Source Of AMORC Vowels ???

[b***@yahoo.com]

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 .
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]

Ben Scaro wrote:
>> 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
>
>
Greetings,
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]

On 22 Feb., 03:21, Julie Altswitch <***@swbell.net> wrote:
> Ben Scaro wrote:
> >> 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
>
> Greetings,
> 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

RE: Mystical Vowel Sounds

http://mcs.ca/vitalspark/2030_techniques/405vowl00.html

Best regards,
Sid

[Ben Scaro]

On Feb 20, 10:06 pm, "***@yahoo.com" <***@yahoo.com>
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 .
> I'm not a H.S. Lewis basher ...just curious
> 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

[gls]

Hi Ben;

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
<***@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

[Vern]

On Feb 20, 4:06�pm, "***@yahoo.com" <***@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.

[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 there is no corroborated
evidence that he received any authority to found anything.

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.

Lewis in fact claimed in a private monograph in the 12th degree that
his initiation was astral and not physical anyway.

Ben

[gls]

Hi Ben;

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 18:39:58 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<***@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

[Melanaigis]

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....


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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Hi Ben;

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 14:54:24 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> 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 ?

I don't have Rebisse's book so I can't comment. When was the book
published? I ask because the letter and envelope in question was
tightly locked away in rml's safe at home and never kept at the park
vault or rml's office safe. I lost track of the letter in 1990 when I
left amorc (admittedly with some help) and if Rebisse acquired this
letter after 1990, it would be interesting to know. If before, that
would be very curious.

>> >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.

Glen Holcomb ... I know that name but I can't place it right now. But
Elias, I consider him to be one of the top researchers in this field.
He has a knack of finding things others can't and seeing things in
items found that others miss.

Did Mother Serena produce any documentation from Lewis on this matter?

>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.

Doubt or self doubt was never in either Lewis' vocabulary. That's why,
when I hear these things such as him seeking approval, authority,
merging, etc., my antennas go up. They both had the type of
personality that if there was a merger, they would be in charge; if
there was going to be authority given, they would do it.


> 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?

hsl contacted a lot of people once he got amorc started. But it wasn't
to get authority, but rather, recognition.

As to 1909, good question ... but I think it had to do with getting
the proper backing.

<snip>

>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.

I would say that once the purpose and financial part was resolved
(amorc) Victor Blanchard was the (or at least a) driving force, at
least initially. He was involved in the 1908 congress and was already
focused in that direction. From reading volumes of malinger's letters,
I wasn't impressed by him.

<snip>

>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,

yeah, the yahoo figured he was putting out some pretty creative stuff
there for awhile. Only he isn't very creative.


> 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

[Sid]

Hi Ben,

On 5 Mrz., 23:54, Ben Scaro <***@hotmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Regarding your question about the year 1909:

My understanding is that HSL was following instrustions 'to the
letter' in that he was instructed to start the outer work of the Order
ORC in 1915 (The year the French version of the Fama was published was
1615). I believe there was a failed start in 1914.

> > 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 or 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.

At the time the SRIA (England) refused to recognise the SRIAmerica but
the SRIAmerica continued anyway. I'm not sure about the present state
of amenity between these 2 groups.

Regards,
Sid

[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]

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.

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" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7fa4ac40-451c-4da8-98b9-***@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 20, 4:06?pm, "***@yahoo.com" <***@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]

On 4 Mar, 06:34, "Melanaigis" <***@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.


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



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ben Scaro]

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.

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" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d8c61247-7380-49d0-97da-***@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.
>
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.
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.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ben Scaro]

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.


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.
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. 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


Bye for now

Ben

[Melanaigis]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:18:17 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Ben Scaro" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:e52e2780-6e66-4ff1-bb0b-***@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]

I had something called 'Parabola' ages ago, but I think it was just a
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

[gls]

Hi Ben;

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 07:30:07 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I had something called 'Parabola' ages ago, but I think it was just a
>magazine that looked like it had some association with AMORC or
>something?

He's referring to a 17th c. allegory attributed to an alchemist.
>
>In any event, what is that to do with Home Sanctum ?

nothing. AMORC never mentions it.

<snip>

>And they aren't alchemy in the sense in which we are discussing,

precisely

>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.

true, but it does lay bare the mentality of some that get involved in
this type of work. People need to know these things
>
>+++++++++++++++++
>
>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.

well put. as with the rest of your post snipped away ...


