Controversy, polarization and polemics within spiritual societies

From Free Man Creator

It is a known recurrent pattern that organizational structures arising from spiritual movements get into problems due to the 'all too human' reasons such as egos of leaders, misguided leadership after the original founder, and conflicts arising out of differences between segments of the following and/or membership population (that typically consists of a wide variety of people with different karmic backgrounds). Furthermore spiritual impulses and organizations are surely also targeted by opposing counterforces that try to discredit them and cultivate the divide by attacking weak spots.

It is common to find

  • controversy (disputes in public, over matters of opinion, policy, belief, or facts),
  • polarization (division into opposing camps, causing a split and entrenched opposition with lack of true dialogue), and
  • polemics (aggressive argumentation used to attack or defend a position .. against a person, idea, doctrine, can become vigorous critique with hostile attacks)

It is interesting to study case examples of what one has to do then as an individual in such cases?

First, for some cases it is certainly so that the polarization and controversy is more a problem of the followers, than of the individuals themselves that are central or causing the dispute. However these patterns cause a huge drain and loss of emotional and mental energy, distracting from what the spiritual path is essentially all about, and thus holding a (karmic) mirror to all involved.

It is up to each earnest and critical student to go about all sources of information and testing them to one's own insights, rational understanding and logic, and intuition. One aspect that Rudolf Steiner taught in this respect is to be objective, critical and conscientious and also researching the person or individual, the source of information.

Personality characteristics such as of conscientiousness, humility, kindness, respect do seem important criteria to use when developing one's opinion of a person writing about spiritual science, especially when such person might - for example - develop lines of thought by mixing Rudolf Steiner's statements with own statements without much further foundation, or stitch extracts from various lectures and concatenate and assemble them with an own spin or storyline to develop a certain line of thought.

Therefore in a broader context this is also related to

Aspects

  • in the world of today, the spiritual scientific movement and organizations such as the anthroposophical and theosophical societies are meeting places for people coming from or with karmic roots into various historical substreams. More on this on The Michaelic stream.
    • as an illustration that what is on this topic page is not an exceptional or surprising situation, but quite understandeable: when Christianity was established by the roman empire (eg First Council of Nicaea in 325), major debates took place between various streams. Similarly, participants from pagan, gnostic, neoplatonic backgrounds, johannine and pauline christians, philosophers sceptical of christianity .. tried to come together and find a common base on topics such as the divinity of Jesus, the trinity, etc. The difficulties remained though, see the later 'split in the churches' with oa the East-West schism in the 11th century (roman catholic vs eastern orthodox), the protestant reformation in the 16th century.
    • personalities should be seen as Individualities, for an illustration see eg Schema FMC00.531 on Karma exercises. This will evolve over longer time periods, as described on the topic pages on Personality and Individuality and Past life memories.
  • Rudolf Steiner made the clear distinction between the future of the anthroposophical movement and the anthroposophical society (quotes still to be added)

poisoning the well

  • from wikipedia: poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is an expression used for a type of informal fallacy where adverse information is presented to an audience with the intention of discrediting something
  • a well typically offers clear, pure, natural water ... and this is also the case for the teachings of adepts of the white lodge (see e.g. Schema FMC00.609) throughout the ages. What happens in the world, and we can call this 'all too human', is that these teachings are put in other bottles with other labels, given coloured interpretations, 'enriched' with extra information, etc ... and that as a result half-lies or derived fantasies and erroneous information is spread. It matters less whether this is done as a conscious strategy or unconsciously due to individuals and organizations who are less spiritually mature, the result is the same: that one is confronted with a complex mixture of truth with untruths, and a myriad of offerings of alternative voices and their teachings.
    • Example illustrations: Max Heindel went on his own course to deliver his own version of teachings based on Rudolf Steiner and Helena Blavatsky. Michael Ivanov also added his own teachings and interpretations to the teachings of Beinsa Douno. And today many would-be teachers feel called to complement Franz Bardon's manuals for self-initiation and the path to adeptship with their own insights, techniques and additional exercises or approaches.
  • see also below: Controversy, polarization and polemics within spiritual societies#Owen Barfield: 'Anthroposophy and the Future'

