The Heindel-Steiner
Connection
By
Web version compiled from original text and
graphics April 19, 2005
SECTION 3
That we may be as thorough as possible in our review of the Heindel-Steiner
issue, we shall make reference to some additional material. It is not our aim
to break down and divide, but to reconcile and unite. To our thinking, the more
open and candid we are, the better we can achieve this aim.
Discrepancies between Statements and Facts
The results of our inquiry have led us to conclude that Max
Heindel, according to his own dedicatory words to the first edition of the Cosmo, obtained a substantial amount of
esoteric information from Rudolf Steiner which he incorporated in the Cosmo and, perhaps to a lesser degree,
other subsequently published Fellowship books. This material was most likely
ratified by the Elder Brother who became Heindel’s Teacher, for the very reason
that Steiner’s Teacher was Christian Rosenkreutz. It would not be entirely
correct to say, however, that the “apparition” who came to Heindel’s room in
Additionally, Heindel writes of hoping that the teacher who his
friend Dr. Von Brandis urged him to visit would be able to advance him on the
path of attainment. But his hopes were dashed, for Heindel “probed his teaching
to the bottom and forced him to admit certain inconsistencies in it which he
could not explain” (ibid., p 100).
However, this statement is contradicted by the Cosmo itself, which is a recapitulation of these very teachings. If
inconsistencies exist, they are in the Cosmo
as well. To the knowledge of the writer, and all of the hundreds of
“authorities” who met and worked with Steiner in person, none “forced Steiner
to admit certain inconsistencies” in his teachings “which he could not
explain,” for, by his own words, he taught only what he could obtain
first-hand, and so confirm, and only what he could explain. That was the criterion
for imparting his material. We leave the matter of inconsistencies without
further comment because of its manifest incorrectness, which suggests that a
misunderstanding was involved.
The similarity between the Cosmo
and Steiner teachings was quickly recognized by persons familiar with the work
of both Initiates, and this observation gave rise to a rumor that plagiarism
was involved. In fact, Steiner himself makes such an allegation in a lecture in
The same observation holds true, frankly speaking, for the
Rosicrucian Fellowship. And Max Heindel was the first one to say this:
Rosicrucianism must not be identified with the Rosicrucian Fellowship.
Societies are the work of humans, exclusively. If they become too rigid, too
bureaucratic, ingrown, censorious, and dogmatic, the impulse that gave rise to
them withdraws and finds another mundane channel for expression. So too, said
Mr. Heindel, the day will come when the Fellowship “will bind itself by laws
and usurpation of power,” causing it to crystallize beyond usefulness to the
Brothers (ibid., 152).
As disturbing as this prospect may be, the healthier and wiser
view is to recognize that the Western Wisdom Teachings and the spiritual
Impulse that generates them is not subject to this blockage and ossification.
Living esoteric streams will always be available to the earnest seeker.
Lets us consider the allegations, for they come from both sides,
and air them, make them public, putting them into the fullest possible context,
and then move on in our effort to restore harmony and build consensus. We seek
truth. As much as possible we rise above the personal issues and affirm the
principles. We do so with the understanding that all humans, even those highly
advance souls like Max Heindel and Rudolf Steiner, are neither intellectually
infallible nor morally perfect. Both Initiates would be deeply disturbed by
being idolized and idealized and by having their teachings used as an occasion
for turf battles and partisan animosities.
We here quote from Steiner’s
“I am going to speak of an occurrence that happened some time
ago....A certain Herr Grashof [Max Heindel was Grashof’s pen name] became a
member of our Society. For a time he attended lectures in every town where they
were given; he was always there. Naturally, you may ask, ‘Why was he admitted
to membership?’ In certain circumstances it is impossible to refuse admittance
to people, especially if they are introduced by trusted persons [referring to
Dr. Alma Von Brandis]. It would be a question of foreseeing the future! Suppose
a man like Grashof were to come and I were to say: We cannot admit him. Well,
why not? Oh, because later on he will be a traitor to the Society. One cannot
adopt this attitude about something that has not happened yet but will only
happen in the future. Such people quite obviously must be admitted to the
Society.
“This man Grashof attended
every lecture that he possibly could. He borrowed notes made by the members and
copied them all. And what people were unwilling to give him he extracted
through the intermediary of the person who had introduced him [Dr. Von Brandis,
the person to whom Heindel co-dedicated the Cosmo’s
first edition]. Then, after a time, he returned to
“The book was published in
“In the literary world proper such scandalous procedure is
unthinkable. It is a scandal which ought everywhere to have been recognized as
such—and it would have been if there had been any soundness of judgment. I
should really like to count the names of the people who know the real facts.
Few take any interest in such matters, however, and so they recur repeatedly.”
Concern About Distortion of Content
Prior to Vollrath’s translation and publication of the Cosmo, Steiner’s regular publisher had
been approached for the same purpose. Steiner refers to this in a letter to his
wife January 28, 1911: “Altmann [his publisher] writes that he has been offered
the translation of Max Heindel’s book. I will have to explain the situation to
him. It really is true that some of the things which happen cause feelings
which one could do without.”
So much for Steiner’s oblique way of expressing his displeasure!
What is “the situation” that needs to be explained to Altmann? The answer can
be found in another letter written about a month later to Eduard Selander, the
leader of a theosophical center in Helsingfors (
“In this respect I mention only that, recently, a large part of my theosophical work has
been industriously printed in
Why was Steiner so disturbed? It wasn’t due to the republication
of the information per se. That was inevitable, even desirable—if the
reproduction kept the material intact, did not destroy contexts and emphases.
This expectation, we must say, was naive. Moreover, we assert that, in the
instance under consideration, the preponderance of the Rosicrucian Teachings
did survive transmission and translation. They did so because their purveyor,
Max Heindel, had an incisive intellect, a keen focus, and an unswerving
commitment to be true to the spirit of truth—albeit as he saw it.
And this brings up another point relevant to our discussion. There
can be no such thing as a purely objective presentation of supersensible truth
on the plane of the senses. That is why, ultimately, each truth seeker must
consult his “inner tribunal” where truth alone can be incontestably
established. So Steiner’s purism or idealism sets a standard for the
dissemination of spiritual wisdom which can actually frustrate that very
objective.
Steiner felt a
responsibility to the spiritual world from whence
he drew his material. To properly fulfill his mission his words had to be
faithful to his supersensible visions. He preferred that no notes of his
lectures be taken because they were always formed to meet the circumstance of
his hearers—who they were, where they were, and for the specific time of their
hearing. His wishes were not respected, however, because, understandably,
students knew that the world needed to hear what he was saying, even if nuances
of inflection, subtle effects related to timing, and even grosser errors were
committed in recording the lectures. “It would have pleased me best,” he writes
in The Course of My Life, “if spoken
words had remained spoken words. But the members wished the courses privately
printed, so this came about” (p 337).
Seeing the inevitable, Steiner appointed several competent persons
as authorized stenographers to transcribe his lectures, thus minimizing errors.
From our vantage, we suggest that much of what Steiner might perceive as
distortion or flawed rendering would be lost on most other persons, and would
not violate the understanding of what he wanted to convey.
At the same time, when others copied his work, they were not
necessarily aware of Steiner’s main objective in making his material available.
He wrote and spoke in such a way that the content of his delivery was “designed
to be taken up in inner experience....[A]
rightly composed Anthroposophical book should be an awakener of the life of the
spirit in the reader, not a certain quantity of information imparted. The
reading of it should not be mere reading; it should be an experiencing with
inner shocks, tensions and solutions” (Course, p 330). His aim was not to give
information about the worlds of spirit in the same way that text books present
facts relating to the physical world. Rather it was to plant seeds for
spiritual growth in the reader and listener, to prompt inner movements of the
soul, to encourage the development of individual supersensible faculties by
transmitting leading thoughts and organizing them in a manner that demonstrated
how non-sensed-based thinking was to proceed and eventually issue in visionary
experience.