>Ben

gls

[Melanaigis]

>>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.
Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree? Did you find nothing
alchemic there?
As for the Rosicrucian alchemical school Ben is refering to, since he won't
produce books or manuscripts he pretended to have access to, I think it's a
phantom of his own mind. Much like his knowledge of ancient Rosicrucian
teachings.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Melanaigis]

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,
> nothing. The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
> else in the home study monographs. And as far as any reference to
> alchemy goes in the ninth degree, what you have is someone hsl calls
> "the alchemist" give a lecture. If he called him the "mechanic" would
> you presume the ninth degrere is about truck maintainence?-GLS
******
>
>>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree? -K
>
> Yes and I even added a couple.-GLS
>
>> Did you find nothing alchemic there?-K
>
> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.-GLS



"gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Hi Keranos;

> <snip>
>
>>The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with alchemy.-k
>
> 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.-gls
>
>>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?-k
>
> What alchemical references are you thinking of?-gls
>
> <snip>
>>Keranos
>
> gls

******************


Gary Stewart's assertion is that AMORC did not teach any alchemy except a
transcendental alchemy which does not apply to real alchemy like Ben is
talking about.
Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't teach
alchemy.
Then GLS writes," Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different
editions) and the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to
AMORC teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees."

It appears I was right, AMORC DOES TEACH ALCHEMY, don't they? So Ben's
assertion that they did not teach alchemy is WRONG, isn't it.

Gary Stewart's assertion that AMORC only taught transcendental alchemy is
WRONG.

Keranos






--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Sid]

On 11 Mrz., 18:40, "Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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,
> > nothing. The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
> > else in the home study monographs. And as far as any reference to
> > alchemy goes in the ninth degree, what you have is someone hsl calls
> > "the alchemist" give a lecture. If he called him the "mechanic" would
> > you presume the ninth degrere is about truck maintainence?-GLS
> ******
>
> >>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree? -K
>
> > Yes and I even added a couple.-GLS
>
> >> Did you find nothing alchemic there?-K
>
> > Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.-GLS
> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
>
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi Keranos;
> > <snip>
>
> >>The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with alchemy.-k
>
> > 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.-gls
>
> >>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?-k
>
> > What alchemical references are you thinking of?-gls
>
> > <snip>
> >>Keranos
>
> > gls
>
> ******************
>
> Gary Stewart's assertion is that AMORC did not teach any alchemy except a
> transcendental alchemy which does not apply to real alchemy like Ben is
> talking about.
> Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't teach
> alchemy.
> Then GLS writes," Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different
> editions) and the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to
> AMORC teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees."
>
> It appears I was right, AMORC DOES TEACH ALCHEMY, don't they? So Ben's
> assertion that they did not teach alchemy is WRONG, isn't it.
>
> Gary Stewart's assertion that AMORC only taught transcendental alchemy is
> WRONG.
>
> Keranos
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -

I would call it spiritual alchemy.

The Home Sanctum ritual for the start of spring is also worth lookin
at in this regard.

Sid

[Ben Scaro]

[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. ]



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

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 09:49:21 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<***@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

[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.
>
>
> gls

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?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Hi Ben;

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 05:49:12 -0800 (PST), Ben Scaro
<***@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]

Hi Keranos;

On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:15:27 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<***@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

[Melanaigis]

>>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.

------------
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.

Keranos




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Sid]

Hi Gary et all,

On 6 Mrz., 04:51, gls <***@blackland.com> wrote:
> Hi Keranos;
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 08:15:27 -0500, "Melanaigis"
>
> <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>

> >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.
>
> gls

Any chance of getting the name of the person who was born in the 14th
c.?

Regards,
Sid

[Melanaigis]

"gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Hi Keranos;

> 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 is a good example of how opinions are manipulated by "expert
researchers".
The veiled implication is that Gary Stewart and Andrew Thomas discovered
some dark secret which they refuse to reveal because of the damage it would
have done to AMORC. They, along with Ralph Lewis decided not to publish this
secret.
It's more plausible that they hoped to slip some anti AMORC "research" past
an aging and tired Ralph Lewis. He didn't go along with it and quashed their
project.
The rest is irrelevant drivel and self serving remarks in an attempt to give
the impression of an objective researcher and expert.

This does give credibility to a rumor I heard shortly after Gary Stewart was
named Imperator. Sources say Ralph Lewis changed his mind about naming Gary
Stewart Imperator and named someone else. If Stewart was promoting the idea
that AMORC and Rosicrucians were bogus then it makes sense RML would have
been seeking someone else for the job.

I can trace Rosicrucian initiation back to Egypt; I will agree they did not
call themselves Rosicrucians; the Lewis's agreed with this.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[i***@gmail.com]

>
> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben

Success isn't proof of anything, you say, sir Benny? "Fortune and merit are closely related." -Goethe, Faust part II. Rosicrucianism 101.

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

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"
<***@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]

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.

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 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 indeed 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 buckled under to Masonic concerns. 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.

Ben

[Ben Scaro]

>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.


