Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Alleged Steiner Rosicrucian "Transmission"

Expand Messages
  • kathy
    ... an umbrella ... society came ... My advice ... neither. I don t ... will claim ... references ... the old ... when a somewhat ... of the Roman ... this is
    Message 1 of 25 , May 10, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DoctorStarman@a... wrote:
      > I
      >
      > > >> The order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also
      an umbrella
      > >> group,
      > >> >it will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical
      society came
      > >> under
      > >> >its wings as well.
      > >>
      > >
      > > Cheeseandsalsa@a... writes:
      > > Why would it drive us nuts? We are all pursuing Truths here.
      My advice
      > > would be not create false assertions. I am not attacking
      neither. I don't
      > > think there is anybody here that has a monopoly on truth or that
      will claim
      > > anthroposophy as the "know all". We are still waiting for your
      references
      > > btw.....
      > >
      >
      > *******There won't be any, I am sure. ;-)
      >
      > To clear matters up a bit for people trying to follow this:
      the old
      > Initiation-religions of ancient Greece and Rome went underground
      when a somewhat
      > distorted version of Christianity was made the official religion
      of the Roman
      > Empire, and they continued their initiation-rituals in secret:
      this is the
      > origin of the Freemasons and similar secret societies. Closer to
      our modern era, in
      > about the 12th and 13th centuries, there was an extraordinary
      being named
      > Christian Rosenkreutz who founded a new type of secret society,
      needed because
      > Man's consciousness had changed so much that the old rituals were
      no longer
      > working. This was the Rosicrucians, who sought to fuse science and
      religion. The
      > master of this Order was a member of what is known as the "Great
      White
      > Brotherhood", meaning he took on a body as needed ( as did St.
      Germain, Babaji, etc.)
      > --- and the guiding spirits of the organization were just that----
      spirits.
      > They had no centers in the material world but rather were what
      Isaac Newton
      > called the "Invisible College", beings that could work from the
      astral world with
      > any who earnestly sought their aid. Some people under their
      influence wrote the
      > documents of "Rosicrucianism" about 1600---the "Chemycal Wedding
      of Christian
      > Rosenkreutz", "Fama", etc. People reading these documents
      proclaiming the
      > existence of this new movement sought the Rosicrucian Order all
      over Europe; but
      > it did not exist in the physical world, so nothing was found that
      way. Rather,
      > people who had no contact with any Masonic-type secret society or
      its hidden
      > rituals, like shoemaker-mystic Jacob Boehme, independently wrote
      treatises in
      > Rosicrucianism (meaning a spiritual path starting from scientific
      thinking).
      >
      > Now, NONE of this from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries has
      ANYTHING to
      > do with the various so-called "Rosicrucian Orders" set up in the
      20th century
      > by dilettantes like Steiner copycat Max Heindel, or the other guys
      in
      > California who created the one that advertises in the supermarket
      tabloids. These
      > people have made a big game out of pretending to be
      the "transmitters of ancient
      > Rosicrucian knowledge" ---some have even sued each other over
      which one is the
      > "Real McCoy"! The answer is that none of them are: they are all
      modern
      > creations by people who just read the Rosicrucian documents and
      wanted to make up
      > their own group and then perhaps claim they were descended from
      the Rosicrucians
      > of bygone eras---- rather like people are scrambling to claim to
      be the "real
      > American Indian Shamans" now (when shamanism died out long ago due
      to the
      > evolution of consciousness), or like how the Masons claimed to be
      descended from
      > the Egyptian pyramid-builders (when it's demonstrable that their
      Order went back
      > no further than the 12th century).
      >
      > Steiner, on the other hand, met Christian Rosenkreutz
      spiritually and was
      > a servant of the real, non-physical Rosicrucian Order, which is
      not located in
      > Australia, New Zealand, Tibet, India, Egypt, Persia, Africa, an
      Indian
      > reservation, Sedona, or anywhere else material one cares to
      imagine. ;-) He gave
      > out a 'Rosicrucian' path of attaining spirit-knowledge that is
      controlled
      > scientifically, starting with knowing nature and progressing to
      the direct
      > perception of the Spirit behind it. It has NO relation to Masonic-
      type secrecy or
      > rituals, Order of the Golden Dawn-type phony mystification
      and 'grades', or the
      > degenerate remains of old secret societies. In fact, Steiner was
      made famous by
      > many Masons who found he had the understanding of their Order
      which its leaders
      > no longer even had----just as he grasped the Christ Mystery in a
      way the
      > churches no longer do.
      >
      > There is no need to join any order anywhere on earth to walk
      this
      > 'rosicrucian' spiritual path. You rise from grade to grade through
      application of
      > spirit-knowledge, in which you must be your own guide, as there is
      no longer any
      > Order on earth where initiates are so highly evolved---- as they
      were in
      > pre-Christian times---- that they can bring you forward by doing
      rituals, or even
      > tell where you are at in your development and what "grade" you
      need to move to
      > next. These rituals, like the Christian rite of baptism, are now
      merely tokens
      > of procedures that once had a powerful effect when we were in a
      former state
      > of consciousness, before our modern era and modern self-
      consciousness. They do
      > not work on modern men any more than it is healthy for us to
      submerge our
      > wills to blindly follow a 'guru'.
      >
      > The Anthroposophic Society is an open, public society where
      anyone can
      > pursue this knowledge. Rudolf Steiner created no Order where
      people do secret
      > rituals, and in fact he lectured repeatedly that the time for such
      orders was
      > over. The Theosophical Society was destroyed by fakes claiming to
      have higher,
      > more esoteric knowledge than anyone else (e.g., C. W. Leadbeater),
      whose claims
      > were based on secret rites so of course they could not be
      verified. All of this
      > is anathema to us. Everything in spiritual science is out in the
      open, a
      > "revealed secret" as Steiner used to quote Goethe's phrase. It is
      all published,
      > but you must awaken the dormant powers of your own soul and spirit
      to be able
      > to perceive for yourself. There is no need to go here or there or
      undergo this
      > or that ritual to do so; that all just leads you away from the
      Path. The
      > Brothers of the Rosy Cross are all around us spiritually and ready
      to give help to
      > all who set out on the 'rosicrucian' path described by Steiner in
      his books
      > and lectures. All we need do is apply what Steiner gave out.
      >
      > -starman
      > www.DrStarman.com

