Steiner on Waldorf and Gandhi
This is the very short
thread on Steiner's remarks about Mahatma Gandhi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Steiner on Waldorf and Gandhi
Date: Sun, 28 Feb 1999 04:15:00 +0100
My fellow subscribers,
Some time back. Steve Premo and I had an argument
arising from the issue of subtext. "Subtext" is a word
I learned in at Mountview
Theatre School in London about twenty-five years ago. It
means that when a character says a line, his tone of voice and
body language may convey an unspoken line, a subtext, that may
be contrary to the spoken words. In a forum like the internet,
the subtext is not in body language or voice pitch, but in associations
and the like - between the lines of the written text so to speak.
On October 16, 1923, in the evening, Rudolf
Steiner held a lecture for the teachers of the Waldorf School
in Stuttgart entitled "A Comprehensive Knowledge of Man
as the Source of Imagination in the Teacher." (from *Erziehung
und Unterricht aus Menschenerkenntnis,* GA 302a). He brings up
a topic that we may very well call the subtext of history, and
he says that the teacher should enable the students to discover
what is happening beneath the surface of events in addition to
the obvious. In order to illustrate this, he describes the trial
against Mahatma Gandhi in India:
"I will give you an
example of what is needed in order to adopt the right attitude
in our civilization today. You have all heard of Mahatma Gandhi
who, since the war, or really since 1914, has set a movement
going for the liberation of India from English rule. Gandhi's
activities began first in South Africa with the aim of helping
the Indians who were living there under appalling conditions
and for whose emancipation he did a great deal before 1914. Then
he went to India itself and instituted a movement for liberation
in the life there. I shall speak today only of what took place
when the final verdict was passed on Mahatma Gandhi and omit
the court proceedings leading up to it. I would like to speak
only of the last act in the drama, as it were, between him and
his judge. Gandhi had been accused of stirring up the Indian
people against British rule in order to make India independent.
Being a lawyer, he conducted his own defense and had not the
slightest doubt that he would have to be condemned. In his speech
- I cannot quote the exact words - he spoke more or less to the
following effect: "My Lords, I beg of you to condemn me
in accordance with the full strength of the law. I am perfectly
aware that in the eyes of British law in India my crime is the
gravest one imaginable. I do not plead any mitigating circumstances;
I beg of you to condemn me with the full strength of the law.
I affirm, moreover, that my condemnation is required not only
in obedience to the principles of outer justice but to the principles
of expediency of the British Government. For if I were to be
aquitted I should feel it incumbent upon me to continue to propagate
the movement, and millions of Indians would join it. My aquittal
would lead to results that I regard as my duty."
"The contents of this
speech are very characteristic of that which lives and weaves
in our time. Gandhi says that he must of necessity be condemned
and declares that it is his duty to continue the activity for
which he is to be condemned. The judge replied, "Mahatma
Gandhi, you have rendered my task of sentencing you immeasurably
easier, because you have made it clear that I must of necessity
condemn you. It is obvious that you have transgressed against
British law, but you and all those present here will realize
how hard it will be for me to sentence you. It is clear that
a large portion of the Indian people looks upon you as a saint,
as one who has taken up his task in obedience to the highest
duties devolving upon humanity. The judgement I shall pass on
you will be looked upon by the majority of the Indian people
as the condemnation of a human being who has devoted himself
to the highest service of humanity. Clearly, however, British
law must in all severity be put into effect against you. You
would regard it as your duty, if you were aquitted, to continue
tomorrow what you were doing yesterday. We on our side have to
regard it as our most solemn duty to make that impossible. I
condemn you in the full consciousness that my sentence will in
turn be condemned by millions. I condemn you while admiring your
actions, but condemn you I must." Gandhi's sentence was
six years of hard labor.
"You could hardly
find a more striking example of what is characteristic of our
times. We have two levels of actuality before us. Below is the
level of truth, the level where the accused declares that if
he is aquitted, it will be his solemn duty to continue what he
must define as criminal in face of outer law. On the level of
truth, also, we have the judge's statement that he admires the
one whom, out of duty to his Government, he sentences to six
years' hard labor. Above, at the level of facts, you have what
the accused in this case, because he is a great soul, defined
as a crime: the crime that is his duty and that he would at once
continue were he to be aquitted. Whereas on the one level you
have the admiration of the judge for a great human being, on
the other you have the passing of judgement and its outer justification.
You have truths below, facts above, which have nothing to do
with one another. They touch on one another at only one point,
at the point where they confront each other in statement and
counter-statement."
In an earlier post, I pointed out that the
Aryan race includes not only the major populations of Northern
Europe, but also that of Iran and parts of India. And I guess
we can all agree that Rudolf Steiner must have thought that Mahatma
Gandhi had a great deal of Aryan blood in his veins, because
otherwise he could not possibly have spoken so kindly about the
man.
On the other hand, I believe that some of
the Waldorf critics think that the sentence against Gandhi was
much too lenient - even more so when he was released very soon
afterwords for tactical-political reasons. Because what the Waldorf
critics have against Gandhi is not that he was a rebel, nor that
he was an Indian strongly suspected of being an Aryan because
of Steiner's support, but because his real crime was being regarded
as a guru. And doesn't it really make your stomachs revolt when
you think about the possibility that Steiner praised Gandhi because
he recognized in him a fellow guru! I think I'm gonna be sick!
I'll tell you a few even more sick things.
Martin Luther King didn't only study Gandhi before his deed that
began in Montgomery, Alabama, but especially the German idealist
philosophers that Steiner kept bragging about. Oh my.
The worst thing is that the anthropops believe
that the archangel-turned-archai Michael, representing Christ,
has played a vital role in the activities of Tolstoi, Steiner,
Gandhi, and King. (Excuse me, I have to run to the john before
I make a mess on the floor.)
Choke,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Steve Premo"
Subject: Re: Steiner on Waldorf and Gandhi
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 09:31:51 -0700
On 28 Feb 99, at 4:15, Tarjei Straume wrote:
In an earlier post, I pointed out that
the Aryan race includes not only the major populations of Northern
Europe, but also that of Iran and parts of India. And I guess
we can all agree that Rudolf Steiner must have thought that Mahatma
Gandhi had a great deal of Aryan blood in his veins, because
otherwise he could not possibly have spoken so kindly about the
man.
*blink*
And yet, you argue that Steiner was not racist.
Or were you speaking facetiously?
Steve Premo -- Santa Cruz, California
"There is a right and a wrong in the Universe and
that distinction is not difficult to make." - Superman
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tarjei Straume
Subject: Re: Steiner on Waldorf and Gandhi
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:21:42 +0100
I wrote:
In an earlier post, I pointed out that
the Aryan race includes not only the major populations of Northern
Europe, but also that of Iran and parts of India. And I guess
we can all agree that Rudolf Steiner must have thought that Mahatma
Gandhi had a great deal of Aryan blood in his veins, because
otherwise he could not possibly have spoken so kindly about the
man.
Steve Premo wrote:
*blink*
And yet, you argue that Steiner was not racist.
Or were you speaking facetiously?
I was doing my best to think like a critic,
as a part of my self-deprogramming exercises. If it can be so
easy for an obvious absurdity to be swallowed. that tells me
a lot.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://www.uncletaz.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
The Uncle
Taz "WC Posts"
Tarjei's
"WC files"