Notice: I have written in other languages, many interesting articles that you
can read translated in English in this
link.

Showing posts with label Rosicrucianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rosicrucianism. Show all posts

WAS BLAVATSKY A ROSICRUCIAN?

 
 
Boris de Zirkoff points out that:
 
-         "Hinrichs, who at the time was a leading political reformer, affirmed that Madame Blavatsky claimed to be a Rosicrucian." (CW I, p.100)
 
 
I have not found that Blavatsky has stated that, but instead I have found an article that Blavatsky wrote where she addressed the subject of the Rosicrucians entitled "A few questions to Hiraf, author of the article: Rosicrucianism."
 
And there Blavatsky specified the following:
 
« Hiraf should add to the word Rosicrucian: "that Order in particular", at least because after all the Rosicrucian Order was nothing more than an esoteric organization, one of the many branches of the same tree.
 
And Hiraf, by forgetting to specify this particular denomination and by including under the name of Rosicrucians all those who, dedicating their lives to Occultism, congregated in Brotherhoods, Hiraf makes a mistake by which he can unknowingly make people believe that the Rosicrucians having disappeared, there are no more true European esotericists practicing Occultism on the face of the earth.
 
The Rosicrucian Brotherhood was not founded in Ancient Egypt but until the mid-13th century. The Rosicrucians strove to combine the most diverse branches of the Occultism and soon became famous for the extreme purity of their lives and their extraordinary powers.
 
The original Rosicrucians later created the Paracelsists, the European alchemists and other branches of European Occultism such as Freemasonry, etc. But to indifferently call all esotericists Rosicrucians is to make the same mistake as if we were to call all Christians Baptists on the ground that the latter are also Christians.
 
Strictly speaking, the true Rosicrucians no longer exist because I understand that the last of them left in the person of Cagliostro (1743-1795). »
(CW I, p.104-6, excerpts)
 
 
We therefore see that Blavatsky points out that the true Rosicrucians ceased to exist at the end of the 18th century and it is incorrect to call the following esoteric organizations that arose that way. Yet this is what a number of (more or less genuine) Western occultists and spiritualists did who founded their organization and called it "Rosicrucian" essentially to give it more prestige.
 
And that is why William Judge, who was Blavatsky's main collaborator, commented:
 
-      "Today it is not uncommon to find those who have temerity enough to dub themselves Rosicrucians." (Echoes of the Orient, p.35)
 
 
 
Did Blavatsky belong to any of these "Rosicrucian" organizations?
 
 
I have investigated a lot Blavatsky and I have not found any reference or proof that she belonged to any of these neo-Rosicrucian organizations, but rather that she was adverse, as shown by her hostile attitude towards Pascal Beverly Randolph, founder in 1858 of Fraternitas Rosae Crucis, and to whom Blavatsky about this individual said:
 
-      “The 'Rosicrucian' fantasies of P.B. Randolph.” (CW I, p.269)
-      “The most unpleasant are parts of P.B. Randolph's 'Eulis'." (CW X, p.124)
 
 
 
Willy Schrödter in his book “A Rosicrucian Notebook” wrote:
 
« Around 1890 there was a mystic school, well-known in informed circles, sited in Darmstadt, which was led by an in other respects uneducated and almost illiterate weaver called Mailander. Those who belonged to it included, among others, Karl Weinfurter (died 1942), Gustav Meyrink (1868-1932; a student there from October, 1892); Dr. Franz Hartmann (1838-1912); Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), the Indian Babij and Chief of the Austrian General Staff, Schemua (a friend of G.W. Surya). So Mailander must have been a rather unusual man»
(p.131-2)
 
 
Schrödter affirmed that Blavatsky was a member –or at least was in contact– with the Rosicrucian Mailander School, but he also pointed out that this School was formed around 1890 in Darmstadt, Germany, which makes it very unlikely that Blavatsky belonged to this School because in 1890 Blavatsky was living in London, she was very ill and very busy instructing her students and writing her latest books. And therefore she no longer had the strength, the time, and the enthusiasm to associate with esoteric organizations. And in fact she died a short time later, in May 1891.
 
 
~*~
 
We therefore conclude that Blavatsky was most likely not a Rosicrucian.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

THE MYSTIC SYMBOL OF THE ROSICRUCIANS ACCORDING TO WILLIAM ATKINSON


 
 
William Atkinson published in 1918 a book entitled "The Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians", and at the beginning of the first chapter he put the following image with the following indication:
 

This is the mystic symbol of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood
 
 
But that statement made by William Atkinson is false as I am going to demonstrate you below.
 
 
To elaborate this figure, William Atkinson relied on the English translation made in 1888 by esotericist Franz Hartmann of an old German book entitled "The Secret Symbols of the Rosicrucians of the 16th and 17th centuries", and more precisely of two figures that appear in that book and below I show them in their original versions:
 
 
 
 
 
So the matter begins very badly because the symbol that William Atkinson put in his book is not genuine, but he made it from two different figures.
 
