Imperator of AMORC (not!)
rosen...@my-deja.com
Gary Stewart was indeed, not convicted of any crime. But evidence
seems to point to the fact of him having had his hand in the till at
AMORC. I don't think AMORC particularly relished the idea of getting
rid of an Imperator only three years into his reign, in a messy public
scandal, so you would have to think he'd done something pretty
seriously awry.
Granted, present AMORC monographs are full of 'new age' and other
material collected from a variety of sources, which I did not find
particularly coherent or useful to work with in my time in AMORC.
There is a lot borrowed from Buddhism, for instance, in AMORC
meditation, but the nature of the picking and choosing means that the
borrowed practices are not supported by a coherent underlying
philosophy.
But, if Stewart was so concerned about the 'true Rosicrucian
tradition', then one might wonder why he stayed within AMORC in the
1970s and 80s when the monographs were rewritten ? It wasn't until
1990, when he was removed, that he became so keen on protecting
the 'true Rosicrucian tradition'.
Food for thought.
Rosencreuz
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Trident
> A little revision may be necessary here.
Ok, you may have a second chance, but I'd be careful with that revisionist
approach if I were you. With all the revisionists out and about, things
just might get a little confusing.
> Gary Stewart was indeed, not convicted of any crime. But evidence
> seems to point to the fact of him having had his hand in the till at
> AMORC.
Well, there's the difference. Evidence either points, *seems* to point, or
doesn't point depending upon which fence you're sitting on. FWIW, those US
law enforcement agencies that took a gander at the situation (accusations
of embezzlement of three million dollars does raise a few eyebrows amongst
the crime fighter elite) came up with a rather novel approach. They
figured that if they discovered Stewart *didn't* commit any crime, then
they *wouldn't* file any criminal charges. What's that you say? No
criminal charges were filed? Even after the IRS camped out at the AMORC
headquarters for nearly a year? Then either Stewart outsmarted everyone
and is living the life of Riley or he was innocent of those things of
which he was accused.
But, something to gnaw on, 10 years down the line, whose getting their
butt kicked in their own home town buy his own government? That would be
the French AMORC and Mr. Christian Bernard. Seems there have been some
shady financial dealings and other questionable matters coming to light
after all these years. At least that's what the press is reporting.
> I don't think AMORC particularly relished the idea of getting
> rid of an Imperator only three years into his reign, in a messy public
> scandal,
It doesn't appear those who instigated it cared one way or the other or
even gave it much thought. If they had, they wouldn't have turned it into
such a mess.
> so you would have to think he'd done something pretty
> seriously awry.
I wouldn't have to think that as I can think of a lot of different things
that might've happened. But ok, I'll bite. What did he do that was
seriously awry?
snip
> But, if Stewart was so concerned about the 'true Rosicrucian
> tradition', then one might wonder why he stayed within AMORC in the
> 1970s and 80s when the monographs were rewritten ?
Maybe, like you seem to imply happened to you, he was duped and didn't
realize it. Or maybe he thought that AMORC was important enough to stick
around and fix things when he had the chance. Or maybe, as you're also
implying, he wants to corner the market on what the true Rosicrucian
tradition is. But from what I read that he wrote, he seemingly believes
that there are several true Rosicrucian traditions and no one can lay
claim to the one and only, including AMORC, so I would tend to think it's
one of the former reasons. What do you think?
> It wasn't until
> 1990, when he was removed, that he became so keen on protecting
> the 'true Rosicrucian tradition'.
Or, maybe that was the reason why others wanted him out of there so badly
and eventually found a way to do it.
> Food for thought.
I hope you got something a bit more appetizing on your menu. Your
spareribs are a bit light on the meat.
> Rosencreuz
Trident
rosen...@my-deja.com
Then either Stewart outsmarted everyone
> and is living the life of Riley or he was innocent of those things of
> which he was accused.
It wouldn't exactly be the first time someone has outsmarted the IRS.
And apart from the criminal law, there is of course the civil
jurisdiction.
> But, something to gnaw on, 10 years down the line, whose getting their
> butt kicked in their own home town buy his own government? That would
be
> the French AMORC and Mr. Christian Bernard. Seems there have been some
> shady financial dealings and other questionable matters coming to
light
> after all these years. At least that's what the press is reporting.
>
Which press is reporting these dealings and questionable matters ? Do
you have any references on the Web ? I'd like to see them, it's
certainly of interest.
But from what I read that he wrote, he seemingly believes
> that there are several true Rosicrucian traditions and no one can lay
> claim to the one and only, including AMORC, so I would tend to think
it's
> one of the former reasons. What do you think?
From what I read in his interview, his belief would appear to be a
little different to that. I quote 'I am the Imperator of a Rosicrucian
lineage manifest in AMORC from 1915 to 1990 and now resides in CR+C,
Confraternity of the Rose Cross.'
(http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/2413/interview.htm)
That seems to indicate a view that he is more of a 'legitimate' heir to
a true Rosicrucian tradition than Bernard. Now, I'm no great fan of
Christian Bernard, but in this lawsuit I see a powerplay which got
fairly grubby on both sides. For that reason I'd be keen to get your
references to Bernard's financial troubles.
> > It wasn't until
> > 1990, when he was removed, that he became so keen on protecting
> > the 'true Rosicrucian tradition'.
>
> Or, maybe that was the reason why others wanted him out of there so
badly
> and eventually found a way to do it.
It seems from his statements that Stewart was involved in and accepted
the monograph revision too. His current stance is now that those sort
of revisions aren't protecting a 'true Rosicrucian tradition'. Now I
don't think he can really have it both ways. We definitely need more
light to be shed on these matters.
J. Turner
You asked for web references, try
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/2413/page3docs.htm
several scans of news articles appear at that location in addition to
other information.
