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."Peter Staudenmaier displays an amazing predilection for presenting aspects of Steiner's thought and biography to their exact opposite.
Rudolf Steiner. The Gospel of St. Mark. 1912. New York: Anthroposophic Press, 1950. Page 36. Lecture of September 16th, 1912.
