The Life, Nature, and Cultivation of Anthroposophy
GA 260a
Member Newsletter, 3 February 1924
3. Members' Meetings
It happened not infrequently that people became members of the Anthroposophical Society for the sole reason that they could thus acquire literature which was not sold outside. Such members then took little interest in the life in the groups of the Society. Having attended the meetings, maybe, to begin with, they soon remained away and said, ‘What goes on in these groups is of no help to me. I shall find Anthroposophy better by working at it alone.’
It cannot be denied that the reproaches made in this way against the members' meetings were not always reasonable. The trouble lay not always in the meetings, but often in the impossible demands of people who could not find their right relation to them.
It is easy to say ‘this or that does not satisfy me’. It is more difficult quietly to observe what is unsatisfactory, and then oneself to make the necessary efforts, contributing towards improvement. On the other hand — and we have no reason to conceal the fact — there is much in the members' meetings which calls for change.
In these meetings a great truth might be established. When human beings are met together, seeking the Spirit with inner singleness of purpose, then they too find the way to one another — the paths from soul to soul.
In countless human hearts today the need to find these paths is deeply felt. They naturally say, ‘If Anthroposophy is the true view of life, this need of the heart must be felt by those who call themselves anthroposophists’. Yet they must witness how many in the members' groups, advancing Anthroposophy as their theoretical conviction, show no signs of this feeling.
Anthroposophical members' meetings must of course make it their task to cultivate the contents of Anthroposophy. The knowledge and insight gained by Anthroposophy is read and listened to. Anyone who does not see that this must be so, is certainly not right. Merely for the purpose of debating on all manner of opinions which one may have just as well without Anthroposophy, we should need no Anthroposophical Society. But on the other hand, if we do no more than read anthroposophical writings aloud, or even lecture on Anthroposophy as a mere teaching, then it is true that the meetings give no more than each of us alone could gain by his own reading.
Everyone who goes to an anthroposophical meeting should have the feeling that he will find more there than when he merely studies Anthroposophy alone. We should be able to go to the meetings because we shall find human beings there, with whom we like to work at Anthroposophy together. In the literature on Anthroposophy, a certain view of life and the world is to be found. The anthroposophical meetings are there for man to find his fellow-man.
However keenly we read anthroposophical literature, we should be able to feel joy and elation as we go to a gathering of Anthroposophists — simply because we look forward to the human beings we shall find there. Then we shall look forward to the meeting, even if we expect to hear no more than we have studied long ago and made our own.
An old member finding a new member in the group which he attends, should not rest content to feel with satisfaction that Anthroposophy has gained a new adherent. He should not merely have the thought, ‘Here is one more whom we can fill with Anthroposophy’. But he should feel and be alive to the fresh human element which comes into the group with the new member.
In Anthroposophy it is the Truths it can reveal which matter: in the Anthroposophical Society it is the Life that is cultivated.
It would be bad — nay, nothing could be worse than this — if there were justification for the idea gaining ground: ‘Valuable as Anthroposophy may be, I prefer to go elsewhere if I want to come near to other men, instead of letting fanatical, self-satisfied anthroposophists hurl their theories and thoughts at my head, with the implication: If you do not think as I do, you are only half a man.’
Much is done on the one hand to give rise to such judgment by the cold didactic impulse to instruct — an easy snare for some when once they recognise the truth in Anthroposophy. On the other side there is that ‘playing at esotericism’, so repellent to a newcomer when once he enters anthroposophical meetings. He will find people who give him to understand with a mysterious air that they know many things which cannot yet be told to those who are not ready. But an atmosphere of levity somehow pervades all this. The esoteric in effect can only do with real earnestness of life. Vain satisfaction which one may draw from idle talk of high and hidden truths, is incompatible with it. This is far from implying that a sentimental reticence, afraid of joy and enthusiasm, should be the life-element in anthroposophical intercourse. But to play at withdrawing from the profane ‘external’ life while one pursues the ‘truly esoteric’ — this the Anthroposophical Society cannot endure. Real life on every hand contains far more that is esoteric than is ever dreamt of by people who repeat, ‘We cannot carry on the esoteric life in such surroundings; we need some separate and special circle’. Undoubtedly, circles of this kind are often needed; but there can be no playing with them. They must be centres of fruitful influence for real life. Esoteric circles so-called, which only arise to disappear after a short time for lack of serious purpose, can only carry disruptive forces into the Society. Far too often, they are but the outcome of a desire to form cliques, the effect of which is to impoverish, not to increase the anthroposophical life in the Society. If we succeed in counteracting the inner falsehood which characterised so much of the talk about the esoteric in the past, then will true esotericism be able to find a home in the Anthroposophical Society.