      Thank you Starman for clearing up the confusion. I have always
      believed that we don't need a church or a guru to be on a spiritual
      path. Egotism often gets in the way of truth being told corrrectly.I
      think many people are so stuck in the material world that it is
      difficult for them to seek knowlegde independently. Instead, they
      seek out evangelical churches, ashrams,and bogus rosicrucian orders
      to tell them how they are "supposed" to experience the spiritual
      realm.
    • Cheeseandsalsa@aol.com
      Starman, thanks to all the wise head s of kings among us.
      Message 2 of 25 , May 10, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Starman, thanks to all the wise head's of kings among us.
      • Im Hotep
        ... umbrella group,it will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society came under its wings as well.
        Message 3 of 25 , May 21, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          DoctorStarman wrote:
          >>The order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
          umbrella group,it will again drive you nuts to hear that the
          Theosophical society came under its wings as well.<<

          Greetings -

          Do you by chance know the name of that Order that Steiner chaired?

          mark
        • DoctorStarman@aol.com
          In a message dated 5/21/2005 12:08:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ... *******There was no such Order ever chaired by Dr. Steiner. -starman
          Message 4 of 25 , May 21, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            In a message dated 5/21/2005 12:08:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, FraterImHotep@... writes:

            >>The order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
            umbrella group,it will again drive you nuts to hear that the
            Theosophical society came under its wings as well.<<

            Greetings -

            Do you by chance know the name of that Order that Steiner chaired?

            mark


            *******There was no such Order ever chaired by Dr. Steiner.          -starman
          • bscaro
            Hi, I ve just recently joined. I am interested in the early days of Steiner and his relationship to occult type groups. Interesting thread. ... Crowley put
            Message 5 of 25 , May 23, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi, I've just recently joined.

              I am interested in the early days of Steiner and his relationship
              to 'occult' type groups.

              Interesting thread.

              >
              > *******Is that Arthur Edward Waite, whose face, as I recall,
              Crowley put on
              > The Fool card of his Tarot deck? ;-)


              This seems a little unfair. And are you saying that you regard
              Crowley as a credible judge of character, compared to Waite ?


              [[He was a competent but uninspired writer
              > on minor occult matters ]]

              He was something more than that. Despite his somewhat turgid style,
              he was a very influential occult writer, and was of course more
              widely influential due to his role in the creation of the Rider-Waite
              Tarot drawn by Pamela Coleman-Smith.



              [[ Do you have a single quote from any of Steiner's thousands of
              lecture
              > notes or letters where he mentioned a Mr. Felkin of New Zealand at
              all? I know of
              > none.
              >
              > Steiner rejected Masonic-type secrecy totally from the start
              and
              > repeatedly emphasized everything must now be public, so saying
              he 'initiated' some guy
              > in secret would be, in my opinion, pure applesauce. Documentation
              of these
              > claims has not yet been supplied.
              >
              >

              He
              > gave out meditative exercises to develop clairvoyance, and
              publicly, not
              > Masonic-type rituals. And what is this gentleman's "college"? The
              high school or
              > college of Spiritual Science founded directly by Steiner uses no
              such rituals.]]



              On the essay on this area on his site, debunking the old myth that
              Steiner was an OTO member, PR Koenig states:

              'For the setting up of his own E.S., Steiner wants to link with
              symbolic-ritual effects of existing masonic traditions, for "absolute
              truthfulness and maintenance of continuity".'

