Source Of AMORC Vowels ???
belam...@yahoo.com
I read a lot of Western and Eastern Occult books and
been a member of a couple of Rosicrucian
organizations but never came acrosss the
vowels that AMORC uses in their exercises .
Are they Egyptian , which I have a bit of a hard time believing as
Rosicrucian groups die out and
re-emerge over the last four centuries or so .
I'm not a H.S. Lewis basher ...just curious
about who transmitted them to Lewis .
Ben Scaro
> I'm not a H.S. Lewis basher ...just curious
> about who transmitted them to Lewis .
So, you're not an HS Lewis basher but you said a couple of weeks ago :
"Amorc is Phoney but the Rose Cross Order is the real thing . Stop
deluding yourself and be part of the real thing ."
Care to clarify your stance a little ?
Ben
Julie Altswitch
I received my vowels at the age of 6 from my 1st grade teacher. And I
remember them to this very day:
A, E, I, O, U, and sometimes Y.
Of course I do have a little difficulty with the alphabet. Especially
when the officer has me standing on one leg, touching my nose with my
eyes closed along the side of the road. But I haven't failed one of
those tests yet! -LoL
-Julie
Sid
Ben Scaro
wrote:
> Hi to All ,
> I read a lot of Western and Eastern Occult books and
> been a member of a couple of Rosicrucian
> organizations but never came acrosss the
> vowels that AMORC uses in their exercises .
> Are they Egyptian , which I have a bit of a hard time believing as
> Rosicrucian groups die out and
> re-emerge over the last four centuries or so .
> about who transmitted them to Lewis .
I'm not amazingly worried whether you bash HS Lewis, I've done it a
bit myself- there's a bit there to bash . . . but it's best to be
consistent in your claims and this Rose Cross Order you *supposedly*
don't know anything about has had some AMORC teachings on its site and
is just as evasive concerning its historical origins as AMORC is.
As far as I know there is no such thing as techniques involving vowel
sounds in the practices of the Rosicrucians of antiquity.
Even if there was, I doubt the AMORC version is anything to do with
such antique practices.
AMORC's home sanctum curriculum is not derived from ancient
Rosicrucian sources though the lodge layouts and some of their ritual
shows signs of Martinist influence.
If you want to find where their vowel sounds come from, look at Yoga,
Theosophical and New Thought books.
They are probably not bad exercises at all . . . but it would be silly
in the extreme to walk around thinking that 17th century Rosicrucians
did such things. They didn't.
Ben
Vern
wrote:
> Hi to All ,
> I read a lot of Western and Eastern Occult books and
> �been a member of a couple ofRosicrucian
> organizations but never came acrosss the
> vowels that AMORC uses in their exercises .
> re-emerge over the last four centuries or so .
> I'm not a H.S. Lewis basher ...just curious
> about who transmitted them to Lewis .
The Rosicrucian Order, AMORC has never "died out". If you carefully
read the books on the history of the order there have been periods of
active public activity and periods of underground activity. During
the periods of underground activity the teaching were passed on
through families and small select groups. H. Spencer Lewis journed to
France in the period of 1909 to 1915 to obtain the proper authority
and initiations to organize the American branch of AMORC. Due to the
destruction of most of Europe during World War I and II his charter
was expanded to the wordwide orginazation for AMORC. For more of the
detail I suggest you to to "www.rosicrucian.org" and/or
"www.AMORC.org" or to a public libruary for the book "Questions and
Answers with History of the Rosicrucians" by H. Spencer Lewis.
Ben Scaro
> The Rosicrucian Order, AMORC has never "died out". If you carefully
> read the books on the history of the order there have been periods of
> active public activity and periods of underground activity. During
> the periods of underground activity the teaching were passed on
> through families and small select groups. H. Spencer Lewis journed to
> France in the period of 1909 to 1915 to obtain the proper authority
> and initiations to organize the American branch of AMORC.
This implies that AMORC had branches in other countries prior to
1915. This is not the case.
There was no precursor to AMORC in France, AMORC was an entirely
American creation.
Lewis journeyed to France in 1909 but so far as I know, from looking
at the matter for many years, there is no corroborated evidence that
he received any authority to found anything.
I think it most unlikely that any traditional Rosicrucian group would
give someone authority to found a branch in a foreign country based on
a flying visit . . . it just does not seem likely to me.
If you read Rebisse' book, there is a portion of a letter to his wife
where he claimed ''At last I am in the R+C - thank God . . ." but
there is no detail as to how this occurred.
Oddly, the date on that
letter seems to be written in different ink than the main body of the
letter, and seems to have been overwritten at the top.
In fact, after the French trip Lewis sought to merge his fifty
members
with the Soc Ros in America and also corresponded with other
Rosicrucian groups in Europe seeking authority, perhaps indicating
that he did not regard whatever occurred in Toulouse as giving
suffiicient authority to found a group.
I believe Lewis claimed in a private monograph in the 12th degree
that
his initiation was astral and not physical anyway.
Ben
Melanaigis
I haven't seen you post here before. Those seekers who wander in will
appreciate your post. As you can see many who do post here are simply
trolling, hoping to bait some good-hearted AMORC member into a pissing
match. If you post here in the future some background information may be
helpful. Most are members of fraudulent rosicrucian schools. They are full
of malice, vanity and deceit. They represent what can be attained in their
respective schools. They are self appointed experts on rosicrucianism.
Invariably these experts hate the Lewis's. These trolls deserve no courtesy
or respect. They will not show you any courtesy or respect.
They have no real interest in rosicrucian principles; nor can they discuss
them. If you read earlier posts you will discover they are unfamiliar with
rosicrucian writers and don't recognize the jargon used by rosicrucians of
the time in which they consider themselves experts. They've never heard the
words vril or od. They target Bulwer-Lytton and Eliphas Levi because they
know they were considered rosicrucians by the Lewis's. They also know
Eliphas Levi despised the fraudulent rosicrucian groups. Their expertise is
limited to analyzing letters and dates of Lewis correspondence, and looking
for scraps of paper that they can use to discredit them. They spout volumes
of accusations and cite useless minutia to support their allegations. But
not a single post addresses rosicrucian principles. They devote their posts
to sleazy opposition research, of the type we see in Washington.
Sometimes they are mildly entertaining; sometimes mildly irritating. They
serve a useful purpose for rosicrucian students; they provide excellent
examples of occult principles which they are totally ignorant of. By
analyzing them you can discover how influence is distributed through the
magnetic chain. You can gain insight into the inferiority of the schools
they represent and the problems generated by affiliation with those
fraudulent schools.
The best proof of Lewis's initiation was his success and the influence of
the school he started. His system has been widely imitated and even copied
by self appointed leaders of the rosicrucians; but they all fail to attain
any where near the success of AMORC, even when they copy his monographs.
This infuriates the promoters of the fraudulent schools. The illegitimacy of
the fraudulent schools is likewise proven by the mendacity, malice and
deceit shown by the members of the fraudulent schools who post here. They
hover over this newsgroup like harpies, hoping to pick up some fragments of
rosicrucian secrets, while disparaging the source. They pose as seekers of
knowledge looking for help, then attack with their "research" whenever they
get a response.