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

[Melanaigis]

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.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Melanaigis]

>
>>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.
>
> 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.
My point is the "experts" here have never read material from these sources
to form an unbiased opinion on it or they would recognize the jargon popular
at the time.
Instead they devote all of their time researching anti Lewis and anti AMORC
material. That is not open minded research; it is agenda research.
Let's stop the hypocrisy pretending it's open minded research of seekers.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Melanaigis]

> 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,
> nothing.

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
>>alchemic there?
>
> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.
+++++++
In other words "alchemy."
------------------
>
>>As for the Rosicrucian alchemical school Ben is refering to, since he
>>won't
>>produce books or manuscripts he pretended to have access to, I think it's
>>a
>>phantom of his own mind. Much like his knowledge of ancient Rosicrucian
>>teachings.
>
> I can think of quite a few off the top of my head and I'm sure Ben can
> too.
++++++++++++++
Books like La Tres Saint Trinosophia, another symbolic alchemical ms like
the Parabola?
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.
>>> gls
>
>>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?

> 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
> Martinism.
> 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
>>>>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.
>>

>>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
>>by
>>the self styled experts that will attract a seeker to any organization
>>mentioned.
>
> 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
>>>>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.
>>++++++++++++++
>
> 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
about.
---------------------------


>>>> 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.
>
> 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
>>>>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.
>>>
>>> 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
>>sources
>
> 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
>>popular
>>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
>>AMORC
>>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
>>> activity.
>>
>>-------------
>>
>>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
>>Piepenbrinks girlfriend.
>
> This is another example why you aren't taken seriously. I never
> intimated that.
>>
>>Keranos
>
> gls
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

I meant to respond earlier but we're getting into foaling season here
and I need to spend a lot of time making sure things are ok.

Anyway ... I snipped out all your whining and posturing so as to focus
on something potentially more interesting.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:17:42 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>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

I don't expect you would, but in this discussion I'm referring to all
editions of AMORC monographs from 1915 to 1990. Not CR+C monographs.

>but The Parabola is in the Temple Degrees.

Where?

>>>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree?
>>
>> Yes and I even added a couple.
>>
>>> Did you find nothing
>>>alchemic there?
>>
>> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.
>+++++++
>In other words "alchemy."

Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds, projection, etc.

>>>As for the Rosicrucian alchemical school Ben is refering to, since he
>>>won't
>>>produce books or manuscripts he pretended to have access to, I think it's
>>>a
>>>phantom of his own mind. Much like his knowledge of ancient Rosicrucian
>>>teachings.
>>
>> I can think of quite a few off the top of my head and I'm sure Ben can
>> too.
>++++++++++++++
>Books like La Tres Saint Trinosophia, another symbolic alchemical ms like
>the Parabola?

Do you read French? I wondered this when you referenced Levi's book
the other day but I decided not to ask ... However, do you mean "La
Tres Sainte Trinosophie"? Why don't you just say "Most Holy
Trinosophia"? It's not going to make you look more erudite referencing
the original language of the works you reference if you're not
familiar with the language ... and especially if you mix and match
French and English in the title when you cite the work.

With that said, I would classify the works you are referring to not as
alchemical texts but as Initiatic texts. There's a big difference.

>Neither you nor Ben will name any alchemic books which deal exclusively with
>physical alchemy that can be linked back to Rosicrucian teachings.

ok, but first lets define something here. You are are defining
physical alchemy rather myopically. You seem to be restricting it to
those who want to change lead into gold and the like. At least I, and
probably Ben but he must speak for himself, see it as utilizing
physical laws to make changes for whatever purposes be it medicines,
tinctures to create new and useful things, or the stone to be used to
evolve body and soul. And yes, some, not all, but *some* Rosicrucians
were focused on that aspect. Because they studied your "physical
alchemy" did not mean they were frauds hoping to cheat people or were
only looking to make themselves rich.

Ok, turning my head and looking at my library shelf I find: "Turba
Philosophorum", "The Coelum Philosophorum", "Tract on the Tincture and
Oil of Antimony", Mirror of Alchemy", "The Boke of Secrets", and "The
Compound of Alchymy" to name a very few, all of which I associate with
Rosicrucianism in that early Rosicrucians (circa 14th to the 17th c.)
utilized the works listed. Some of the works listed I consider as
being written by Rosicrucians themselves even though there exists
arguments by some denying the authors were R+C (Albertus Magnus,
Paracelsus, George Ripley, and Roger Bacon. The "Turba Philosophrum",
though obviously not written by a Rosicrucian, was used as source
material by Rosicrucians.

>Most of the legitamate alchemic works are symbolic allegories;

There are a lot of alchemical drawings that allegorically present
alchemical knowledge, but I wouldn't classify the allegories you are
referring to as being alchemical. As I said before, more initiatic.

> 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.

Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different editions) and
the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to AMORC
teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees.

<snip>

>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.