              I am not sure of the actual words Steiner used, but if this
              paraphrasing is accurate, it dos suggest that he wanted some
              connection with the ritual of Masonry at least.





              [[ Dr. Steiner got his knowledge directly from the spiritual worlds,
              not from
              > any masonic-type order in Germany in the early 20th century]]


              That is as may be, but it does seem that he wanted a connection.

              Steiner writes to Marie Sivers on 30 November 1905 '... We have to
              deal with "a framework" only and not with more [substance] in the
              reality.'

              The framework I think would include the secrecy, as it's fairly
              central to Freemasonry.

              If Steiner acknowledges here that he will deal with the 'framework'
              then it is hard to argue that he totally rejects Masonic-type secrecy
              from the start.

              Indeed he seems to accept it, albeit reluctantly and for his own
              purpose.


              --- most of which,
              > in fact, by that time were quite degenerate and later gave birth to
              the Nazi
              > Party, by the way.

              Can you substantiate the degeneracy in 'most' Masonic orders ?

              I have only heard allegations about Reuss himself, who was on the
              fringes of Masonry at best, and hardly typical of Masonry.

              But again, how did they they gave birth to the Nazi Party ? - which I
              understand persecuted Freemasons.

              Best regards

              Ben
            • Pierre Gringoire
              ... Ben is quite right; Steiner did not take a wholly negative view of Freemasonry. In the three lecture cycles published under the title The Temple Legend ,
              Message 6 of 25 , May 25, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                > If Steiner acknowledges here that he will deal with
                > the 'framework' then it is hard to argue that he
                > totally rejects Masonic-type secrecy from the start.
                 
                 

                Ben is quite right; Steiner did not take a wholly negative view of Freemasonry.  In the three lecture cycles published under the title "The Temple Legend", he makes this quite clear.  Furthermore, neither did he take a wholly negative view to the other occult brotherhoods in existence at the time.  In the lecture cycle "The Occult Movement in the Nineteenth Century" he states that those who resisted the publication of occult knowledge did so out of a deep sense of responsibility.

                 

                The point about the discussion is not whether such brotherhoods existed (or still exist), nor even what Steiner's views of them were, but whether Steiner was himself being secretly guided by them.  That is what lies at the heart of the assertion made by Samuel.

                 

                I have not yet been able to decide whether the 'Rosicrucians Online' is merely a money making venture -- their website declares that they offer their wisdom for much less than other similar organisations (a bargain!) -- or whether they are being used by one of the aforesaid brotherhoods to slur Steiner by pretending to champion him.

                 

                We are still waiting for Samuel's promised references.  I have no doubt such references exist, but would prefer to read them, and to judge their veracity for myself, before making any further comment.

                 

                 

                N.B.  It is worth noting that C.G.Harrison, in the lecture cycle "The Transcendental Universe" (published 1894), refers to three distinct brotherhoods in operation at the time.  The terms he used were, I think, deliberately vague.  There were the "Conservatives", who sought to limit what was to be made public; the "Liberals" who saw the need for publication, and the "Brotherhood of the Shadow" who were mostly, but not exclusively, Jesuits.


                 
              • DoctorStarman@aol.com
                bscaro@yahoo.com writes: ... *******Well, in his autobiography, Steiner says he was aware of Theosophists but was not particularly drawn to them until after
                Message 7 of 25 , May 25, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  bscaro@... writes:

                  I am interested in the early days of Steiner and his relationship
                  to 'occult' type groups. 



                  *******Well, in his autobiography, Steiner says he was aware of Theosophists but was not particularly drawn to them until after he underwent initiation about the turn of the century. Relevant to this thread, he did not belong to any Masonic, Rosicrucian or other lodge or order in this world, and did not base what he had to say on any of them, but rather on direct perception of the spiritual worlds and the Great White Brotherhood there, to whom anyone can apply for initaiation anywhere at any time. His knowledge came directly from the spiritual worlds and was not derived from any occult group: in fact, from his direct knowledge he was able to inform these groups of their many errors.



                  >Arthur Edward Waite, whose face, as I recall, Crowley put on The Fool card of his Tarot deck? ;-)


                  This seems a little unfair.  And are you saying that you regard
                  Crowley as a credible judge of character, compared to Waite ? 


                  *******I'd say both were dabblers who read books and then engaged in mere speculation on what they read ---- or, even worse, in Crowley's case, pretended to know what they actually didn't. Neither were in Steiner's league.




                  [[He was a competent but uninspired writer on minor occult matters ]]

                  He was something more than that.  Despite his somewhat turgid style,
                  he was a very influential occult writer, and was of course more
                  widely influential due to his role in the creation of the Rider-Waite
                  Tarot drawn by Pamela Coleman-Smith. 