It begs the question, why such malice directed at men who never harmed them?
T. J. Hudson and Eliphas Levi before him investigated the phenomenon.
Levi postulated there is a variety of maladies directly related to occult
practice. Levi catalogued the manifestations of the maladies associated with
occult study and practice. He classed these under the heading astral
intoxication.:
Unexplained malice
exaggerated self importance
susceptibility to influence
magical thinking and delusions
mendacity
moral degeneracy
These are all results of injudicious occult study and practice.
Louis Claude de St. Martin also knew about these things; he situated himself
in Haiti, which was a hotbed of the most sordid kinds of black magic. He
found some of it so dangerous that he refused to write about it or reveal
his discoveries. The danger of occult study is one of the reasons the Lewis's
asked that AMORC students study only in one school at a time. It reduces the
number of influences playing into the life of the student. It keeps out some
of the erroneous ideas which create unfortunate results. Occult study
sensitizes the spirit and opens people to unrecognized influences.
Paul Foster Case was the founder of one of the fraudulent rosicrucian
schools. He took some of Eliphas Levi's most dubious speculations on tarot
and kabala and then modified them to suit himself and develop his own
system. But he reversed the most important principle of spiritual
development that Eliphas Levi insisted on; the principle of free will. Paul
Foster Case claims we don't have it. No Rosicrucian would take such a
foolish position. It belies all possibility of development and self-mastery.
This idea once accepted causes a complacency which leads to moral
ambivalence. Corruption, degeneracy and poverty follow. These conditions
will be projected into the next life. In an occult venue, it magnifies and
multiplies the unseen influences one is subject to. It lessens
discrimination and the ability to resist negative influences.
If the founder of BOTA rejects the most basic principle of self development
and falls victim to the sordid influences of occult practice, how is there
any hope for the followers of his system? What can they expect to gain? The
same can be seen in the history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden dawn.
Even the founders exhibited insanity and mental aberration. It was most
obvious in McGregor Mathers and Alister Crowley. The society went through
upheavals and schisms. By comparison, AMORC had no such problems or
upheavals among the officers until Gary Stewart was named Imperator. It's
curious that Stewart supported other occult schools besides AMORC and he's
called the Lewis's arrogant towards other systems of occultism. He also
recommends Paul Foster Case's book on his CRC web site.
Keranos
"Vern" <Lisen...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7fa4ac40-451c-4da8...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 20, 4:06?pm, "belamic...@yahoo.com" <belamic...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Hi to All ,
> I read a lot of Western and Eastern Occult books and
> ?been a member of a couple ofRosicrucian
> organizations but never came acrosss the
> vowels that AMORC uses in their exercises .
> Are they Egyptian , which I have a bit of a hard time believing
> asRosicruciangroups die out and
> re-emerge over the last four centuries or so .
> I'm not a H.S. Lewis basher ...just curious
> about who transmitted them to Lewis .
The Rosicrucian Order, AMORC has never "died out". If you carefully
read the books on the history of the order there have been periods of
active public activity and periods of underground activity. During
the periods of underground activity the teaching were passed on
through families and small select groups. H. Spencer Lewis journed to
France in the period of 1909 to 1915 to obtain the proper authority
and initiations to organize the American branch of AMORC. Due to the
destruction of most of Europe during World War I and II his charter
was expanded to the wordwide orginazation for AMORC. For more of the
detail I suggest you to to "www.rosicrucian.org" and/or
"www.AMORC.org" or to a public libruary for the book "Questions and
Answers with History of the Rosicrucians" by H. Spencer Lewis.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ben Scaro
> Hi Vern
>
> I haven't seen you post here before. Those seekers who wander in will
> appreciate your post. As you can see many who do post here are simply
> trolling, hoping to bait some good-hearted AMORC member into a pissing
> match. If you post here in the future some background information may be
> helpful. Most are members of fraudulent rosicrucian schools. They are full
> of malice, vanity and deceit. They represent what can be attained in their
> respective schools. They are self appointed experts on rosicrucianism.
> Invariably these experts hate the Lewis's. These trolls deserve no courtesy
> or respect. They will not show you any courtesy or respect.
Wow, mate. That'a a heck of a lot of anger and negativity for a single
paragraph.
What's all this stuff about Levi and Paul Case ? I can't recall
anyone mentioning them. If you mean me, I've read Bulwer-Lytton
anyroad. But as for the rest of it, you seem to be picking a fight
with some imaginary demons of your own.
You say I'm unfamiliar with rosicrucian writers yet you think St
Martin went to Haiti ?
He didn't go to Haiti. So who's unfamiliar with rosicrucian
writers ?
The Lewises did not tell members to only study in one occult school at
a time. Ever heard of the TMO and the MCE ? They are both occult
schools that regular AMORC members can study alongside their
Rosicrucian study.
>
> The best proof of Lewis's initiation was his success and the influence of
> the school he started.
This is poppycock. Success is proof of nothing other than success.
It doesn't mean a person has received physical initiation. Some
people who've received physical initiation have been very
unsuccessful.
As for the rest of it, I am amazed someone can be so spiteful and
unhappy. It looks like you have issues with the leaders of more than
one Rosicrucian group though.
I see from previous posts your name is William Gleason and you stopped
posting here after having a dispute with Mr Stewart and others. Are
you an official of AMORC ?
Cheers,
Ben
Melanaigis
> He didn't go to Haiti. So who's unfamiliar with rosicrucian
> writers ?
Excuse me; it was Martines Pasqualy, who was St Martin's mentor who died in
Port au Prince.
----------------------
>
> The Lewises did not tell members to only study in one occult school at
> a time. Ever heard of the TMO and the MCE ? They are both occult
> schools that regular AMORC members can study alongside their
> Rosicrucian study.
>
MCE was not a school of any kind under the Lewis's.
TMO was run as an adjunct of AMORC teachings; admission was offered only to
high degree AMORC members.
The Lewis's did ask members to study in one school at a time.
------------------------------------
The best proof of Lewis's initiation was his success and the influence of
the school he started.
>
> This is poppycock. Success is proof of nothing other than success.
>
> It doesn't mean a person has received physical initiation. Some
> people who've received physical initiation have been very
> unsuccessful.
It is proof of his affiliation with the Rosicrucians.
Your obsession with "physical initiation" and relationships between
rosicrucian pretenders is your problem.
You've simply demonstrated your ignorance of the influences which the
Rosicrucians recognize and work with.
------------------------
> As for the rest of it, I am amazed someone can be so spiteful and
> unhappy. It looks like you have issues with the leaders of more than
> one Rosicrucian group though.
>
Your sole purpose for posting to this group is to feed your vanity and
exercise your malice and you say I have issues!
You know nothing of Rosicrucians or their initiations, but set yourself up
as an expert on their rites. You are simply a master of trivia.
As for the leaders of the fraudulent schools, I have nothing but contempt
for self styled leaders, who devise "rosicrucian" systems which do
irreparable harm to their innocent followers. That contempt extends to
"experts" who post misleading disinformation.
---------------------------
Experts on this newsgroup post and repost misinformation which will keep a
true seeker from penetrating the veil which surrounds the Rosicrucians.
