The Rudolf Steiner Archive

To the branch:

Most honored Sir!

By the deed of foundation of July 22, 1902, President H.S. Olcott has approved the founding of a German section of the “Theosophical Society”. He also instructed me by a special letter (dated July 22) to take the initiative in founding this section.

It is understandable that I myself, at this moment of foundation, feel compelled to address a few words to the brothers in the branches. This is all the more understandable as I have every reason to say how aware I am that the prospect of the post of Secretary General has given me a very special trust. I am also aware of the great responsibility that this office places on me.

I had to do some serious soul-searching when I was asked to take up the post. Above all, I had to ask myself whether I was allowed to accept such an office, given my short affiliation with the Theosophical Society.

My reasons cannot be misunderstood by the Theosophists to whom I speak. The time when I joined the “Theosophical Society” was for me the end point of many years of inner development. I joined no earlier than when I knew that the spiritual forces I had to serve were present in the “Theosophical Society”. And from that moment on, it was completely clear to me that I should belong to the Theosophical Society. I did not need to say that if the members of the German branches of the “Theosophical Society” consider me worthy, I not only may, but must follow their call. To the Theosophists I say that my personality is no more decisive for my decision in this direction than it will ever be in the future in the conduct of my office. I want to “serve” in the sense that one of our best German Theosophists will express in a forthcoming writing.

For those who have only recently joined the “Theosophical Society”, especially for those who are still doubtful in themselves whether it is the right thing to join our Society, which H. $. Olcott founded in association with H. P. Blavatsky, and at the head of which the former still stands; or whether it is not better, or just as good, to join another so-called “Theosophical Society”; for them I remark the following. The proof that we as the German section of the “Theosophical Society” will achieve what every true Theosophist wants to achieve - more or less consciously - can only be provided by our future work. In this respect, joining us is certainly a matter of trust for many at present. I myself know that there are forces within the “Theosophical Society” to achieve what we are striving for. I have known this since I joined, and my presence at the last annual meeting (July 1902) in London, where I was able to approach the leading personalities, was a new affirmation for me.

Whether we will achieve what we are called to do within the German-speaking population will depend on the trust that will be placed in us, and no less on how our work is received. We ourselves will serve no one other than the spiritual powers that guide us. What we have to give in our “service” cannot be revealed by the day, but only by time.

Just one more word. If the German section of the “Theosophical Society” is to accomplish what it is called upon to do in view of the present spiritual conditions and the “signs of the times” in German-speaking regions, then it needs a Theosophical monthly. It will be my task to establish such a publication. I can only give the assurance here that I see the necessity of such a journal, and ask you all to accept this journal as the organ of the German section of the “Theosophical Society”.

With the highest esteem and fraternal greetings
Dr. Rudolf Steiner
Friedenau-Berlin, Kaiserallee 95

The Vâhan, Vol. 5, No. 1

On July 3, 4, and 5, the thirteenth annual meeting of the British Section of the “Theosophical Society” was held in London. The General Secretaries of the British, Dutch, French, Italian and German sections met to discuss how the annual meetings of the “Association of European Sections” should be organized in the future. One of these sections will invite the representatives of the others to visit it each year; the section extending the invitation and the location of the meeting will be decided upon for the following year. The details in this regard were discussed in a preliminary meeting on July 3. It was agreed that at the annual meeting, the general secretaries would give reports on the progress of the Theosophical movement in their countries and that common matters would be discussed. The closer contact of the members of the Theosophical movement in the various countries will be sought at these meetings, so that the great international principle of the Theosophical movement will become more and more effective. At the same time, it was decided to collect the reports on the movement given by the General Secretaries in an annual publication entitled “Mitteilungen”. Van Manen of the Dutch Section was elected editor of these “Mitteilungen”. After the kind invitation for next year from the General Secretary of the Dutch Section, it was decided to accept this invitation and to determine Amsterdam as the location for the next annual meeting. On the evening of July 4, the General Secretaries of the above-mentioned Sections gave speeches in which they pointed out the progress of the Theosophical Movement in the individual countries. Dr. Rudolf Steiner, the General Secretary of the German Section, was able to point to less success due to the short existence of our section; he spoke of the special tasks that the German national spirit presents to the Theosophical movement and of the hopes and prospects that we may have if we make the seeds of Theosophy fruitful in German intellectual life. Both the preliminary discussion and the meeting itself were personally led by the president of the Theosophical Society, who was present in London. This was also the case for the meetings of the British Section itself, which held a business meeting on July 4 and organized addresses on July 5. From the business meeting, it should be emphasized that representatives of foreign sections, including Dr. Rudolf Steiner from our German section, gave welcoming speeches and that Bertram Keightley, the former general secretary of this section, was re-elected, but in such a way that Mrs. Hooper was appointed to independently manage the affairs as deputy general secretary for the duration of his stay in India.