                  *******Which began the corruption of the Arcana and the obscuring of their symbols, a process completely finished now with the hundreds of decks on the market totally disconnected from the original Kabbalistic source of what Steiner in lectures called the "Book of Thoth" ---- as it can still be seen, for instance, in the old Marseilles deck. For example, Key #1, The Juggler, has the Hebrew letter Aleph turned into a man's head and arms in a lemniscate pattern in the original, but this was completely distorted by Waite; Key #13 (never called "Death", just #13) had a half-flesh, half-skeleton figure holding a scythe in such a way that arms and scythe make the glyph of Saturn, but Waite's image completely destroys this. Steiner referred many times to the originals of the Major Arcana coming from Egypt as 22 plates with geometrical symbols: Schure points out in his Great Initiates there were once 22 large metal plates that stood in the Grand Gallery of the Great Pyramid (the socket holes that used to hold them are still there), signifying the stages of initation leading up to the King's Chamber. The semi-legendary Egyptian Moses took and used these to create the Hebrew alphabet. None of the games people play with the Tarot symbols now contribute much to seeing the original 22 forms as they exist in the etheric world when the sounds are spoken, or understanding them. Eurythmy does. Perhaps Brother Ron could tell us his thoughts on Kabbalah and Tarot.



                  >
                  >   Steiner rejected Masonic-type secrecy totally from the start
                  and repeatedly emphasized everything must now be public....
                  He gave out meditative exercises to develop clairvoyance, and
                  publicly, not Masonic-type rituals..... The
                  high school or college of Spiritual Science founded directly by Steiner uses no
                  such rituals.]]



                  On the essay on this area on his site, debunking the old myth that
                  Steiner was an OTO member, PR Koenig states:

                  'For the setting up of his own E.S., Steiner wants to link with
                  symbolic-ritual effects of existing masonic traditions, for "absolute
                  truthfulness and maintenance of continuity".'

                  I am not sure of the actual words Steiner used, but if this
                  paraphrasing is accurate, it dos suggest that he wanted some
                  connection with the ritual of Masonry at least.





                  *******But there were no masonic-type rites in Steiner's first "ES" (esoteric school) in Berlin (see Guidance in Esoteric Training), and once more, there are no secret or masonic-type rituals in the Anthroposophical Society. The spiritual realities that once were pictured in Masonic rite-plays were given entirely new form in Steiner's Mystery Plays, however, but all out in the open.




                  [[ Dr. Steiner got his knowledge directly from the spiritual worlds,
                  not from any masonic-type order in Germany in the early 20th century]]


                  That is as may be, but it does seem that he wanted a connection. 
                  Steiner writes to Marie Sivers on 30 November 1905  '... We have to
                  deal with "a framework" only and not with more [substance] in the
                  reality.' 
                  The framework I think would include the secrecy, as it's fairly
                  central to Freemasonry.
                  If Steiner acknowledges here that he will deal with the 'framework'
                  then it is hard to argue that he totally rejects Masonic-type secrecy
                  from the start. 
                  Indeed he seems to accept it, albeit reluctantly and for his own
                  purpose.



                  *******That's quite a lot to read into a dozen words from one of Steiner's letters that don't even mention Masonry or anything remotely similar. No idea how you're drawing those conclusions from a few words, but it contradicts everything Steiner said and did.



                  --- most of which,
                  >in fact, by that time were quite degenerate and later gave birth to
                  the Nazi Party, by the way.

                  Can you substantiate the degeneracy in 'most' Masonic orders ?
                  I have only heard allegations about Reuss himself, who was on the
                  fringes of Masonry at best, and hardly typical of Masonry. 
                  But again, how did they they gave birth to the Nazi Party ? - which I
                  understand persecuted Freemasons.


                  *******Just as they burned down the Goetheanum and wanted to kill Steiner----they didn't want any competition.
                      After the defeat of the World War, the old Masonic leaders fell into disrepute, since their class had lost the war---- and in the chaos of 1919-1923, some quite loathsome characters started splinter groups filled with anti-Semitism and very low or "left-hand" occultism. One of these was behind the NSDWP which became the Nazi Party. Not everything Trevor Ravenscroft wrote in "The Spear of Destiny" is factual, but neither is it all made up, for instance Karl Hauschofer and the Thule Group, the ritual use of peyote, etc. Steiner had nothing to do with these black magic groups and in fact was openly warning against them at the end of his life. They had nothing to do with his impulse.

                  -starman
                • bscaro
                  [[ Relevant to this thread, he did not belong to any ... A distinction is necessary here. Belonging to an order is not the same thing as receiving a
                  Message 8 of 25 , May 26, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [[ Relevant to this thread, he did not belong to any
                    > Masonic, Rosicrucian or other lodge or order in this world, ]]

                    A distinction is necessary here.

                    Belonging to an order is not the same thing as receiving a
                    transmission. One may receive a transmission from an individual or
                    group without joining that group. One might then go on to found
                    one's own order, to do something quite different [as Steiner did] or
                    perhaps do nothing at all.

