> Now I remember you and previous exchanges we've had. You're that guy
> who likes to edit other folk's posts, mix and match, and respond out
> of context ... and you accuse *me* of avoiding answering you?
More smear tactics; I sometimes take out the long personal attacks to get to
my point. I've never done a cut and paste.
>>>>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.
>>The Parabola is an alchemical allegory of Rosicrucian initiation. You
>>should know this.
> You're name dropping, but yes, I do. It kind of parallels the Chymical
> Wedding, but you strayed far away from the topic of discussion. You
> were asked by Ben to name one example of alchemy in the home
> curriculum and you responded by saying: "The Parabola and the entire
> Ninth degree deal specifically with alchemy." Ahemmm, pay attention.
> I asked you what the Parabola had to do with the ninth degree and the
> conversation regarding the inclusion of alchemy in the amorc home
> study. You didn't answer the question but chose instead to tell me
> what the parabola was. So, I will answer for you ... the answer is,
The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
> else in the home study monographs.
I don't know what changes you've made to the monographs you're issuing but
The Parabola is in the Temple Degrees.
I'll ignore your personal attacks again.
>>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree?
> Yes and I even added a couple.
>> Did you find nothing
> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.
In other words "alchemy."
>>As for the Rosicrucian alchemical school Ben is refering to, since he
>>produce books or manuscripts he pretended to have access to, I think it's
>>phantom of his own mind. Much like his knowledge of ancient Rosicrucian
> I can think of quite a few off the top of my head and I'm sure Ben can
Books like La Tres Saint Trinosophia, another symbolic alchemical ms like
Neither you nor Ben will name any alchemic books which deal exclusively with
physical alchemy that can be linked back to Rosicrucian teachings.
Most of the legitamate alchemic works are symbolic allegories; most of the
purely physical alchemical works were written by frauds, hoping to cheat
people. It is foolish to waste time on them. Alchemists like Newton and
Dalton did explore the physical world chemically but their work in this area
does not comprise the Rosicrucian teachings.
Regarding physical alchemy- AMORC did sell an alchemical laboratory, which
had some excellent processes and experiments, such as making an opal. But
even some of the instructions, which contained Paracelsus's process, were
also part allegorical.
You're simply promoting the idea that AMORC was a bogus Rosicrucian school
because they didn't teach some variety of alchemy. And you accuse me of
making false accusations.
I'll take out the personal smears again and cut this down to the facts;
>>> There was nothing Martinist prior to Papus.
>>Eliphas Levi referenced the Martinists in a book published in 1855. This
>>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
> Anyhow, on page 467 according to the Waite 1923 translation, Levi
> writes: "... and the Martinists, were in possession of the true tarot,
> as the work of Saint-Martin proves, ..."
When Levi refers to Martinists in
> his book, he is referring to those people who studied the works of
> Saint-Martin and not those who belonged to some Order called
> So, we were discussing Martinism as in a Martinist Order of the likes
> that Papus et. al created. Such did not exist prior to 1883.
Now you've resorted to evasion and equivocation.
Your statement was there was "nothing Martinist" before Papus.
>>>>Experts on this newsgroup post and repost misinformation which will keep
>>>>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.
> sigh ... you completely miss the point of, in the terminology of
> amorc, a Rosicrucian is a walking question mark..
This is another trick used to manipulate people into changing their ideas,
or keep them in a state of mental flux; it's used often on this newsgroup to
keep people from coming to any firm conclusions.
The goal is to find the truth, not simply to ask questions.
>>There is nothing in the diatribes, innuendos and accusations posted here
>>the self styled experts that will attract a seeker to any organization
> In my experience I find that sincere people are more prone to be
> receptive to open mindedness rather than narrow mindedness and the
> folks I associate with are not afraid to have their thoughts and
> opinions challenged.
This is a personal smear and a variation of the above nonsense about being
'a walking question mark'.
>>>>A popular idea with the "experts" is to claim the Rosicrucians existed
>>>>during the European Rennaissance. (even Gary Stewart subscribes to this
>>> 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
>>> No I didn't. In fact I never authorized any videos while Imperator of
>>The video is called "The World's Oldest Fraternity" copyright 1989
>>You were Imperator and it was published on your watch.
> That video was one of Chuck Beeson's brainstorms if I recall
> correctly. He didn't work for me (in fact, I opposed Woody Hancock
> decision to hire him in the first place), but since I didn't
> micromanage, I didn't interfere with the decision to produce the
> video. I did make my opinion perfectly clear though and I most
> certainly did not authorize it -- which is what I initially said.
>>>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.