Inspirational quotes

Daskalos

short quote taken from Daskalos#Paul Skorpen

all esoteric-systems-turned-spiritual-organizations go awry ... they all do, sooner or later

Case instances

theosophical society

After Helena Blavatsky died in 1891 (and Henri Steel Olcott died in 1907) the Theosophical Society fell into ever greater controversy, and was the scene of various controversies around psychic phenomena, alleged masters and sex scandals. Numerous conflicts marked this period. Besant and Leadbeater totally undermined the credibility of the Theosophical Society by considering an Indian boy the returned Chris and pushing the young Krishnamurti into the limelight around 1910. Before that, Charles Webster Leadbeater had already been expelled following accusations of misconduct and sex scandals, but he had been reinstated in 1908 after intervention by Besant.

This unsavoury course of events were irreconcilable with the moral standards of true inner striving and in 1908 some 700 members that left the society, a.o. G.R.S. Mead, who in 1909 founded the Quest Society with some 150 friends. (For more references, see eg '2011 - Peter Huijs' below).

For further illustrations of the period before and the discreting Blavatsky's work and impulse, with ao the 'kiddle incident' (1883) and the Mahatma letters (1885), see Helena Blavatsky#controversies in theosophy surrounding Blavatsky. However the whole page and life of Helena Blavatsky is an example of how a person can be manipulated and used when confronting counterforce opposition.

anthroposophical society

The anthroposophical impulse by Rudolf Steiner was already under fierce attack during his life, not just in the media but also physically, as exemplified by the arson and deliberate burning of the first Goetheanum, the attack during a lecture in 1922 when lights were switched off and people rushed toward the stage.

After the death of Rudolf Steiner in 1925, the anthroposophical society fell into controversy. The most well known fact is the expulsion in 1935 of important anthroposophists of Steiner's closest circle such as Ita Wegman and Elisabeth Vreede by the leadership of the society, then led by Albert Steffen. Also F.W. Zeylmans van Emmichoven was part of the controversy and was excluded, which caused a split with the Dutch division of the society.

In later years Marie Steiner was herself excluded from the Executive Council and the further shaping the society, and a legal dispute followed between Marie Steiner (as Rudolf Steiner's legal heir) and the Executive council (a dispute that was eventually settled in favor of Marie Steiner).

During the last century and up to today, there have been controversy, polarization and polemics in the anthroposophical movement. Focal points are often personalities that give rise to these polarization of opinions (or creation of camps or sides) with their writings, and especially their interpretation and opinions of, and additions to, Rudolf Steiner's work. Sometimes writings are claimed to be the result of own insights and/or clairvoyant research. The section below covers specific examples.

Daskalos and Erevna

see the split between Daskalos and Markides and the situation with Erevna

Beinsa Douno's teachings and followers

polarization around certain individuals who 'branch off' and/or 'sail under a larger flag' such as e.g. Michael Ivanov or Omraam and the teachings from Beinsa Douno.

Lecture coverage and references

Overview coverage

Cycles GA250 to GA270 are about the anthroposophical movement and society in many of its aspects: its history (GA250-GA251), Goetheanum (GA252), context of spiritual movements (GA254), the opposing forces (GA255b), awaking to community (GA257), lectures held on the fateful year 1923 (GA259) and the Christmas conference (GA260), and several volumes of esoteric lessons and instructions.

1923-06-GA258 - The history and significance of the anthroposophical movement to the Anthroposophical Society.

Reference extracts

1921-11-16-GA266/3

The following quote by Rudolf Steiner is taken from another source, comes from a preparatory hour on 1921-11-16 in GA266/3 (not found back yet)

In the anthrosophical society the 'clique' spirit has entered (ist eben das Cliquenwesen eingedrungen), and this clique spirit has put itself above everything else in this society .. This way it fragments, splits up the anthroposophical movement in nothing but 'cliques' .. in many ways we're worse off this way than in the outer non-esoteric world.

In this talk, Rudolf Steiner complained that there was almost no way to do true inner work as the nature of esoteric work requires, as everything was carried out into the outer world in scandalous ways on earlier occasions (referring to before 1914):

In this context something so scandalous as these things have never happened before, and it happened in our anthroposophical movement. In esoteric matters and circles, it has always been the case, that things were kept and handled in intimate circles, even in case of disrespectful cases. This has always worked in all esoteric movements across time. But not so in our movement.