The meeting on July 5 was opened by President H. S. Olcott with an address in which he spoke about the founding, the goals and tasks of the Theosophical movement, and in which he pointed out in particular that no dogma was to be promoted by the “Theosophical Society,” that unity was to be sought in the various creeds, so that the element of brotherly love in the broadest sense would be instilled into humanity by the society. Bertram Keightley spoke about the “Coming Psychic Wave”. He pointed out the interest that is currently being shown from a wide variety of quarters in certain psychic phenomena and powers. But this interest is mostly directed towards the personal, as for example in “Christian Science”. The theosophical movement, on the other hand, emphasizes the impersonal, the selfless; under its influence, the “psychic wave of the present” alone can take on a promising character for the future. - Finally, G. Mead discussed the “Christ Mystery in Earliest Christianity”. He emphasized that, in his opinion, the universal human character of Christ born in the soul had greater significance for the early days of Christianity than the facts that a later period placed at the starting point of Christianity.

Dr. Steiner.

To the esteemed members of the Berlin branch of the Theosophical Society and the German Theosophical Society.

Recently, the views of individual members of the above branch have come to light, and they do not agree with the way the leadership has conducted business so far. This has led me to resign from my position as chair. The second chair, Ms. von Sivers, and the treasurer, Mr. Kiem, are also resigning from their posts at the same time as me.

Another solution to this situation was impossible for the reason that I myself must be of the opinion that the previous management and type of leadership is the correct one, and that any other type and view on this matter must necessarily lead away from the true tasks of the Theosophical life. I will defend this view where it is at stake, but I will never impose it on anyone. Those who wish to hold it may do so in complete freedom. However, to carry this view through, a subtle kind of trust is needed, and this does not go well with a purely business-like approach to things. Therefore, I ask those esteemed members who wish to have a purely business-like leadership to take it upon themselves. The Berlin Branch will continue to function under the leadership of Mr. Paul Krojanker, Berlin WfIilmersdorf, Bülowstraße 56. However, those members who are in agreement with my leadership have decided to resign from the Berlin Branch and form a special branch. My and my colleagues' activities will continue in the future in this branch.

It goes without saying that this purely business-related measure will in no way affect the theosophical relationship between me and my co-workers and other members of the Theosophical Society. Every member is invited, as before, to my lectures at Berlin Wfilmersdorf, Motzstr. 17, as well as to all the others. In terms of administration, however, I will in future have only the same relationship to the Berlin branch as to all the other branches of the German Section, as Secretary General.

The members associated in the new branch so far are: Miss Förstemann, Miss Heinrich, Mrs. Johannesson, Mrs. Blieffert, Mr. Blieffert, Miss Knispel, Mr. Kiem, Miss Mücke, Mrs. Artur, Mr. Flamme, Mr. Schlosshauer, Miss Voigt, Miss Fröhlich, Countess Moltke Huitfeld, Mr. Tessmar, Mr. Magnetiseur Werner, Mr. Magnetiseur Tönjes, Dr. Wegeler, Dr. Braun, Mrs. Wandrey, Mr. Willmann, Baroness Lichtenberg, Baroness Lichtenberg, Mr. Gnuschke, Mrs. Kreiselmeyer, Mr. J. Kreiselmeyer, Mrs. Schmidt, Miss v. Sivers, Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Those members who still wish to join this new branch are requested to contact the undersigned.

With theosophical greetings,
Dr. Rudolf Steiner

Today, the name H. P. Blavatsky unites the thoughts of all theosophists around the world. However, only a few people today know what the spiritual progress owes to the founder of our movement. And even these few know it only partially. For the profound wisdoms contained in The Secret Doctrine reveal themselves to man only slowly and gradually. Whenever one has advanced a little further on the path that loses itself at dizzying heights for every human eye, one discovers new secrets in this book, for which one could not have had the right understanding before. And so HPB is one of those individuals for whom the degree of veneration becomes higher and higher with one's own development. One must have experience in such an increase of esteem for her if one wants to gain the right point of view towards HPB. One must learn to honor her in the right way.