This objective explains why many people have difficulty with Steiner’s
mode of delivery. They describe it as too difficult, too involved, too
abstract, too repetitive, too dry, too didactic, too etc. But his heuristic style is scrupulously
intentional—and those who exert and discipline themselves will benefit from the
effort.
Questions from an American Reader
We introduce another document at this point which reflects the
surprise and confusion that must arise when avid readers of Western Wisdom
literature encounter the books of both Heindel and Steiner. The purpose of this
study is to make sense of their shared objective and to come to conclusions
that will do justice to our two benefactors’ intentions and best serve our own
spiritual needs.
Dr. Steiner received a letter in early 1911 which reads as
follows:
“Dear Sir, May I venture to approach you with a question, or
indeed with more than one question? I must mention first of all that I am here
on a short visit, and that my home is in
Responsibility to the Spiritual Worlds
Further light may be shed on Steiner’s reaction to Heindel’s
venture from the comments he addresses to Eduard Selander in the first part of
the above-quoted letter:
“[I]t must not be
overlooked that the time required to deliver theosophical truths in a lecture
is the least part of the time required to transform the knowledge of the higher worlds into forms which are
suitable for expression on the physical plane. One has a double burden of
responsibility: first, towards the higher worlds; nothing must be said which will not stand up to their scrutiny.
Second, towards the physical world: everything has to be presented in such a
way as to achieve a congruence between the physical words and the facts of the
higher worlds. That has to be taken into consideration when judging the time
needed for theosophical work...[Owing to time constraints] it has been
impossible to channel the truths which stand before me in spirit onto paper.
And yet I know from the spiritual world that this piece of work [on a specific
subject] should be made available as soon as possible.”—op. cit., p 286
When the clairvoyant gives birth to visions of the higher worlds
in a body comprised of words drawn from the physical world, a travail, a labor,
is involved. And the issue has something of the clairvoyant’s own soul in it,
even as it carries a totally objective truth. But from Max Heindel’s point of
view, once the truth is given, there is another responsibility—to make it
known, to share it, to use it. Given its value, how can one not disseminate it
as widely and as zealously as possible?
Heindel’s Response to an Unresponsive Steiner
We would be remiss if we did not record a letter in our possession
that Max Heindel wrote to a student. It reveals him also in an all-too-human
moment:
“In respect to what Dr Steiner’s pupil said, I do not care a snap.
Dr. Steiner has no connection with the Rosicrucians since he became General
Secretary for the Theosophical Society. Before that time he received a little
instruction from a lay Brother, such as I have since become, and he was never
in real touch with the Elder Brothers, and will never attain in this life
because his inordinate desire for position and power led him to forsake western
Teachings and shirk the pioneer work I am now doing, to oust Mrs. Besant (who
is head in name only of the outer section and has no control over his so-called
‘Inner school’).
“When I dedicated the first edition of the Cosmo I was ignorant of his true position and his jealousy [of
Heindel!] has made him forget even the courtesy of a common gentleman for he
has never thanked me for the book with autograph I sent him.”—Letter to Mrs.
Laura Bauer, the translator of the Cosmo
into German, October 14, 1911
For Heindel’s labor of love, he got not a word of thanks. One
might ask, however, why he should have expected a word of thanks? Surely pique
at not receiving a note of appreciation for his monumental undertaking
wouldn’t, in itself, have occasioned such a venting of spleen. The material
contained in this study shows that Heindel’s allegations are without substance.
But pejorative statements like these have been credulously absorbed and have
negatively influenced certain members of the Rosicrucian Fellowship who have
not sought to determine their validity and have thus perpetuated errors and
expressed unwarranted ill-will towards him who was the source for much that is
contained in their beloved Cosmo.
A Consideration of Heindel’s Letter
(1) Steiner became General Secretary of the German Section in
1904. His contact with Christian Rosenkreutz is documented to be at least as
late as 1915.
(2) One who obtains all his esoteric knowledge first-hand does not
need “a little instruction from a lay brother,” such as Max Heindel later
became.
(3) If Steiner “was never in real touch with the Elder Brothers,”
it would only be due to his ability to relate directly with the Head of the
Brothers’ Order. However, in her account of the “Birth of the Rosicrucian
Fellowship,” Heindel’s wife contradicts what is said in Heindel’s letter. She
states that Steiner “had been under their [the Elder Brothers’] instruction for
several years” (p 4).
(4) The allegation that Steiner was driven by an “inordinate desire
for position and power” is unfounded. Rather does his life’s work attest to the
contrary. We recur to a passage quoted earlier: “Only those who renounce
completely all personal influence are really worthy of working in the realm of
occultism. The highest ideal of occultists who want to accomplish anything
worthwhile is the absolute avoidance of achievement via their own personalities
and as far as possible, the elimination of personal sympathies and antipathies
from everything attempted.”—The Effects of Esoteric Development p. 145. Does
this sound like one driven by a lust for power and position? Or the following?
“If we bring personal interest and
aspirations into areas of clairvoyant observation where only human and
universal interests should claim our attention, it acts like poison” (ibid., pp. 181-2). In his Cosmic Memory (1904) Steiner writes:
“The more deeply one works his way into true mystery science, the more modest
he becomes....Pride and arrogance finally become names for human qualities
which no longer make sense at a certain level of cognition....he who
promulgates such [supersensible] knowledge needs modesty and true
self-criticism, an unshakable striving for self-knowledge and the utmost
caution” (p 144). And a final quote: “[P]ersonal interests must be transformed
into universal interests if we want to see the true reality of the spiritual
world” (ibid., p. 155). Steiner ever
abjured these base worldly values because the spiritual world retreats and
becomes mute before one so engaged. As for hero worship: “A large part of the
members were fanatical followers of individual heads of the Theosophical
Society,” which “repelled” Steiner. He wanted an audience “which attended my
lectures only because of their content” (The Course of My Life, p 313). He ever spurned the sensation mongers
and guru seekers.
(5) Steiner did not oust Besant. Again, this statement is a
reversal of the facts: Besant committed the leadership of the German Section to
her “good colleague” and told him that it would be better “if his pupils were
to form a separate organization under his care.” Furthermore, she states, “He teaches the Christian Rosicrucian
way...[which] is different from ours.”—History
and Contents, p 261. Max Heindel was not in possession of all the facts
relating to the division in the Theosophical Society. These facts emerged only
gradually, and even then they became apparent only to those who could correctly
discern the distinction Steiner had made at the beginning of the 20th century
between Christian and pre-Christian Theosophy. It is a distinction that remains
to this day but narrowly understood. The Rosicrucian Teachings are Christian
Theosophy.
(6) That he shirked the “pioneer work” Max Heindel was doing is
also a reversal of the facts. If anyone in the modern era has been a spiritual
pioneer, it has been Rudolf Steiner, as amply demonstrated by his original work
in many domains of human endeavor: Anthroposophic medicine (which treats the
four-fold human); philosophy (Post-Kantian thinking as a spiritual activity);
religion (Christian Community, a movement for religious renewal that grew out
of a request by a group of German pastors); education (Waldorf
Schools—originating out of the request by the director of the Waldorf-Astoria
cigarette factory for a school to which his employees could send their
children); theater (initiatory drama—the four Rosicrucian mystery plays and
dramatization of Edouard Schuré’s, The
Children of Lucifer and the Eleusian
Mysteries); dance (Eurythmy—which is used as an educational tool and a
therapeutic modality, as well as an artistic activity and an esoteric
language); art (including new ways of using materials and rendering forms in
painting, sculpture—the 27-foot wooden Representation of Man—and stained
glass); architecture (the Goetheanum and other innovative buildings);
agriculture (Biodynamic gardening—originating in a course of lectures requested
by a group of farmers concerned about the destructive trend of ‘scientific’
farming); economics; the Camphill movement (the creation of homes, schools and
village communities for handicapped children and adults, now flourishing). By their fruits you shall know them.