Joe
Trident
> Trident wrote:
> > Then either Stewart outsmarted everyone
> > and is living the life of Riley or he was innocent of those things of
> > which he was accused.
> It wouldn't exactly be the first time someone has outsmarted the IRS.
So you're saying Stewart outsmarted the IRS? That's a pretty serious
allegation there, son. But I suppose you probably thought it through and
probably know what you're talking about, probably.
> And apart from the criminal law, there is of course the civil
> jurisdiction.
I've been out of touch the past few years as I've been working outside of
CONUS until recently, but if memory serves me correctly, everything
started and ended within the civil jurisdiction. What's your point?
In case you missed it, as your response "seemed" to imply that you did, my
point was that if the Imperator did indeed have his hand in the till at
AMORC as you implied, then he would've been charged with some kind of
criminal misconduct after the various agencies (not just the IRS) looked
into the matter. But since no criminal charges were filed, then it is safe
to conclude that no crime was committed. My question to you is that since
you have presented yourself as having personal knowledge of the "evidence"
that disagrees with previous findings and which are obviously unknown to
the appropriate officials, have you contacted them for the purpose of
further investigation? If so, what did they say? And if not, why not?
snip
> > the French AMORC and Mr. Christian Bernard. Seems there have been some
> > shady financial dealings and other questionable matters coming to
> light
> > after all these years. At least that's what the press is reporting.
> Which press is reporting these dealings and questionable matters ?
French.
> Do
> you have any references on the Web ? I'd like to see them, it's
> certainly of interest.
No, I read them the good old fashioned way. You might search some of the
French perodicals as I would assume that most of the better ones are
probably archived on line.
> But from what I read that he wrote, he seemingly believes
> > that there are several true Rosicrucian traditions and no one can lay
> > claim to the one and only, including AMORC, so I would tend to think
> it's
> > one of the former reasons. What do you think?
>
> From what I read in his interview, his belief would appear to be a
> little different to that. I quote 'I am the Imperator of a Rosicrucian
> lineage manifest in AMORC from 1915 to 1990 and now resides in CR+C,
> Confraternity of the Rose Cross.'
> (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/2413/interview.htm)
How would that be different, either through the *appearance* or otherwise?
If he wrote: "I am the Imperator of 'THE' Rosicrucian lineage ..." then I
might conceed that you have a point. However, just looking at the one
quote above he says "... 'A' Rosicrucian lineage ..." which implies there
are others.
> That seems to indicate a view that he is more of a 'legitimate' heir to
> a true Rosicrucian tradition than Bernard.
I would agree with that statement considering Bernard used unproven
accusations and the courts in the attempt to discredit another to get what
he wanted as opposed to Stewart who acquired his Imperatorship through
what I understand to be traditional Rosicrucian methods. This is just my
opinion, but I would think being properly chosen to be Imperator as was
Stewart's case is more "legitimate" than acquiring it through a tantrum as
was the case with Bernard.
snip
> > > It wasn't until
> > > 1990, when he was removed, that he became so keen on protecting
> > > the 'true Rosicrucian tradition'.
> > Or, maybe that was the reason why others wanted him out of there so
> badly
> > and eventually found a way to do it.
> It seems from his statements that Stewart was involved in and accepted
> the monograph revision too.
I've been out of touch with all but the most general goings on since 1992,
but your extractions of his statements with, once again, what he *seems*
to be saying, contradicts what I heard him specifically say even before
the lawsuit. If he changed his stance after 1992, I'm not aware of it, but
I seriously doubt that he did.
But you know, you would be a lot clearer in your position if you came out
and said what you think and are trying to achieve instead of attempting to
lead conclusions with your "the evidence *seems* to point" or "he *seems*
to be saying." It's one thing to be uncertain, but if you're going to draw
conclusions based upon your *seeming* uncertainty, you're just going to
continue rambling on in the dark with your contentions.
> His current stance is now that those sort
> of revisions aren't protecting a 'true Rosicrucian tradition'. Now I
> don't think he can really have it both ways.
You're grasping at straws there, son and are inserting an inconsistency on
his part based upon your own implications. I don't see any evidence that a
"both way" scenario even exists - just a leading argument on your part.
> We definitely need more
> light to be shed on these matters.
Yes, I think you do. Have you ever asked him directly? If so, what did he
say? And if not, why not?
> Rosencreuz
Trident
Cathari
To each his own. Hopefully cynicism doesn't reign supreme among the
Rosicrucians around the world, no matter what genre they study. On the up
side, you will find what you are looking for. Maybe that's what everyone
needs to remember in these "conversations". Best wishes, all.
Cathari
rosen...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello all
>
> I guess I am less concerned by the AMORC/CR+C issue than with the
> problems with Lewis himself.
>
> For me, his whole system comes into question if, on his only public
> demonstration of alchemy, Lewis performed what he knew to be a hoax. And
> even people within AMORC seemed to intimate that this was the case when
> the matter was debated two or three years ago.
>
> That leaves us with an organisation whose founder's honesty is open to
> question, and a current Imperator who may have come to office in a way
> which is ethically questionable too. I say 'may' as I don't know, but it
> is nonetheless a problem for me.
>
> I do take the point though, that we ought to shift the focus away from
> debates about particular organisations and lineages and look towards
> the efforts of individual Rosicrucians.
>
> That is why I remain open to be convinced. I have met some
> intellectually astute and and honest Rosicrucian people, whose research
> into what might be termed the 'paranormal' is conducted ethically and
> not for gain. If there is something to be found, then these may well be
> the type of people who find it.
>
> Rosencreuz
____________________________________________________
Get your principles right,and the rest is a
matter of detail. -Napoleon
Cathari
I find this interesting for one premis that is incorrect. Who is it who ever
said that Sar Hieronymus was the individual who sanctioned Dr. Lewis's
objectives to introduce Rosicrucianism and mysticism to a general public of
1915? He was not the individual who was the teacher! However, I leave you all
to your suppositions based upon others' claims. This all was put through the
wash and reconciled long, long ago.