And to make matters even worse, these figures deal with very different topics because the first figure represents the four elements (earth, water, air and fire), while the second figure is related to Jesus; in other words, William Atkinson is combining disparate concepts.
 
And to make the situation even worse, William Atkinson deformed the first figure by replacing the number four with a cross with a "sun behind it."
 
 
In his book William Atkinson assures that this is "The conventionalized symbol of the Rosy Cross", which is false because this symbol does not appear in the Rosicrucian doctrine, but in fact this symbol belongs to Catholicism where it is used for ritual of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONCLUSION
 
This is an example of how lousy the William Atkinson’s teaching can be, who made a tremendous mess with symbols, showing his profound ignorance in that matter.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

BOOK "IN THE PRONAOS OF THE TEMPLE OF WISDOM" BY FRANZ HARTMANN


 
 
This book was written by Franz Hartmann who was a great esoteric researcher. It was first published in 1890; in England by the Theosophical Publishing Society, London, and in the United States by the Occult Publishing Company, Boston.
 
 
Subsequently, some publishers have only published the last two chapters with the title "Rosicrucians and Alchemists", and I have even seen a publisher publish only the last chapter with the title "Alchemy".

 
Image of the cover and the front page of the first edition.
 
 
Below the title is written:
 
Containing the history of the true and the false Rosicrucians + with an introduction into the mysteries of the hermetic philosophy and an appendix containing the principles of the yoga-philosophy of the Rosicrucians and Alchemists.
 
 
This book is dedicated to:
 
Marie, Countess of Caithness, Duchess of Pomar, and to all who have discovered the true cross by entering the light through the power of fire.
 
 
 
 
 
Author's Preface
 
Quite a number of books dealing with the "History of the Rosicrucians" have appeared of late for the purpose of amusing and gratifying the curiosity of the mystery-loving reader; but it does not appear that they have proved to be very instructive, or that they have succeeded in throwing much light upon this perplexing subject; neither is it to be desired that the Rosicrucian mysteries should be publicly bawled out and exposed to the view of the vulgar; because they belong to that which is most holy and sacred in the constitution of man.
 
Books on true occultism are on the whole very useless things; because those who are in possession of occult knowledge will not require them; while those who have no such knowledge will not understand them; neither will they receive much benefit from such literature; because real spiritual knowledge must be found within one's own soul; it cannot be learned from books. The scientist, rationalist, and speculative philosopher deals only with, so to say, the candlesticks bearing the candles from which is emanating the light which they cannot see, neither can they see the candle; for the latter is representing the soul, whose light is the spirit.
 
Truly occult and Theosophical books ought to be prayers and poems; calculated to lift the heart and the mind of the reader up to the highest regions of thought, and aiding him to descend into the innermost sanctuary of his own being; so that he may become able to open the senses of his interior perception and grasp himself those divine ideals which are beyond the understanding of the semi-animal intellect; for spiritual truth cannot be brought down to that level; it requires, for its recognition, the rising up in the spirit to its own plane; neither can any man reveal to another the light, if the light does not reveal its presence to the investigator; all that a book can do is to aid the reader in opening his own eyes.
 
Little would it benefit us if we knew of the existence of sunlight only from reading about it in books, and were incapable to see the light and to enjoy the rays of the sun.
 
What would it serve us if we theoretically knew all about the constitution of the terrestrial sun if we were encompassed by darkness?
 
What good would it do to us to be informed about all the qualities of the divine powers of God, if we could recognize nothing divine within our own selves?
 
 
No man can show to another the light if the latter is incapable to see it himself; but the light is everywhere; there is nothing to hinder a person to see it, except his love for the darkness. His love for the illusions of his terrestrial phase of existence causes him to regard these illusions as real, and to relegate the Real to the realm of fancy and dream. Nevertheless, that which seems now the true light to him will be as darkness when his consciousness awakens to the perception of the light of the spirit.
 
As light is incomprehensible except by its contrast to darkness, I have not only selected some of the best portions of the writings of the ancient hermetic philosophers and medieval "Rosicrucians"; but I have also taken the trouble to collect a few facts from the great storehouse of human follies to be found in the fools’ paradise of the visionary and dreamer; but for those who earnestly wish to enter the path and to follow the Light, I have added some of the most precious gems; taken from the books of the sages; whose meaning will be incomprehensible to the would-be wise; while those who are unsophisticated will find therein a great deal of wisdom.
 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents
 
·        Chapter 1: Introduction
·        Chapter 8: Alchemy
 
 
 
 
 
My opinion of this book
 
I consider it a very interesting book that provides information about the Rosicrucians and Alchemists that I have not found elsewhere, but it also has some points where I do not agree and which I have commented on in the chapters that I have transcribed above.