No, I never said AMORC was a bogus Rosicrucian school. You're making
assumptions based upon my approach of objectivity. It seems you fail
to realize that Rosicrucianism is not limited to the amorcian
perspective and that amorc is not the catch all of Rosicrucianism in
its current or past incarnation. Since the onset of Rosicrucianism
several hundred years ago, some R+C lineages specialized in certain
things depending upon the interersts of its adepts. Some studied
alchemy, others science, some mysticism, and some even specialized in
more mundane things like intellectual and spiritual freedom based upon
moral responsibility. The Laws listed in the Fama clearly state why
this is so.

No, because a R+C organization does not study or teach alchemy does
not mean they're bogus. Conversely, because a R+C school DOES focus
exclusively on alchemy does not mean it's bogus either.


>>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.

Well, yeah ... that's true. It's kinda self-evident that no one would
know such terms unless they did a little research isn't it? I read
Reichenbach for the first time in 1977 and I read both Bulwer-Lytton's
Zanoni and Vril, the power of the coming race in 1973 or '74, and Levi
in '72 so I would say my familiarity with the terms exceed 30 years.

> This simply
>proves my point- they are not interested in Rosicrucian ideas of the time,

How does it prove your point? Just for grins and giggles, my proposed
doctoral thesis revolved around Des-Cartes' Rosicrucian interests so I
think I do have an interest (as well as some expertise) in period
Rosicrucianism. (several different periods actually)

>but only smearing the Lewis's.

Amorc insider fanatics do more harm to Rosicrucianism, AMORC, and the
Lewis' by perpetuating their fantasy world than any outside enemy hsl
or AMORC ever had. You can safely say that AMORC has always been its
worst enemy. And frankly, Keranos, it seems you're spiraling down that
path ... Try to start understanding what you read.

>Keranos

gls

[Melanaigis]

"gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> Hi Keranos;

>>>The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>>> else in the home study monographs.-GLS
>>+++++++++++
>>I don't know what changes you've made to the monographs you're issuing-K
>
> I don't expect you would, but in this discussion I'm referring to all
> editions of AMORC monographs from 1915 to 1990. Not CR+C monographs.-GLS
>
>>but The Parabola is in the Temple Degrees.-K

> Where?-GLS

******************
IT IS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ELEVENTH DEGREE! THEY EVEN PUT THE WORD
"PARABOLA" IN BOLD LETTERS!!!
WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS?
How can your research on Rosicrucians and Martinists be trusted when you
don't know the content of your own monographs?

Keranos





--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Keraons;

Keranos;

Oops, sorry, forgot to ask again.

On Fri, 7 Mar 2008 03:17:42 -0500, "Melanaigis"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:


>>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).

Could you cite your source, pleae?

gls

[Melanaigis]

> 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.

-------------

The reason why the upheaval happened is because your financial shenanigans
put all of the officers of the Supreme Grand Lodge at financial risk.
Internal Revenue Service can pierce the corporate veil and sieze personal
assets of officers of a corporation if there is gross negligence.
They did not put you out (as you intimated befor) because you fired
Piepenbrinks girlfriend.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Sid]

Hi Gary,

As always, I enjoy reading your posts etc.

More history please ...

It is quite difficult filtering through all of these posts here to
find the interesting bits

On 5 Mrz., 23:57, gls <***@blackland.com> wrote:
> Hi Keranos;
>
> 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"
>
> <***@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

Regards,
Sid

[Sid]

Sorry, it's me again Keranos,

On 4 Mrz., 07:34, "Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi Vern
>
> 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.

Well, I cannot speak for all Jurisdictions of AMORC but some of them
certainly did have their problems, and especially here in Europe.
Perhaps you are only looking at this from an American point of view?

> 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.

If I remember correctly, AMORC also had a very long list of recomended
books from the past, and the works of Heinrich Khunrath were also
mentioned as well.
>
> Keranos

Regards,
Sid

[Melanaigis]

"Sid" <***@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:c1cf73e2-af39-43c1-8cce-***@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Sorry, it's me again Keranos,
>
> On 4 Mrz., 07:34, "Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Hi Vern
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, I cannot speak for all Jurisdictions of AMORC but some of them
> certainly did have their problems, and especially here in Europe.
> Perhaps you are only looking at this from an American point of view?
>
>> 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.
>
> If I remember correctly, AMORC also had a very long list of recomended
> books from the past, and the works of Heinrich Khunrath were also
> mentioned as well.
>>
>> Keranos
>
> Regards,
> Sid
_____________
Hi Sid

I have no objection to recomending books; the AMORC list pointed me to some
invaluable books which I would not have found on my own.

I object to Paul Foster Case and his book on "True and Invisible Rosicrucian
Order"

Case pretended to be the leader of the Rosicrucians; he was not; he was a
personal enemy of HSL and AMORC as you well know.