Meaning of 'clique' in English: "a small group of people who spend their time together and do not welcome other people into that group. eg: there's a clique at work that never talks/who never talk to anyone else."

1923-06-16-GA258

What good is it if we tell people over and over again that we are not a cult if we behave as if we were a cult?

Because, you see, what should be understood by the members of the Anthroposophic Society, which is the condition of any society at all in modern times. A society cannot be a cult. Therefore, in fact, when anthroposophic society is to stand on its right ground, it is not allowed that «we» play a role in terms of views.

Time and time again you hear anthroposophers say to the outside world: We, society, have this or that view. This or that happens to us. We want this or that.

It was possible in the ancient times that in such conformity societies would position themselves before the world. This is no longer possible in our time. In our time, in such a society, every single person must be a truly free person.

Views, thoughts, opinions only each individual has. The 'Society' has no opinion.

And this must already be expressed in the language with which the individual speaks about society. Actually, the "we" has to go.

There is something else connected to this. If this «we» disappears, then not everyone in society feels like they are in a temple of water inside, from which they are carried and on which they call themselves accordingly, when it comes to it.

However, when he has his own opinion and to represent himself before all things in society, he also feels fully responsible for what he is as an individual, and speaks as an individual.

Owen Barfield: 'Anthroposophy and the Future'

in Towards 3.1 (Fall 1987): 32-35, 49-50 - read online

The quote below puts quite nicely what is happening in the world with regards to the spiritual, the true inner path of spirituality, and Rudolf Steiner's teachings .. let's confuse everyone so they don't know anymore .. and indeed so many people are misguided through the activities in this area.

In one of the stories in the Arabian Nights – “Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves,” I think – it becomes important to identify one particular room-door in a long row of exactly similar doors. The conspirators, who intend to murder the room’s occupant during the night, mark the door with a cross. His wife or lover determines to save him, so what does she do? Since she can’t erase the mark, she marks all the other doors in the row with a similar cross.

I suspect this is the strategy the Adversary is adopting here, only not with rescue as its object. No longer hostility; no longer the conspiracy of silence. He cannot obliterate the thinking and the revelations of Rudolf Steiner.

He can, and I think he intends to, encourage them to sink gently out of sight into a quicksand of amorphous, anti-reductionist impulse.

That, it seems to me, is the danger that lies immediately ahead, and I commend it to your close attention.

2011 - Peter Huijs

extract from book 'Called by the world heart' on the founders of the spiritual school of the Golden Rosycross; freely downloadeable in PDF from goldenrosycross.org.

This extract is on George Robert Mead and the controversy in the theosophical society

Although he was a very familiar figure in the London esoteric incrowd, Arthur Edward Waite was not a theosophist like his friend George Robert Mead. After Blavatsky’s death in 1891, Colonel H.S. Olcott as chairman-founder, William Q. Judge as vice-chairman of the Theosophical Society, both in the United States, and Annie Besant, chairing the Blavatsky Lodge in London and co-director of the esoteric section, were the leading officials. Numerous conflicts marked this period. Ultimately, Besant and Leadbeater undermined any credibility of the Theosophical Society by considering an Indian boy the returned Christ. When around 1910, Annie Besant pushed young Krishnamurti into the limelight as the reborn Christ, it was clear that the Society had arrived in troubled waters. The young scholar George Mead, also one of the first twelve members of the ‘esoteric section’ around Blavatsky, had already seen this a few years before.

The unsavoury course of events around Leadbeater’s membership were to Mead, and with him to seven hundred other members, irreconcilable with the moral standards of true inner striving. Leadbeater was initially expelled, but later admitted again by the leadership of the society to profit from his psychic ability, and the hocus-pocus with masters, initiations and miracles.

Ultimately he left the society and founded The Quest Society. For two reasons, we devote a few paragraphs to him. The first one is that years after his death, his work has been very important for the young Spiritual School. The second reason is that his life was exemplary: it is an example of a pattern that characterizes the lives of many other workers for the Light.

...