There is nothing in modern experience that can compare with the wide diversity
of achievements resulting from Steiner’s application
of supersensible truths to the spectrum of human endeavor. Here is the apotheosis of epigenesis, in light
of which Heindel’s remarks must appear merely petulant and unworthy of his
noble nature.
(7) Sad to say, the attribution of “jealousy” to Steiner may be
closer to an instance of projection. This spiritual dynamo had no time to
indulge such a trait. Nor, for that matter, did Heindel.
Clearly, there were moments of all-too human—and not exactly
laudable—expression of personal feelings by both Steiner and Heindel. While
these rare manifestations are curious and potentially polarizing, we should
resist the impulse to form alliances and partisan groups based on our reading
of these expressions. We do not like to see our heroes show their foibles and
frailties. We would prefer to purge the historical ledger of such blemishes, or
at least to justify them out of existence. But, in all honesty, we cannot.
Humans are human and have lapses. Let us be rid of the sad need to have to
defend a person’s occasional failure or flaw. A Christian is not wholly
Christ-like but striving to be like Christ.
The Cosmo Dedication and Its Retraction
If but a few people know that Max Heindel dedicated the first
edition of the Cosmo to Rudolf Steiner
(see below), fewer still have read Heindel’s explanation for the withdrawal of
his dedication from subsequent editions. In the book’s second edition an
explanation is given. We quote both texts in their entirety.
From the first edition of The
Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception we reprint the Title Page and Dedication page:
Heindel retracted the first edition’s dedication
statement in
the second edition of the Cosmo,
printed in 1910. A facsimile of the retraction page is provided below, followed
by a larger
type
version:
|
|
|
In RE: Dedication
From the beginning of November, 1907, to the end of March, 1908,
the writer devoted his time to the investigation of the teachings of Dr.
Steiner, who was absent from
Dr. S. then urged that if any of the teachings promulgated by him
were used he ought to be mentioned as authority and source of information. In
consequence the writer agreed to dedicate the work to Dr. Steiner.
During January, February and March, 1908, the Elder Brother, whom
the writer now knows and reveres as Teacher, came at times, clothed in his
vital body and enlightened the writer on various points. In April and May,
after unwittingly passing a test, the writer was invited to journey to the
estate on which is found the
There he met the Elder Brother in his dense body; there he was
given the far-reaching, synthetic philosophy embodied in the present work—which
in the opinion of many old students in England, on the Continent, and in
America, embodies everything that has been taught in public or esoterically in
the past, besides much more that has never before been printed.
Therefore the unfinished manuscript for the book mentioned to Dr.
Steiner was destroyed, but as the later
and more complete teaching given by the Elder Brother corroborated the
teachings of Dr. S. along main lines, it was thought better to dedicate the
book to Dr. S. than seem a plagiarist. Of that there would have been small
danger, however, for the plagiarist invariably gives less than the authority
from whom he steals, and it will be found that in any case where previous works
are compared with the present, this book will in all cases give more
information.
The dedication has therefore been a mistake; it has led many
people who merely glance at the book to infer that it embodies the teachings of
Dr. S. and that he is responsible for the statements made herein. This
inference is obviously unfair to Dr. S. and a careful perusal of pages 8 and 9
will show that it was never intended to convey such an idea. The writer does
not see how to convey the true idea in a dedicatory sentence, hence has decided
to withdraw the same with an apology to Dr. S. for any annoyance he may be
caused by the hasty conclusions concerning his responsibility for the Rosicrucian Cosmo-Conception. [emphasis
added]
Comments on Heindel’s Withdrawal Statement
The above explanation for Heindel’s retraction conveys a spirit of
generosity. He affirms that Steiner’s
teachings are “corroborated,” that is, are confirmed, “along main lines” with
those given by the Elder Brother. In fact, this passage implies that the
dedication would have been retained if Heindel could be assured the reader
would not hold Steiner responsible for the book’s verbatim (p. 9) contents. This is a curious word to use (the
original word was “authoritative”) for it suggests a fully articulated
predecessor.
If some Rosicrucian Fellowship students have previously harbored
reservations about the appropriateness or relevance of Steiner’s writings,
surely now those doubts may be dismissed, for Heindel, not to mention the Elder
Brother, implicitly sanctions their value. The
reason for his dedication remains in effect—much valuable information had been
received and continues to resonate, “along main lines,” with the Brother’s
transmission. But in deference to Steiner, to prevent Cosmo readers from assuming that the book is an authoritative
statement of Steiner’s teachings, Heindel withdrew the dedication.
This honorable gesture leaves Steiner’s integrity and the
importance of his teachings intact and suggests that Cosmo readers will find compatible material in Steiner’s work. Such
an exposure would certainly expand and vitalize the Fellowship’s Western Wisdom
resources and free them from the misbegotten need of having to defend Heindel
at the expense of denigrating a spiritual compatriate whom Heindel calls his
“friend.”
In short, there is no
rational basis for a refusal to accept the enrichment of Fellowship Teachings
through an exposure to Steiner’s science of spirit.
With the bulk of Steiner’s books and lectures currently available,
it is clear that the information he publicly imparted through 1907 was immense
and greatly exceeds in scope and detail what could be contained even in a
volume of such masterful economy and compression as the Cosmo. Most people at that time may not have been aware of this
vast amount of knowledge because it took such diverse forms and was delivered
in dozens of venues, many quite private (esoteric groups), and could not easily
be collected and organized.
Then and to this day the synthesis of Rosicrucian Christian
teachings as embodied in the Cosmo by
Max Heindel is a remarkable achievement and satisfies a great need for such a
compendium of esoteric knowledge. But, we repeat, it presents information that
was extant at the time of its composition, and contains little of an occult
nature which was not already part of Steiner’s public dispensation.
This being the case, what was it that the Elder Brother gave Max
Heindel if its equivalent was already enunciated by Steiner and a matter of
public record? If Heindel destroyed his manuscript containing much of Steiner’s
work that was delivered to the
We again wonder at this juncture why the Cosmo was not dedicated to the Elder Brother from whom these
teachings purportedly issued? As, for instance: “To the Elder Brother, in
grateful appreciation for much valuable information received.” Surely Heindel
was not under pressure to placate Steiner, to confer on him an honorable
mention for having made a good effort. And again we wonder at the profusion of
disclaimers for the authority and reliability of the Cosmo contents (cited on pp 37-38 of this study), since the Elder
Brother is the source. If the source were more derivative, we could understand
the appeal to be cautious and to test the information. Yes, Heindel is
fallible. But what comes from the Elder Brother is authoritative, and we can be
confident it is true, can we not? Yet Heindel writes in “Word to the Wise” that
he “feels compelled to guard also against the possibility of this work being
taken as an authoritative statement of the Rosicrucian Teachings” Neglect of this precaution might give undue
weight to this work in the minds of some students.” (p 9). Was he not chosen as the authorized
representative of these authoritative teachings?
We also wonder about the discrepancy between the statement above,
repeated in Augusta Heindel’s Memoirs
and in Teachings of an Initiate (p
102), concerning meeting the Elder Brother “in the flesh,” and the answer to
Question 76 in The Rosicrucian Philosophy
in Questions and Answers, Vol. 2, pp 243-251, which implies that Heindel
had never seen the Elder Brother(s) in a physical body and therefore had to
speculate on their physical appearance; specifically, their age. On the basis
of “conversation with some of the lay brothers who had been connected with the
temple for twenty, thirty and forty years in this life,” Heindel surmised that
the Elder Brothers “seem now to be about 40 years of age” (p 49). How is it
that he must conjecture on the appearance of the Brother in this writing when
he had seen him face to face several years earlier?
Our last comment on Heindel’s retraction statement (that “the
plagiarist invariably gives less than the authority from whom he steals”) is
that, technically, plagiarism has nothing to do with the amount of material
that is taken from an uncredited source and presented as one’s own; it defines
the action itself, irrespective of how much material one so uses. We further
wonder why Heindel should have introduced the term at all. The Cosmo’s first edition acknowledges
Steiner as the source of “much valuable information received,” and plagiarism
is defined as “the use without due credit of the ideas, expressions, or
productions of another.” Heindel, to our thinking, gives due credit. Nor is the
term applicable if the Brother is the source.