Some of the ideas he presented in that book are foolish and dangerous. When
absorbed into the consciousness and mixed with sensitizing occult practice,
they create serious psychological problems that are not easily rooted out.
That's the problem with the arrogant self styled experts on rosicrucians.

I know you are tolerant and want to embrace all systems that accomplish
good. But you do not have the perception to see the damage caused by the
false doctrines preached by the bogus schools of rosicrucianism. HSL and RML
had that perception.

Keranos



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>> Hi Keranos;
>>
>>>>>The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>>>>> else in the home study monographs.-GLS
>>>>+++++++++++
>>>>I don't know what changes you've made to the monographs you're issuing-K
>>>
>>> I don't expect you would, but in this discussion I'm referring to all
>>> editions of AMORC monographs from 1915 to 1990. Not CR+C monographs.-GLS
>>>
>>>>but The Parabola is in the Temple Degrees.-K
>>
>>> Where?-GLS
>>
>> ******************
>> IT IS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ELEVENTH DEGREE! THEY EVEN PUT THE WORD
>> "PARABOLA" IN BOLD LETTERS!!!
>> WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS?
>> How can your research on Rosicrucians and Martinists be trusted when you
>> don't know the content of your own monographs?
>>
>> Keranos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> 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,
>> nothing. The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>> else in the home study monographs. And as far as any reference to
>> alchemy goes in the ninth degree, what you have is someone hsl calls
>> "the alchemist" give a lecture. If he called him the "mechanic" would
>> you presume the ninth degrere is about truck maintainence?-GLS
> ******
>>
>>>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree? -K
>>
>> Yes and I even added a couple.-GLS
>>
>>> Did you find nothing alchemic there?-K
>>
>> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.-GLS
>
>
>
> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> Hi Keranos;
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with
>>>alchemy.-k
>>
>> 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.-gls
>>
>>>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?-k
>>
>> What alchemical references are you thinking of?-gls
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Keranos
>>
>> gls
>
> ******************
>
>
> Gary Stewart's assertion is that AMORC did not teach any alchemy except a
> transcendental alchemy which does not apply to real alchemy like Ben is
> talking about.
> Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't
> teach
> alchemy.
> Then GLS writes," Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different
> editions) and the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to
> AMORC teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees."
>
> It appears I was right, AMORC DOES TEACH ALCHEMY, don't they? So Ben's
> assertion that they did not teach alchemy is WRONG, isn't it.
>
> Gary Stewart's assertion that AMORC only taught transcendental alchemy is
> WRONG.
>
> Keranos
>
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Ben Scaro]

Where did I say AMORC was 'fraudulent' please ?

Ben


> > Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't
> > teach
> > alchemy.

[p***@googlemail.com]

On Mar 16, 9:46 pm, Ben Scaro <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Where did I sayAMORCwas 'fraudulent' please ?
>
> Ben
>
> > > Ben's assertion is thatAMORCis fraudulent because because they don't
> > > teach
> > > alchemy.

Hello respected Frs + Srs,

I am a member of AMORC (currently sixth degree, initiated through to
the third) and I'm shocked by some of the jive on this thread.

Fr. GLS has EXACTLY the right Rosicrucian attitude and the spirit of
the R+C as far as I can feel it. And if we remember Fr. Raymund Andrea
and the 'way of the heart', then our intuition is our most important
ally when it comes to matters mystical. There seem to be some posters
on this thread who are somewhat 'fundamentalist' about AMORC - which
just goes to show what the lower nature of human beings is capable of.
I'm no expert but I can't imagine a philosophical man like R. M. Lewis
appreciating such divisive attitudes.

And Fr. GLS (I'm avoiding the word Imperator as I'm avoiding politics
which is what's causing all these problems!) is almost certainly more
qualified than most to speak of these things as he was actually THERE
and on the ground in the Org.

There are many valid R+C Orders that are operative - and many other
mystical currents too, east and west. There are as many paths as there
are people.

Nowhere in my R+C studies with AMORC have I encountered anything
'literally' alchemical. Spiritually alchemical sure, in a broad
theosophical sense, but literal? No. Which is handy, because that's
not really for me anyhoo. Each to their own!

AMORC, C+RC, TMO, BMO - amazing. We're lucky to be a part of such an
open-minded and giving, illuministic tradition. But we have a
responsibility to live up to the Light to which we are fortunately
exposed.

LLL
Poppy.

[Ben Scaro]

On Apr 13, 12:22 am, ***@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Mar 16, 9:46 pm, Ben Scaro <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Where did I sayAMORCwas 'fraudulent' please ?
>
> > Ben
>
> > > > Ben's assertion is thatAMORCis fraudulent because because they don't
> > > > teach
> > > > alchemy.
>
> Hello respected Frs + Srs,
>
> I am a member of AMORC (currently sixth degree, initiated through to
> the third) and I'm shocked by some of the jive on this thread.
>
>

I agree with what you say largely, which is why talking about groups
being 'fraudulent' (something I of course, didn't say but which our
mate Mr Gleason often does, about about every Rosicrucian group other
than the one he was in, funnily enough) is such a foolish thing.