BaBye.
Elias Ibrahim wrote:
> Hi friends
> If you read French, try to obtain a copy of "Les Rose-Croix du
> Nouvelle Monde" by Robert Vanloo. He was a former high official in AMORC
> Belgium. However he has written a very clear overview of how Rosicrucianism
> was imported to America by a number of diverse personalities, like Randolph,
> Clymer and Lewis. He does this in a most objective way and there is quite a
> lot of material which throws great doubts on Lewis' claims of initiation in
> Toulouse. He admitted to Sar Hieronymus and the FUDOSI that the story had
> been contrived. Sar Hieronymus was after all the Imperator for Europe.
> There is no record of a nobleman called "Bellcastle-Ligne" ,
> and Lewis spent much of his subsequent years tring to find new sources of
> legitimacy. He even allied himself with Mussolini and defended him to his
> American pupils. This is not my opinion only - it is historical fact. Lewis
> was never initiated into the third degree of Freemasonry, yet tried to be
> the authority for making the Belgian Memphis-Mizraim Mason , A. Rombauts
> their new Hierophant.This was based on a dubious charter from an Englishman
> called Massananda Khan , authorizing HSL as the only representative for the
> Great White Brotherhoo. The charter has part of the Kagyu Tibetan lineage
> and also has some Hebrew letters on it. Rombauts to his credit refused the
> authority very soon after it was offered.
> Also HSL tried once to legitimize his Imperatorship by claiming
> that he had a direct blood transfusion from a living descendant of Christian
> Rosencreutz. This is in spite of the monographs stating that there was no
> real person by that name , but rather it is allegorical and symbolic of an
> office.
> Please do not start a flame war - I merely read French and
> since this info is available to other readers of that language it should
> also be available to English speakers as well.
> HSL was an adverising whiz kid , but a real Rosicrucian -
> I wonder?
> Blessings
> Elias
>
> rosen...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Hello all
> >
> > I guess I am less concerned by the AMORC/CR+C issue than with the
> > problems with Lewis himself.
> >
> > For me, his whole system comes into question if, on his only public
> > demonstration of alchemy, Lewis performed what he knew to be a hoax. And
> > even people within AMORC seemed to intimate that this was the case when
> > the matter was debated two or three years ago.
> >
> > That leaves us with an organisation whose founder's honesty is open to
> > question, and a current Imperator who may have come to office in a way
> > which is ethically questionable too. I say 'may' as I don't know, but it
> > is nonetheless a problem for me.
> >
> > I do take the point though, that we ought to shift the focus away from
> > debates about particular organisations and lineages and look towards
> > the efforts of individual Rosicrucians.
> >
> > That is why I remain open to be convinced. I have met some
> > intellectually astute and and honest Rosicrucian people, whose research
> > into what might be termed the 'paranormal' is conducted ethically and
> > not for gain. If there is something to be found, then these may well be
> > the type of people who find it.
> >
> > Rosencreuz
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
--
Elias Ibrahim
Elias Ibrahim
Put through the wash and reconciled by whom . HSL made claims
about his authority that simply were untrue. He has deceived many people. It was he
who referred to Sar Hieronymus as the Imperator for Europe . Sar H did not know
about a Toulouse group - now it suits AMORC or their devotees to try and prop up
his claims . I advise you to read the Rosicrucian Disgest for the whole of 1930 .
He claimed he had a direct blood transfusion from a direct descendant of CRC - whom
he later stated was an allegorical figure.
Some people are so brainwashed they cannot stand to see the truth
. Forgive me for actually being a walking question mark . I think HSL did a lot of
good - but its time to admit he was "colorful" in the way he achieved it .
Blessings
Elias
Cathari wrote:
> Elias,
>
> I find this interesting for one premis that is incorrect. Who is it who ever
> said that Sar Hieronymus was the individual who sanctioned Dr. Lewis's
> objectives to introduce Rosicrucianism and mysticism to a general public of
> 1915? He was not the individual who was the teacher! However, I leave you all
> to your suppositions based upon others' claims. This all was put through the
> wash and reconciled long, long ago.
>
> BaBye.
>
> Elias Ibrahim wrote:
>
Cathari
I am referring to 1915 and previous. If one examines a copy of the AMORC Charter of
1915, one will see that at that time Sar Hieronymus was not the one who originally
sanctioned the establishment of the AMORC in America in 1915. He may have been
involved later. However, the premise of the book you referenced is on the presumption
that this was the individual, who denied it himself as you say, who sanctioned HSL. It
wasn't him.
Be a walking question mark by raising meaningful questions, not by spreading hearsay,
gossip, rumor, slander that as I have looked around today is primarily directed toward
character assassination. Worse, many people who were never members of AMORC are
spreading these things as though "where there is smoke there is fire". We have
discovered, and it's been proven, that a lot of "smoke and mirrors" are out ther,
Elias, as well.
You attack me with a presumption that I am brainwashed. People who know me know I am a
stubborn individual who doesn't take anyone's word for anything. It helps, though, to
look at the works done, and not at what facts people put together out of context with
the true conditions in which something happened--especially so long after a man's
lifetime.
There is much that was written about Dr. Lewis, claiming he said this or that, that was
simply untrue, and yet, today books are being written that quote these things "as
truth". I just don't buy into this kind of "reporting".
I am not "an AMORC devotee", which you have presumed. I was a member from 1974-1990.
I have the entire series of 1930 Digests, however, the original ones. If you have some
specific things you would like me to re-read, let me know what they are and I will tell
you what I think about what was said. I would be interested in the exact quote--but
will read the page you reference me to read about a "blood transfusion" and the
intended meaning.
