The Life, Nature, and Cultivation of Anthroposophy
GA 260a
Member Newsletter, 6 April 1924
12. Concerning Group Meetings
For some time there has been considerable debate among the members of the Anthroposophical Society over the Group Meetings, as to whether it should be the rule to promote in these, by reading and discussion, the general knowledge of the existing anthroposophical literature, or whether preference should be given to lectures by members, where those who desire to take active part in the work of the Movement speak freely on whatever they have to say.
If we give careful thought to the conditions under which the anthroposophical work goes on, it will be clear to us at once that neither in the one nor in the other direction must we be active in a one-sided way, but that, in so far as opportunity allows, activity in both directions must find place. We have in the anthroposophical literature that which shows us the way, introduces us, into the Society. Its purpose is to form a basis for all that the Society is and does. And if a knowledge and understanding of the literature is promoted in the Group Meetings, it will give to the Society that character of unity which it needs if it is to have true content and substance.
Let no one object: Whatever is in print, I can read myself at home; I do not need to have it given me in the Group Meetings. The error of this view has already been pointed out in these columns. We should see significance in the fact that we receive the spiritual treasures of Anthroposophy together with those who are united with us as members of the Society. This feeling of being together and of receiving the Spiritual together, is not to be viewed lightly as having no meaning or value.
It is also necessary that the members who want to take an active part should be interested in making the anthroposophical literature the spiritual property of all the members. It is not right that many members who have been for years in the Society hear nothing in the Group Meetings of matters concerning which definite knowledge has been given in the literature.
On the other hand this must be said: The life in the Society would suffer serious harm, if as many active members as possible were not to bring forward within the Society what they had to say from out of their own impulse and thought. This kind of activity can quite well be brought into harmony with the other. It has to be borne in mind that Anthroposophy can only become what it should become when more and more human beings take part in its development and cultivation. We should not rule it out, we should rather be glad when members who are taking an active share in the Movement give information in the Group Meetings on the work they have been doing.
One often hears it said about what many members thus bring forward, that ‘it is not Anthroposophy’. The verdict may in individual cases have its justification. But whither should we go, if we sinned against the truth that in the Anthroposophical Society everything should live that pertains to the spiritual heritage of mankind? A certain matter will be brought forward because it may form a basis for anthroposophical reflections. Another will be imparted for the purpose of later elucidation by anthroposophical points of view. So long as the fundamental anthroposophical character is preserved in the Society's work, a narrow limitation should not be set against whatever may be brought forward by individual members.
The object should not be to exclude anything that the group in its meetings might do, but it should rather lie in harmonising and tending the literature that is to hand, and in bringing forward whatever separate members may feel prompted by their own individuality to say.
It is not by uniformity but by variety that we shall reach the goal of the Anthroposophical Society. We should be heartily glad of the fact that we have in our Society so many members who out of their own personality have something to give. We should get accustomed to recognising such members. There can only be a true life in the Society when the activities within it are properly valued. Narrow-hearted refusal or ‘turning down’ should be the rarest of faults in the Anthroposophical Society. Much more should one develop the enthusiasm to learn as much as possible of what the one or the other in the Society has to say.
12. Über Die Gestaltung Der Zweigabende
Es wird seit einiger Zeit innerhalb der Mitgliedschaft viel darüber verhandelt, ob in den Zweigversammlungen es Regel sein soll, die vorhandene anthroposophische Literatur durch Vorlesen und Besprechen zur allgemeinen Kenntnis innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft zu bringen, oder ob der freie Vortrag über dasjenige, was einzelne tätig sein wollende Mitglieder zu sagen haben, zu bevorzugen sei.
Wer sich auf die Bedingungen der anthroposophischen Arbeit besinnt, dem sollte ohne weiteres klar sein, daß nicht einseitig die eine oder die andere dieser Tätigkeitsrichtungen, sondern nach den vorhandenen Möglichkeiten beide gepflegt werden müssen. In der anthroposophischen Literatur liegt dasjenige vor, was die Menschen in die Gesellschaft hereinführt. Sie ist dazu bestimmt, die Grundlage im Wirken der Gesellschaft zu bilden. Sie wird, wenn sie durch die Zweigversammlungen zur Kenntnis der Mitglieder gebracht wird, den einheitlichen Zug bilden, den wir brauchen, wenn unsere Gesellschaft einen rechten Inhalt haben soll.
Man sollte nicht den Einwand machen: was gedruckt ist, kann ich ja zu Hause selber lesen; das braucht mir in den Zweigversammlungen nicht vorgeführt zu werden. Es ist in diesem Mitteilungsblatte schon auf das Irrtümliche dieser Meinung hingewiesen worden. Man sollte einen Sinn darinnen sehen, mit den in der Gesellschaft vereinigten Persönlichkeiten zusammen das anthroposophische Geistesgut an sich herankommen zu lassen. In diesem Gefühl, zusammen zu sein, und im Zusammensein das Geistige aufzunehmen, sollte man nicht ein Wesenloses sehen.
Auch ist es nötig, daß die tätig sein wollenden Mitglieder ein Interesse daran haben, die vorhandene Literatur allmählich wirklich zum geistigen Eigentum der Mitgliederschaft zu machen. Es geht nicht an, daß viele Mitglieder, die jahrelang in der Gesellschaft sind, in den Zweigversammlungen nichts zu hören bekommen über Dinge, von denen bestimmte Erkenntnisse in der vorhandenen Literatur vorliegen.
