of the text, which is emphasizing how much he did not relate to all that the template offers.

So, other than the fact that it is arbitrary (out of all his associations), misleading (in that it indicates that the information offered relates to Steiner's philosophical direction), irrelevant (in that the information does not relate to said direction) and contrary to the sense of the text, I suppose I don't have a lot to say right now against it. Perhaps those are weighty enough arguments.Hgilbert 20:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First it wasn't a "job" it was membership in a voluntary organization. He wasn't paid, except perhaps speaking fees, I'm not sure on that. But he didn't draw a regular salary in any case.
Second he wasn't the *leader* of *all German Catholics*. However he was the leader of all German Theosophists. Quite a bit different wouldn't you say?
Third it doesn't indicate his philosophy one bit. The template only says that he was involved in, and a significant figure in Theosophy of this period. Which he was. And that's all the template says, not all this other stuff you're trying to add to show how it's irrelevant. It isn't irrelevant, it's spot-on. Wjhonson 21:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, he did get paid for speaking fees. He was offered membership because they wanted him to lecture and couldn't have him do it otherwise; this is clear from his whole attitude and the whole honorary membership business. He wasn't the leader of all German theosophists; there were 4-5 squabbling groups when he began. His group, which was explicitly not based upon theosophy, grew far bigger than the others, but didn't start out that way. Thirdly, the article, not the template, says that he was involved in and a significant figure in Theosophy. In other words, if that's what you want it to do, it's superfluous; the article does it better.

Templates such as this are used for pages within a category: all Christian denominations have a common page. Theosophy and anthroposophy could be better regarded as similar to Protestant and Catholic...in fact, Martin Luther is a good parallel. It would be inappropriate to put a Catholic template on his page even though he was an extremely prominent leader of the Catholic church in Germany for some time. Can you not see that what someone has grown out of is not what he is? For Steiner, it is even less appropriate because he demonstrably never was a convinced theosophist.

Please, let this go; I'm tiring of saying the same thing in different words and not being heard. (And yes, I hear you clearly, and have supported having the article clearly explain his relationship to theosophy, which is what you are saying it needs to show.) I'm happy to compromise by leaving in the category, which is vaguely relevant perhaps, but the template is simply not. Hgilbert 21:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. You keep acting like if a person is a Theosophist (or was) that they can't be anything else. That's just not true. A person can have five different templates if they're appropriate. Would you say that he should *not* have an Anthrosophy template because he only became one for the last half of his life? Would you turn around and say a person like Krishamurti should also not have the Theosophy template because he, at the age of about 30+ denied them what they most wanted ? So from that point on, I suppose you could say he wasn't a "Theosophist" anymore per your theory of what templates are for. If you look at all the other Theosophists, they all have the template, even the ones who were relatively minor. But you want Steiner to be the exception for some bizarre reason. Wjhonson 06:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a challenging idea, perhaps, but I'll reiterate it: Steiner was not a Theosophist. He was an honorary member of the Society, the founding leader of the German Section for 10 years, and yet he was not a follower of the movement, which is what "Theosophist" implies. Perhaps that requires a little thinking outside of the box to comprehend, but if you look at his whole relationship to the society it is very, very clear. I don't have much more to say about it and need to go on to other things...we're going in circles... Hgilbert 07:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering Steiner a Theosophist is similar to saying that Jesus was a Baptist just because he was baptised by St. John. Steiner never was a Theosophist, and he made this clear many times. Aquirata 09:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The Baptists did not exist in 30 AD however. And Jesus wasn't proclaimed the head of the Baptists of Palestine or Israel. So your analogy is quite flawed. Steiner was a Theosophist and this was made clear many times. Not only was he *a* Theosophist, he was the *number one* Theosophist in all of Germany. Contrary to an above assertion, after the formation of the German TS there was no other conflicting TS in Germany whatsoever. All smaller groups were folded into the one German TS and ES. Wjhonson 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at this from a different viewpoint. What does the template actually add to the article? Some names: Blavatsky, Judge, Olcott. What was the relationship of Steiner's work to the work of these people? Very little (he mentions Blavatsky sometimes, and his early root races theory may have a connection to her writings). It mentions theosophists; again, the work was totally divergent. It mentions the Theosophical Society in various places; his society went its own way without connections to the other societies, except for the 10 years. It mentions various Theosophical works; again, none of these really relates to Steiner's work or to Anthroposophy. It is not primarily adding related information, normally the intention of such a linked grouping, but rather very distant material. Whereas the many people who continued his work or did connect to it directly - Steffen, Stein, Kolisko, Marie Steiner, Morgenstern, Hauschka, and hundreds more are not listed. Eurythmy, anthroposophical architecture and medicine, biodynamic farming -- these would be the primary links. It gives the illusion that the most important links are the ones it shows, but they are not. What the article perhaps needs is a Template Anthroposophy. I am willing to create one but may not be able to get to it for 2 weeks (I am away right now).Hgilbert 00:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

But I am not and never have been talking about his "work" or his "writings". This is not a page for the "Work of Steiner" or the "Writings of Steiner" but rather a page about Steiner. And about Steiner, he was still the number one Theosophist in all of Germany. So far your argument is not very persuasive for a biographical article. Perhaps its persuasive is this article was *solely* about his philosophy I can't speak to that issue. I'm only speaking to the *biographical* aspects of the article. Wjhonson 21:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)