Daniel Hindes

I read an interesting book the other day: "Emil Molt and the beginnings of the Waldorf School Movement". It’s an autobiography by Emil Molt, the man responsible for the first Waldorf School. I wrote a review on my site. An interesting portion covered the story of how Waldorf Education came to be called “Waldorf”. According to Molt:

The story of the "Waldorf Astoria" goes back to John Jacob Astor. The Astor family, originally from Savoy, had settled in the south German village of Walldorf in Baden. Johann Jakob Astor was born on July 17, 1763. He emigrated to America as a young man and there, with luck and daring, made a great fortune. In the 1850s, the Astor house was the most elegant private home in New York City. Descendants of Astor later founded the famous "Waldorf-Astoria Hotel" in his memory.
Connected with the hotel was the "Waldorf-Astoria Cigar Store Company." Two of its managers, Mr Kramer and Mr Rothschild, had come to Germany around the turn of the century with the trademark rights. Originally, they produced their own brands; later, they had them made by Manoli in Berlin. They were unsuccessful, however, and eventually put their business up for sale. Müller and Marx heard of this, and, in 1905, bought the rights to the trademark.

Müller and Marx were Molt’s partners at the Waldorf Astoria Cigarette Company. It was after the war the Molt got the idea of a school for the worker’s children, and in its first year, the Waldorf School was a company school, with the teachers on the payroll of the Waldorf Astoria Cigarette Company. (A year later the school became independent). So that is how Waldorf Education got its name.

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

Staudenmaier also seems quite fixated on the idea of superiority. Steiner did not ever claim the “superiority” or the European over the eastern esoteric traditions. He did claim that the European method of occult training was the only one appropriate for most modern Europeans, and gave quite specific reasons. Steiner allows that a European could take up the yoga path. However, given the demands, including a complete withdrawal from society and subsuming one’s own will to the guidance of the guru, it would be an unusual European who could do so successfully.

In Steiner's estimation, there are three paths of esoteric development: the Eastern, or Indian path, the Christian-Mystical and the Rosicrucian. Steiner professed to be working in the Rosicrucian tradition:

“The eastern way of development (also called yoga). Here an initiated human being living on the physical plane acts as a guru for another human being, who entrusts himself or herself - completely and in all details - to that guru. This method works best for those who, during esoteric development, entirely eliminate their own self and hand it over to the guru. The guru must advise students on their every action.” (Page 61)

“The Rosicrucian way of development. This path leaves the pupil at the greatest possible independence. The guru here is no longer a leader, but an adviser who gives direction for the necessary inner training. At the same time, the guru makes certain that, parallel with the esoteric training, there is a definite development of thinking - without which no esoteric training can be carried through. This is because there is something about thinking that does not apply to anything else. When we're on the physical plane, we perceive with the physical sense is only what is on that plane. Astral perceptions are valid for the astral plane; devachanic hearing is valid only in devachan. Thus each plane has its own specific form of perception. But one activity - logical thinking - goes through all worlds. Logic is the same on all three planes. Thus, on the physical plane you can learn something that his valid also for the higher planes. This is the method followed by Rosicrucian training when, on the physical plane, it gives primary attention to thinking, and for this purpose uses the means available on the physical plane. Penetrating thinking can be cultivated by studying spiritual scientific truths, or by practicing thought exercises.” (Page 62)

“The Christian way. In this Christian way can be followed with the adviser the teacher knows what has to be done and can rectify mistakes of every step. Keep in mind, however, that in Christian training the great guru is Jesus Christ himself. Hence it is essential to firmly believe in Christ's presence and his life on earth. Without this, feeling of union with him is impossible.” (Page 63)

Rudolf Steiner. First Steps in Inner Development. Hudson, NY: Anthroposophic Press, 1999. From a lecture titled “The Way to Inner Development”, given on September 2nd, 1906, and printed in volume 95 of the complete works.

If Staudenmaier wishes to judge the relative merits of the various methods of occult training it would be interesting to hear his criteria and conclusions.

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

What separated Steiner from the other India-oriented theosophists from the very beginning was the simple difference that while others may have followed masters, Steiner acknowledged no other authority than his own insight. As we heard above, he made this clear even before joining the Theosophical Society. Further, he demanded that his students form their own judgments about his teachings, and felt that the guru model was inappropriate for modern Europeans.

Peter Staudenmaier has glossed over the fundamental issue that caused the split between the India-oriented Theosophists and Steiner. This issue is not insignificant, and has nothing to do with racism. It is a dispute over the nature of the Christ. To present Steiner's view:

"One could talk about an opposition of the Christian-Occidental and Indian-Oriental principle only if someone wanted to set Wotan above Krishna. But the Christ has nothing to do with all this: from the beginning, He does not belong to any one people, but realizes the most beautiful principle in spiritual science: to acknowledge something without discrimination of color, race and nationality."
Rudolf Steiner. The Gospel of St. Mark. 1912. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1950. Page 36. Lecture of September 16th, 1912.

Peter Staudenmaier displays an amazing predilection for presenting aspects of Steiner's thought and biography to their exact opposite.

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

I challenge Peter Staudenmaier, or anyone else for that matter, to find even one primary document where Rudolf Steiner denigrates Krishnamurti because of this skin color, or anyone around him who claims to have heard Steiner mention any such thing. (The only three prepositions Steiner used were “Knabe”, “Inderknaben” and “Hinduknaben” - “boy”, “Indian boy” and “Hindu boy”, none of which are remotely racist in German, either then or now.) Steiner never said a single thing against Krishnamurti himself, only against the idea that the Christ would reincarnate. Quite a few people get mileage out of claiming that “of course” Steiner couldn't bring himself to see a mere Hindu boy as in any way special, but this claim has no factual basis. Steiner would have objected to anyone claiming that they or someone else was Christ reincarnated, and said as much himself. Staudenmaier's description teeters at the brink of slander. While he does not directly claim that Steiner actually said anything about Krishnamurti's skin color (a statement that could easily be disproved), he explains Steiner's actions as obviously originating from a racist intent. As legal scholars know, it is extraordinarily difficult to prove anyone’s intent under most circumstances. The problem is compounded in a case where the person has been dead over 75 years. There is no actual evidence that Steiner's intent was based on racist feelings (among other things, it would have been completely inconsistent with his character), but this point is more difficult to demonstrate – usually written and spoken evidence is considered in determining someone's intent. There is no such evidence against Steiner.

Continuing my commentary on paragraph 8 of Peter Staudenmaier's 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism':

The break with the Theosophical Society came in 1913, and not because Steiner disagreed with other Theosophists, which he had done for years, and not directly because of the Krishnamurti. The break was a result of actions by the Theosophical leadership to sideline Steiner over differences of opinion concerning the nature of the Christ. The details can be tedious, but the ultimatum was delivered in India by Besant when, in an address to the Theosophical society she said: “The German General Secretary, educated by the Jesuits, has not been able to shake himself sufficiently clear of that fatal influence to allow liberty of opinion within his section.” She also demanded his resignation. The claim of a Jesuit influence was completely without basis, and the final straw, not for Steiner, but for the members of the German section of the Theosophical Society. A few founded the Anthroposophical Society, which very quickly grew from the ranks of the Theosophical society. Besant did not even wait for Steiner to resign; she unilaterally transferred the chairmanship to one Dr. Hübbe-Schleiden. Steiner remained an independent lecturer, and not even a member of the new Anthroposophical Society, until 1923.(Steiner assumed the leadership of the General Anthroposophical Society in December, 1923) Here once again we see that the actual facts contradict Staudenmaier's version of them.