                    Critically, reception of an R+C transmission *does not mean* that you
                    are in any way bound to receive or propagate the teachings of the
                    group or individual who passed you the transmission.

                    The neo-Rosicrucian groups of the early 20th century were all founded
                    on connections to individuals or other groups, but typically
                    developed their own teachings, either from their own work or by
                    synthesising and copying from others.

                    An example. Lewis of AMORC also claimed connection with the Great
                    White Brotherhood himself. Obviously he came to it via a different
                    route than Steiner, having received transmissions or recognition from
                    two sources and then synthesising his own group's teachings from a
                    variety of sources largely unrelated to the teachings of those
                    sources.


                    [[and did not base
                    > what he had to say on any of them, but rather on direct perception
                    of the
                    > spiritual worlds and the Great White Brotherhood there, to whom
                    anyone can apply
                    > for initaiation anywhere at any time. ]]


                    As above, just because a transmission is received does not mean that
                    one can necessarily identify features of the transmitter's teachings
                    in those of the receiver of the transmission.



                    >
                    [[> *******But there were no masonic-type rites in Steiner's
                    first "ES" (esoteric
                    > school) in Berlin (see Guidance in Esoteric Training), and once
                    more, there
                    > are no secret or masonic-type rituals in the Anthroposophical
                    Society. The
                    > spiritual realities that once were pictured in Masonic rite-plays
                    were given
                    > entirely new form in Steiner's Mystery Plays, however, but all out
                    in the open.
                    >
                    >

                    *******That's quite a lot to read into a dozen words from one of
                    Steiner's
                    > letters that don't even mention Masonry or anything remotely
                    similar. No idea
                    > how you're drawing those conclusions from a few words, but it
                    contradicts
                    > everything Steiner said and did.]]


                    Well, the letters seem to be about the prospect of co-operation with
                    Reuss, specifically the letter of the 30th November to Sivers would
                    seem to be about the negotiations of 24 November, for a membership in
                    Memphis-Misraim and the right to use the `Misraim' name.

                    By 2 January 1906 Steiner does specifically refer to Masonry as 'a
                    caricature' having said to Marie Sivers on 30 November that Reuss
                    could not be trusted and that the occult forces withdrew themselves
                    from 'the thing'. Now, Reuss was a trader in Masonic charters and
                    that was pretty much the passion of his life.

                    So I can't really see what else Steiner might have been referring to
                    here other than Masonry.

                    Maybe there is more evidence to show Steiner is talking about
                    something else, if so, I'd like to see it. But it is not apparent
                    here.

                    The number of words is neither here nor there, so far as I can see.

                    I am not sure whether Steiner is contradicting himself, but if he is,
                    well, he was human, so . . .

                    The main reason I can see for his brief and atypical foray into this
                    area is his interest in Rosicrucianism, about which he wrote widely.

                    If one were to set out to write books on a highly secretive subject,
                    surely it would be sensible, as part of one's research to contact
                    people and societies in the field ?

                    I'm interested in Rosicrucianism too, and as a result have met with
                    people I would categorise in the same league as Reuss. It's part of
                    the territory I'm afraid.


                    >
                    [[ *******Just as they burned down the Goetheanum and wanted to kill
                    > Steiner----they didn't want any competition.
                    > After the defeat of the World War, the old Masonic leaders fell
                    into
                    > disrepute, since their class had lost the war---- and in the chaos
                    of 1919-1923,
                    > some quite loathsome characters started splinter groups filled with
                    > anti-Semitism and very low or "left-hand" occultism. ]]


                    Yes, but these few splinter groups, while they involved some Masons,
                    hardly goes to substantiate the claim of 'degeneracy' in most Masonic
                    orders. In fact these individuals were as marginal to Masonry as
                    Reuss and his ilk.

                    Well, I can agree with you that not everything Ravenscroft wrote was
                    factual, no argument there at all.

                    Fra Ben
                  • Pierre Gringoire
                    Firstly, many thanks to Joel for this informative link: http://www.defendingsteiner.com/articles/rs-reuss.php ... This assumes Steiner was being unconsciously
                    Message 9 of 25 , May 26, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                       
                      Firstly, many thanks to Joel for this informative link:

                      Secondly, regarding the following remarks made by Ben in his last post:

                      > just because a transmission is received does not mean that one can
                      > necessarily identify features of the transmitter's teachings
                      > in those of the receiver
                      of the transmission.
                       
                      This assumes Steiner was being unconsciously guided.  It is a restatement of the same slur made by Samuel.

                      > I am not sure whether Steiner is
                      contradicting
                      > himself, but if he is, well, he was human, so . . .
                       
                      Meaning: he was capable of lying.  Been here before haven't we?