In any event, using the word in this situation can only be
inflammatory, provocative, and nonproductive. No one can stake an exclusive
claim on truth, nor patent it or copyright it. It is not the possession of a
particular group. It defies sectarian affiliations. It is no respecter of
persons. Let not our search for truth be restricted by those who aspire to
communicate it. We thank them for their offering, but let us not deify them.
Let us put away childish ways and assume our share of the fortunate
responsibility for determining truth’s identity.
Those of us who have immersed ourselves in Max Heindel’s
formulation of the Rosicrucian Teachings are confirmed in the honesty, integrity,
and holy zeal of this advanced soul. In whatever manner the material contained
in his book was acquired, we are convinced that he was guided by noble aims
and impulses which are highlighted in
the very story that relates the condition for his receiving them—that they be
given to spiritually benefit the widest possible public. Service to humanity
was Heindel’s guiding principle. He knew the Teaching’s value. He rightly
presumed thousands like him would esteem them just as highly, that communicating
them could save lives—materially and spiritually.
Even after the withdrawal of his dedication to Steiner, the Cosmo itself retains implicit reference
to Steiner’s prior public
presentation of Rosicrucian teachings in two references (on page 250). Firstly,
Heindel describes the Cosmo (“This
work”) as “one of the first few fragments of the Rosicrucian knowledge being
publicly given out.” “One” of the first. Which are the other “first” fragments?
Heindel’s dedication of the Cosmo’s
first edition tells us—Steiner’s writings and lectures, from which Heindel
received “much valuable information” (see page 97). Secondly, “All that has
been printed as such [purporting to be authentic “Rosicrucian knowledge”],
previous to the last few years, has been the work of either charlatans or
traitors.” Note that Heindel does not say “prior to this work” but “previous to
the last few years,” say, between 1902-1908, during which time Steiner made
public “fragments” of Rosicrucian knowledge that Heindel admitted copying (see
withdrawal statement, page 98).
So where does all of this leave us? With the Teachings. Both as
they exist through the current canon of Rosicrucian Fellowship publications,
and as they exist in Steiner’s published books and printed lectures, and as
they continue to emerge and take form in the minds and hearts of developed Egos
devoted to soul growth along the lines of Rosicrucian Christianity.
In the final analysis, we feel that mapping out the transmission
lines by which the Fellowship obtained its original body of teachings is
somewhat of a side issue, a diversion of our energies and primary needs. For
whatever be the actual channel(s), whatever be the claims for authenticity or
exclusivity, each of us will have to prove all things for ourselves, and then
hold fast to that which we find good (and true). That is why Paul’s words begin
and end the Cosmo’s first and second
editions. To accept a teaching solely on the authority of its alleged
provenance is a practice unsuited to the needs of our time and runs counter to
our calling and obligation to be self-reliant in all matters, particularly as
they pertain to confirming truth. It is emphatically an individual
responsibility.
What we would hope, indeed what we expect, is that given this inner
tribunal, the definitive court of appeal, it is our duty to refer all issues of
truth to it. We shall charge it with the holy task of determining the merit of
all propositions, irrespective of the merits (or demerits) of those who
propound them, be they Max Heindel, Rudolf Steiner, the Pope, the anonymous
science “expert,” or the medical “authority.” Nor would the first two named
individuals advocate anything less or other.
We will reiterate words concluding Section 2 of this study to
drive home our point. The Rosicrucian Fellowship is not the Max Heindel
Fellowship, nor would he approve of the quarantine on spiritual truths that has
existed here. There was a veritable ferment of ideas existing at
In the event the casual reader overlooked it, we will also take
the liberty here of asking the question posed on page 39 of Section 1: Is not
Steiner at least as qualified to merit our attention as the hundreds of people,
including this writer, whose opinions and thoughts have been featured in the Rays magazine, and The Rosicrucian
Fellowship’s other, more enduring, publications—including Prentiss Tucker, Elman
Bacher, Theodore Heline, Annet C. Rich, Robert Lewis, Esme Swainson, Corinne
Heline, the many authors of Aquarian Age
Stories for Children, the anonymous author of Etheric Vision and What It Reveals, and the many authors of the New Age Vegetarian Cookbook? Based on
the foregoing information adduced in this study, does not Steiner have at least
as much to offer us as the aforementioned writers? Surely the occultist who
stood in all solemnity of spirit before the Event of Golgotha and identified
the Christian Rosicrucian path as the only path suited to Western egos warrants
being quoted and referred to as a friend and promoter of our deepest spiritual
interests.
It has been the purpose of this report to share certain
information pertaining to Rosicrucian Teachings as promulgated by the
Rosicrucian Fellowship with the intention of clearing our common air of
error-based prejudices, moldering secrets, and withering and unwarranted
partisanships. We are impelled by the need to more fully and more effectively realize
our mission—which is to know Truth and do good by it and through it—for the
benefit of all. We believe that the rehabilitation of Steiner’s opus and person
is in line with this objective. Knowing
is a dynamic process of increasingly-conscious becoming. As we continue to know, we continue to grow. And we may
be certain that what we previously knew will be altered by new revelations, new
understanding. We will be required to surrender old ways of regarding things.
At times our comfort levels will be severely challenged. So be it. Comfort is
not our goal, but comprehension, intelligent, loving comprehension. Or, as Max
Heindel expresses it in the penultimate sentence of the Cosmo’s first and second editions, we strive for that level of
Self-consciousness where our “faith may
be swallowed up in knowledge dedicated to
the service of Humanity.”
Since the
foregoing Study was written, additional information bearing on the relationship
between Max Heindel and Rudolf Steiner and their respective presentations of
Rosicrucian Teachings has come forward. It is introduced here for the reader’s
consideration.
Steiner— “My Esteemed Teacher”
A typewritten copy of the Cosmo exists. This text antedates the printed
galley proofs and consequently, the First Edition proper. This typewritten
version shows Heindel’s extensive handwritten corrections. The dedication page
at this time is different from that of the First Edition. A facsimile is here
reproduced. (The background shows a proposed design for the book’s cover—a
serpent entwined around the cross.) Here Heindel dedicates the Cosmo “to my esteemed teacher and valued friend
Dr. Rudolf Steiner and to my more than friend Dr. Alma von Brandis in grateful
recognition of the inestimable influence for soul-growth they have exercised in
my life.” The use of the word “teacher” is particularly significant in view
of Heindel’s later use of the term to designate the Elder Brother who served as
his “Teacher,” although, Heindel writes in Letters
to Students (p 98), this Brother, “whom I, perhaps mistakenly, speak of as
Teacher—has never taught me directly since the first short period when that
which is embodied in the Cosmo was
given.”
Dr. von Brandis, was an osteopath who had been a fellow member of
the
Steiner’s impact on Heindel surely is given by the latter’s use of
the word teacher as well as Heindel’s
appreciation for Steiner’s “inestimable influence for [his] soul growth.” We
would be remiss were we not to ask why the Elder Brother, rather than Steiner,
is not mentioned in this context—as being both Heindel’s “esteemed teacher” and
providing “inestimable influence for his soul growth,” since, according to the
most popular account (Birth of the Rosicrucian
Fellowship, p 4), “this man [Steiner] had little to give him [Heindel], and
that what he gave out was not new to him”? Indeed, the June 1914 Echoes from
The third section of The
Heindel-Steiner Connection considers Heindel’s statement of withdrawal of
the Cosmo’s dedication to Steiner, which appeared in the book’s second edition.