The Theosophical Society inspired many great minds. When Henri Steel Olcott died in 1907, the Society would have liked to have Mead as its new president. However, the Society was also the scene of controversies, psychic phenomena, alleged masters and sex scandals. One of those sex scandals, concerning children in America and England, occurred up to the highest circles. Leadbeater, a man with a huge influence in the Society because of his psychic powers, was expelled due to this scandal.

As a true lover of truth and a man of high ethical standing, George Mead was no longer able to reconcile all of this with his inner morals. He was also averse to the hocus-pocus with masters and occult phenomena as well as the hypocrisy which he considered a terrible impediment for a spiritual quest.

This is why he did not comply with the request to become president, devoting himself instead to his own study in which the manuscripts of the gnosis from the first centuries of Christianity played a major role. On the basis of an inner impulse, Mead married Laura Cooper in 1899, also a member of the first esoteric circle of Blavatsky. Years later, after his wife had died, he admitted that the motive for their marriage was not necessarily their mutual affection, although they had a very good loving marriage. It was also to be able to maintain a group, following Blavatsky’s private meetings in the context of the esoteric section at 19, Avenue Road. Mead considered it a not only a privilege, but also his task, to keep the flame of the inner group burning during the years after Blavatsky. He discharged this task conscientiously and in this way, the pure impulse could be preserved for years. Undoubtedly, this was the reaction to the time following Blavatsky’s death. Rudolf Steiner, too, was to follow the same drive a few years later, when he left the Theosophical Society in 1912 and continued autonomously with the Anthroposophical Society.

Mead seriously objected to the fact that the leadership of the Theosophical Society and that of the inner school were in the same hands – those of Annie Besant. When she, moreover, admitted the expelled Leadbeater into the Society again a year after his expulsion, this was the limit for the conscientious author. In 1908, Mead left the Theosophical Society, together with 700 other members.

After another year, in 1909, Mead founded, together with 150 friends, The Quest Society, an organisation devoted to the comparative study of religions, based on an objective, scientific foundation. They gave lectures, but their main activity was the publication of a quarterly magazine The Quest. Mead said about it: «There was no money. But there was something that was much better than money. There were numerous excellent articles and first-rate contributions – and all of them, labours of love. We were unable to afford to pay our workers even a penny. That is the true merit of The Quest; and as its editor, I am justly proud, even very proud, when I look at the list of my most valued co-workers, a list that could hardly be surpassed by any magazine that would have had to work with the same resources as we did.»

Indeed, in the magazine The Quest, we see contributions by important authors. These were writers who understood that, under the mantle of secrecy and mysteries, actually ‘the eternal wisdom’ of the spiritual development of humanity lay hidden. Amongst those who contributed to The Quest were Martin Buber (1878-1965), Gustav Meyrink (1868-1932), A.E. Waite, W.B.Yeats (1865-1939) and Gerhard Scholem (1897-1982)

Anthroposophists that have been subject of polarization of opinion fronts

Introduction

This lists some of the personalities whose work has not been unanimously accepted or embraced. The goal is not to judge, but to document the phenomenon and provide links to perspectives of various camps.

Irrespective of taking any position, what is characteristic is that the divided camps blame the other party that these interpretations may go off on a tangent and/or not make sense, and/or dispute or attack the fact that additions by the person are not to be recognized as truthful or authoritative.

On this site, the main sources do not include the work of the people listed below (except for unqualified references in the 'Further reading' sections). Rationale: there are enough key materials of the main teachers that this suffices as a focus. This however in no way represents any judgment whatsoever about the quality of these people's contribution.

Individuals

This lists some personalities who work and ideas have been subject of polarization, the list is not exhaustive and is provided in a factual manner without judgement.