In the beginning, one may still ask about the outward details of her life in order to gain a relationship with her. But there comes a point when all outward appearances fade away in the face of the realization of the immeasurably significant spiritual mission of HPB and her great task within the present spiritual movement. Those who then really perceive something of this spiritual mission will, from the knowledge gained, understand how they should relate to our great pioneer. He also learns to understand that a person who has such a mission must necessarily first accept misunderstanding and even defamation. These are among the sacrifices he must make in life. HPB's work took place at a time when materialistic thinking and attitudes were expanding tremendously. Science, life, everything seemed to supply the building blocks for materialism to erect a gigantic structure. The personality who in such a time brought humanity a renewed awareness of the truth of a spiritual world had to be complex. One has to consider that it depends not only on the truth as it should be handed down to people, but also on the people themselves. It was infinitely difficult to convey the truth to a materialistic way of thinking and attitude in such a way that it could be understood. How HPB had to act was dictated by the measure of understanding that the time could bring her. When a hammer strikes an object, what happens depends not only on the hammer. Glass shatters and lead is beaten into a thin plate. When the great spirit gives great gifts, it must pour its gifts into the vessels that are held out to it by the recipients. – In HPB's case, people will gradually learn to distinguish only between the outer form and the inner value of her great gifts. – It was precisely the spirit of the time in which she had to fulfill her mission that made it so infinitely difficult. The fact that she took on this mission at all testifies to the insight of the size of the personality; but it also testifies to how great the willingness of this personality was to make the sacrifices associated with the mission.

Much has been objected to, namely by the learned or those who want to be learned, regarding the authenticity, etc., of HPB's achievements. It has been doubted that she really did receive her revelations from the source she indicated. But does it depend on that? Isn't it more important to understand the work and recognize its inner value? How many would have to say, with proper study, that they can learn things from the source of HPB's writings that could not be revealed to them from anywhere else. In any case, she is the mediator. Is it wise to receive truths from the hand of a person that deal with the highest things, and then to find fault with the credibility of the same person in much lesser things? Nothing could make HPB more of a miracle than if the objections raised against her were in any way justified. Just imagine the conclusion that would have to be drawn under such circumstances. Suppose someone doubts the “authenticity” of the Dzyan verses. This has been done, and many still do it. So that ancient source HPB refers to does not even exist. All right; let's assume that this is the case, just for the sake of argument. One can argue about the authenticity; but to argue about the truth is absurd. Because everyone can convince themselves of the truth if they take the right paths. Those who do so will recognize more and more of the deepest truths in these verses. Indeed, the matter stands in such a way that with each advance in one's own knowledge one is actually more convinced of the abysmal depth of it, and it becomes ever clearer what one must still leave to one's own guesswork even with advanced understanding. What does the accusation mean in comparison: HPB invented the Dzyan stanzas? The strangest thing would have to happen: this woman finds the deepest truths and invents a foolish fairy tale about their origin. Now the conclusion is so impossible that it can only be a testament to the illogicality of HPB's opponents, but it cannot be taken seriously by someone who truly understands.

The accusers of this personality must gradually see their entire edifice collapse if they have acquired an understanding, even to a moderate degree, of her spiritual power and the nature of her mission. And gradually the image of the woman will emerge from the ruins of accusations, misunderstandings, etc., a woman who placed her abilities at a significant turning point in the service of a movement whose value will not be recognized except by those who have not yet acquired an understanding of it.

But we Theosophists will always celebrate Lotus Day, as the day of remembrance of the moment when HPB left the physical plane, as a day of celebration, and as a day of love and gratitude to the foundress of our movement. Among those of us who understand, HPB is not an authority in the popular sense, because she does not need such authority. But the right and true authority that is due to her will be provided by the recognition of her work. A sense of authority is only to be demanded where it is not voluntarily given. We appreciate and love HPB because we would be untrue to the truth we have recognized if we behaved differently. And we sense that this appreciation of ours will itself be an unfolding lotus flower. For the more we ourselves ascend in knowledge, the larger and more widespread will be the petals of the flower. But for this ascent HPB's work is again the ladder that holds us. Therefore gratitude must be the echo that flows from our hearts when the Lotus Day is a living symbol of our growing knowledge.

Dear friends!

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

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

I would now like to say the following about this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

With brotherly Theosophical greetings,
Dr. Rudolf Steiner.

Lucifer-Gnosis, No. 31

It is understandable that this essay could give rise to a wide range of objections, doubts, etc. To prevent some misunderstandings, the editor will make a few comments in the next issue. Since these will, by their nature, have to be somewhat detailed, they will not be dismissed in a note, but No. 32 will be published in a separate small essay.