Ben

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
> 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,
>> nothing. The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>> else in the home study monographs. And as far as any reference to
>> alchemy goes in the ninth degree, what you have is someone hsl calls
>> "the alchemist" give a lecture. If he called him the "mechanic" would
>> you presume the ninth degrere is about truck maintainence?-GLS
> ******
>>
>>>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree? -K
>>
>> Yes and I even added a couple.-GLS
>>
>>> Did you find nothing alchemic there?-K
>>
>> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.-GLS
>
>
>
> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> Hi Keranos;
>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with
>>>alchemy.-k
>>
>> 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.-gls
>>
>>>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?-k
>>
>> What alchemical references are you thinking of?-gls
>>
>> <snip>
>>>Keranos
>>
>> gls
>
> ******************
>
>
> Gary Stewart's assertion is that AMORC did not teach any alchemy except a
> transcendental alchemy which does not apply to real alchemy like Ben is
> talking about.
> Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't
> teach
> alchemy.
> Then GLS writes," Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different
> editions) and the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to
> AMORC teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees."
>
> It appears I was right, AMORC DOES TEACH ALCHEMY, don't they? So Ben's
> assertion that they did not teach alchemy is WRONG, isn't it.
>
> Gary Stewart's assertion that AMORC only taught transcendental alchemy is
> WRONG.
>
> Keranos
>
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:06:19 -0400, "Melanaigis"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Gary Stewart's assertion is that AMORC did not teach any alchemy except a
> transcendental alchemy which does not apply to real alchemy like Ben is
> talking about.

If you want to sound credible in a discussion, you might want to
consider accurately representing what was said rather than
manipulating people's words to conform with what you *want* them to
say all for the sake of trying to make your arguments look good.

I asserted that amorc taught what they call "transcendental alchemy"
and if you notice, I never really defined what that was. I also said
that the style of alchemy in which Ben was referring was of a school
different than that of what amorc taught (transcendental) and I made
no judgements of what was *real* (as you so merrily inserted into your
text) or wasn't real.

> Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't
> teach
> alchemy.

Ben can answer for himself, here. But I didn't interpret his words
that way.

Nevertheless, I qualified that whether a rosicrucian school taught
alchemy or not was not a measure to decide legitimacy. So why are you
mouthing off about all of this?

> Then GLS writes," Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different
> editions) and the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to
> AMORC teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees."

Yes, I wrote that, but what was I responding to, pray tell?

> It appears I was right, AMORC DOES TEACH ALCHEMY, don't they? So Ben's
> assertion that they did not teach alchemy is WRONG, isn't it.

If you're using me as an authority to draw your conclusion, you might
want to consider the context of why I pointed out Dalton's
contribution to amorc before you celebrate your self imposed
rightness..

You wrote that Dalton's chemical exploration of the world does not
comprise the Rosicrucian teachings. I pointed out that his chemical
contributions did and cited the Manual and the first four degrees as
examples.

But ... seems to me you're the one switching positions here ...

> Gary Stewart's assertion that AMORC only taught transcendental alchemy is
> WRONG.

"only", "real" ... pay attention. You may learn something.


> Keranos

gls

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>
>>
>> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>> Hi Keranos;
>>
>>> 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 is a good example of how opinions are manipulated by "expert
>> researchers".
>> The veiled implication is that Gary Stewart and Andrew Thomas discovered
>> some dark secret which they refuse to reveal because of the damage it
>> would have done to AMORC. They, along with Ralph Lewis decided not to
>> publish this secret.
>> It's more plausible that they hoped to slip some anti AMORC "research"
>> past an aging and tired Ralph Lewis. He didn't go along with it and
>> quashed their project.
>> The rest is irrelevant drivel and self serving remarks in an attempt to
>> give the impression of an objective researcher and expert.
>>
>> This does give credibility to a rumor I heard shortly after Gary Stewart
>> was named Imperator. Sources say Ralph Lewis changed his mind about
>> naming Gary Stewart Imperator and named someone else. If Stewart was
>> promoting the idea that AMORC and Rosicrucians were bogus then it makes
>> sense RML would have been seeking someone else for the job.
>>
>> I can trace Rosicrucian initiation back to Egypt; I will agree they did
>> not call themselves Rosicrucians; the Lewis's agreed with this.
>>
>> Keranos
>>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:48:06 -0400, "Melanaigis"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>>>
>>> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
>>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>>> Hi Keranos;
>>>
>>>> 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 is a good example of how opinions are manipulated by "expert
> researchers".