Valentin Tomberg (1900-1973)
  • Valentin Tomberg was engaged in active esoteric study since 1920 and joined the Anthroposophical Society in 1925. During the 1930s, his publications made him a controversial figure. In 1938-1940, Tomberg was asked to withdraw from the Anthroposophical Society due to his being too controversia (also in the Netherlands, by its chairman Zeylmans van Emmichhoven). He converted to the orthodox and roman catholic churches in 1943 and 1945.
  • Tomberg's positioning: in the later stages of his life, Tomberg distanced himself from the anthroposophical movement and wrote from a christian esoteric perspective.
  • literature
    • Stewart C. Easton: Valentin Tomberg - a critical review
  • believers and non-believers
    • pro:
      • Martin Kriele,
      • Willi Seiss (1922-2013), publisher of Tomberg's esoteric works
      • Robert Powell (see below)
    • con:
      • Zeylmans van Emmichhoven as the representative voice of the anthro community and society
      • Prokofieff (and Christian Lazarides in FR)
Gennady Bondarev (1936-)
  • Gennady Bondarev
    • Bondarev was the leader of the Russian Anthroposophical Society in Moscow in late Soviet times, when he was repeatedly interrogated by the KGB but escaped these interrogations unharmed. He was expelled from the Dornach Anthroposophical Society in 1998.
  • literature
    • Robert Mason: 'Sevenfold dialectic' .. 'A First Encounter with Bondarev's PoF Book', and more
Sergei O. Prokofieff (1954-2014)
  • Sergei O. Prokofieff wrote his first book while living in Soviet Russia. After the fall of Communism, he helped establish the Anthroposophical Society in Russia. In 2001, he became a member of the Executive Council of the General Anthroposophical Society at the Goetheanum in Switzerland. More than 30 of his books have been translated into English.
  • Prokofieff's positioning:
    • attacking Judith von Halle
      • "Time-Journeys": A Counter-Image to Anthroposophical Spiritual Research (2013) is said to be a response to the book by Peter Tradowsky: ‘The Stigmata - Destiny as a Question of Knowledge’, which was itself a response to the appendix: ‘The Forces of the Phantom and Stigmatization’ included in the book by Sergei Prokofieff: ‘The Mystery of the Resurrection in the Light of Anthroposophy’ (2010).
      • a petition signed by a large number of people asked to take the Prokofieff book out attacking Van Halle out of distribution. Rumour goes the petition was signed by wealthy individuals of the Van Halle 'camp'.
    • attacking Valentin Tomberg
      • 'The Case of Valentin Tomberg: Anthroposophy Or Jesuitism?
  • believers and non-believers
    • whereas Prokofieff has a following that swear by his book and general authentic contribution to anthroposophy, there is also a large population who finds his books chaotic and unclear and not consistent with Rudolf Steiner's teachings and general clarity
  • literature on Prokofieff
    • Irina Gordienko: 'Sergei O. Prokofieff. Myth and Reality'
    • Herbert Wimbauer: 'Der Fall Prokofieff' (1995)
Robert A. Powell (1947-)
  • Powell's positioning: supporter of Tomberg
  • literature
    • Robert Mason: 'The Work of Robert Powell. Some notes toward a critical review. (2008-2013)
Jesaiah Ben-Aharon (1955-)
  • Yeshayahu (Jesaiah) Ben-Aharon founded the anthroposophical community of kibbutz Harduf (Israel) and is co-founder with Nicanor Perlas of the Global Network for Social Threefolding,
Judith von Halle (1972-)
  • Judith von Halle's story or claim regarding Stigmata (references see profile link) caused a controversy in the anthro community in 2004.
    • Judith von Halle writes from own clairvoyant research, an overview of here books is on www.v-f-a.ch/judith-von-halle
    • Peter Tradowsky was first witness and supporter
    • some followers in anthroposophical circles have speculated about her being the incarnation of Edith Maryon
  • polemics
    • Prokofieff (himself also not unspoken and under critique) was vehement in rejecting von Halle, and as a result followers of both engaged in a continuing fight. Since his death in 2014 the conflict may have become less confrontational, but it still continuous behind the scenes. Maybe the contra people are (more) dogmatic ('mentally imprisoned') and pro people and supporters also rely on Rudolf Steiner but are more open and flexible to accept JvH's own contribution.
  • believers and non-believers
    • pro:
      • Peter Tradowsky, Wolfgang Garvelmann, Helmut Kiene, Rob Steinbuch (in NL)
      • Robert Powell
    • contra:
      • Sergei O. Prokofieff
      • Thomas Meyer, Adriana Koulias
      • Frank Linde
  • literature
Others

This section is a placeholder that adds to the above but still needs to be elaborated and developed further.