There is an article from an old Digest on this web site, that you may find interesting,
I think. Dr. Lewis may have had his human faults. However, he accomplished what he
was tasked to accomplish in the Work. What is important is what he left for others,
and what others have gained in their own personal growth. This Rosicrucian doctrine
came from a superior who did sanction his work in the Order.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2216
Go to Classic texts on the menu, and find the article of the letter published by Dr.
Lewis.
It's important to keep in mind the time frames when trying to put together some facts
from the historical past.
Sincerely,
Cathari
rosen...@my-deja.com
I've heard the one about Lewis and Mussolini, I think the truth is that
Mussolini wanted to meet Lewis and did so- there was a photograph of
that meeting- but to say that this was an 'alliance' would be a bit
wide of the mark. Do others know more ?
As for the idea that the end justifies the means in regards to Lewis's
alleged 'transmutation', the same argument was made -after others
outside the group discovered her various hoaxes- by the disciples of
Blavatsky. If Lewis himself volunteered that he'd fudged the
transmutation in order to promote his teachings, then I would give him
more credence. But, as far as I know, he did not, so a deft move
to 'spiritual alchemy' when the 'physical alchemy' was discovered to be
false is stretching the friendship a bit far for me.
AMORC stuff is still full of inconsistencies. I am not sure about the
transfusion one, but even the post-1990 monographs still rattle on
about Templar origins, while other articles put out by AMORC give an
entirely different account of the development of Rosicrucian teachings.
Darryl Riser
>AMORC stuff is still full of inconsistencies. I am not sure about the
>transfusion one, but even the post-1990 monographs still rattle on
>about Templar origins, while other articles put out by AMORC give an
>entirely different account of the development of Rosicrucian teachings.
Since I don't write or edit monographs this is only a guess. However, the
"new" AMORC monographs corrected quiet a bit of bad science and bad medicine
that appeared in the "original" monographs. Some of the discussion on anatomy
in the "originals" is actually pretty humorous today.
At the turn of the century, however, it would have been dead serious ... and
quite true by the science of the period.
That being said, I would assume (always a dangerous thing to do) cleaning up
inconsistencies, dated material and outright fallacies would be the whole
purpose behind updating monographs. Taking into account the size of the
membership, the mailing schedule and the herculean task of revising a system
which refers back and forth a good bit in the text, I'd imagine it would take
quite a bit of time before the revisions are completed.
I may sound cynical, but *no* organization can stand up to scrutiny these days.
I spent 15 years as a professional journalist ... enough time to teach me that
I could prove or disprove any point I wanted giving the time and resources to
dig. I can't think of anyone who's never acted out of enlighted self-interest
at some point in their lives. :>
To its credit, AMORC seems to be quietly correcting fallacies rather than
perpetuating them. True, it doesn't shout to the wold "HSL was wrong about
this, we must amend it." But they also don't enshrine the bad info as some sort
of beautiful work of literature that has to be preserved for the masses."
One thing that's always bothered me about HSL turning Zinc into gold is that
I've always heard that he did it but no one has ever explained why he did it.
As an example of why that concerns me, Gary Stewart has been known to
demonstrate telekenisis when people ask him to. He raises his hand and points
out that he used the power of his mind to move a physical object. :>
I wonder in 50 years will people remember he was making a point or will they
just remember that he supposedly demonstrated PK ability?
Was HSL really claiming to turn zinc into gold or just demonstrating one of the
"secrets" learned from studying alchemical texts? For all I know he *did*
explain the trick to onlookers who hung around after the demonstration.
For that matter, did he even know it was a trick? (I can show you a lovely
exercise by which you can literally make yourself become invisible ... and it
will work. Thanks to modern science, I can also explain to you why it works.
However, at the time it was developed, people didn't understand concepts such
as eye fatigue or blind spots, so they believed it was magic. I doubt HSL
really believed he was turning base metal into gold but he may have honestly
believed he was showing people how the original alchemists did it.
If you read the old monographs and R+C publications, he never promisted to make
anyone rich and/or powerful or to teach them to create their own gold reserve.
To me, that suggests such displays were more showmanship than serious attempts
to make people believe he had mysterious "powers."
But I forgive a lot since I see this pattern in *all* organizations ...
political, mystical, relgious, business, civic, etc. There's the show the
outsiders see, the surface work for those who want to claim membership and
attend the meetings from time to time without realy working at it and the truth
that normally only the dedicated learn.
It sounds like a put-off, but the truth is that for any given decision if you
weren't in the room when it was made, you'll never understand it. At worst,
you'll just be told what happened by the side that lost the debate. At best,
you'll get the "objective truth" from both sides liberally colored by
hindsight. But you'll never have exactly the info that was available at the
time along with the feel of the room ... the pressure and emotion that was
felt.
History's filled with bad decisions. Those who forget the past may be doomed to
repeat it, but those who dwell on the past don't have to repeat it. They never
leave in the first place.
Now that I've rambled incoherently, I'll sum up my point: if you wait your
entire life for that perfect organization or infallible leader, you will always
be a sheep in search of a shepherd. And you'll never find that perfection. At
best you'll just become so weary you'll finally accept something close.
I much prefer being a coyote. Know that everyone you meet has his own agenda
(even if they don't know that themselves). Question everything because even
honest people are fallible. Don't sweat the small stuff. Perhaps most
importantly, high-sounding words, in-depth research and even gossip have their
place, but when it comes to the final analysis of judging something's worth or
your loyalty to a cause, all that matters is "How have they treated you?"
And when you read those high-sounding words, in-depth analysis and gossip,
remember that 99 percent of the time that's the *only* thing the author was
thinking of ... no matter how they try to dress it up. :>
LLL,
Darryl
(Member of enough metaphysical organizations to realize humanity still has a
long, long way to go before it catches up with canines.)