A popular idea with the "experts" is to claim the Rosicrucians existed only
during the European Rennaissance. (even Gary Stewart subscribes to this idea
now. When he was Imperator he authorized a video stating Pharoh Aknaton was
a Rosicrician!) This keeps seekers from studying useful sources which go
back through Greece to Egypt and limits their study to Rennaissance
material; most of that material is drivel written by frauds and hustlers,
similar to today. It will keep seekers spinning in circles but never
advancing.
Keranos
Ben Scaro
European countries you didn't even have to belong to AMORC to belong
to TMO. It is a discrete order with its own teachings, hierarchy and
rituals.
William, I have a hard time treating you seriously when you affect to
rant on about 'fraudulent schools' but make it abundantly clear that
you don't even understand the bare facts of what you claim is your own
order or how it relates to its Martinist order.
This, and your close association with two people who were caught red
handed on this forum a couple of years ago impersonating law
enforcement officials- and in one especially sad and disgusting case -
pretending to be military heroes - makes me doubt your judgement. I
can't help but note that you vanished at exactly the same time they
did. Coincidence?
William, I say you have issues because you are posting exactly the
same-old-same-old that you always do. I've watched your posting for a
number of years and it's clear to me that you have a bit of a
persecution complex, with everyone who doesn't think the way you do
blasted as 'black magic' or 'fraudulent' in diatribes peppered with
obvious errors.
If it's a case of you being wrong or the rest of the world being
wrong, mate, it's best to start looking at yourself.
Cheers
Ben
>
>
>
Melanaigis
"Ben Scaro" <bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8c61247-7380-49d0...@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> TMO is not an adjunct of AMORC teachings. Not even slightly. In some
> European countries you didn't even have to belong to AMORC to belong
> to TMO. It is a discrete order with its own teachings, hierarchy and
> rituals.
>
reserved for high degree AMORC members. In the final years of AMORC
requirements were lowered to allow lower degree members to join.
Gary Stewart started another branch of Martinism after he was ousted from
AMORC.
There are a few branches going back befor the time of Papus which were not
affiliated with AMORC. These were almost unknown in the USA.
A few days ago you posted this, "AMORC's home sanctum curriculum is not
derived from ancient Rosicrucian sources though the lodge layouts and some
of their ritual
shows signs of Martinist influence."
Now you claim there is no resemblance or relationship between AMORC and
Martinism. It's clear you will change the lie to suit the moment.
You imply you have access to "ancient Rosicrucian sources", which you've
compared to the home sanctum curriculum. Where are your sources? What are
they? Produce them so we can judge if you are telling the truth.
-------------------
> William, I have a hard time treating you seriously etc......
This is nothing but personal smear tactics hoping to distract people from
the issues.
-------------------
> William, I say you have issues because you are posting exactly the
> same-old-same-old that you always do etc........
More smear tactics.
When you, and others like you, stop posting the same old misleading
propaganda and disinformation, pretending to know something about
Rosicrucians, I will stop posting my "rants" against it.
Ben Scaro
it
was
reserved for high degree AMORC members. In the final years of AMORC
Yes. Which is exactly the opposite of what you said about the Lewises
limiting members to 'one school at a time'. Bingo. Thanks a bunch.
[Now you claim there is no resemblance or relationship between AMORC
and Martinism. ]
Except that is not what I said. I said TMO was a discrete order with
its own hierarchy, rituals and teachings. Kind of different, isn't
it ?
There are Martinist influences in standard AMORC ritual too but that
does not take away from the fact that TMO is a discrete order
entirely.
[ It's clear you will change the lie to suit the moment. ]
Good old Mad Bill. Back in form, LOL. You sock it to 'em, buddy!
[You imply you have access to "ancient Rosicrucian sources", which
you've compared to the home sanctum curriculum. Where are your
sources? What
are they? Produce them so we can judge if you are telling the truth. ]
Ancient Rosicrucian documents deal with alchemy, William. Find me one
example of alchemy in the home curriculum ? Or find me one ancient
Rosicrucian document that deals with vowel sounds ?
William, I am being dead serious when I say your close association
with people who falsely pretend to be law enforcement officials or
military heroes raised real questions about your judgement and your
good faith.
You may not know it - because when you start getting down and dirty
you lose perspective, but when it emerged that you were cooperating
with them, your credibility took a hit. Refusing to deal with it
isn't helping you.
A few of us enjoy researching AMORC and we're going to go on doing so.
Sorry if it gets you angry, but you will just have to find the best
way to deal with that. If ranting here is your only mode of release,
then that's up to you.
I wouldn't do it, but it's your choice how you manage your anger
issues and how you appear to the world.
Bye for now
Ben
Melanaigis
> When Ralph Lewis and Rose McGowan were heading the Martinist Order it
> was
> reserved for high degree AMORC members. In the final years of AMORC
> requirements were lowered to allow lower degree members to join.
>
> limiting members to 'one school at a time'. Bingo. Thanks a bunch.
No it is not the opposite.
The Martinist Order was run out of Ralph Lewis' office. It was governed by
him and taught no principles which conflicted with AMORC teachings. The
AMORC teachings were also run out of his office. There was no conflict
between the two. The entrance to Martinsm was through AMORC.
He did not want AMORC members mixing AMORC ideas with the misguided muck
taught by fraudulent schools.
You are trying to divert attention from the issues by elaborating on trivia.
--------------------------
> Now you claim there is no resemblance or relationship between AMORC
> and Martinism.
>
> Except that is not what I said.
Here are your words, "TMO is not an adjunct of AMORC teachings. Not even
slightly."
Don Martinez de Pasqually de la Tour was an initiate of the Rose Cross. He
was also Louis Claude de St. Martin's mentor. The mixture of Martinism and
Rosicrucianism can be seen in this association. Ralph Lewis and AMORC trace
lineage back to these sources.
There was no fraud or deception or unauthorized borrowing by Lewis or AMORC
as you implied.
---------------------
>
> It's clear you will change the lie to suit the moment.
> You imply you have access to "ancient Rosicrucian sources", which
> you've
> compared to the home sanctum curriculum. Where are your sources? What
> are
> they? Produce them so we can judge if you are telling the truth.
>
> Ancient Rosicrucian documents deal with alchemy, William. Find me one
> example of alchemy in the home curriculum ?
*****
The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with alchemy.
If you are an expert on AMORC's home sanctum curriculum as you pretend, how
come you are unaware of the alchemical references in their studies?
As for the foolishness you consider alchemy, I quote the Comte de Gabalis,
"I forbid you to trifle away your time over it. I have told you that the
Sages only teach such things to those they have no wish to admit to their
company."
Now what are your sources?
You pretend to have access to ancient rosicrucian manuscripts, where and
what are they?
---------------------
>
> William, I am being dead serious when I say your close association
> with people who falsely pretend to be law enforcement officials etc.....
**
Repetition of smear tactics and a diversion from the issues at hand.
There was a personal fight between Gary Stewart and someone else. I have no
idea what their personal differences are, and was not involved their fight.
But it was nasty way of diverting attention from questions I asked Gary
Stewart which he wanted to avoid answering.
------------------------------------------
>
> A few of us enjoy researching AMORC and we're going to go on doing
> so.