In that statement (p 98) Heindel uses the word “plagiarist,” because he had
already (1910) received comments regarding the similarity between the Cosmo’s contents and Steiner’s books and
lectures. Subsequently, the term (plagiarism) is also used by Steiner on
several occasions. An additional instance occurred in October 1913 in
“A man from
A few persons are exercised by Steiner’s early use of the term
“masters” to refer to humans of advanced spiritual attainment. Earlier in this
Study (p 29) it was remarked that: “Some persons may object to the use of the
term Master. The independent Western
mind associates the word with Eastern religions and an undue exercise of
authority. At the beginning of the twentieth century such a construal was
muted. After all, the Gospels refer to Jesus as “Master” (Rabboni) approximately forty times. Max Heindel, as well, refers to
the work of “Master Jesus” during the so-called “Dark Ages” (Cosmo, p. 409)”.
In fact, in the typewritten version of the Cosmo, Heindel himself
uses the term Masters of Wisdom, not Elder Brothers. The term “Elder Brothers,” with quotation marks,
appears once in the typewritten version, and it appears in this form on p 327
in all book versions. Heindel uses the term Masters
of Wisdom six times and “the great
Masters” is used once. (See facsimile for one instance of this original
usage.) In the First Edition this designation is changed to Elder Brothers, which in later editions
occurs six more times when additional material on the Rosicrucians was added at
the end of the Cosmo. The point is
that originally Heindel also used the term Masters
of Wisdom to identify the spiritual leaders of the Western World,
suggesting that his source also used the term.
Heindel, Steiner and Theosophy
Some Steiner critics feel that he does not meet their criteria for
a sufficiently Western orientation, that he intermingles Eastern influences.
More than a passing familiarity with his work proves the contrary (see below,
for examples). These critics would do well to consider the five pages in the Cosmo (pp 270-275) Heindel devotes to
explaining how Blavatsky’s Secret
Doctrine and A.P. Sinnett’s Esoteric
Buddhism, two “very valuable works,” though apparently differing, are
essentially in agreement. These works are “valuable” for whom? Apparently for
the author. Apparently also for the reader of the Cosmo, else Heindel would have made no mention of them, certainly
not praised them. But they have an Eastern slant, do they not? After all,
Sinnett’s book is on Buddhism, not Christianity. Yet Heindel finds value in it.
The taboo some would impose on Eastern occultism, to the degree of
absolute proscription, is not Heindel’s position. In fact, much of Western
occultism, particularly truths relating to cosmogenesis, has been imported from
the Eastern wisdom intact, and is congruent with it. There is an invidious
tendency of a few to caricature Heindel’s stressing of the Western perspective
to the point of regarding all things Eastern as toxic. So doing, how can the
“purists” accommodate this five-page passage which concludes with the words,
“nor are we to leave the Earth at some future time to take up our abode on the
planet Mercury, as the other work mentioned [Sinnett’s Esoteric Buddhism] states, with the intention of correcting an
error in the first one [Blavatsky’s Secret
Doctrine].” Heindel could have simply ignored mention of these books. After
all, they are concerned with “Eastern Wisdom.” But they are “very valuable
works.” They can benefit the student of spiritual science and Heindel wants to
bring their contents to the reader’s attention, albeit with errors corrected.
Later in the Cosmo Heindel again lauds Blavatsky’s contribution to
our occult knowledge. Yes, she was “a faithful pupil of Eastern Masters,” but
her “unexcelled work” [This is a superlative term—not to be excelled. High
praise indeed!] has much to offer the student of Western Wisdom teachings,
including physical facts that are hidden or occulted from material
scientists—including facts relating to the earth’s “third movement,” and the
“atomistic theory” (pp 512-513).
For the sake of fairness
and honesty, let us be consistent in applying our standards of judgment. It is
natural to have preferences, but let them not violate our objectivity nor
compromise our search for truth.
Here follow additional instances
showing the similarity between Heindel’s writings and what Steiner had already
made public prior to 1908. These quotes supplement Section 2 of the original
Study (see pp 43-91).
“[T]ruth may be compared
to the view from a mountaintop, which is the same for all who reach it,
regardless of whether they chose different paths to get there. When you are
standing at a certain spot on the side of a mountain and see a path, you do not
walk round the mountain to look for another path.”—Who Are the Rosicrucians?, Lecture,
“Truth is many sided and
eternal; the quest for truth must also be all embracing and never ending. We
may liken truth to a mountain, and the various interpretations of that truth to
different paths leading up to the summit.”—p 149
“...some of its [the
Rosicrucian Brotherhood’s] secrets were betrayed and made public in the wrong
way in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries...the writers had
heard something but failed to understand what they heard...A major newspaper
[wrote]...‘Yes, the philosophers’ stone does indeed exist. Most people know
about it and most even had it in their hands’...it was seen as an elixir of
life...Anyone who knows the real facts of the matter must admit that these
descriptions are indeed true in a strange way. However, those who do not know
the secret are left none the wiser.”—Lecture,
Cosmo (First Edition)
“Such a ‘leak’ [of
occult truths] as mentioned above occurred in the beginning of the 19th Century
and caused considerable discussions in Germany, even in the official papers,
concerning the Philosopher’s Stone. The Reichs-Anzeiger said, in one article:
‘Yes, there is a Philosopher’s Stone. It is an Elixir of Life. It is all, and
much more than has ever been claimed for it. Moreover, most people have had it
in their hands often, but know it not!’ How absolutely and unqualifiedly true
that is, yet at the same time how thoroughly misleading.”—p 518
“Esoteric training
begins in earnest only when we learn to work into the etheric (life)
body.”—Lecture (“The World-Historical Significance of the Blood That Flowed
from the Cross”), March 25, 1907,
“His [man’s] esoteric
training and the earlier Initiations are devoted to work on the vital body.”—p
381
“The Golden Legend goes
something like this....Seth took the wood from the tree [of Life, that grew out
of Adam’s grave]. Many things were made from it, including Moses’ magical
staff. The gate of Solomon’s temple was made of wood from the offspring of this
tree, and later...it formed the Cross on which the Redeemer hung.”—Lecture,
June 29, 1907,
Mystical Interpretation of Easter
“According to an ancient
legend Adam took with him three cuttings from the tree of life when he was
forced to leave
One thing, however, does
remain the same in the physical and astral worlds and in devachan [World of
Thought], namely logical thinking. This reliable guide protects us from all flighty
and illusory thoughts. Without it we never learn to distinguish illusion from
reality.”—“Stages of Rosicrucian Initiation,” Lecure, Düsseldorf, December 15,
1907
“The pupil will do well
to remember that nothing that is not logical can exist in the universe and that
logic is the surest guide in all the Worlds...”—p 440
“Before the Christ
principle, the Sun of Righteousness, could appear on Earth, the Jahve principle
had to send down on Earth this light of righteousness, toned down in the Law,
to prepare the way. And so what lay in the old Jehovah principle, in the old
Law—the spiritual light of the Moon—was for esoteric Christians the reflected
spiritual light of the higher Christ principle.”—“Goethe’s Rosicrucian Poem, ‘The Mysteries,’” Lecture,
Rosicrucian Philosophy in Questions and Answers, Vol 2
“The Race religions of
the lunar God, Jehovah, conveyed the will of God to mankind in an indirect
manner through seers and prophets who were but imperfect instruments, as the
lunar rays reflect the light of the
Sun. The mission of these religions was
to prepare mankind for the universal religion of the Sun Spirit, Christ, who
manifested among us without an intermediary as the light which comes direct
from the Sun....Christian religion gives no laws, but preaches love as the
fulfillment of the law.”—pp 450-451
“Through the transparent
Earth he or she [the novice] saw the spiritual light of the Sun, the Christ
light. This fact, which marked a profound experience for the Mystery novice,
was recorded in the expression, ‘To see the Sun at midnight.’”—Goethe’s Rosicrucian Poem, “The Mysteries,”
Lecture,
“To their spiritual
vision, the solid Earth became transparent and they [pupils ready for
initiation] saw the Sun at midnight—‘The Star!’ It was not the physical Sun
they saw with spiritual eyes, however, but the Spirit in the Sun—The Christ.”—p
391
“the Cross, which is a
symbol of the fourfold nature of the human being, and the red roses, which are
the symbol of the purified blood.”—Lecture, Goethe’s
Rosicrucian Poem “The Mysteries,”
Occult Principles of Health and Healing
“This then is the great
ideal toward which we are striving: to cleanse ourselves from the taint of egoism and self-seeking. Therefore
we look upon the emblem of the Rose Cross as an ideal. The seven red roses
typify the cleansed blood.”—p 57
“You many live in
intimate friendship with an initiate, and yet a gap severs you from his
essential self, so long as you have not become an initiate yourself.”—Knowledge
of the Higher Worlds and Its Attainment, p 4, 1904
“Only the Rosicrucian
knows the brother Rosicrucian. Not even the most intimate friends or relatives
know of a man's connection with the order. Those only who are Initiates
themselves know the writers of the past who were Rosicrucians, because ever
through their works shine the unmistakable words, phrases and signs indicative
of the deep meaning that remains hidden from the non-initiate.”—pp 250-251
If Steiner speaks and
writes from the Rosicrucian perspective, giving only first-hand information
gleaned from the spirit worlds, are not his offerings of interest and potential
value to students of the Rosicrucian Fellowship? Much material was given in the
original Study (see pages 26-36) identifying Steiner’s Rosicrucian focus, which
we summarize and supplement below.