3. Anthroposophische Mitgliederversammlungen
Es ist in nicht wenigen Fällen vorgekommen, daß Persönlichkeiten die Mitgliedschaft der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft nur aus dem Grunde erworben haben, weil sie dadurch dieSchriften kaufen konnten, die außerhalb der Gesellschaft bisher unverkäuflich waren. Um das Leben in den Gruppen der Gesellschaft haben sich diese Mitglieder dann wenig gekümmert. Sie gingen ja wohl zunächst zu Mitgliederzusammenkünften, blieben aber nach kurzer Zeit weg und sagten: was da getrieben wird, fördert mich nicht. Ich komme besser zur Anthroposophie, wenn ich mich für mich allein mit ihr beschäftige.
Es ist gewiß nicht zu leugnen, daß die Vorwürfe, die solche Persönlichkeiten den Mitgliederversammlungen machten, nicht immer begründet waren. Es lag nicht immer an diesen Versammlungen, sondern oft an den unmöglich zu befriedigenden Ansprüchen derer, die kein Verhältnis zu ihnen finden konnten.
Es ist eben leicht, zu sagen: dies oder jenes befriedigt mich nicht. Schwieriger ist es, dieses Nicht-Befriedigende in Ruhe zu bemerken und dann die nötigen Anstrengungen machen, um von sich aus zur Besserung beizutragen.
Aber andererseits ist kein Grund dazu vorhanden, die Tatsache zu verbergen, daß in den Mitgliederzusammenkünften manches anders sein sollte, als es ist.
Gerade bei solchen Zusammenkünften könnte sich eine bedeutsame Wahrheit bewähren. Wenn Menschen zusammen das Geistige in innerer Ehrlichkeit suchen, dann finden sie auch die Wege zueinander, von Seele zu Seele.
Diese Wege zu finden, ist gegenwärtig einer unbegrenzt großen Anzahl von Menschen ein tiefes Herzensbedürfnis. Sie sagen: wenn die Anthroposophie die rechte Lebensanschauung ist, dann muß bei denen, die sich Anthroposophen nennen, dieses Herzensbedürfnis vorhanden sein. Dann aber müssen sie sehen, wie viele, die in den Mitgliedergruppen Anthroposophie als ihre theoretische Überzeugung vertreten, dieses Herzensbedürfnis nicht zeigen.
Anthroposophische Mitgliederversammlungen müssen es sich natürlich zur Aufgabe machen, den Inhalt der anthroposophischen Weltanschauung zu pflegen. Man liest und hört an dasjenige, was durch Anthroposophie an Erkenntnissen gewonnen ist. Wer das nicht einsieht, hat gewiß unrecht. Denn um bloß über allerlei Meinungen zu debattieren, die man auch ohne Anthroposophie hat, dazu braucht man eben keine Anthroposophische Gesellschaft. Aber wenn es beim bloßen Vorlesen der anthroposophischen Schriften bleibt, oder auch, wenn Anthroposophie als bloße Lehre vorgetragen wird, dann ist es richtig, daß man dasselbe, was die Zusammenkünfte bringen, auch in aller Einsamkeit durch die Lektüre erreichen kann.
Jeder, der zu anthroposophischen Zusammenkünften geht, sollte das Gefühl haben, er finde da mehr, als wenn er bloß in Einsamkeit Anthroposophie treibt. Er sollte dahin gehen können, weil er da Menschen findet, mit denen zusammen er gerne Anthroposophie treiben will. In den Schriften über Anthroposophie findet man eine Weltanschauung. In den anthroposophischen Zusammenkünften sollte der Mensch den Menschen finden.