=================================================
"Only sweet-voiced birds are imprisoned. Owls are
not kept in cages." -- The Madonna Vampyra
=================================================
The Drakhan's Lair: http://drakhan.com
Cathari
I, too, apologize for the abrupt manner of my comment concerning the book's thesis. I'm afraid
I was too impatient, realizing that an entire book was published, giving some aura of authority
to something with an incorrect premise.
I have read what I now realize is a translation into French of what Dr. Lewis wrote in
English! I will find this issue of the magazine in English, and then will tell you what it
says--in English. I can tell you this now, however, Dr. Lewis was not a dummy! He would not
be projecting a meaning in whatever he wrote, that would make such a ludicrous claim, that
anyone could be infused with the actual blood of a deceased individual--whether it was Father
CRC himself!
I shall return with the results in the next day or so.
Thank you, Elias, for your kind response on this.
Regards,
Cathari
Elias Ibrahim wrote:
> Hi Cathari
> My intention is not to attack either you or Dr Lewis. I too was a member
> for several years and take the middle road. HSL was neither a great saint or a great
> sinner. However I do have concerns about many of his claims and tactics. These are my
> opinion and I think part of the rationale for Newsgroups is the sharing and exchange of
> ideas and perceptions. I honestly ask your forgiveness as I did not mean to offend you. I
> think I was reacting to the manner in which you seemed to dismiss my honest observations.
> Here is the text of a recent e-mail message I posted elsewhere regarding this issue .
> Many Blessings
> Elias
>
> Dear friends
> Just as an example of the backround leading up to the formation of the
> FUDOSI and the types of attempts that various "Rosicrucian" leaders tried to authenticate
> their organizations I wish to present the following excerpt from HS Lewis in the Sept 1930
> issue of the Rosicrucian Digest as quoted in "Les Rose-Croix du Nouveau Monde" by Robert
> Vanloo , pub by Claire Vigne Paris, January 1996 . It seems obvious that the author is
> referring to a blood transfusion from Tranker or one of his circle. What is strange is that
> this article seems to be referring to a physical transfusion , whilst HSL stated that the
> figure of C. R.-C. is meant to be allegorical .
> In the April 1933 issue of the Rosicrucian Digest HSL had declared that AMORC had nothing
> to do with Pansophia , when their representative M. Carl was attempting to start a group in
> the USA.
> Blessings
> Elias
> " Every time an Imperator has been named as the head of a new jurisdiction, after a period
> of inactivity , during which it was not possible to have a direct descendant , the new
> Imperator has been chosen from from among the nearest relations of the last Grand Master.
> The person chosen must therefore go overseas, and on the occasion of a meeting of the High
> Council in the presence of the other Masters he was recognized as the nearest descendant.
> He received then , a little later , by transfusion the blood of the Master in the highest
> direct lineage so that this direct filiation by blood could be conferred to him .
> Therefore , in all the jurisdictions which are active today, the highest officer has
> received by direct transfusion , the blood of C. R.-C. and is a direct descendant of this
> eminent personage, whose original identity is so carefully guarded. The C. R.-C. of
> Germany, who was so celebrated in the 17th century , was one of the descendants of the
> first C. R.-C., and it may interest our readers to know that our Imperator here in America
> has equally received a direct transfusion of this blood, being given these real links, in
> an indirect way with the family of original Rosen Kreutzers of ancient times. The document
> here transmitted is not only signed and sealed by the the head of the organization in
> Germany, but countersigned and sealed by the highest officials of the German government. It
> is an irrefutable document which was finally countersigned and sealed by the American
> Consul General in Berlin . "
Cathari
Thank you for this important additional information. I will have the English version, in which Dr.
Lewis wrote the article you referenced, in about 4 days. It turns out when I looked again, that my old
Digests start with the year 1939. However, a sister is mailing me a photocopy of the English version,
and it will take a few days to reach me. When I receive it, I will post it with my personal
observations, and people can take it for what it's worth. However, I'm really having a problem with
the word "transfusion" and am told there are some words in the French to English that you gave, which
are not the same--so we can compare and re-examine it.
Also, a brother in France is sending me info. of his, from his own reading of this book that he, too,
owns in French. He has been doing his own researching and it may prove fruitful to at least getting a
better understanding of the context of these kind of things.
Linda
Elias Ibrahim wrote:
> Hi Cathari
> A few comments - the author of the book was a high ranking official in AMORC in
> Belgium. He too neither seeks to do a character assasination or to just simply believe the
> "official" party line on HSL or any of the other leaders of esoteric movements. I read the book
> back in 1996 when it first came out, and was like you very surprised at his conclusions , which are
> based on his own research. After reading the book several times and thinking objectively about his
> statements and the evidence he presents I saw it from a better perspective.
> HSL was a great promoter and advertising man. Many throughout the world have
> benefitted by the contact they have had through AMORC. But he was human and subject to different
> pressures at the time. He was involved in a fairly vicious war with Clymer , who also responded to
> erroneousstatements made about him . I think it is a great pity they did not collaborate. There is
> even a theory that the whole "war" between them was designed to bring the subject of Rosicrucianism
> more prominently to the public. They were both initiated Martinists too.
> Also please note that the claim was that the transfusion was from someone in
> the lineage of CRC , not CRC himself. The quotation from the Digest in my previous message is my
> translation from Vanloo's French - I apologize for my limitations in that language.
> Fraternally
> Elias
Elias Ibrahim
Cathari wrote:
Elias Ibrahim
A few comments - the author of the book was a high ranking official in AMORC in
Belgium. He too neither seeks to do a character assasination or to just simply believe the
"official" party line on HSL or any of the other leaders of esoteric movements. I read the book
back in 1996 when it first came out, and was like you very surprised at his conclusions , which are
based on his own research. After reading the book several times and thinking objectively about his
statements and the evidence he presents I saw it from a better perspective.