Auf der andern Seite ist zu sagen: es würde das Leben in der Gesellschaft ernsten Schaden leiden, wenn nicht möglichst viele tätige Mitglieder innerhalb derselben vorbringen würden, was sie aus Eigenem heraus zu sagen haben. Man kann doch dieses Tätigkeitsfeld ganz gut mit dem andern in harmonischen Einklang bringen. Man sollte doch bedenken, daß Anthroposophie nur das werden kann, was sie werden soll, wenn immer mehr Menschen an ihrer Ausbildung teilnehmen. Es sollte Freude darüber, nicht Ablehnung herrschen, wenn tätige Mitglieder in den Zweigversammlungen das zur Kenntnis bringen, was sie sich erarbeitet haben.
Wenn nun oft gesagt wird: das, was von mancher Persönlichkeit vorgebracht wird, sei nicht Anthroposophie, so kann ein solcher Ausspruch gewiß in einzelnen Fällen seine Berechtigung haben. Aber wohin kämen wir, wenn wir uns gegen die Wahrheit versündigten, daß in der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft alles leben sollte, was zum Geistesgute der Menschheit gehört. Das eine wird aus dem Grunde vorgebracht werden sollen, weil es die Grundlage zum Aufbau anthroposophischer Darstellung bilden kann. Das andere wird mitzuteilen sein, weil es von anthroposophischen Gesichtspunkten nachher zu beleuchten ist. Wenn nur der anthroposophische Grundcharakter in dem Wirken der Gesellschaft gewahrt wird, so sollte dem, was die einzelnen tätigen Mitglieder bringen, nicht in engherziger Art eine Grenze gezogen werden.
Nicht in dem Ausschließen des einen oder des andern sollte gesucht werden, was die Zweigversammlungen tun sollen, sondern in der harmonischen Vereinigung der Pflege der vorhandenen Literatur und dem Vorbringen dessen, was die einzelnen tätigen Mitglieder von sich aus zu sagen haben.
Durch Mannigfaltigkeit, nicht durch Einförmigkeit des Wirkens werden wir die Ziele der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft erreichen. Wir haben innerhalb der Gesellschaft soviele Mitglieder, die aus Eigenem zu geben haben, daß wir über diese Tatsache herzlich froh sein können. Wir sollten uns nach dieser Richtung angewöhnen können, Anerkennung solchen Mitgliedern entgegenzubringen. Nur wenn die Leistungen innerhalb der Gesellschaft recht gewürdigt werden, kann wahres Leben in ihr sein. Engherzige Ablehnung sollte unter den Untugenden innerhalb der Anthroposophischen Gesellschaft die allerseltenste sein. Man sollte vielmehr einen Enthusiasmus dafür entwickeln, möglichst viel von dem kennen zu lernen, was der eine oder der andere in der Gemeinschaft der Anthroposophen zu sagen hat.
12. About the Organization of Branch Meetings
For some time now, there has been much discussion among the membership as to whether it should be the rule in branch meetings to bring existing anthroposophical literature to the general attention of the Anthroposophical Society by reading it aloud and discussing it, or whether free discussion of what individual members who wish to be active have to say should be preferred.
Anyone who reflects on the conditions of anthroposophical work should readily realize that it is not a question of favoring one or the other of these activities, but of cultivating both according to the possibilities available. Anthroposophical literature contains what introduces people to the Society. It is intended to form the basis for the Society's work. When it is brought to the attention of the members through the branch meetings, it will form the unified approach that we need if our society is to have the right content.
One should not object: I can read what is printed at home myself; I don't need to have it presented to me at the branch meetings. This newsletter has already pointed out the fallacy of this opinion. One should see the meaning in allowing the anthroposophical spiritual heritage to approach us together with the personalities united in the Society. In this feeling of being together and absorbing the spiritual in our togetherness, one should not see something insubstantial.
It is also necessary that members who want to be active take an interest in gradually making the existing literature truly the spiritual property of the membership. It is not acceptable that many members who have been in the Society for years hear nothing at the branch meetings about things for which certain insights are available in the existing literature.
On the other hand, it must be said that the life of the Society would suffer serious damage if as many active members as possible did not put forward what they have to say from their own perspective. It is quite possible to harmonize this field of activity with the other. One should bear in mind that anthroposophy can only become what it is meant to be if more and more people participate in its development. There should be joy, not rejection, when active members bring to the attention of the branch meetings what they have worked out for themselves.
When it is often said that what is put forward by some personalities is not anthroposophy, such a statement may certainly be justified in individual cases. But where would we end up if we sinned against the truth that everything that belongs to the spiritual heritage of humanity should live in the Anthroposophical Society? The one should be presented because it can form the basis for the development of anthroposophical presentation. The other should be communicated because it can subsequently be illuminated from anthroposophical points of view. If only the anthroposophical character of the Society's work is preserved, then what the individual active members bring should not be narrow-mindedly restricted.
The task of the branch meetings should not be to exclude one or the other, but to harmoniously combine the cultivation of existing literature with the presentation of what the individual active members have to say on their own initiative.
It is through diversity, not uniformity, that we will achieve the goals of the Anthroposophical Society. We have so many members within the Society who have something to contribute from their own resources that we can be truly glad about this fact. We should get into the habit of showing our appreciation to such members. Only when achievements within the Society are properly appreciated can there be true life in it. Narrow-minded rejection should be the rarest of vices within the Anthroposophical Society. Rather, we should develop an enthusiasm for learning as much as possible about what one or another member of the anthroposophical community has to say.