Auch wer noch so eifrig Anthroposophisches liest, der sollte ein freudiges, gehobenes Gefühl haben können, in eine Zusammenkunft von Anthroposophen zu gehen, weil er sich auf die Menschen freut, die er da findet. Er sollte sich auch dann freuen können, wenn er voraussetzen muß, daß er nichts anderes hört, als was er längst schon in sich aufgenommen hat.
Findet man in einer anthroposophischen Gruppe ein neu eingetretenes Mitglied, so sollte man es als altes Mitglied nicht bei der Befriedigung bewenden lassen, daß die Anthroposophie wieder einen neuen «Anhänger» gewonnen habe. Man sollte nicht bloß den Gedanken haben: jetzt ist wieder einer da, in den man Anthroposophie hineingießen kann; sondern man sollte eine Empfindung für das Menschliche haben, das mit dem neuen Mitgliede in die anthroposophische Gruppe hereinkommt.
In der Anthroposophie kommt es auf die Wahrheiten an, die durch sie offenbar werden können; in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft kommt es auf das Leben an, das in ihr gepflegt wird.
Es wäre von größtem Übel, wenn in berechtigter Art die Meinung aufkommen könnte: Anthroposophie mag noch so wertvoll sein, wenn ich aber Menschen näherkommen will, dann gehe ich lieber anderswo hin, als wo Anthroposophen in Selbstzufriedenheit fanatisch mir nur ihre theoretischen Gedanken an den Kopf werfen wollen und sagen: wenn du nicht denkst wie ich, so bist du höchstens ein halber Mensch.
Viel aber kann zum berechtigten Aufkommen einer solchen Meinung beitragen: auf der einen Seite das kalte, nüchterne Belehrenwollen, in das man leicht verfällt, wenn man die Wahrheit der Anthroposophie eingesehen hat. Auf der andern Seite aber steht das Esoterik-Spielen, das manchen neu Eintretenden so stark abstößt, wenn er an die anthroposophischen Zusammenkünfte herantritt. Ein solcher findet Menschen, die geheimnisvoll damit tun, daß sie vieles wissen, was man denen, die «dazu noch nicht reif sind, nicht sagen kann». Aber über der ganzen Rederei schwebt etwas Spielerisches. Esoterisches verträgt eben nur Lebensernst, nicht die eitle Befriedigung, die man an dem Beschwätzen hoher Wahrheiten haben kann. Deshalb muß noch lange nicht die Sentimentalität, die sich vor der Freude und der Begeisterung fürchtet, das Lebenselement im Zusammenleben der Anthroposophen sein. Aber das spielerische Sich-Zurückziehen vor dem «profanen Leben», um «wahre Esoterik» zu treiben, das verträgt die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft nicht. Das Leben enthält an allen Orten viel mehr Esoterisches, als sich oft diejenigen träumen lassen, die da sagen: da oder dort kann man nicht Esoterik treiben; man muß das in diesem oder jenem abgesonderten Zirkel tun. Gewiß sind solche Zirkel oft notwendig. Aber sie können spielerisches Wesen nicht vertragen. Sie müssen Stätten sein, von denen aus das Leben wirklich befruchtet werden kann. «Esoterische» Zirkel, die nur entstehen, um durch den mangelnden Ernst bald wieder zu verschwinden, können nur zerstörende Kräfte in die Anthroposophische Gesellschaft tragen. Sie gehen nur allzu oft aus Cliquenbedürfnis hervor, und dieses bewirkt nicht, daß viel, sondern daß wenig anthroposophisches Leben in der Gesellschaft ist. Wenn es gelingt, dem innerlich Unwahren, das in vielem Reden über «Esoterik» bisher vorhanden war, entgegenzuwirken, so wird die wahre Esoterik in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft eine rechte Stätte finden können.
3. Anthroposophical general meetings
There have been quite a few cases where individuals have become members of the Anthroposophical Society solely for the purpose of purchasing publications that were not available outside the Society. These members then took little interest in the life of the Society's groups. They may have attended membership meetings at first, but soon stopped coming, saying: what is going on there does not help me. I can better understand anthroposophy if I study it on my own.