HSL was a great promoter and advertising man. Many throughout the world have
benefitted by the contact they have had through AMORC. But he was human and subject to different
pressures at the time. He was involved in a fairly vicious war with Clymer , who also responded to
erroneousstatements made about him . I think it is a great pity they did not collaborate. There is
even a theory that the whole "war" between them was designed to bring the subject of Rosicrucianism
more prominently to the public. They were both initiated Martinists too.
Also please note that the claim was that the transfusion was from someone in
the lineage of CRC , not CRC himself. The quotation from the Digest in my previous message is my
translation from Vanloo's French - I apologize for my limitations in that language.
Fraternally
Elias
rosen...@my-deja.com
here. The transcript of the transmutation stated that the Grand Master
General has the right to do one demonstration in his lifetime. HSL
apparently believed that the 'time was ripe' for a demonstration before
students who had been studying the laws which underlay transmutation.
I personally doubt that the method he used would have been known to
alchemists, but it is possible- it involved use of nitric acid to the
zinc and then touching with the hand so that skin oils interacted with
the surface of the zinc to turn it a gold colour- at least I think that
is how it was done- I'm no scientist.
I take on what you say about organisations, for instance it's quite
probable, for instance, that Jesus did not die upon the cross, but
Christians are able, due to the distance of years, to assert that it
physically happened and in some cases, to make belief in this
fundamental to actually being a Christian. Having attracted a fairly
questioning group of people as his followers, and living in an era of
vast technological development, poor old Harvey is not so lucky I
guess :-)
Cheers
Rosencreuz
> One thing that's always bothered me about HSL turning Zinc into gold
is that
> I've always heard that he did it but no one has ever explained why he
did it.
> As an example of why that concerns me, Gary Stewart has been known to
> demonstrate telekenisis when people ask him to. He raises his hand
and points
> out that he used the power of his mind to move a physical object. :>
rosen...@my-deja.com
Just a brief aside to thank all who've contributed to this discussion.
It's helped to revive alt.amorc again, and given me an appreciation
again of the type of people Rosicrucians are.
I'd be interested in knowing more about the book by the Belgian AMORC
official and any possible English translations of relevant sections of
it.
Regards
Ben Rosencreuz
Darryl Riser
>I personally doubt that the method he used would have been known to
>alchemists, but it is possible- it involved use of nitric acid to the
>zinc and then touching with the hand so that skin oils interacted with
>the surface of the zinc to turn it a gold colour- at least I think that
>is how it was done- I'm no scientist.
Neither am I ... obviously. :> One thing I've never understood is who said he
did it that way? Did HSL explain the process or was it a case of someone who
watched saying "The only way he could have done that demonstration was ..."
I ask because:
a: I don't know
b: It's possible HSL used a different method. (I'm not saying he really turned
lead into gold, but it's possible he did use some trick he learned from an old
manuscript instead of the more modern method.)
I actually have a friend who has succeeded in turning lead into a gold looking
powder ... for about 15 minutes. Then it crumbles into an even finer grey
powder. I have no idea how he does it but it's really impressive the first time
you see it ... as long as he puts the "gold" away before it crumbles. :>
>I take on what you say about organisations, for instance it's quite
>probable, for instance, that Jesus did not die upon the cross, but
>Christians are able, due to the distance of years, to assert that it
>physically happened and in some cases, to make belief in this
>fundamental to actually being a Christian.
And that whole thing with the loaves and fishes. Any good Cajun knows he just
made gumbo. :> (Cajuns are the french-speaking residents of South Louisiana and
gumbo is a local dish ... kind of a seafood stew. It's a great way to make a
tiny bit of meat feed a lot of people.) :>
>Having attracted a fairly
>questioning group of people as his followers, and living in an era of
>vast technological development, poor old Harvey is not so lucky I
>guess :-)
Maybe that's why he did so many ... ummm .. colorful things. They are a good
way to separate the true walking question marks from the sheep. I've used the
technique in business dealings to spot people who have creative thinking
skills. The ones who spot the tricks are quietly moved into positions where
that ability is needed. The ones who don't are put in positions where
unquestioning loyalty is more necessary. Both types are needed if you want to
build a group beyond a certain size.
I'm not saying the end justify the means, but sometimes the motives behind an
act are at least as important as the act itself. Unfortunately, we can only
guess at HSL's motives.
For example (and I can't offer any proof of this) I've heard that HSL's true
initiation into the Rosicrucian tradition came at the hands of *ghosts* of
Rosicrucians at Toulouse.
If this were true, there are a number of interpretations:
1: It really happened that way.
2: It was a hallucination. My own background is in Native American shamanism.
In the shamanic tradition, visions brought on by fasting or other altered
states are considered perfectly valid experiences. HSL himself pointed out that
the only *true* initiation into the *real* Rosicrucian Order would come purely
as an inner experience.
3: He was delusional.
4: He made it up.
5: Something I haven't thought of.
The problem is that there's absolutely no way anyone will ever know which of
those five possibilities is the correct one since HSL would have been the only
living being in the room.
I would pick #2 because of my own experience. A clinical psychologist would
pick #3. A spiritualist would pick #1. A cop with 20 years experience in the
fraud department would pick #4.
So much depends upon who's telling the story ...
LLL,
Darryl
=================================================
"Only sweet-voiced birds are imprisoned. Owls are
not kept in cages." -- The Madonna Vampyra
=================================================
The Drakhan's Lair: http://users.ipa.net/~envoy/
Elias Ibrahim
The book is all in French, barring the original reply of Clymer
to HSL regarding HSL's invitation to a public debate, which is reproduced
from Clymer's Rosicrucian Fraternity in America , alongside the French
translation. It is an overview of the phenomena of Americans introducing
Rosicrucianism to America, the sources of which seem to be mainly from
France and England . The author bravely takes on the the challenge of
objectively looking at the histories of people like HSL, but also
Randolph, Clymer and Heindel's claims as well as PF Case. He shows no
favouritism to anyone. He is a very good scholar and always quotes his
sources where possible. That is 99.9% of the time . I would like to see it
in English because there is a need for an objective examination not
influenced by any of the big players. I do not get the sense that his goal
is to debunk anyone - but to look at the facts. Of course that may upset
many people's applecarts . But where there are big claims , then we the
paying public have a right to know the big picture.