********
Pigs enjoy rolling in muck too.
Handling muck is the focus of your research, not Rosicrucian principles.
Your posts are all directed at smearing the Lewis's or smearing someone
defending them.
-----------------------------------------
>
> Sorry if it gets you angry, but etc....
> Bye for now
***********
Smear tactics and diversion.
You pretend to be an expert on Rosicrucians but know nothing about them.
Your knowledge consists of trivia, innuendo and unsupportable allegations.
Your motives are rooted in malice and vanity, not a quest for truth. You do
the Rosicrucians a service you don't recognize.
Malicious and hateful people will read your posts and resonnate with you,
and follow your ideas. This keeps them away from purer sources of
information.
True seekers wil recognize your malice and seek in other places.
They are grateful for your service.
Keranos
--------------------
gls
My server just included alt. amorc so I can access here through usenet
directly instead of fumbling around with google groups ... with that
said, I see that this thread has continued on a bit (sigh) and the
topic below has been referenced. But I thought I would jump in at the
beginning ...
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:38:08 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>AMORC's home sanctum curriculum is not derived from ancient
>Rosicrucian sources though the lodge layouts and some of their ritual
>shows signs of Martinist influence.
Do you mean masonic influence rather than Martinist? If the former,
then I agree. But the latter, I would disagree. There is a huge
difference between the lodge layouts and ritual between Martinism and
AMORC.
However, with that said, I think you'll find a common denominator
between the formation of AMORC and the formation of Martinism -- that
being Masonry. Initially, Papus and company petitioned the Grand
Orient of France for permission to work the Rites of Memphis and
Mizriam and were refused. They then created their Martinist Order,
circa 1883, and designed their own rituals with a heavy masonic
influence and finally settling on a standard circa 1901. Perhaps of
further interest, Emile Dantinne borrowed heavily from the Martinist
Rituals when he created his OHTM and that influence was passed on to
Jean Malinger's Pythagorean Order which was a restructuring of the
OHTM.
HSL, on the other hand, had never even heard of Papus or the Martinist
Order until around 1920 after his Lodge rituals were already designed.
>Ben
gls
gls
Hi Ben;
On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:39:58 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>This implies that AMORC had branches in other countries prior to
>1915. This is not the case.
I agree
>
>There was no precursor to AMORC in France, AMORC was an entirely
>American creation.
I agree
>Lewis journeyed to France in 1909 but there is no corroborated
>evidence that he received any authority to found anything.
HSL was in both England (where he researched in the British Library)
and France where he came in contact with an individual Theodore Reuss
had recommended. I think this bit about "authority" has been blown way
out of porportion over the years. Rather, I would say that HSL came in
contact with an individual who passed on to him his knowledge of the
R+C; HSL received a rare initiation of the type that Emile Dantinne
describes in his article on initiation; and HSL came back to the US
and built AMORC on the experiences he had while in France.
>
>If you read Rebisse' book, there is a portion of a letter to his wife
>where he claimed ''At last I am in the R+C - thank God . . ." but
>there is no detail as to how this occurred. Oddly, the date on that
>letter seems to be written in different ink than the main body of the
>letter, and seems to have been overwritten at the top.
That letter was kept in Ralph Lewis' safe he had at his home. The
letter is complete and written at the same time. The problem is that
the letter and envelope were written at different times.
>In fact, after the French trip Lewis sought to merge his fifty members
>with the Soc Ros in America
could you source this information please? I see his association with
the SRIAmerica differently. From my understanding, HSL joined a number
of organizations, including Masonry, but with no intent or thought of
merging or of seeking recognition. The dispute with the SRIA was not
about an attempt to merge of gain authority, but rather regarding
copyright. HSL published a R+C history in the American Rosae Crucis
initially published in the SRIA Mercury magazine some years earlier.
> and also corresponded with other
>Rosicrucian groups in Europe seeking authority,
In 1987 right after Ralph died, Raymond Bernard approached me and said
that he had knowledge of a letter just made public that HSL supposedly
wrote to Dantinne asking for authority. 21 years later, after many
attempts to see this letter, I have yet to see it or to communicate
with anyone who has seen it first hand. I have no doubt that a letter
exists, but I seriously doubt that it is authentic for a good number
of reasons -- first and foremost being that the FUDOSI was basically
an AMORC creation formed to *acknowledge* AMORC's authority rather
than to *give* AMORC authority and the letter is supposedly written
from HSL to Dantinne and Malinger admitting that his authority from
Toulouse was fabricated.
Anyway, there are so many things wrong with that alleged letter in
comparison with documented events and existing correspondance known to
originate from hsl, dantinne, malinger, etc., that I would view that
story with a grain of salt intended to be rubbed into an old wound.
> perhaps indicating
>that he did not regard whatever occurred in Toulouse as giving
>suffiicient authority to found a group.
HSL regarded what happened in Toulouse as life changing and the
effects are measured by his establishment of the work he chose to do.
I do not think that should be confused with the "authority" issue even
though it is true that HSL spent a lot of time and effort in trying to
establish the "authenticity" of AMORC. The two things are different
and shouldn't be confused with one another. I think the real issue
here is that long after the fact, many decided that Esoteric Orders
had to fit a certain pre-conceived mold for them to be considered
authentic -- sort of an ironic golem created by the formation of the
FUDOSI. That mold being based upon a physical initiation in a ritual
setting. The creation of AMORC by HSL didn't fit that mold and I
believe his mistake was in trying to merge the two issues.
>Lewis in fact claimed in a private monograph in the 12th degree that
>his initiation was astral and not physical anyway.
He didn't say it wasn't physical because he did indeed meet two people
who were connected with the R+C in some way. But he didn't say it was
physical either. Nevertheless, yes, hsl describes his initiation as
having been received in a dream. Considering that mystics and
occultists throughout the ages talk about such experiences as being
not only valid, but preferable, I fail to see what all the problem is
about regarding hsl's authority to represent Rosicrucianism.
>Ben
gls
Ben Scaro
> HSL was in both England (where he researched in the British Library)
> and France where he came in contact with an individual Theodore Reuss
> had recommended. I think this bit about "authority" has been blown way
> out of porportion over the years. Rather, I would say that HSL came in
> contact with an individual who passed on to him his knowledge of the
> R+C; HSL received a rare initiation of the type that Emile Dantinne
> describes in his article on initiation; and HSL came back to the US
> and built AMORC on the experiences he had while in France.
>
I think this emphasis on the physical initiation, as in the phrase,
'proper authority and initiations' particularly, has been overstated.
I concede you could read it another way, but the average reader is
likely to go away with a false impression.
>
> >If you read Rebisse' book, there is a portion of a letter to his wife
> >where he claimed ''At last I am in the R+C - thank God . . ." but
> >there is no detail as to how this occurred. Oddly, the date on that
> >letter seems to be written in different ink than the main body of the
> >letter, and seems to have been overwritten at the top.
>
> That letter was kept in Ralph Lewis' safe he had at his home. The
> letter is complete and written at the same time. The problem is that
> the letter and envelope were written at different times.
I think the ink at the top of the letter looks different in Rebisse's
book. I am not going to insinuate anything about why - could have
been a dodgy photocopier ?