                    • fratermaui
                      Dear List I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here either didnt
                      Message 10 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear List

                        I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a
                        masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here
                        either didnt want to know, said Steiner was never a member or worked
                        any such lodge and called me a liar. Now while I did make several
                        mistakes concerning some details I´ve since compared the oral
                        teachings of our lodge with those that still exist in Germany and
                        others and have formed a better picture of what happened through the
                        transmission of his masonic rituals to us. It was Theodore Ruess that
                        gave Steiner the authority to work the masonic rite, however Steiner
                        took no authority from him and changed the ritauls, for example the
                        second degree contains Lucifer and Ahriman. Now while I havent read
                        this book here it is given for those who simply told me to get lost
                        and said that no such rituals from Stiener ever existed. This book
                        proves that wrong and also in the reveiws shows that lodges in both
                        Germany and New Zealand still exist and another in Sweden.

                        See http://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Ritual-Work-Documents-Cognitive-
                        Ritual/dp/0880106123 to find out more about Steiners Masonic school

                        in LVX Frater Maui






                        --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DoctorStarman@... wrote:
                        >
                        > In a message dated 5/8/2005 11:20:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                        > fraterm@... writes:
                        >
                        > > No Pierre, we are quite aware of Steiner’s take on secret
                        orders and the
                        > > such as after he left the order he did indeed reject the society
                        and would have
                        > > nothing to do with it and Pat Z should have some references to
                        that. Again
                        > > its only given for historical reference, I’m not sure if the
                        title Supreme
                        > > Magus is correct as they had another name for it also (ie another
                        language) but
                        > > SM is the standard to describe the head of an order. Waite left
                        too many
                        > > references to Steiner being in this society for a time and he was
                        in just about
                        > > every society during his era and knew everyone’s going on’s
                        quite well. The
                        > > order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
                        umbrella group, it
                        > > will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society
                        came under
                        > > its wings as well....
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        > *******To assert that Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society,
                        which fought
                        > pitched battles with all Masonic-type groups for the same reason as
                        Steiner,
                        > that she believed that everything must be revealed openly----and
                        for which
                        > practice of revealing their secrets, Blavatsky herself suffered a
                        lot----shows even
                        > less understanding of it than of the Anthroposophical Society on
                        your part.
                        >
                        > There was no order Steiner was a head of which he later
                        rejected; he was
                        > a loner in the late 1890s in Berlin except for the many literary
                        figures he
                        > associated with. Neither he nor any of his biographers have ever
                        said anything
                        > about any Order. He described a SPIRITUAL being tutoring him at
                        this time, whom
                        > he called the Master.
                        >
                        > Once more, if you are interested in the study of Steiner and his
                        > anthroposophy you are welcome here. You are not, when you talk
                        about some stuff which
                        > is completely foreign to him and assert it was his source, implying
                        superior
                        > knowledge, which might account for not having heard one single
                        question from
                        > you. That would seem to indicate you just want to spam this list
                        with ads for
                        > your own list, which you are promoting by the aid of definite
                        falsehoods about
                        > Steiner. Stop these baseless assertions and show some interest in
                        what we're
                        > about or you will be removed.
                        >
                        > -starman
                        >
                        >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > In LVX Samuel
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > From: steiner@yahoogroups.com [mailto:steiner@yahoogroups.com] On
                        Behalf Of
                        > > Pierre Gringoire
                        > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2005 7:57 AM
                        > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                        > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner
                        Rosicrucian "Transmission"
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > I must say that I am in complete agreement with Sheila and Dr.
                        Starman. The
                        > > following is highly questionable:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > "In 1897 Rudolf Steiner travelled to Berlin to become Supreme
                        Magus over the
                        > > Grand Lodge there."
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > It is quite possible that the person using the pseudonym 'Frater
                        Maui' or
                        > > 'Samuel' is unaware of the contentious nature of these remarks.
                        If so, he
                        > > displays an ignorance of both Steiner and the circumstances of
                        his life. It
                        > > would be highly surprising if any genuine Rosicrucian Order would
                        fail to inform
                        > > its members exactly why such remarks are controversial. The
                        exact motive
                        > > behind this 'revelation' is as yet unclear.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Pierre Gringiore
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > www.DrStarman.com
                        >
                      • Durward Starman
                        That link leads nowhere, very symbolic since what you re talking about doesn t exist. 1.) Steiner was not a Mason; 2.) He did not establish any organization
                        Message 11 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
                        • 0 Attachment
                          That link leads nowhere, very symbolic since what you're talking about doesn't exist.
                           
                          1.) Steiner was not a Mason;
                          2.) He did not establish any organization besides the Anthroposophical Society;
                          3.) Anyone seeking to say he did so, in the face of all facts to the contrary which can be verified by contacting the Goetheanum, is trying to hijack Steiner to get his stamp of approval on some fake group based on lies.
                          4.) If you have no interest in Steiner's teachings you do not want to be part of this group. You're welcome to form your own Theodore Ruess list and do whatever you want with it. Try to say he was "Steiner's teacher" and you will be contradicted, however.
                           