> The problem with what you're doing when you say that is that you're
> looking at something published on the subject by amorc and then
> looking in a book on the same subject and then assuming that what you
> found in the book confirms what amorc wrote ... while never realizing
> that amorc got its idea from the book to begin with. But ... Arthurian
> sagas??? You're not a follower of Merlin are you?
Most of the above is Gary Stewart denying responsibility for something done
on his watch, and blaming it on someone else. Nothing new here.
As for the intended insult about Merlin, I have no idea what he's talking
>>>> This keeps seekers from studying useful sources which go
>>>>back through Greece to Egypt and limits their study to Rennaissance
>>> 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
>>wealth of information.
> huh? Where did I claim I found nothing? I never said that. What I have
> said is that what I have found precludes the existence of
> Rosicrucianism in those ancient times now being discussed. I'm afraid
> that what you are finding are bits and pieces that you are looking for
> to support your preconceived beliefs. I see that type of research all
> the time.
More personal insult; nothing of substance.
As I said before, I have found evidence of the same process of initiation
that AMORC used, going back to Egypt.
>>>>They have no real interest in rosicrucian principles; nor can they
>>>>them. If you read earlier posts you will discover they are unfamiliar
>>>>rosicrucian writers and don't recognize the jargon used by rosicrucians
>>>>the time in which they consider themselves experts. They've never heard
>>>>words vril or od.
>>> 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),
>>> And "od"? I assume you mean odic force?
>>Waite used the terms vril and od; so did Levi; so did the Golden Dawn etc.
> A lot of people used the terms. But the point is, they were not
> Rosicrucian terms nor can their use be used to identify someone being
> a Rosicrucian.
I never said they were rosicrucian terms; that is another smear tactic used
to cloud the issue. Ditto the smears about black magic and wild accusations
contained in earlier posts. In the jargon of the time people in various
schools and societies used the terms freely.
But, Levi uses od both as the odic force of Reichenbach
> referenced in a footnote on page 91 of the book referenced above; and
> as the od of the Hebrews. That's why I asked which od you are
> referring to (which, by the way, you never answered). But, you claim
> Levi used the term vril. I can't find where he did could you please
> cite your source (book and page number please).
Now you realize "A lot of people used the terms" It was the jargon of the
time the self styled experts pretend to be knowledgable about. But neither
they nor you recognized the terms until you did some research. This simply
proves my point- they are not interested in Rosicrucian ideas of the time,
but only smearing the Lewis's. All of their research is directed to this
end. If they were interested in the rosicrucian ideas of the time they would
have read the works of the time and would be familiar with the vocabulary.
>>My point is the "experts" here have never read material from these
> How would you know that? Because they don't agree with you they can't
> possibly know?
More personal smear tactics. When people don't recognize the vocabulary of
the time they have not researched the popular work of the time.
>>to form an unbiased opinion on it or they would recognize the jargon
>>at the time.
> Yeah, well you and I certainly disagree on jargon, too.
>>Instead they devote all of their time researching anti Lewis and anti
>>material. That is not open minded research; it is agenda research.
>>Let's stop the hypocrisy pretending it's open minded research of seekers.
> the hypocrisy here is a double edged sword. Sort of fanatic against
> fanatic I suppose.
More personal smear tactics.
>>As an example, Ralph Lewis didn't believe in the
>>> principle of reincarnation. Does that mean he wasn't a Rosicrucian?
>>I have an audio tape titled,"I Relive a Life."
>>It was written and dictated by Ralph M. Lewis.
>>It was a spontaneous realization of a prior life of his in Babylon; it
>>occured among the ruins of the same.
> And, since you are a collector, you also have several articles
> written by him where he states his position of disbelief.
No I don't have those articles; don't think they exist.
>>> 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
>>The reason why the upheaval happened is because your financial shenanigans
>>put all of the officers of the Supreme Grand Lodge at financial risk.
> Fianancial shenanigans as in having a corporate resolution to borrow
> and transfering money from one AMORC account to another? No matter how
> you spin it, the fact remains that no funds at any time ever left
> AMORC accounts except those that were used to pay fees approved by
> corporate resolution and all financial dealings had total corporate
> approval by the directors. Do you really think that a bank would loan
> funds and transfer those funds out of the country without having
> proper documentation as required by law?
>>Internal Revenue Service can pierce the corporate veil and sieze personal
>>assets of officers of a corporation if there is gross negligence.
> And homeland security can bug your phone if they have probable cause
> to believe you're a terrorist. The point is, you're not going to be
> getting your phone bugged and no one at amorc was going to have their
> personal assets seized. Sheesh, this is getting ridiculous.
>>They did not put you out (as you intimated befor) because you fired
> This is another example why you aren't taken seriously. I never
> intimated that.
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com