How is that?

> The veiled implication is that Gary Stewart and Andrew Thomas discovered
> some dark secret which they refuse to reveal because of the damage it
> would have done to AMORC. They, along with Ralph Lewis decided not to
> publish this secret.

Ummm. no. That wasn't the reason.

<snipped posturing>

> This does give credibility to a rumor I heard shortly after Gary Stewart
> was named Imperator. Sources say Ralph Lewis changed his mind about
> naming Gary Stewart Imperator and named someone else.

I heard the rumor that he never named me at all and that I was never
in the running. Bottom line, who cares what rumors either you, I, or
anyone hears? Don't you have anything more important to do?

> If Stewart was
> promoting the idea that AMORC and Rosicrucians were bogus then it makes
> sense RML would have been seeking someone else for the job.

That, plus he would've fired me like he did a number of other officers
who ended up having to turn sideways to walk through a door after
being appointed to their offices.

> I can trace Rosicrucian initiation back to Egypt; I will agree they did
> not call themselves Rosicrucians; the Lewis's agreed with this.

As you keep saying ...

>Keranos

gls

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> Hi Keranos;
>
>>>>The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>>>> else in the home study monographs.-GLS
>>>+++++++++++
>>>I don't know what changes you've made to the monographs you're issuing-K
>>
>> I don't expect you would, but in this discussion I'm referring to all
>> editions of AMORC monographs from 1915 to 1990. Not CR+C monographs.-GLS
>>
>>>but The Parabola is in the Temple Degrees.-K
>
>> Where?-GLS
>
> ******************
> IT IS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ELEVENTH DEGREE! THEY EVEN PUT THE WORD
> "PARABOLA" IN BOLD LETTERS!!!
> WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS?
> How can your research on Rosicrucians and Martinists be trusted when you
> don't know the content of your own monographs?
>
> Keranos
>
>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[gls]

Hi Keranos;

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:34:29 -0400, "Melanaigis"
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>>
>> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>> Hi Keranos;
>>
>>>>>The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>>>>> else in the home study monographs.-GLS
>>>>+++++++++++
>>>>I don't know what changes you've made to the monographs you're issuing-K
>>>
>>> I don't expect you would, but in this discussion I'm referring to all
>>> editions of AMORC monographs from 1915 to 1990. Not CR+C monographs.-GLS
>>>
>>>>but The Parabola is in the Temple Degrees.-K
>>
>>> Where?-GLS
>>
>> ******************
> IT IS IN THE BEGINNING OF THE ELEVENTH DEGREE! THEY EVEN PUT THE WORD
> "PARABOLA" IN BOLD LETTERS!!!

Good point! I'm glad you finally located it so we can now discuss the
issue of amorc and alchemy and what type of alchemy they teach or, in
other words, why the lewis' called it transcendental alchemy as
opposed to the hard (my term) alchemy that was generally associated
with a couple of Rosicrucian movements in the 17th c.

> WHY DON'T YOU KNOW THIS?

I do, but I conceed you nailed me on this one. I got a bit sloppy with
the way I worded my statement about it not being included in the
monograph system.

Anyway, now that you know where it is, pull it out and read along.
We're going to be using two different translations here. The work, the
"Parabola" is an extraction of a larger work and is not a book in and
of itself. Kessinger published it as such and I think it's from that
publication which causes some people to think of it as a work standing
on its own. In my opinion, to appreciate its value, it must not be
considered that way and even HSL, in amorc's 11th degree, refers to it
as being included in: "A Simple Spelling Book for the Daily Practice
of Disciples." And says that the first lesson of the book is titled
"Parabola" although he only considers the initiatic parable and not
the complete work.

You will also find the Parabola in another amorc publication where
abdiel lodge, amorc reprinted Secret Symbols of the Rosicrucians. In
it you will find: "A Golden Treatise About the Philosopher's Stone".
It's a rather lengthy treatise which comprises a hard (remember my
term above) alchemical text. In the closing paragraph of that text,
the author says: "Herewith I shall now close this short Treatise, and
set clearly before thine eyes, in the following parable, what is
further necessary for thee to know ..." The author then writes: "Here
Followeth the Parabola Whereein The Whole Art Is Comprised." and he
then includes 18 lines of hard alchemical "Practica" and concludes:
"And thou hast put up a medicine To heal men and metals -- as you
choose."

HSL deletes those 18 lines of alchemical practice and begins the
Parabola with the parable. I think it important to note that within
the parable there are some important changes made by hsl. Most notably
(paragraph 4): "I listened for a very long time and I liked their
discourse very much, but some of them seemed to maunder absurdly, not
indeed about the Materia or the work [in question], but about the
Parabolae, Similitudes ..." In the monographs the words in bracket,
"in question" are deleted. I see that as softening up the context of
their discussion because moments later, the initiate gets a bit yancy
with their absurd discussion and brings everyone back to his hard
alchemical experiments and impresses them so much that they make him a
collegue. Without actually understanding there were two things going
on here, it's easy to miss the distinction. I'm sure some may disagree
with the emphasis I place upon the deletion, but, that's the way I see
it.