Lucifer-Gnosis, No. 31 and 32

Dear Readers! With the publication of this issue, I would like to address a few words to the readers about an internal change in the magazine “Lucifer-Gnosis”. In order to provide suggestions on as many pages as possible, the issues will alternate in character in the future. Those essays dealing with the higher parts of occultism and theosophy will only appear in every second issue. The numbers in between, on the other hand, will always deal with the more elementary parts of the occult and theosophical fields in essays that are as generally understandable as possible. Therefore, the reader will only find the continuation of the articles “From the Akasha Chronicle”, “How to Attain Knowledge of the Higher Worlds”, etc. again in No. 32, then in 34, and so on. From No. 33 onwards, the magazine will begin with generally understandable theosophical-occult discussions and with reports on the spiritual-theosophical movement. The chapter “Questions and Answers” will also be expanded. Also, “continuations” of longer articles will from now on only be included in every second issue; the other issues should offer a self-contained whole, if possible without “continuations”. By varying the content in this way, I hope to accommodate those esteemed readers for whom “Lucifer - Gnosis” in its present form was not yet entirely appropriate.

In terms of appearance, the only change will be that the issues will appear in free intervals, i.e. they will not be tied to a monthly date. Therefore, only the number will be listed on the issue, but not a month. The subscription price is for 12 (or 6 or 3) issues, not for a specific time. You can subscribe at any time, for a certain number of issues.

If the time between two issues is to be a “free” time in the future, care will be taken to ensure that the interval does not exceed one month in general.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner,
Berlin W., Motzstraße 17.

Dear Friends,

The President-Founder of the Theosophical Society has sent the following executive note to me as the General Secretary of the German Section, asking me to communicate its contents to the members.

"Serious accusations made by the Executive Committee of the American Section of the Theosophical Society against Mr. C. Leadbeater have prompted the President-Founder to convene a meeting on May 16 in London, at which the entire Executive Committee of the British Section and delegates from the American and French Sections were present. It was to be discussed with the President what measures should be taken.

After careful consideration of the accusations, and after Mr. Leadbeater's verbal statement had been taken into account, the following resolution was adopted:

“Having considered the charges preferred against Mr. C.W. Leadbeater and having heard his defense, the Committee unanimously recommends to the President the acceptance of Leadbeater's resignation, which he had already tendered prior to any action of the Committee.”

Mr. Leadbeater's membership of the Theosophical Society thus ceases, as does his mandate as a presidential delegate.

H.S. Olcott President T.S.

Dear Friends!

The above document contains an important message for the members of the Theosophical Society, which is somewhat brief. Mr. Leadbeater is not only a member of the Society; he is one of the most outstanding propagators of the Theosophical worldview. His books have become a guide to Theosophy and a guide within it for many. He has numerous disciples who follow his direction. He has just completed a long lecture tour, during which he achieved significant things for the Theosophical movement in America and Australia. And now, immediately afterwards, “serious accusations” are being made by the American section, the section within which he had just been working so energetically.

In view of this situation, I must concede to the members of the German Section the right to demand an explanation from me as General Secretary regarding these facts. It is indeed repeatedly emphasized from many sides that the Theosophical Society in its aims and tasks should not be confused with the achievements of some of its members. On the other hand, however, it cannot be denied that the Society's overall activity is composed of the work of its individual members, and that it cannot be unimportant if trust in outstanding work must suffer a severe shock from facts of the kind communicated in the President's circular. For with this trust in the workers, surely that in their achievements also falls away. And these achievements form the true living content of the Society. They are the means by which the Society is to fulfill a great task, from which its members want to draw spiritual nourishment. The Society certainly cannot live on the ever-recurring enumeration of the “three basic goals” that are supposed to stand higher than any achievement of individuals.

But there are reasons for not talking in a circular about the things about which some of our American members have made serious accusations against Mr. Leadbeater, and because of which the members of the Executive Committee of the British Section and some delegates of the French and American Sections felt obliged to give their consent to the acceptance of Mr. Leadbeater's resignation.