                          -Starman
                          www.DrStarman.com



                          To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                          From: fratermaui@...
                          Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:17:11 +0000
                          Subject: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner Rosicrucian "Transmission"


                          Dear List

                          I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a
                          masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here
                          either didnt want to know, said Steiner was never a member or worked
                          any such lodge and called me a liar. Now while I did make several
                          mistakes concerning some details I´ve since compared the oral
                          teachings of our lodge with those that still exist in Germany and
                          others and have formed a better picture of what happened through the
                          transmission of his masonic rituals to us. It was Theodore Ruess that
                          gave Steiner the authority to work the masonic rite, however Steiner
                          took no authority from him and changed the ritauls, for example the
                          second degree contains Lucifer and Ahriman. Now while I havent read
                          this book here it is given for those who simply told me to get lost
                          and said that no such rituals from Stiener ever existed. This book
                          proves that wrong and also in the reveiws shows that lodges in both
                          Germany and New Zealand still exist and another in Sweden.

                          See http://www.amazon. com/Freemasonry- Ritual-Work- Documents- Cognitive-
                          Ritual/dp/088010612 3 to find out more about Steiners Masonic school

                          in LVX Frater Maui

                          --- In steiner@yahoogroups .com, DoctorStarman@ ... wrote:
                          >
                          > In a message dated 5/8/2005 11:20:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                          > fraterm@... writes:
                          >
                          > > No Pierre, we are quite aware of Steiner’s take on secret
                          orders and the
                          > > such as after he left the order he did indeed reject the society
                          and would have
                          > > nothing to do with it and Pat Z should have some references to
                          that. Again
                          > > its only given for historical reference, I’m not sure if the
                          title Supreme
                          > > Magus is correct as they had another name for it also (ie another
                          language) but
                          > > SM is the standard to describe the head of an order. Waite left
                          too many
                          > > references to Steiner being in this society for a time and he was
                          in just about
                          > > every society during his era and knew everyone’s going on’s
                          quite well. The
                          > > order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
                          umbrella group, it
                          > > will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society
                          came under
                          > > its wings as well....
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > *******To assert that Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society,
                          which fought
                          > pitched battles with all Masonic-type groups for the same reason as
                          Steiner,
                          > that she believed that everything must be revealed openly----and
                          for which
                          > practice of revealing their secrets, Blavatsky herself suffered a
                          lot----shows even
                          > less understanding of it than of the Anthroposophical Society on
                          your part.
                          >
                          > There was no order Steiner was a head of which he later
                          rejected; he was
                          > a loner in the late 1890s in Berlin except for the many literary
                          figures he
                          > associated with. Neither he nor any of his biographers have ever
                          said anything
                          > about any Order. He described a SPIRITUAL being tutoring him at
                          this time, whom
                          > he called the Master.
                          >
                          > Once more, if you are interested in the study of Steiner and his
                          > anthroposophy you are welcome here. You are not, when you talk
                          about some stuff which
                          > is completely foreign to him and assert it was his source, implying
                          superior
                          > knowledge, which might account for not having heard one single
                          question from
                          > you. That would seem to indicate you just want to spam this list
                          with ads for
                          > your own list, which you are promoting by the aid of definite
                          falsehoods about
                          > Steiner. Stop these baseless assertions and show some interest in
                          what we're
                          > about or you will be removed.
                          >
                          > -starman
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > In LVX Samuel
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > From: steiner@yahoogroups .com [mailto:steiner@yahoogroups .com] On
                          Behalf Of
                          > > Pierre Gringoire
                          > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2005 7:57 AM
                          > > To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
                          > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner
                          Rosicrucian "Transmission"
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > I must say that I am in complete agreement with Sheila and Dr.
                          Starman. The
                          > > following is highly questionable:
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > "In 1897 Rudolf Steiner travelled to Berlin to become Supreme
                          Magus over the
                          > > Grand Lodge there."
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > It is quite possible that the person using the pseudonym 'Frater
                          Maui' or
                          > > 'Samuel' is unaware of the contentious nature of these remarks.
                          If so, he
                          > > displays an ignorance of both Steiner and the circumstances of
                          his life. It
                          > > would be highly surprising if any genuine Rosicrucian Order would
                          fail to inform
                          > > its members exactly why such remarks are controversial. The
                          exact motive
                          > > behind this 'revelation' is as yet unclear.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Pierre Gringiore
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > www.DrStarman. com
                          >




                          Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary! Check it out!
                        • Mathew Morrell
                          ** Aren t Masons the ones that ride around in little cars during parades? ... worked ... the ... that ... Steiner ... Cognitive- ... society ... another ...
                          Message 12 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
                          • 0 Attachment
                            ** Aren't Masons the ones that ride around in little cars during
                            parades?