Blessings
Elias
rosen...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Hello
>
> Just a brief aside to thank all who've contributed to this discussion.
> It's helped to revive alt.amorc again, and given me an appreciation
> again of the type of people Rosicrucians are.
>
> I'd be interested in knowing more about the book by the Belgian AMORC
> official and any possible English translations of relevant sections of
> it.
>
> Regards
>
> Ben Rosencreuz
Elias Ibrahim
I am looking forward to seeing the original article - any chance of a scan of the xerox . I
checked the word transfusion in several respected French English Dictionaries eg Collins Robert, and
Harrap. The word is identical in spelling and meaning in both languages. I would not have dared posted
unless I felt that the main gist of my translation was right.
Look , I am just a former member who has concerns about what I was officially told about HSL
by the organization and what is actually known about him in his own words and articles and the tactics he
used . The great thing he did was to introduce many people to the lodge system and also to give many a good
grounding in esoterics , best of all the imporatnce of guarding one's thoughts and cultivating a positive
attitude. But he did stretch the truth a little on several occasions.
Blessings
Elias
cyberneti...@my-deja.com
that although we can reflect on the
imperfections of certain individuals, even the
'critics' obviously have enough reverence for
the wisdom to have researched it so
thouroughly.
That we can discuss how or why Dr. Lewis didn't
explain some parlour tricks in making bigger
points or thought the earth was a hollow,
inside-out ball doesn't diminish the fact that we
all still feel there is a lot of beautiful wisdom in
the various RC systems
LLL
CT
rosen...@my-deja.com
>
> Neither am I ... obviously. :> One thing I've never understood is who
said he
> did it that way? Did HSL explain the process or was it a case of
someone who
> watched saying "The only way he could have done that demonstration
was ..."
The issue was dealt with on one AMORC list- not sure if it was their
private list or the newsgroup- and that was the explanation given by a
few AMORC members who discussed the matter. I don't honestly know
whether that comes from some private knowledge of those close to Lewis
or whether it is just accepted as having been likely.
>
> If this were true, there are a number of interpretations:
>
> 1: It really happened that way.
> 2: It was a hallucination. My own background is in Native American
shamanism.
> In the shamanic tradition, visions brought on by fasting or other
altered
> states are considered perfectly valid experiences. HSL himself
pointed out that
> the only *true* initiation into the *real* Rosicrucian Order would
come purely
> as an inner experience.
Therein lies the problem. I find that many from the more mainstream
Christian traditions will criticise you for attempting minor telepathy
experiments, then for instance- in the case of the Catholics - go
along to Mass and accept that something akin to the C.R. transfusion is
happening right in front of them. It's a question of the different
levels of 'reality' I suppose.
Darryl Riser
>Therein lies the problem. I find that many from the more mainstream
>Christian traditions will criticise you for attempting minor telepathy
>experiments, then for instance- in the case of the Catholics - go
>along to Mass and accept that something akin to the C.R. transfusion is
>happening right in front of them. It's a question of the different
>levels of 'reality' I suppose.
Exactly. What Rosicrucians call "mental creation", Wiccans call "magic" and
Christians call "prayer." The purpose and results are similar in all cases
where they are done sincerely. Only the methods differ.
And if you go from sect to sect in Christianity, you notice everybody's got a
different viewpoint on whether communion is "symbolic" or "real." I was raised
Southern Baptist. When I was a kid, we did a communion-like service once a year
(with grape juice and crackers). :> To us it was sort of a re-enactment of the
Last Supper but nobody really believed the grape juice and crackers truly
became the blood and body of Christ.
LLL,
Darryl
=================================================
"Only sweet-voiced birds are imprisoned. Owls are
not kept in cages."
Darryl Riser
>I think it says quite a bit about Rosicrucianism
>that although we can reflect on the
>imperfections of certain individuals, even the
>'critics' obviously have enough reverence for
>the wisdom to have researched it so
>thouroughly.
Yes, the danger in any movement is the idea that a leader is somehow
"divine" or otherwise better than others. The movement is more important
than the rest.
It's fun to argue politics and history but at the end of they day, all that
*has* to be shut out of the sanctum. That's the true strength of
Rosicrucianism.
Cathari
I just wrote you privately, not stopping to notice whether it was a cc from alt.amorc. Just briefly for all who are following this thread that becomes "interestinger and interestinger", I will be making available on my web site, if appropriate, the documentation that I will be receiving.
Additionally, on this newsgroup and elsewhere, will provide (for what it's worth to anyone as my 2 cents), my perspective in as middle-of-the-road a synthesis as possible. There is the view of someone who has indeed gone through the Rosicrucian system of study, provided by Dr. Lewis's Rosicrucian superior patron (not Sar Hiermonymus--see 1915 AMORC Charter, copies available from past publications of the time period). And there are those who stand outside the egregore looking only at words and trying to make "logical sense" of them, and there are those who join with a critical, perhaps healthy skeptical, eye, but who do not necessarily "go through the system as instructed to do" who, also come out with more of a "logical" approach, than being able to get in touch with their own inner "sense", to synthesize some very contradictory "information".
I do respect and admire the approach taken by several here in the ways of sorting out the relevant from the irrelevant. Hopefully my own little means of looking at this topic will help--us all--to arrive at some new modes of thinking on this significant historical topic.
