STEINER SPEAKS ABOUT GANDHI
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."
I have previously pointed out 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 (read: Steiner-attackers) 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/attackers 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.
Martin Luther King didn't only study Gandhi
before his deed that began in Montgomery, Alabama, but especially
the German idealist philosophers that Steiner ofen referred to.
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.
Choke,
Tarjei