I myself can now speak all the more impartially about this case of Leadbeater's, because from the point of view of occultism, which I have to represent, I have always had to reject the methods by which Mr. Leadbeater comes to his occult knowledge and which he also recommends as useful methods for others. I am not saying anything for or against the correctness of what Leadbeater presents as occult truths in his books. It is the case in occultism that someone can come to some correct insights, even though the methods he uses are dangerous and can easily lead astray. So I have to trace the Leadbeater case back to much deeper grounds. At the same time, however, I have to explain that there is almost no guarantee for anyone not to fall into a disastrous aberration if they apply the methods underlying Leadbeater's work. Therefore, because I take this point of view, the Leadbeater case was no surprise to me. But I do not think that anyone who agrees with the methodological basis of Leadbeater's occult research now has any reason to condemn him. Either the circular sent to the members should have clearly stated that the accusations concern matters that have nothing at all to do with occultism, or else Leadbeater's entire occult system falls with him. I am quite clear about the latter; that is why I have explained my point of view to the members of the German Section here instead of making an official statement that is not included in the executive note.

As for the assessment of Mr. Leadbeater as a person, which might be important to some, it may be stated that he has always emphasized the good intention he had in all of this, of which he is accused. And no one has any reasonable grounds for doubting this assertion by Leadbeater. It should also be considered in this matter that a large number of American members of the Theosophical Society have just sent out a circular letter in which they vigorously protest against the action taken against Mr. Leadbeater and in which they strongly demand his reinstatement in all his rights. From this, it could also be concluded that the allegations against Leadbeater can be viewed differently than the American Executive Committee views them, and differently than those who simply adopt the opinion of this committee as their own. ¹

I ask the esteemed members of the German Section not to be unsettled in their commitment to the Theosophical cause, regardless of the consequences of the Leadbeater case; and with that I send warm Theosophical greetings to all our friends.

Dr. Rudolf Steiner,
General Secretary of the German Section.

• 1. For further oral clarification of the matter, I am happy to be of service to any member should the opportunity arise.

Confidential
Berlin, October 17, 1906

To all those who have approached me seeking their esoteric training, I convey my best regards “in spirit and in truth” with the following information.

This message contains things that everyone who strives for esoteric development should make it their duty to observe. They do not belong to the actual meditation, but should be cultivated outside of it. The matter is to be understood in such a way that the esoteric training is only justified if these demands are made of the student at the same time. Only in this case can a good result be achieved.

At the same time it should be pointed out here that patience is necessary for esoteric training. No one should believe that his success will be greater if he impatiently longs for or demands new instructions. Everyone should energetically stick to the instructions given to him; repeat them over and over again until he receives new ones. No one who really needs something will be left unheeded in due time. Whether or not this patience is exercised depends on it.

The disciple should report to me immediately anything he notices or believes he notices in his mental and physical state as a result of the exercises. Likewise, he should seek advice or psychological support in any other way.

Further necessary transmissions will follow in due course. If everything is observed correctly, the masters of truth will guide the student's path.

In this sense
Dr. Rudolf Steiner
Berlin, Motzstraße 17

You will recall that at the last General Assembly, a decision was made to take over the “Theosophical Library”, formerly associated with the “German Theosophical Society”, for the Section.

When we were approached with this proposal by the previous owners, no further conditions were attached.

However, Mr. Paul Krojanker, representing Mr. Graf von Brockdorff, has now confidentially presented me with the following conditions. I would like to note in advance that Mr. Graf von Brockdorff is the representative of the previous owners.

The conditions are as follows:

1) The library shall become the property of the German Section of the Theosophical Society (Adyar), although Graf von Brockdorff, or his representative, shall remain co-owner in such a way that if the Section decides at any time and for any reason that it no longer wishes to maintain the library, ownership shall revert to the aforementioned.

2) The library's headquarters remain in Berlin.

3) The library should be as public as possible.

4) The library is managed by a library commission, which publishes an annual report. It is desirable that this commission include members from the external branches.

5) A capital of 1000 Marks is being handed over with the library, which is to be used only for the purposes of the library, but not for rent and salaries.

It is Count Brockdorff's wish that the writer of this (Mr. Krojanker) should be active in the library commission.

Now I would like to make a proposal to the esteemed board: we simply reject these conditions and declare that we are willing to take over the library and manage it if no further conditions are attached to the transfer, that is, if the board is left entirely to its own devices as to how the library is managed. Of course, the library's capital of 1000M is also part of the library.

Firstly, we did indeed make the decision at the general assembly under this condition. And secondly, we will not get out of the unclear ownership and even more unclear administrative situation if we agree to a half-measure, as proposed to us.

I request that you share your opinion on the matter with me so that I can continue the formal negotiations. Once the ownership structure has been organized, I will take the liberty of making further proposals regarding the establishment, administration, etc. of the library.

With theosophical greetings
signed Dr. Rudolf Steiner