Firstly, let Heindel
himself tell us who belongs to the School of the Rosicrucians: “Generally
speaking, it may be said that all the
people of the Western World belong to the
And what does Annie
Besant, head of the Theosophical Society when Heindel and Steiner were both
members, have to say about Steiner’s persuasions?
“Dr. Steiner’s occult training is very
different from ours. He does not know the Eastern way, so cannot, of course,
teach it. He teaches the Christian and
Rosicrucian way, and this is
very helpful to some, but is different from ours.”—letter to Dr.
Hübbe-Schleiden, June 7, 1907, History
and Contents of the First Esoteric Section 1904-1914 (H&C), p. 261
A year before Besant
wrote the above statement, Steiner wrote Besant a letter in which he
unequivocally articulates what was the right path for him both to pursue and to
teach:
“With good foresight
into the peculiarities of the fifth-cultural epoch, the Masters of the Rosicrucian School have elaborated the ‘path’ that
is the only one appropriate for a Western person in the current cycle of
development....[in which] occultism must be publicly spelled out....In
Middle Europe the direction of occult endeavor has been determined since the
fourteenth century, and we, of strict necessity, are obliged to follow this
direction....I am conscious of my devotion to the Masters in every word of this
letter.”—From letter written by Steiner to Annie Besant, 1906, H & C, pp. 270-72
In his first address to
the Western Esoteric Section of the Theosophical Society in Munich, June 1,
1907, Steiner says the following: “At
the head of our Western School there are two Masters: the Master Jesus and the
Master Christian Rosenkreutz. And they lead us along two paths: the
Christian and the Christian-Rosicrucian way....The former educates through
feelings, the latter through understanding. The dying cultures of the East
still need the Eastern teachings. The Western teachings are for future
cultures.”—H & C, pp. 305-314
The primacy of the
Rosicrucian Brotherhood in the development of the Western world is spelled out
in the following statement: “The
Rosicrucian Brotherhood is actually the source, the origin, of all other
brotherhoods that have been absorbed into European culture”—Lecture, “The
Original Impulse behind the Theosophical Movement: The Brotherhood Idea,”
Steiner states elsewhere
that “The Rosicrucian method of
initiation is especially for modern people; it meets the needs of modern
conditions....It will for long centuries to come be the right method of
initiation into spiritual life....”—Supersensible
Knowledge, 13 lectures, Berlin, 1906-1907, p. 149,
Just as clearly Steiner
writes the following: “[I]t should be understood
that the introduction of a correct esotericism in the West can only be of the
Rosicrucian-Christian type, because this latter gave birth to western life and
because by its loss mankind would deny the meaning and destiny of the Earth.”—Letter,
1907, Correspondence and Documents,
p.18
One more Steiner quote:
“For persons much occupied with science, the necessary path towards Initiation
is the Rosicrucian, for the Rosicrucian method shows that the highest knowledge
of mundane things is thoroughly compatible with the highest knowledge of
spiritual truths.It is precisely through the Rosicrucian path that those who
have been led away from Christian belief by what they take to be science can
learn to understand Christianity truly for the first time.”—At the Gates of Spiritual Science
(1906), pp. 130-1
Finally, Steiner’s wife,
Marie Sievers, in 1947 decided to publish some of the more important teachings
that were given in Steiner’s
Anthroposophy
is Rosicrucian Says the Editor of the Anthroposophic Press
Since some prejudices
die hard, there may yet be some people who continue to doubt the centrality of
the Rosicrucian perspective in Steiner’s teaching. After all, they may contend,
he used the term Anthroposophy. In response to these persons we quote from a
recent publication of the Anthroposophic Press, which publishes Steiner’s
complete works and many other books by numerous authors along Rosicrucian/ Anthroposophic lines. The Press’s Editor,
Christopher Bamford, has selected representative documents that explicitly
refer to Rosicrucianism in Steiner’s writings and lectures and compiled them in
a book entitled The Secret Stream,
Christian Rosenkreutz and Rosicrucianism (Great Barrington, MA, 2000). In a
lengthy introduction to the selected texts, Bamford writes: “Rosicrucianism is
vital not only for an understanding of the history of Western spirituality,
science, and culture but also—as this collection of Rudolf Steiner’s lectures
makes very clear—for the promise of its future. Stated most simply, since true
knowledge is suffering (we can truly know only what we have suffered),
Rosicrucianism—which is the union of the Cross and the Rose—stands for the
union of science (knowledge) and love. The Rosicrucian question, first
formulated by Goethe in his poem ‘The Mysteries,’ and repeatedly posed by
Rudolf Steiner, therefore becomes who added love to knowledge? Or, who added
compassion to suffering?”
Bamford introduces each
of the book’s chapters with a few comments, including:
Chapter Two—Who Are the Rosicrucians?
“Steiner is clear that there are many paths to initiation,
all of which lead to the truth; but, he says, there is one path above all that is appropriate for modern Western
human beings and that is the Rosicrucian path of initiation.”—p 41
Chapter Three—Rosicrucian Practice
“Against a background of evolution viewed from a
Rosicrucian perspective, Steiner describes the stages of Rosicrucian training.
He introduces the Rosicrucian approach to spiritual practice as being for the
sake of the world rather than for individual salvation.”—p 60
Chapter Seven—Who Was Christian Rosenkruetz?
“Rosicrucianism, for Steiner, is not just a
question of theory or of history or even of practice simply as such, it has
above all and primarily to do with spiritual facts, realities—that is, with
encountering and knowing spiritual beings, in this case, the being of Christian
Rosenkreutz himself.”—p 127
Chapter Eight—The Teaching of Christian Rosenkruetz
“Rosicrucianism
and alchemy are, in fact, central and even determinant for Rudolf Steiner’s
spiritual path and teaching.”—p 137 (original in italics)
Chapter Ten—On the Chemical Wedding of Christian
Rosenkruetz
In this essay “Steiner magisterially delineates
the crucial difference between ‘mysticism’ and “alchemy”—which is clearly his
path and the Rosicrucian path.” That is, Steiner’s path is the Rosicrucian or
alchemical path, a path of spiritual science and occult self-transformation.