>
> >In fact, after the French trip Lewis sought to merge his fifty members
> >with the Soc Ros in America
>
> could you source this information please?
Elias Ibrahim and Glen Holcomb (almost the same story but told to me
at different times) based on conversations with Mother Serena.
I think they certainly had issues over copyright. They have been
discussed on here.
However, I wonder whether Lewis had doubts about the sufficiency of
his initiation based on this conduct of still seeking affiliation with
other organisations. I think he also wrote a number of letters to
Eugene Dupre of the Rose-Croix d'Orient and I have to wonder why he
just didn't get on with it and found AMORC in 1909?
I've heard of this letter to Dantinne from the GM of a FUDOSI order
who has a large archive. I don't think he thinks it amounts to much
but not having seen it I can't comment.
I see his association with
> the SRIAmerica differently. From my understanding, HSL joined a number
> of organizations, including Masonry, but with no intent or thought of
> merging or of seeking recognition. The dispute with the SRIA was not
> about an attempt to merge of gain authority, but rather regarding
> copyright. HSL published a R+C history in the American Rosae Crucis
> initially published in the SRIA Mercury magazine some years earlier.
>
> > and also corresponded with other
> >Rosicrucian groups in Europe seeking authority,
>
A lot of Milko's information seems to indicate that it was Mallinger
who was the driving force behind the FUDOSI. I can see the obvious
benefit in recognition for Lewis' organisations but cannot see what
Mallinger had to gain, money or resources, perhaps ? So I've always
wondered about the initial motives.
What you say about the FUDOSI and it's impact on preconceived notions
surrounding orders is interesting and I need to consider that view.
> HSL regarded what happened in Toulouse as life changing and the
> effects are measured by his establishment of the work he chose to do.
> I do not think that should be confused with the "authority" issue even
> though it is true that HSL spent a lot of time and effort in trying to
> establish the "authenticity" of AMORC. The two things are different
> and shouldn't be confused with one another.
I think that is what keeps occurring. I think there was something in
Lewis which needed affirmation of a type - probably a dash of good old
snobbery - and this confuses things also.
I won't bother with the comments made by Mr Gleason other than to
state that the stuff about ancient Rosicrucian sources is something he
says I 'imply'. What's that old thing about assuming and making an
ass out of someone ?
Other than the fact that I've read the whole thread from two years
back and am deeply suspicious of the fact that he vanished at exactly
the same time as his two mates did.
As a person 'lucky' enough to have received my own letter from a so-
called Internet 'investigator' when I was on the old R+C Free Speech
Forum back in 2000, I'll state it straight out- Mr Gleason, I don't
for a minute believe you had no involvement with those two.
I wasn't born yesterday, and it's time you grew up, mate.
Ben
gls
Reading ahead in this thread, I see you have invokved my name four
times. I should have manifested after the third invocation, but I've
been a bit busy of late ...
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008 01:34:21 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<melanaig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hi Vern
>
>I haven't seen you post here before. Those seekers who wander in will
>appreciate your post. As you can see many who do post here are simply
>trolling, hoping to bait some good-hearted AMORC member into a pissing
>match. If you post here in the future some background information may be
>helpful. Most are members of fraudulent rosicrucian schools. They are full
>of malice, vanity and deceit. They represent what can be attained in their
>respective schools. They are self appointed experts on rosicrucianism.
>Invariably these experts hate the Lewis's. These trolls deserve no courtesy
>or respect. They will not show you any courtesy or respect.
I don't see it that way. True, like in any ng, there is the appearance
of a troll now and then, but the people you are referring to aren't of
that category in my estimation. Rather, they are folks who have
different points of view.
>They have no real interest in rosicrucian principles; nor can they discuss
>them. If you read earlier posts you will discover they are unfamiliar with
>rosicrucian writers and don't recognize the jargon used by rosicrucians of
>the time in which they consider themselves experts. They've never heard the
>words vril or od.
Ummm ... if this is the extent of your conclusion that the folks you
reference are not Rosicrucians or have any interest in Rosicrucian
principles, you may want to reconsider your position. Neither "vril"
nor "od" were ever a part of Rosicrucian jargon. "Vril" was a word
coined by a 19th century novilist (Bulwer-Lytton) in his pre-Jules
Vern science fiction novel: "Vril, the Power of the Coming Race". It
wasn't until Blavatsky capitalized upon the word that it became
associated with something real and all sorts of societies and what not
were created around the word. True, Bulwer-Lytton was a R+C, (I'll get
to that in a moment), but the only Rosicrucian reference to the word
was made by Max Heindel -- the leader of one of the Rosicrucian
organizations you consider to be fraudulant.
And "od"? I assume you mean odic force? That word was coined by a 19th
c. scientist and natural philosopher Carl von Reichenbach. He was
never associated with any R+C group nor was his postulations ever
picked up by any Rosicrucian group, lineage, or movement then or now.
> They target Bulwer-Lytton and Eliphas Levi because they
>know they were considered rosicrucians by the Lewis's.
I've not seen any posts where either of these two people were stated
not to be Rosicrucians (that doesn't mean such posts don't exist, just
that I haven't seen them). But be that as it may, both were considered
to be Rosicrucians by many others besides just the Lewis'. However,
you might want to consider that you might be digging yourself into a
hole here. Bulwer-Lytton belonged to a quasi Masonic Rosicrucian
society in which the only members admitted had to be active Master
Masons as well as Trinitarian Christians. That being the SRIA
(Anglica) that was formed by Little and Hughan in England in 1867
after having been authorized by the parent organization in Scotland
(SRIS). In 1888, several members of the SRIA splintered off to form
the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Woodman, Westcott, Mathers).
Anyway, aren't these a few of the Rosicrucian Orders you reference as
being fraudulent? Especially since the SRIA (America and Anglica)
profess AMORC as being fraudulant ... Can you see why one might be
confused into thinking by your assertions that you are picking and
choosing convenience in your arguments? i.e., how can you acknowledge
Bulwer-Lytton as being a Rosicrucian and the words he coins as being
authentic to R+C principles when you consider the organization to
which he belonged as being fraudulent?
> They also know
>Eliphas Levi despised the fraudulent rosicrucian groups. Their expertise is
>limited to analyzing letters and dates of Lewis correspondence, and looking
>for scraps of paper that they can use to discredit them. They spout volumes
>of accusations and cite useless minutia to support their allegations. But
>not a single post addresses rosicrucian principles.
Two different things are being discussed here. On the one hand we have
a historical discussion and on the other, a discussion of principles.
I, for one, would be more than happy to discuss both, but mixing the
two or referring to one while discussing the other can be confusing
and counter-productive.
<snip>
>The best proof of Lewis's initiation was his success and the influence of
>the school he started. His system has been widely imitated and even copied
>by self appointed leaders of the rosicrucians; but they all fail to attain
>any where near the success of AMORC, even when they copy his monographs.
Not all schools measure success in the same way that AMORC might. In
fact the issue of the standard used to measure success has been
historically a point of contention. Some feel that the overt corporate
existence of AMORC undermines its stated Rosicrucian purpose. There is
some merit in that argument if such is indeed true. If the corporation
determines esoteric doctrine and policy, then there is indeed a
problem. If not, then AMORC has balanced itself in a modern world and
is acting in accordance with R+C Law as laid down in the Fama.