                            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, "fratermaui" <fratermaui@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > Dear List
                            >
                            > I received quite a bashing here when I said that Steiner created a
                            > masonic lodge and that it still continued to operate. People here
                            > either didnt want to know, said Steiner was never a member or
                            worked
                            > any such lodge and called me a liar. Now while I did make several
                            > mistakes concerning some details I´ve since compared the oral
                            > teachings of our lodge with those that still exist in Germany and
                            > others and have formed a better picture of what happened through
                            the
                            > transmission of his masonic rituals to us. It was Theodore Ruess
                            that
                            > gave Steiner the authority to work the masonic rite, however
                            Steiner
                            > took no authority from him and changed the ritauls, for example the
                            > second degree contains Lucifer and Ahriman. Now while I havent read
                            > this book here it is given for those who simply told me to get lost
                            > and said that no such rituals from Stiener ever existed. This book
                            > proves that wrong and also in the reveiws shows that lodges in both
                            > Germany and New Zealand still exist and another in Sweden.
                            >
                            > See http://www.amazon.com/Freemasonry-Ritual-Work-Documents-
                            Cognitive-
                            > Ritual/dp/0880106123 to find out more about Steiners Masonic school
                            >
                            > in LVX Frater Maui
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DoctorStarman@ wrote:
                            > >
                            > > In a message dated 5/8/2005 11:20:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
                            > > fraterm@ writes:
                            > >
                            > > > No Pierre, we are quite aware of Steiner’s take on secret
                            > orders and the
                            > > > such as after he left the order he did indeed reject the
                            society
                            > and would have
                            > > > nothing to do with it and Pat Z should have some references to
                            > that. Again
                            > > > its only given for historical reference, I’m not sure if the
                            > title Supreme
                            > > > Magus is correct as they had another name for it also (ie
                            another
                            > language) but
                            > > > SM is the standard to describe the head of an order. Waite left
                            > too many
                            > > > references to Steiner being in this society for a time and he
                            was
                            > in just about
                            > > > every society during his era and knew everyone’s going on’s
                            > quite well. The
                            > > > order that Steiner chaired when Felkin arrived was also an
                            > umbrella group, it
                            > > > will again drive you nuts to hear that the Theosophical society
                            > came under
                            > > > its wings as well....
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > > *******To assert that Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society,
                            > which fought
                            > > pitched battles with all Masonic-type groups for the same reason
                            as
                            > Steiner,
                            > > that she believed that everything must be revealed openly----and
                            > for which
                            > > practice of revealing their secrets, Blavatsky herself suffered a
                            > lot----shows even
                            > > less understanding of it than of the Anthroposophical Society on
                            > your part.
                            > >
                            > > There was no order Steiner was a head of which he later
                            > rejected; he was
                            > > a loner in the late 1890s in Berlin except for the many literary
                            > figures he
                            > > associated with. Neither he nor any of his biographers have ever
                            > said anything
                            > > about any Order. He described a SPIRITUAL being tutoring him at
                            > this time, whom
                            > > he called the Master.
                            > >
                            > > Once more, if you are interested in the study of Steiner and
                            his
                            > > anthroposophy you are welcome here. You are not, when you talk
                            > about some stuff which
                            > > is completely foreign to him and assert it was his source,
                            implying
                            > superior
                            > > knowledge, which might account for not having heard one single
                            > question from
                            > > you. That would seem to indicate you just want to spam this list
                            > with ads for
                            > > your own list, which you are promoting by the aid of definite
                            > falsehoods about
                            > > Steiner. Stop these baseless assertions and show some interest in
                            > what we're
                            > > about or you will be removed.
                            > >
                            > > -starman
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > In LVX Samuel
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > From: steiner@yahoogroups.com [mailto:steiner@yahoogroups.com]
                            On
                            > Behalf Of
                            > > > Pierre Gringoire
                            > > > Sent: Monday, 9 May 2005 7:57 AM
                            > > > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
                            > > > Subject: Re: [steiner] Re: Alleged Steiner
                            > Rosicrucian "Transmission"
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > I must say that I am in complete agreement with Sheila and Dr.
                            > Starman. The
                            > > > following is highly questionable:
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > "In 1897 Rudolf Steiner travelled to Berlin to become Supreme
                            > Magus over the
                            > > > Grand Lodge there."
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > It is quite possible that the person using the
                            pseudonym 'Frater
                            > Maui' or
                            > > > 'Samuel' is unaware of the contentious nature of these
                            remarks.
                            > If so, he
                            > > > displays an ignorance of both Steiner and the circumstances of
                            > his life. It
                            > > > would be highly surprising if any genuine Rosicrucian Order
                            would
                            > fail to inform
                            > > > its members exactly why such remarks are controversial. The
                            > exact motive
                            > > > behind this 'revelation' is as yet unclear.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > > Pierre Gringiore
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > www.DrStarman.com
                            > >
                            >
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.