This essay, Bamford writes, “helps us understand the depths to which the
Rosicrucian-alchemical impulse penetrates in Steiner’s life and philosophy.”—pp
155-156
Chapter Fourteen—The Relationship Between Humankind and the
Sun
“[T]his is the most important task: to make Rosicrucianism
contemporary. We must become twenty-first century students of Christian
Rosenkreutz.”—p 229
Chapter Fifteen—Rosicrucian Meditation—Meditating the Rose
Cross
“Rosicrucianism is, above all, a path of
practice. Throughout his life Rudolf Steiner gave many indications and
meditation practices to his students that were explicitly Rosicrucian in
nature.”—p 239
Afterword—Rudolf Steiner and Rosicrucianism
“Anyone threading their
way through this volume alert to the subtext and its implications will have
realized that, implicit in these lectures and writings, is the affirmation of the primacy of Rosicrucianism both for
Rudolf Steiner personally and for anthroposophy, the spiritual science that he
initiated. Rosicrucianism, in fact, is the golden, unifying thread that runs
through Steiner’s life and work.”—p 248
“The Rosicrucian directive,
however, guides Steiner not only esoterically but also through modern science
and philosophy and determines the form and content of the work that he does in
these fields...he repeatedly proposes his own earliest epistemological works—Truth and Knowledge and Intuitive Thinking
as a Spiritual Path—as paradigmatic of Rosicrucian study, thereby affirming
the famous epistemology itself to be Rosicrucian.”—249
“All of this is to say
that anthroposophy, as Steiner conceived
it, marks the ‘return’ of Rosicrucianism as he understood it. Around 1650,
in the aftermath of the Thirty Years’ War, the ‘true’ Rosicrucian Brotherhood
supposedly left Europe for the East, some say for the Baltic states, some for
the
If anthroposophy is root
and branch Rosicrucian, if Rudolf Steiner is characterized by the Editor-in-Chief
of the Anthroposophic Press, which publishes hundreds of Steiner books, as a
teacher and practitioner of the Rosicrucian perspective; who asserts that “For
many centuries to come, Rosicrucianism will be the right method of initiation
into spiritual life” (Berlin, March 14, 1907); who invites the world to join
him in making “what is expressed in ‘the Cross wreathed in roses’ our ideal and
watchword” (ibid); who states that
“the Rosicrucian path is the safest, most profound way to understand
Christianity,” and that “The deepest, truest Christianity is found in
Rosicrucian schooling (Kassel June 28, 1907), and that the “Rosicrucian
method...is the most appropriate and fitting for today’s human souls” (Macrocosm and Microcosm, lecture 8,
March 28, 1910); who maintains that “It is the work of the Rosicrucians that
makes possible the etheric vision of Christ” (Esoteric Christianity and the Mission of Christian Rosenkreutz,
Neuchatel, September 27, 1911); if such an individual through his works and
words is Rosicrucian, how can a student of the Rosicrucian teachings not
benefit from studying Steiner’s contribution? What is the rationale for the
current Rosicrucian Fellowship policy of exercising a tacit prohibition on
quoting him—or even mentioning his name?
The “Test”
and Steiner’s Declining a Proposal to Be an Official Messenger
In view of the
foregoing—Steiner’s avowed and amply documented Rosicrucian perspective—it is
ironic that he formally declined to serve as a messenger of the Rosicrucian
Order. The popular history states otherwise—that Max Heindel was chosen to
disseminate the Teachings contained in the Cosmo
only after the Brothers’ first choice (never named, but presumably Steiner)
failed whatever test was allegedly given him. If this account were true, the
test could not have been the same as given Heindel (to keep the information
secret), because Steiner had been giving out Rosicrucian Teachings for at least
seven years prior to Heindel’s visit to Germany, as the collation of Heindel
and Steiner texts in the Study’s second section makes clear. That is, many
occult truths that later appeared in the Cosmo
had already been made public by Steiner, who gives an account differing from
the above. At the end of the second of ten lectures on The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century, delivered in
Why did he decline the
offer to be a formal messenger? Informally, he already was a messenger. It was his destiny, a task he assigned himself, to
obtain his knowledge directly from the spirit worlds. In the seventh of the
above-cited series of lectures Steiner spoke of this mission: “I regard it as
my task to say nothing which I cannot guarantee to have been tested and
proven.” In the introduction to An
Outline of Occult History (1909) Steiner writes, “My knowledge of things of
the spirit is a direct result of my own perceptions.” In his spiritual
autobiography, The Course of My Life,
Steiner affirms that “What I possess of spiritual knowledge is entirely the
result of my own research.” Would the student of the Rosicrucian Fellowship
benefit from access to this “spiritual knowledge”? We must answer yes if we
credit Heindel’s statement that the instruction the Elder Brothers gave him
“corroborated the teachings of Dr. S. along main lines.” And this is in
reference to what Steiner had presented to the public up to 1908. He continued
to disclose esoteric truths for sixteen more years (through 1924).
Rays Contents When Heindel Was Editor
The stated objective of
the Study and this Addendum is to show the merit of returning to the more
open-minded editorial and wisdom-exchange policy that existed while Max Heindel
was living, and to propose additional sources for expanded Western Wisdom
study. Though Rudolf Steiner’s contribution to esoteric knowledge is vast and
specifically Rosicrucian, there is much else that Heindel thought students
would find instructive. His interests were broad indeed. Consider what he
deemed admissible contents for the Rays
magazine while he was its Editor (until Jan 1919):
a) September 1915. A
seven page article on colors copied from the magazine South African Women in Council, which contains quotes from various
people, (Madame de Rambouillet and Ruskin) and discusses heraldry.
b) November 1915. An
article on magic. “It is absolutely necessary” that men and women should become
“practical magicians.” The anonymous author gives exercises for training the
will, through the use of symbols, including chain, altar, oil, scourge, dagger,
circle, lamp, pentacle, cup, wand, lamen, incense (yes!), bell, and crown.
c) March 1915. A
three-issue study of astronomy by “Gamma Beta,” who was not a member of the
Fellowship, but was a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and prominent in
solar photography.
d) April 1916. Reprint
of a chapel talk that recounts the narrative of an Arabian legend about “The
wise Pasha Suleiman,” his efforts to spread Islam, and his daily encounter with
the Angel of Death and personal destiny.
e) June 1916.
“Experiments and Experiences in Psychometry,” a nine-issue series of articles
by Elizabeth Denton, which information came from negative clairvoyance. The series included an article by
Consider entering such
an article in the present-day Rays!
What a hue and a cry would issue from certain quarters! Yet Max Heindel set the
precedent. He saw no compelling reason to dismiss the information simply
because the sane and intelligent person from whom it issued possessed the
increasingly rare gift of passive second sight.
f) July 1916. “Voodoos
and Witches.” Heindel writes at length on a newspaper clipping which reports
the murder of a centenarian in
Letter
from Heindel to Leadbeater
Charles Leadbeater was a
controversial figure in the Theosophical Society. He possessed some degree of
negative clairvoyance and was a commanding presence and effective lecturer. It
was in this latter capacity that Heindel was first introduced to occult truths.
One day, in late December 1903, while walking the streets of
|
|
|
Part
of Table of Contents for the issue of The Theosophist containing Heindel’s
letter to C.W.Leadbeater, entered under the title “How Max Heindel Came to Theosophy.
In introducing Heindel’s letter, the Editor, C. Jinarajadasa, writes, “I owe
a good deal to Max Heindel. When I met him in |
Dear Sir,
Before you leave
Curiosity drew me to hear your first lecture; your statement
that every man had in him clairvoyant faculties—which I reasoned would benefit
me personally — prompted me to attend. Your 2nd lecture, in the hope of getting
some information on how to develop this much desired and desirable power and
when in your 2nd lecture you said that this faculty should not be used for
selfish purpose—I sneered inwardly—what good would it do a man if he did not
use it to his own interests.
The next day I applied for the “Astral Plane” at the
library, that was the plane I wanted to find out about where one could go and,
with advantage to himself, learn other people’s secrets. However I did not get
it—the librarian had none to loan or for sale; they were all out.
But I got Mrs. Besant’s “Karma” and “Reincarnation” and when
I had read them I understood why occult powers must be used reverently as a help
to humanity and not for personal gain. I saw that I had a place in this great
cosmic scheme and it seemed all so real to me that I needed no argument. I
believed every word I read and it was in a frame of mind very different indeed
from what it had been at the first two lectures that I presented myself at your
lecture on Reincarnation.