1/ Certain people 'spin', or tackle, anthroposophy in a particular way, that tries to put it in another frame or other light, different from the original intentions. Or at least: a group of people feels and judges this to be the case. It may say just as much or more about the group of people who feel they have to react and put their energy in this, than about the person they target as subject.

Examples that have been seen to be subject of debate in this sense (again, without any judgement here).

  • Karl Ballmer (1891-1958)
    • from the bio on dokumentationen-kulturimpuls-org (computer translation)

      He describes this responsible engagement as the "karma orientation of epistemology," in which he discusses and answers the difficult question of how we become anthroposophical. According to Ballmer, we have no prospect of becoming anthroposophists as long as we approach Steiner's work as if it were merely a theory, intending to "creatively" supplement, modernize, or even further develop it as we please, as if we were already fully "human," according to the criteria of knowledge and action of the "Philosophy of Freedom," and thus on par with Rudolf Steiner. We can only become anthroposophists, however, when we no longer grasp the problem of knowledge merely theoretically, but karmically, and recognize Rudolf Steiner's epistemological achievement, which is in and of itself without presuppositions, as the factual prerequisite for our becoming anthroposophical. Anthroposophy as a movement of ideas thus transforms into a movement of destiny: Do I arise in my present Being present in every moment, in the face of what comes to me from the outside (karma), it is crucial whether anthroposophical thoughts are among those coming to me. If I do not pass them by unwittingly, then I have the grace to arise as an individual and a human being from the thoughts of another who has realized the "desire of man" within himself. In other words, as a student of anthroposophy, I then receive not concepts from the anthroposophical teacher, but my true self. Remarkably, Ballmer's 1941 publication "AE Biedermann heute!", in which the aforementioned ideas found their most concise expression, was declared "anti-anthroposophy" in writing by Heinrich Leiste in Dornach immediately after its publication, resulting in the removal of the edition from the anthroposophical range and the suppression of Karl Ballmer's name in official anthroposophical periodicals.

  • Helmuth Zander,
    • illustration from the Goetheanum 'Steiner Studies journal project' (SWCC)

      Professor Helmut Zander .. is not considered a scientifically reliable researcher of anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner. His two-volume publication 'Anthroposophy in Germany' and his Rudolf Steiner biography may have gained him the reputation of being a Steiner expert in public but his choice of sources, statements and conclusions clearly lack scientific rigour. And even in cases where the speciousness of his arguments has been pointed out to and admitted by him, he has not made corrections in later publications. The 'opponent' concept (concept not shared by everyone present) seems appropriate here because it is not a question of someone having a different point of view, but of deliberately deconstructing anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, and presenting and interpreting facts in dubious and one-sidedly distorting ways. ... pointed out that Helmut Zander accuses Rudolf Steiner of lying five times within a few pages of the above book, concluding with the question, "What does it look like within a person who is becoming increasingly entangled in lies?" .. and sees Rudolf Steiner as someone who "condemns himself to untruthfulness" (p. 463).

  • Christian Clement (1968), the author of the Steiner Kritische Ausgabe (SKA) or Steiner Critical Edition.

For some people, certain authors thereby place themselves out of the righteous spiritual science as it should be: objective, spiritual scientific, factual, conscientious. And not shaken and stirred by personal opinions and perspectives to serve personal or other agendas. This is however a matter of perspective and judgement call.

2/ Whereas the above are within the anthro community, there also the polarizers in the opponent camp outside the spiritual scientific community, eg Peter Staudenmaier, waldorfcritics, etc

3/ Last, various people have (a) critiqued the Anthroposophical Society, (b) others have left the Society as a result, (c) others still have chosen one of the above 'camps' (eg Seiss followed Tomberg), or (d) had their own claims of spiritual research that have not been always unanimously accepted or may have caused polarization .. or a combination.

