Which path to take?
Kevin F. Conklin
having never before received any formal mystical/metaphysical training. I
come from a more "scientific" background, but the deeper I delve into modern
Physics, the more I become drawn to metaphysical ideas and the concept of a
deeper reality which I've always felt intuitively.
I've reached the point where I am fairly certainly convinced that this is
where I need to go to continue my growth, but I am now left with the final
decision of which specific path of Rosicrucian study to follow. I have read
what I've found about the happenings in 1990 between AMORC and Imperator
Gary L. Stewart, and the possibility that AMORC has since altered their
monographs. At this point I would truly appreciate some feedback from those
of you familiar with both the current AMORC teachings and the teachings of
the CR+C, as to which is purest and most appropriate to someone in my
position. I have an opinion, but I'd really like to hear what others think.
Thanks in advance!
Morpheos 1
As a member in good standing in both AMORC and CR+C, I see them like this:
AMORC is a bit more...new agey (?). The overall themes are basically the same,
but presented in a bit less formal a manner.
CR+C on the other hand is a bit more eloquent. First of all you have the style
of the early part of the 20th C writing, which I prefer and find easier to
understand. Also, with your scientific background I would say that CR+C would
probably be better-- for instance, in one of the early Monographs Imperator
Stewart adds a little bit on the end describing quantum string theory and tying
it into the subject of the Monograph.
So basically it comes down to personal taste. To my mother, knowing her
background etc, I suggested AMORC. With you I'd say go with CR+C.
Best Wishes For Peace Profound!!
Scot
J. Turner
It is not important what others think, listen to the voice within.
Joe
christian rosencreuz
> >having never before received any formal mystical/metaphysical training. I
> >come from a more "scientific" background, but the deeper I delve into modern
> >Physics, the more I become drawn to metaphysical ideas and the concept of a
> >deeper reality which I've always felt intuitively.
As a scientist you might find that some of the earlier Rosicrucian
writings contain things which are now seen as unlikely, for instance
Heindel's ideas about how vacuums created in the air by artillery
shells killed people by 'sucking the ethers' out of them. There was
less understanding in those days about how shock waves work I guess.
> >
> >I've reached the point where I am fairly certainly convinced that this is
> >where I need to go to continue my growth, but I am now left with the final
> >decision of which specific path of Rosicrucian study to follow. I have read
> >what I've found about the happenings in 1990 between AMORC and Imperator
> >Gary L. Stewart, and the possibility that AMORC has since altered their
> >monographs.
The changes to AMORC's monographs were not linked to Stewart's leaving
the order. I used to think that too, but the rewriting took place in
the 70s and 80s, and Stewart was involved in the revisions. He now
runs a group which uses the original monographs, so he's obviously
changed his mind about the value of modernising them.
For myself I didn't find the modern AMORC stuff that useful, it seemed
a bit colourless and vague. I have heard that the content is
apparently diluted to the extent that it might take up to 27 years to
get through AMORC's teachings while Lewis's originals could be passed
through in 9 years.
How 'Rosicrucian' Lewis's monographs are is something I don't know as
I have the modern ones only. He apparently included a lot of ideas
from yoga and American 'New Thought' which were popular at the time,
along with a strong emphasis on the Egyptian in the rituals.
An interesting comparison would be with the degrees set out in Paul
Foster Case's 'The True and Invisible Rosicrucian Order' or Israel
Regardie's publication of the Golden Dawn teachings, which are taken
from the older Masonic Rosicrucian groups from the 1860s which link
back further in time to groups like the Gold Und Rosenkreuz.
For my Rosicrucian path I'm going down the Masonic one so that's my
bias.
Good luck.
R+C
WITZSarAlden
STEWART but from Serge TOUSSAINT, the present french Grand Master of AMORC.
The french monographs were changed in a consensual-new-age way, in middle and
last 80's by a team (lead by Toussaint) under the supervision Christian
Bernard's supervision. They were experimented on french members and extend to
the whole world after the "coup" in 1990 (when Gary was expelled of his office
of imperator)
So Gary has nothing to do with these modifications in the monographs (I recall
to yo that Gary was not a officer of the AMORC SGL in the 70s, so he couldn't
be involved in their revision in the 70s : he was 17 years old in 1970 !!! and
affiliated in 1975).
As far as I can compare there is the same difference between old (originals
from Lewis) and new AMORC monographs (revised by french GL rosicrucians) than
between "Notre Dame de Paris" from Victor Hugo and 'The Notre-Dame's hunchback"
from Walt Disney.
If somebody wants to have a better idea of the changes in the AMORC monographs,
he can find a list of the themas of each monograph (from first preliminar
degree to the last 12th temple degree) on the website of the Cénacle de la
Rose+Croix (document's page)
just my two cents
kind regards
Jean-Noël WITZ
hotepnre
>the current AMORC teachings and the teachings of
>the CR+C, as to which is purest and most appropriate to someone in my
>position.
It's a matter of taste. Since Rosicrucianism is a living impulse, it is always
changing. There is no particular reason why the precise writings of Lewis
should be adhered to as though it were holy writ. On the other hand, there is
no particular reason not to use them.
HS Lewis himself changed focus at times, e.g. when the decision was made to
make the Order more universalist and less Esoteric Christian. The changes in
the monographs from the earlier ones continue this trend, and I enjoy them
enormously.
The real work in Rosicrucianism occurs in exercises performed while NOT
reading, anyhow, and doesn't differ much between the two groups.
Good luck to you! Both groups are valid ones, and one size does not fit all.
Best wishes for peace profound,
Hotepnre
christian rosencreuz
That makes it clear why he uses the originals rather than the
post-1990 ones in his group.
BTW, on the old list server mail group, someone asked whether Walt
Disney had ever been a member of the order. Apparently he was.
R+C
erik
: For my Rosicrucian path I'm going down the Masonic one so that's my
: bias.
: Good luck.
: R+C
Good Morning Rosencruz,
Ok, so I am curious: *which* Masonic path?
--
ttfn
------------
Erik J. Meyer
Constellation Lodge AF&AM (no, we don't have numbers)
Hermann-Dexter Lodge IOOF #133 Dedham, MA
www.mychip.org are you a turtle?
christian rosencreuz
Checking with sources - I should qualify comments above. Monograph
revision went on throughout the reign of Ralph M Lewis and in the 80s
*apparently* did involve Stewart - but these revisions were *not* the
ones that created the current monographs- which as Jean-Noel says were
created in the French Grand Lodge and are very different. No comment
as to comparative quality - my exposure to the old ones is limited and
one person may find them very different to another.
The Masonic path is the Societas Rosicruciana- colleges exist in the
UK and USA, and I think also France and Canada. Can't speak for all
colleges but generally they do not teach through a monograph mail-out
system and are a fraternity - so you need to be somewhere you can
participate in person.
Morpheos 1
>UK and USA, and I think also France and Canada
That's really great. I was interested in joining the SRICF but being a
Co-Freemason I guess I'll just have to settle with reading about them =)