I have since then been literally devouring Theosophy and I
have put in practice in my life by discontinuing the use of intoxicants and
tobacco, though I did not know until the other day that that was one of the
Buddha’s precepts, but worse than that I was a sensualist and a liar and I
never had any idea that I could help it or that my thoughts did any harm or
that I could banish them, but when I found out that I could control my thoughts
I set out with a steady purpose and rejoice to say that my waking hours are
very nearly free from obscene thoughts; if I could but say the same of my
sleeping hours I would be happy indeed but I have no doubt that by persistent
effort I shall soon have it entirely obliterated, specially as I have started a
few days ago to live on a vegetable diet after reading your argument in
“Glimpses of Occultism.”
I hope my long letter has not tired you, for long as it is
it does not cover a tenth of what I would like to say if I could but find words
to express myself. It is wonderful I can scarcely realize it that I who thought
myself a mere earthworm living today and as I believed dead for all eternity
when I died, that I am to live for ever. Do you wonder that I feel grateful and
feel the need of expressing my gratitude to you who opened my eyes to the high
and noble destiny in front of me?
Once more I thank you and wish you god speed.
Yours
truly
Max
Heindel
Rays Contents (Continued)
g) August 1916. “De Sun
Do Move.” Heindel reprints what purports to be a phonetic equivalent of a
pre-eminent southern Negro preacher’s (John Jasper) sermon. Heindel clearly
esteems the man: “He was a God-made preacher, great in bondage [as a slave for
fifty years] and immortal in freedom.” The sermon was intended as a refutation
of the Copernican Theory that the sun is stationary relative to the planets.
One gets the flavor of the text from the last printed line: “I’ve pruved my
pint, dat de Sun DO MOVE, and defy any one to say I haint.”
h) September 1916.
“Links of Destiny—An Occult Story.” This is more like an occult novelette. It
runs for thirteen issues, ending on September 1917. It is written in the
Victorian style, with a lot of conversation and impressionistic description.
Heindel liked a good story.
i) September 1916.
“Amulets, Birthstones and Planetary Colors.” Heindel describes how to assign
stones to a native’s sun sign, and metals and colors to the planet ruling the
ascendant. Further, colors and metals are “prescribed” to offset negative
influences from challenging planetary aspects. Compounding metal alloys and
using complementary colors to promote favorable planetary conditions are also
considered.
j) October 1916. “The
Crucible.” Of this sixteen-sided figure Heindel said: “If you use it in your
meditation it will reveal itself to you, and you will never be able to tell
anyone what you learn, for no human tongue can ever tell the deepest and most
beautiful experiences of the soul, and it would be sacrilege to even try to
tell.” The Rays published the best
interpretation of this symbol.
k) November 1917. “The
Sufi Mystics.” Heindel introduces this article by saying that “the reports of
those who have studied them [the Sufis] all laud their transcendent spirituality.”
They are not Rosicrucian, but they have wisdom, for all that, and Heindel
believes the reader will “undoubtedly profit” from reading about these wise
men. He adds: “There is a striking analogy between the Sufis in their relation
to Mohammedanism and the medieval Alchemists in their relation to the then
dominant church. Both Sufis and the Alchemists had the leaven of truth and both
were forced to hide it under symbols and signs.”
l) November 1917. “Dr.
Jekyll Up To Date.” Heindel reprints a submission to “Bedside Stories” in the
magazine The Nurse, relating the
effect of an overdose of a drug called veronal, which turned a “maudlin,
blear-eyed shambling debauchee into an upright, self-respecting gentleman,
while its effect lasted.” Heindel doesn’t moralize, he doesn’t instruct.
However “If we are to believe the narrative,” the suggestion is that the man
reverted to past life behavior. Analogously, Heindel implies that Robert Louis
Stevenson’s “fictional” Dr. Jekyll was the incarnation of an Ego who was
formerly like the evil Mr. Hyde.
m) November 1917. “The
Conqueror of Pain.” Heindel reprints an article from Collier’s Weekly on the use of an anesthesia in WW1. It is
inspiring. Reader’s Digest has
published hundreds of such stories over the years. But Heindel is not bound by
a rigid, patrician publishing policy. If an account has heart, it qualifies.
n) Letters. Heindel
published many letters from people recounting their supernormal experiences—all
resulting from involuntary clairvoyance. Presumably he presents them because,
as he writes in response to a November 1917 letter, “they bear witness to the
verities of the invisible world and the doings of the people who live there.”
Today there are thousands of such reports.
o) June 1918.
“Commentary on The Rubaiyat of Omar
Kayyam.” The writer describes his three-part article as “an exegetic study
in comparative religions,” and calls attention to the spiritual value of “the
great esoteric and philosophical epics of antiquity, including the Bagavad Gita, the I Ching, the Book of Dzyan,
and the Upanishads.
p) August 1918. “Maria
Mantellata.” A long short story by Blanche Cromartie that ran for four issues
of the Rays. The action takes place
in
q) October 1918. “In the Land of the Living Dead.”
Prentiss Tucker’s story of a wartime death and awakening in the spirit world.
Appeared in eleven issues.
r) November 1918. “Some
Women of Ancient
s) December 1918. “The
Oracle of
t) January 1919. “The
Lion. A Scene from a Past Life.” Another reprint from The Occult Review in which the author remembers living in ancient
u) January 1919. “Fijian
Witchcraft.” Also from The Occult Review.
The writer’s brother tells him the story of a voodoo rite to avenge the bad
treatment of a Samoan girl. The article concludes: “It is a beautiful place, is
Conclusion—Max
Heindel’s Open Mind
Max Heindel had
omnivorous interests. He gives a full-spectrum approach to the occult. In Teachings of an Initiate he maintains
that the Rosicrucian Fellowship advocates the study of astrology and palmistry
by all its members (p 128). Moreover, Heindel regards phrenology, the study of
skull shapes and surfaces, and palmistry as a “spiritual sciences” (1Q&A, p 308). While this assertion
may have its detractors, at least Heindel is open to seeing the spiritual
behind all material manifestation.
In the scheme of
Heindel’s universalist approach to knowledge, what is the relative merit of the
information Rudolf Steiner has to offer? Surely an individual who is one of the
Western world’s few advanced positive clairvoyants, a Christian, and a
self-professed exponent of the Rosicrucian path deserves at least the exposure
given to the hundreds of contributors to the Rays magazine and the authors of Fellowship books not written by
Heindel.
In the July 1914 Echoes Heindel wrote that “The
Rosicrucian teachings have only been barely touched upon in the Cosmo, which we may regard as the
quintessence. This could be elaborated piecemeal, and many new points would
open up to any one who would undertake this work. Thus the world would be the
gainer, for no great philosophy can be brought out in all its phases by one
man.” Is Steiner any less qualified to bring out phases of this philosophy than
authors of the articles mentioned in this list?
Let Max Heindel have the
last word on this matter. In the January 1917 Rays, the Editor reprinted a “particularly gratifying letter” from
the leader of the “Order of Christian Mystics,” Dr. Curtis, who wrote that though
“the Rosicrucian seeks to lead into the Gate of Wisdom those who are attracted
by the Path of Knowledge, while the Christian Mystic seeks to lead in to the
gate of Realization those who are attracted by the path of Love, yet neither
one excludes the other.” Curtis added, “Fundamentally there cannot be, and in
practice there should not be, any sense of rivalry between the various
spiritual movements.” Heindel warmly concurred with Dr. Curtis, stating that
“When the leaders or advanced students in any movement tear down the leaders of
another movement working for the same end they ought to realize that their
actions belie their teaching and that by so doing they lose the respect and
confidence of any reasoning person within their hearing...The Editor has often
thought of ways and means to overcome this mistaken attitude of jealousy upon
the part of leaders and induce them to join hands in good fellowship and
perhaps concerted action would lead to more beneficent results in all movements
so joined.