It cannot be denied that the criticisms such individuals made of the members' meetings were not always justified. It was not always the fault of these meetings, but often the fault of the impossible demands of those who could not relate to them.
It is easy to say: this or that does not satisfy me. It is more difficult to calmly notice what is unsatisfactory and then make the necessary efforts to contribute to improvement on one's own initiative.
But on the other hand, there is no reason to hide the fact that some things in the members' meetings should be different than they are.
It is precisely at such gatherings that a significant truth could prove itself. When people seek the spiritual together in inner honesty, they also find ways to connect with each other, soul to soul.
Finding these paths is currently a deep heartfelt need for an unlimited number of people. They say: if anthroposophy is the right view of life, then those who call themselves anthroposophists must have this heartfelt need. But then they must see how many of those who represent anthroposophy as their theoretical conviction in the member groups do not show this heartfelt need.
Anthroposophical member meetings must, of course, make it their task to cultivate the content of the anthroposophical worldview. One reads and listens to what has been gained in knowledge through anthroposophy. Anyone who does not understand this is certainly wrong. For there is no need for an anthroposophical society just to debate all kinds of opinions that one can have without anthroposophy. But if it remains merely a matter of reading anthroposophical writings aloud, or if anthroposophy is presented as a mere doctrine, then it is true that what the meetings bring can also be achieved in solitude through reading.
Everyone who attends anthroposophical meetings should feel that they find more there than if they were to pursue anthroposophy in solitude. They should be able to go there because they find people with whom they enjoy pursuing anthroposophy. In the writings on anthroposophy, one finds a worldview. In anthroposophical gatherings, people should find other people.
Even those who read anthroposophical literature with great enthusiasm should be able to feel a joyful, uplifted feeling when going to a gathering of anthroposophists, because they look forward to the people they will find there. They should also be able to feel joy even if they have to assume that they will hear nothing other than what they have already absorbed within themselves.
When a new member joins an anthroposophical group, existing members should not be satisfied with the fact that anthroposophy has gained another “follower.” One should not merely think: now there is another person into whom one can pour anthroposophy; rather, one should have a feeling for the humanity that enters the anthroposophical group with the new member.
In anthroposophy, what matters are the truths that can be revealed through it; in the Anthroposophical Society, what matters is the life that is cultivated within it.
It would be most unfortunate if the following opinion were to arise, and with good reason: anthroposophy may be valuable, but if I want to get closer to people, I would rather go somewhere else than where anthroposophists, in their complacency, fanatically throw their theoretical ideas at me and say: if you don't think like me, you are at best only half a human being.
However, there are many factors that can contribute to the justified emergence of such an opinion: on the one hand, there is the cold, sober desire to instruct, which one easily falls into once one has understood the truth of anthroposophy. On the other hand, there is the playing at esotericism, which repels many newcomers when they approach anthroposophical gatherings. Such people encounter others who act mysteriously, knowing many things that “cannot be told to those who are not yet ready.” But there is something playful about all this talk. Esotericism can only tolerate the seriousness of life, not the vain satisfaction that can be derived from talking about lofty truths. That is why sentimentality, which fears joy and enthusiasm, does not have to be the element of life in the coexistence of anthroposophists. But the Anthroposophical Society does not tolerate playful withdrawal from “profane life” in order to pursue “true esotericism.” Life contains much more esotericism in all places than is often imagined by those who say: here or there one cannot pursue esotericism; one must do so in this or that separate circle. Certainly, such circles are often necessary. But they cannot tolerate a playful nature. They must be places from which life can truly be enriched. “Esoteric” circles that arise only to disappear again soon due to a lack of seriousness can only bring destructive forces into the Anthroposophical Society. All too often they arise out of a need for cliques, and this does not result in much, but rather in little anthroposophical life in the Society. If we succeed in counteracting the inner untruth that has been present in much of the talk about “esotericism” up to now, true esotericism will be able to find a rightful place in the Anthroposophical Society.