At the conclusion of the Parabola as presented in the monographs, hsl
writes, referencing one of the paragraphs: "The mill to which he came
is Nature's own laboratory viewed from a transcedental viewpoint ..."
and a bit later: "Transposing consciousness to the higher self." It is
from these discussions where the amorcian perspective of
transcendental alchemy is born. And Keranos, what is wrong with that?
AMORC follows a softer mystical path as opposed to a hard occult path.
HSL perferred a softer transcendental alchemy over a hard alchemical
leaning as can be demonstrated by removing the hard alchemical terms
and replacing them with the softer ones. The intent is the
transformation of the self through the method he chose to teach.

> How can your research on Rosicrucians and Martinists be trusted when you
> don't know the content of your own monographs?

You referenced what you called an alchemical text the other day, and
which I call an initiatic text. In that text, the adept is warned
about Ampeercha's children who are the stumbling blocks to mystical
awakening. One of them is pride. Be mindfull of it. The other is
indiscretion. You might want to think of that as you throw people's
words together to be used to enforce what you want others to believe
about you.

> Keranos

gls

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>

>> 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,
>>> nothing. The Parabola is not mentioned in the Ninth Degree or anywhere
>>> else in the home study monographs. And as far as any reference to
>>> alchemy goes in the ninth degree, what you have is someone hsl calls
>>> "the alchemist" give a lecture. If he called him the "mechanic" would
>>> you presume the ninth degrere is about truck maintainence?-GLS
>> ******
>>>
>>>>Did you perform the exercises of the ninth degree? -K
>>>
>>> Yes and I even added a couple.-GLS
>>>
>>>> Did you find nothing alchemic there?-K
>>>
>>> Nope. Vowel sounds, clouds. projection, etc.-GLS
>>
>>
>>
>> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
>> news:***@4ax.com...
>>> Hi Keranos;
>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>The Parabola and the entire Ninth degree deal specifically with
>>>>alchemy.-k
>>>
>>> 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.-gls
>>>
>>>>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?-k
>>>
>>> What alchemical references are you thinking of?-gls
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>Keranos
>>>
>>> gls
>>
>> ******************
>>
>>
>> Gary Stewart's assertion is that AMORC did not teach any alchemy except a
>> transcendental alchemy which does not apply to real alchemy like Ben is
>> talking about.
>> Ben's assertion is that AMORC is fraudulent because because they don't
>> teach
>> alchemy.
>> Then GLS writes," Take a look at hsl's Rosicrucian Manual (many different
>> editions) and the several pages devoted to Dalton and his contribution to
>> AMORC teachings. Or better yet, look at the first to the fourth degrees."
>>
>> It appears I was right, AMORC DOES TEACH ALCHEMY, don't they? So Ben's
>> assertion that they did not teach alchemy is WRONG, isn't it.
>>
>> Gary Stewart's assertion that AMORC only taught transcendental alchemy is
>> WRONG.
>>
>> Keranos
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Melanaigis]

"Melanaigis" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:...
>
> "gls" <***@blackland.com> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>> Hi Keranos;
>
>> 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 is a good example of how opinions are manipulated by "expert
> researchers".
> The veiled implication is that Gary Stewart and Andrew Thomas discovered
> some dark secret which they refuse to reveal because of the damage it
> would have done to AMORC. They, along with Ralph Lewis decided not to
> publish this secret.
> It's more plausible that they hoped to slip some anti AMORC "research"
> past an aging and tired Ralph Lewis. He didn't go along with it and
> quashed their project.
> The rest is irrelevant drivel and self serving remarks in an attempt to
> give the impression of an objective researcher and expert.
>
> This does give credibility to a rumor I heard shortly after Gary Stewart
> was named Imperator. Sources say Ralph Lewis changed his mind about naming
> Gary Stewart Imperator and named someone else. If Stewart was promoting
> the idea that AMORC and Rosicrucians were bogus then it makes sense RML
> would have been seeking someone else for the job.
>
> I can trace Rosicrucian initiation back to Egypt; I will agree they did
> not call themselves Rosicrucians; the Lewis's agreed with this.
>
> Keranos
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[i***@gmail.com]

success isn't proof of anything you say sir benny? "fortune and merit are closely related" -Goethe, Faust part II.

[w***@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, February 20, 2008 at 2:06:02 PM UTC-8, ***@yahoo.com 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 .
> I'm not a H.S. Lewis basher ...just curious
> about who transmitted them to Lewis .

GOD