<snip>
>Louis Claude de St. Martin also knew about these things; he situated himself
>in Haiti,
you acknowledged this error in a later post.
<snip>
>Paul Foster Case was the founder of one of the fraudulent rosicrucian
>schools. He took some of Eliphas Levi's most dubious speculations on tarot
>and kabala and then modified them to suit himself and develop his own
>system. But he reversed the most important principle of spiritual
>development that Eliphas Levi insisted on; the principle of free will. Paul
>Foster Case claims we don't have it. No Rosicrucian would take such a
>foolish position.
It depends upon how the principle of free will is presented. Many
popular positions on the topic are actually a denial of free will even
though the person is deluding themself into thinking it isn't. People
need to realize the restrictions of freedom before they can awaken to
the true reality of its nature. If they do not, then they keep
themselves living in a delusion. Spinoza handles this topic quite
nicely.
Nevertheless, why couldn't a Rosicrucian take a contrary position on
*any* Rosicrucian belief or principle and still be considered to be a
Rosicrucian? Rosicrucianism isn't about subjection to a pre-conceived
dogmatic belief. It's about having the freedom and taking the
responsibility to search and explore to discover for themselves
without restriction. As an example, Ralph Lewis didn't believe in the
principle of reincarnation. Does that mean he wasn't a Rosicrucian?
No. It means he was a Rosicrucian that took responsibility for his own
beliefs even though they differed from what was generally accepted.
<snip>
>If the founder of BOTA rejects the most basic principle of self development
>and falls victim to the sordid influences of occult practice, how is there
>any hope for the followers of his system? What can they expect to gain? The
>same can be seen in the history of the Hermetic Order of the Golden dawn.
>Even the founders exhibited insanity and mental aberration. It was most
>obvious in McGregor Mathers and Alister Crowley. The society went through
>upheavals and schisms. By comparison, AMORC had no such problems or
>upheavals among the officers until Gary Stewart was named Imperator.
Prior to my Imperatorship of AMORC, much of that "insanity" was swept
under the rug. Only referring to the time since the mid-70's, one
officer was eventually fired for exposing himself to women employees
and members while at work; one was convinced he was the reincarnation
of Napolean; One department head was convinced he was Merlin and the
sad thing about that, many others believed him; another was a child
molester ... I could go on but I won't. The reason why upheavals
developed when I took over was because I wouldn't tolerate such
activity.
> It's
>curious that Stewart supported other occult schools besides AMORC
To be more specific, I acknowledged the existence of other legitimate
Rosicrucian groups besides AMORC as well as acknowledging the
existence of other legitimate occult and mystical schools. Why?
Because they exist and are doing excellent work to promote mysticism
or occultism in today's world.
> and he's
>called the Lewis's arrogant towards other systems of occultism.
Yes. That is true. They tended to view any other similar movement as
being competitive and threatening to AMORC. But what the hey ... I can
be arrogant about things at time as well. Just not this subject.
> He also
>recommends Paul Foster Case's book on his CRC web site.
No, I didn't recommend the book. Someone else did, but that doesn't
matter because I have highly recommended BOTA to others who were
interested in their approach. I have a lot of respect for their
organization even though I have never personally been involved with
them myself.
>
>Keranos
gls
Ben Scaro
> to that in a moment), but the only Rosicrucian reference to the word
> was made by Max Heindel -- the leader of one of the Rosicrucian
> organizations you consider to be fraudulant.
Yes, there is that . . . I'm scratching my head as to Mr Gleason's
reference here and must surmise he hasn't updated his bookshelf in a
while and just grabs hold of the first two things he thinks are
Rosicrucian before descending on his keyboard. This is the same rant
as two years ago.
> I've not seen any posts where either of these two people were stated
> not to be Rosicrucians (that doesn't mean such posts don't exist, just
> that I haven't seen them). But be that as it may, both were considered
> to be Rosicrucians by many others besides just the Lewis'. However,
> you might want to consider that you might be digging yourself into a
> hole here. Bulwer-Lytton belonged to a quasi Masonic Rosicrucian
> society in which the only members admitted had to be active Master
> Masons as well as Trinitarian Christians. That being the SRIA
> (Anglica) that was formed by Little and Hughan in England in 1867
> after having been authorized by the parent organization in Scotland
> (SRIS).
To be accurate, the SRIA(nglia) named Bulwer-Lytton as patron without
asking
him, a bit like Lewis' similar conceit involving a few individuals
like Ella Wheeler Wilcox. However, any contention of the SRIA as
'fraudulent' - a legal concept and not much use here, admittedly -
immediately founders on the fact that, whatever its weaknesses, it
does have that warrant. Whether it deserves its illustrious status is
another issue.
I think it can deserve it - as I've been privy to Masonic Rosicrucian
bodies that have rediscovered the alchemical practice that is
inherent
throughout its ritual.
>In 1888, several members of the SRIA splintered off to form
> the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Woodman, Westcott, Mathers).
> Anyway, aren't these a few of the Rosicrucian Orders you reference as
> being fraudulent? Especially since the SRIA (America and Anglica)
> profess AMORC as being fraudulant ...
The SRIA claimed that AMORC is a 'proscribed body', but oddly,
that is because of it's 'quasi-Masonic' status. I'm looking at the
draft of the letter now- it fell out of an edition of Clymer's dull
magnum opus from the SRIA library.
It is odd that 'the august society' could not make a pronouncment on
AMORC based on adherence to Rosicrucian principles or otherwise, and
instead let itself be led by the nose by Masonry. Just to show I can
be even-
handed in dishing out the brickbats.
>Can you see why one might be
> confused into thinking by your assertions that you are picking and
> choosing convenience in your arguments? i.e., how can you acknowledge
> Bulwer-Lytton as being a Rosicrucian and the words he coins as being
> authentic to R+C principles when you consider the organization to
> which he belonged as being fraudulent?
While I do not think Bulwer-Lytton attended an SRIA meeting, he was
close friends with people like Kenneth Mackenzie who were the leading
lights of that society. To insist that the SRIA is fraudulent while
giving Bulwer-Lytton adulation is a nonsense.
To reference an earlier post .. . no I do not think the home sanctum
material of the ninth degree of AMORC to be from ancient sources.
It gives every sign of being a composite of a number of recent (19th
or 20th century) things. As for whether it could or should be from
ancient sources is another question.
And I think CR+C has its own view on the home sanctum which I think is
pretty much on point here. I can do home sanctum on the road with a
single candle in a hotel room, which perversely, is why I think it's
so good.
Ben
gls
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:15:27 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<melanaig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> The Lewises did not tell members to only study in one occult school at
>> a time. Ever heard of the TMO and the MCE ? They are both occult
>> schools that regular AMORC members can study alongside their
>> Rosicrucian study.
>MCE was not a school of any kind under the Lewis's.
It had a limited amount of teachings and there were allegorical
rituals performed at Conventions held in San Jose, but as to being a
school to the extent AMORC was, it wasn't.
>TMO was run as an adjunct of AMORC teachings; admission was offered only to
>high degree AMORC members.