  • Willi Seiss (1922-2013)
  • Hermann Keimeyer (1933-2016), see also profile1 and profile 2. He claimed to receive messages from the spiritual world and was criticized as a medium because of this. He deliberately stepped out of the Anthroposophical Society, of which he was outspokenly quite critical.
  • Herbert Wimbauer (1944-2012)
  • Jostein Saether (1954)

Discussion

Note 1 - Positioning

Hereby some considerations to put the above in perspective, by sketching controversy and polemics during Rudolf Steiner's life, and after his death.

a) The chasm within the Anthroposophical Society after Rudolf Steiner's death cannot be seen loose from:

  • the counterforces that were and are active against anthroposophy (see oa GA255b), such as certain secret societies and jesuits. Rudolf Steiner often spoke of these, as they became more fierce and led to the destruction of the Goetheanum by arson.
  • the friction between members in the anthroposophical society and movement, on a individual and more general level. Rudolf Steiner spoke of the various different origins of these members and the karmic consequences.


The goal here is not to go into what has been described extensively in literature on the history of the anthroposophical society and movement. Bottom line though, a split was created in the circle of anthroposophists closest to Steiner.

What can be said of the above personalities is, that they became subject of contention and polarization, and this created and cultivated a divide and fragmentation within the spiritual scientific movement. The resemblance is striking with the situation today.

Certain anthroposophists have observed and commented on this (eg Vreede, Poeppig), ao:

  • that anthroposophists are quite, and too, vulnerable spiritually and human-wise, if they do not practice the esoteric initiation exercises
  • that spiritual influences may be or are at work here (potentially consciously generated), see elementals

The impact of the work of certain personalities is that they cause confusion that sidetracks huge amounts of mental and emotional energies away from the spiritual scientific work that other people could be doing, instead of getting into controversies.

b) Whereas with years of study or Rudolf Steiner's work, students often assign absolute authority to these materials, one should not forget that Steiner himself, and his teachings, were also not unanimously accepted and had opposition from other 'schools of thought' (eg Einstein, Max Dessoir, Hans Leisegang, etc). For impressions see 'Der andere Rudolf Steiner', ID37 in table FMC00.366 on The life of Rudolf Steiner.

Furthermore, Steiner himself was also confronted in his time with 'initiatives to sidetrack and confuse', such as what happened with the manipulation of Helena Blavatsky and the theosophical society. Reference is made to the Mahatma letters, Sinnett's Esoteric Buddhism, the Krishnamurti case, books by Leadbeater.

Note 2 - Other examples of 'controversies'

a) More contents based on certain topics:

  • regarding Rudolf Steiner and the Boddhisatva question, with different positions eg by Arenson and Vreede
  • regarding the etheric formative forces, eg between Günther Wachsmuth on the one hand, and Ernst Marti and Iwer Thor Lorenzen on the other


b) The acceptance of imaginative insights and/or inspired works:

An example of someone with imaginative insights that may not always have been fully waterproofed is Karl König. As his works and diaries show, there was clearly a spiritual influx. However, the level of clairvoyance, and rigour of clairvoyant research, may not have been, or probably was not, comparably with Rudolf Steiner's clairvoyant research.

This kind of 'subjective imagination' was also mentioned in the case of Andrei Bely (see point 2 in the notes under Schema FMC00.614). In other words, this is a 'natural' phase or stage to pass through, it is not to be confused with the faculty of objective imagination.

A different example of inspired writings can be found in the work of Iwer Thor Lorenzen. The modest Lorenzen writes in an unpublished biographical note (freely translated), consciously about his experience and insights. See quote Thirteen holy nights#196X - Iwer Thor Lorenzen

Related pages

References and further reading

  • Fred Poeppig: Rückblick auf Erlebnisse, Begegnungen und Persönlichkeiten in der anthroposophischen Bewegung (1964)
  • Jostein Saether: Ich entscheide mich sowohl für Sergei O. Prokofieff als auch für Judith von Halle – eine geistige Wahl (link here)
  • Piero Cammerinesi: Preconception and free thought: reflections on Judith von Halle (PDF available online)
  • various info on the exclusions of 1935 (oa link A)

.

see also more on: The Michaelic stream#References and further reading

More
  • Sergei O. Prokofieff: 'Crisis in the Anthroposophical Society: And Pathways to the Future' (2013)
  • T. H. Meyer (and Paul V. O'Leary): 'The development of anthroposophy since Rudolf Steiner's death: An outline and perspectives for the future' (2014)
Retrieved from "https://anthroposophy.eu/w/index.php?title=Controversy,_polarization_and_polemics_within_spiritual_societies&oldid=32674"
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki