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

Re: Alleged Steiner Rosicrucian "Transmission"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 25 , May 23, 2005
      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 2 of 25 , May 25, 2005
        > 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 3 of 25 , May 25, 2005
          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 4 of 25 , May 26, 2005
            [[ 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 5 of 25 , May 26, 2005
               
              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 6 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
                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 7 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
                  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 8 of 25 , Dec 14, 2007
                    ** 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.