Yes and no. At one point, it was offered to AMORC members during the
ninth degree, at another point, it was offered during the neophyte
section (if I recall correctly); then back to the 9th degree, but all
during the back and forth decisions on when it would be offered, those
areas where Heptads (AMORC speak for Martinist Temples) were
authorized post 1947 when rml established amorc's version of the TMO,
one did not have to be a member of AMORC to join. As late as 1990 I
remember two Heptads where this practice was still in force: at R+C
Park in San Jose, Ca, and in LA. I think there were a couple of others
but I do not recall where they were at the moment.
Only in Septums (AMORC speak for smaller Martinist temples) and in the
home study did one first have to be a member of AMORC to affiliate.
>The Lewis's did ask members to study in one school at a time.
yes and no. Initially it was suggested that members limit themselves
to only studying AMORC for at least a year so they could become
familiar with AMORC terminology and doctrine. Afterwards, it was ok to
affiliate with other organizations (ironically only if they were not
black listed by AMORC --- which was the big catch in the amorc
get-along.)
<snip>
>Experts on this newsgroup post and repost misinformation which will keep a
>true seeker from penetrating the veil which surrounds the Rosicrucians.
No, I think varying opinions and results based upon individual
research will help a "true seeker" to better understand what it is
that they seek.
>A popular idea with the "experts" is to claim the Rosicrucians existed only
>during the European Rennaissance. (even Gary Stewart subscribes to this idea
>now.
Now? That's *always* been my opinion since having spent considerable
time researching R+C history for a post graduate thesis on Cartesian
philosophy back in the late 70's. Why? Because it's true. The advent
of Rosicrucianism is based upon the story about the life of father CRC
as explained in the 17th c. Fama. That story is based upon the life of
an existing personality born in the 14th c.
> When he was Imperator he authorized a video stating Pharoh Aknaton was
>a Rosicrician!)
No I didn't. In fact I never authorized any videos while Imperator of
AMORC. But to be fair, in 1982, five years before becoming Imperator,
Ralph Lewis contracted Andrew Tomas and myself to research and produce
a manuscript on documented R+C history. In 1985, Andrew and I decided
not to pursue the subject for reasons that only I, Andrew, and Ralph
Lewis knew. But in 1984 I taught a R+C history course at RCU on which
a part of that research was based. However, to be clear, it was a
course on the history of Rosicrucian Philosophy -- i.e., the thinking
that developed into Rosicrucianism. There, I traced the thoughts back
through history through various gnostic sects and even looked at all
periods of ancient Egypt and concluded that there really wasn't much
contribution, if any, from then. I even pointed out that the rose was
not indigenous to Egypt, but rather, Persia, so the name could not
have derived from there either. Be clear, though ... there is a
difference between history and the history of philosophy. History
measures events while the history of philosophy measures thoughts and
influences behind events. Be that as it may, when you look at the
history of amorcian philosophy, most of the principles were derived in
the 19th and 20th centuries.
> This keeps seekers from studying useful sources which go
>back through Greece to Egypt and limits their study to Rennaissance
>material;
really? It never stopped me when I looked into the matter. In my
estimation, when a sincere seeker runs into disagreements, those
disagreements serve as stepping stones to arrive at their own
understanding -- which is what the R+C and any entity supporting the
freedom of thought is all about.
> most of that material is drivel written by frauds and hustlers,
>similar to today. It will keep seekers spinning in circles but never
>advancing.
Folks with preconceived notions looking for evidence of what they want
to believe in will often run around in circles. Folks with open minds
seeking truth will discover just that. But would you consider Francis
Yates as a fraud and hustler?
>
>Keranos
gls
gls
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:49:12 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>TMO is not an adjunct of AMORC teachings. Not even slightly. In some
>European countries you didn't even have to belong to AMORC to belong
>to TMO. It is a discrete order with its own teachings, hierarchy and
>rituals.
You have to understand amorcian perspective to understand where he is
coming from. In amorcian, the TMO only exists as it was represented by
Ralph Lewis after Jean Chaboseau chucked what his father left to him
down the drain. What many in amorc don't understand that it was not a
universally accepted decision to transfer TMO authority over to AMORC
and that there still existed strains that were not incorporated into
AMORC.
<snip>
>Ben
gls
gls
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:49:21 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<melanaig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
>When Ralph Lewis and Rose McGowan
I think you may be revealing your television preferences here. Rose
McGowan was an American television actress who starred in the
television series Charmed (I had to look this up -- that's my story
and I'm sticking to it.) Whereas Margaret McGowan was the AMORC
officer to whom I think you refer.
> were heading the Martinist Order
Only Ralph Lewis headed the Martinist Order although back then Jimmy
Whitcomb and Duane Freeman had roles. I really don't recall anything
about Margaret McGowan contributing much in that area.
> it was
>reserved for high degree AMORC members. In the final years of AMORC
>requirements were lowered to allow lower degree members to join.
As I stated in a previous post, yes and no. For what it's worth, in
1975 when I was a neophyte in AMORC, the invitation to join the TMO
was in that section. In the 1980's it was placed back in the ninth
degree and from 1947 to 1990 one didn't even have to be a member of
AMORC to join the TMO if they joined through a heptad (amorcian for
martinist temple).
>Gary Stewart started another branch of Martinism after he was ousted from
>AMORC.
No. John Fox started the BMO (British Martinist Order) based upon my
lineage. I am still currenty on the Sovereign Council and hold the
honorary position of Sovereign Grand Master but I have no say in its
functioning outside of making recommendations and voting as a director
at meetings.
>There are a few branches going back befor the time of Papus which were not
>affiliated with AMORC. These were almost unknown in the USA.
There was nothing Martinist prior to Papus. Augustine Chaboseau and
Papus both claim an incomplete lineage to LC de St. Martin that, in my
opinion, kind of reads like this: "I had a second cousin who had a
friend of a friend's wife who once knew a housekeeper of a friend who
was a cousin of a friend that once met de St,. Martin at a party."
Don't get me wrong, I think that the work that Papus, Chaboseau. and
V.E. Michelet who were inspired by the likes of Pitois, Levi, and
Nodier was extrodinary and their contributions to modern esotericism
and occultism are considerable. But to say their Martinist Order was a
perpetuation of the work of St. Martin is not correct. Rather, it's
safer to say that St. Martin inspired those individuals and their
Order was a tribute to him.
>Keranos
gls
gls
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:18:17 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<melanaig...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Ben Scaro" <bsc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e52e2780-6e66-4ff1...@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
>The Martinist Order was run out of Ralph Lewis' office.
Technically, The Martinist Order was run out of Paris. The Traditional
Martinist Order assumed by rml was run out of his office.
> It was governed by
>him and taught no principles which conflicted with AMORC teachings. The
>AMORC teachings were also run out of his office. There was no conflict
>between the two.
The big conflict between the two was that the TMO sought the
establishment of a Christian Theocracy whereas AMORC removed itself
from any religious affiliation.
<snip>
>Don Martinez de Pasqually de la Tour was an initiate of the Rose Cross.
I would argue that point. He was a Mason and an occultist who
established the E.C. of which de St. Martin was affiliated for a short
time.
<snip>
>The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with alchemy.