Even though I may not respond to all messages, I am not one of those who takes the approach that I shun you if I want you to think I am not listening to you, or am not taking your views seriously. I do not play those kinds of games with people. I shoot straight from the heart, and I have learned in recent years especially, that when I see someone playing these kinds of games with me, I simply walk away silently without spending fruitless efforts and energy, digging any holes.
Until later, when I can provide additional information to eschew, I will be tending to other things on my plate.
I will be raising an important, and a scholarly question, with all due respect, to the Frenchman in Belgium who was "an AMORC high official"--concerning his own politics, whether or not he presents his material in the accepted manner that would elicit a needed response from the readers. I do not know the man, however, knowing certain inside politics myself, it's a necessary question to raise. I invite additional information about this.
Barbara Nostrand
Could you possibly illucidate those of us who have seen neither picture
or perhaps devise a way for us to see them?
Best Wishes
In article <8tvbh4$h1b$0...@dosa.alt.net>, bash...@hotmail.com (Frater
Incognito) wrote:
> There are two interesting photographs that might throw some light on the
AMORC
> Imperator controversy.
>
> The first appeared in AMORC's Rosicrucian Digest just after the election of
> Frater Stewart as Imperator. The photograph shows the new AMORC Board of
> Directors in the board room at Rosicrucian Park in San Jose, including then-
> Grand Master Bernard.
>
> The second photograph shows Grand Master Bernard and Imperator Stewart
(as they
> were then) sitting beside each other at a convention seminar.
>
> Both pictures are quite eloquent.
>
> In the spirit of the Brotherhood,
>
> Frater Incognito
Elias Ibrahim
Thanks again for your deeply considered responses. It is my opinion that we also need to accept the possibility that the author of the book, as well as several French researchers of the esoteric are simply making an objective investigation of the claims made to authenticity by HSL and other contemporaries.
I recently have come into renewed contact with an old friend who was also a member of AMORC and when he independently came to similar conclusions he fell into a deep depression. He simply started asking questions about claims to authenticity and analysing the claims to authority. He is an earnest student of the esoteric path. He is in a period of deep grief, similar to the loss of a loved one. This is quite natural. The first stage of the grieving process is often disbelief, often followed by anger and then an internal resolution .
I went through something similar when I gradually made my own discoveries. I also understand that there are politics also in the world of the esoteric. Sadly when we go to research the history of esotericism it is often just the history of the power struggles between various leaders and pretenders etc. I have maintained that the teachings are the most important factor. In other times , the question of lineages was very important. The simple fact of the matter is that all these leaders - back to Akhenaton and beyond were also quite human.
The act of surrendering one's own power and authority to a spiritual leader has to eventually be reconciled by the Order, School or Teacher handing it back to us , or better insisting that we reclaim it. It is similar to falling in love , where we subconsciously pass all power and authority to a loved one, who are often the projections of our inner archetypes.
Any attempt to investigate these matters needs to be done impartially, and one hopes that one simply does not jump to the conclusion that if another's insights or opinions differ they must have therefore ulterior motives. Of course we must also be on guard to that possibility. But also alert to the fact that they may be also in possession of parts of the jigsaw puzzle which provides the full picture
Many Blessings
Elias
Elias Ibrahim
Thanks again for your deeply considered responses. It is my opinion that we also need to accept the possibility that the author of the book, as well as several French researchers of the esoteric are simply making an objective investigation of the claims made to authenticity by HSL and other contemporaries.
I recently have come into renewed contact with an old friend who was also a member of AMORC and when he independently came to similar conclusions he fell into a deep depression. He simply started asking questions about claims to authenticity and analysing the claims to authority. He is an earnest student of the esoteric path. He is in a period of deep grief, similar to the loss of a loved one. This is quite natural. The first stage of the grieving process is often disbelief, often followed by anger and then an internal resolution .
I went through something similar when I gradually made my own discoveries. I also understand that there are politics also in the world of the esoteric. Sadly when we go to research the history of esotericism it is often just the history of the power struggles between various leaders and pretenders etc. I have maintained that the teachings are the most important factor. In other times , the question of lineages was very important. The simple fact of the matter is that all these leaders - back to Akhenaton and beyond were also quite human.
The act of surrendering one's own power and authority to a spiritual leader has to eventually be reconciled by the Order, School or Teacher handing it back to us , or better insisting that we reclaim it. It is similar to falling in love , where we subconsciously pass all power and authority to a loved one, who are often the projections of our inner archetypes.
Any attempt to investigate these matters needs to be done impartially, and one hopes that one simply does not jump to the conclusion that if another's insights or opinions differ they must have therefore ulterior motives. Of course we must also be on guard to that possibility. But also alert to the fact that they may be also in possession of parts of the jigsaw puzzle which provides the full picture
Many Blessings
Elias
bash...@hotmail.com
citations. Sorry I don't have a scanner.
Would say more about them but don't wish to place any thoughts in people's
minds before hand.
Fraternally,
F.I.
nost...@acm.org (Barbara Nostrand) wrote in <nostrand-
09110000...@hermod.mathcs.wilkes.edu>:
bash...@hotmail.com
other notes indicate that the Board of Directors photo was probably Spring
or summer issue of Rosocrucian Digest in 1987. It was a full page, in
colour. The other photo I referred to was probably later 1988 or early
1989 and was small in size, b/w.
Sorry I am unable to be of more assistance.
If anyone else has seen these, I would be interesting to hear comments.
Thanks
In the Spirit of the Order
Fraternally,
F.I.
bash...@hotmail.com wrote in <8uhe8l$mem$0...@pita.alt.net>:
>I will go through my archives this weekend and see if I can find the
>citations. Sorry I don't have a scanner.
>
>Would say more about them but don't wish to place any thoughts in people's
>minds before hand.
>
>Fraternally,
>
>F.I.
>
>nost...@acm.org (Barbara Nostrand) wrote in <nostrand-
>09110000...@hermod.mathcs.wilkes.edu>:
>