What does the Parabola have to do with this? and the Ninth Degree
doesn't deal specifically with alchemy. AMORC teaches what they call
trancendental alchemy. but that isn't the alchemical school of
Rosicrucianism in which Ben refers.
>If you are an expert on AMORC's home sanctum curriculum as you pretend, how
>come you are unaware of the alchemical references in their studies?
What alchemical references are you thinking of?
<snip>
>> William, I am being dead serious when I say your close association
>> with people who falsely pretend to be law enforcement officials etc.....
>**
>Repetition of smear tactics and a diversion from the issues at hand.
> There was a personal fight between Gary Stewart and someone else. I have no
>idea what their personal differences are, and was not involved their fight.
>But it was nasty way of diverting attention from questions I asked Gary
>Stewart which he wanted to avoid answering.
I don't avoid any questions. In that I am infrequently participating
in this ng, there may be times where I don't see posts with questions
directed at myself, but as I recall that time, I answered everything
you directed at me. If you feel I didn't, ask me now.
<snip>
>Keranos
gls
Ben Scaro
magazine that looked like it had some association with AMORC or
something?
In any event, what is that to do with Home Sanctum ?
I've already commented on what I think is the recent and largely
composite nature of the material in the 9th degree. It reminds me of
Memphis-Misraim, and there's one version of the so-called 'Arcana
Arcanorum' that sounds like it is influenced by the AMORC 9th degree.
So neither of these are ancient Rosicrucian sources.
That is not a value judgement on whether they ought to be ancient, but
they just aren't. Most Mem-Mis stuff isn't that old, either, so
there's no shame in it.
And they aren't alchemy in the sense in which we are discussing,
something Mr Gleason must already know, since he immediately launches
into an attack on 'that' kind of alchemy.
It is a bit weird to be arguing with a guy who more or less admits
that he already knows he's wrong.
+++++++++++++++++
The 'Rosicruician' filiation of Pasqually is a highly contentious area
and to state blankly that he was an 'initiate of the Rose Cross' is
one of HL Mencken's solutions to every problem that is simple, neat,
and wrong.
There are vague references to a body called the Primitive Rite of
Narbonne from 1780 that was said to be a Rosicrucian descendant of the
EC, but that doesn't prove its Rosicrucian element originated with
Pasqually.
Further confusion about the 'Rosicrucian' nature of the EC stems from
early and widespread mis-translations of 'Reau-Croix' as 'Rose
Cross'.
Basically when you see the phrase 'Rose Cross' with reference to the
EC in a lot of older Martinst literature, including some AMORC and TMO
material, you can more often than not subsitute 'Reau-Croix'. This
Reau-Croix degree did not survive so far as I know though claimants do
emerge from time to time.
I think this makes more sense when you look at the structure of
Martinist orders with which Lewis associated in FUDOSI. BTW, I am not
saying that this structure was sacrosanct, or the 'right' way but it
does illustrate for our purposes.
Martinism was the mystical branch, EC was the ceremonial magical
branch, sorry Mr Gleason, I guess that should be 'black magical' for
you . . . but 'magical' will do fine for our more sober readers . . .
and the Rosicrucian work was positioned elsewhere. If you have the
TMO materials you'll know where.
There used to be a Rose+Croix Elus-Coen of some kind roaming around
the place, but I do not think it was old, and probably just picked up
on and perpetuated the Reau-Croix/Rose-Croix error.
Ben
Melanaigis
state that the stuff about ancient Rosicrucian sources is something he
says I 'imply'. What's that old thing about assuming and making an
ass out of someone ?
Other than the....
Ben
I'll ignore the personal smear tactic Ben is accustomed to using and get to
the point, Ben wrote, "AMORC's home sanctum curriculum is not derived from
ancient
Rosicrucian sources though ....."
That is a clear statement claiming you have a knowledge of both ancient
Rosicrucian sources and current AMORC monographs.
You don't have a knowledge of either; you are clearly a liar and a bufoon.
As for the rest of your drivel, they are your own delusions.
Keranos
Melanaigis
> There was nothing Martinist prior to Papus. Augustine Chaboseau and
> Papus both claim an incomplete lineage to LC de St. Martin that, in my
> opinion, kind of reads like this: "I had a second cousin who had a
> friend of a friend's wife who once knew a housekeeper of a friend who
> was a cousin of a friend that once met de St,. Martin at a party."
> Don't get me wrong, I think that the work that Papus, Chaboseau. and
> V.E. Michelet who were inspired by the likes of Pitois, Levi, and
> Nodier was extrodinary and their contributions to modern esotericism
> and occultism are considerable. But to say their Martinist Order was a
> perpetuation of the work of St. Martin is not correct. Rather, it's
> safer to say that St. Martin inspired those individuals and their
> Order was a tribute to him.
>
>
Eliphas Levi referenced the Martinists in a book published in 1855. This is
ten years before Papus was born. He also gives indications of initiation
which would be recognized today. How can you claim the Martinists did not
exist?
Melanaigis
>>true seeker from penetrating the veil which surrounds the Rosicrucians.
>
> No, I think varying opinions and results based upon individual
> research will help a "true seeker" to better understand what it is
> that they seek.
------------
You're being disingenuous and you know it.
There is nothing in the diatribes, innuendos and accusations posted here by
the self styled experts that will attract a seeker to any organization
mentioned.
>
>>A popular idea with the "experts" is to claim the Rosicrucians existed
>>only
>>during the European Rennaissance. (even Gary Stewart subscribes to this
>>idea
>>now.
>
> Now? That's *always* been my opinion since having spent considerable
> time researching R+C history for a post graduate thesis on Cartesian
> philosophy back in the late 70's. Why? Because it's true. The advent
> of Rosicrucianism is based upon the story about the life of father CRC
> as explained in the 17th c. Fama. That story is based upon the life of
> an existing personality born in the 14th c.
>
>> When he was Imperator he authorized a video stating Pharoh Aknaton was
>>a Rosicrician!)
>
> No I didn't. In fact I never authorized any videos while Imperator of
> AMORC.
--------
The video is called "The World's Oldest Fraternity" copyright 1989
You were Imperator and it was published on your watch.
++++++++++++++
But in 1984 I taught a R+C history course at RCU on which
> a part of that research was based. However, to be clear, it was a
> course on the history of Rosicrucian Philosophy -- i.e., the thinking
> that developed into Rosicrucianism. There, I traced the thoughts back
> through history through various gnostic sects and even looked at all
> periods of ancient Egypt and concluded that there really wasn't much
> contribution, if any, from then.
________
I can trace Rosicrucian thought and initiation back through the Arthurian
sagas of the middle ages, through the Eleusinia in Greece into Egypt; and
the rudiments of their initiation can be found in Babylon.
+++++++++++++++++
>> This keeps seekers from studying useful sources which go
>>back through Greece to Egypt and limits their study to Rennaissance
>>material;
>
> really? It never stopped me when I looked into the matter. In my
> estimation, when a sincere seeker runs into disagreements, those
> disagreements serve as stepping stones to arrive at their own
> understanding -- which is what the R+C and any entity supporting the
> freedom of thought is all about.
--------------
You claim to have investigated and found nothing; I investigated and found a
wealth of information.