Theos-Talk Archives (January 2002 Message tt00251)

<<<<John Dee's book THE HIEROGLYPHIC MONAD", 
published in Antwerp, 1564, is different in that is is merely a meditiation on the number one as far I understand, and has Steve pointed out once, it supposed to have "nada" to do with Leibniz. So there are really severral referrences to Monad.>>>

I have Dee's book, and have studied it for some time now. Dee's "monad" is a glyph that incorporates the signs of the 7 planets. His discussions are mystical, and difficult to fathom, but I think that his central idea or premise is that by meditating on this monadic glyph, one can become attuned to the planets and that the 7 planetary forces are aspects of a single force. 


<<<Regarding Leibniz who for some reason ended up more mainstream, the alternative to that was a version appreciated and distributed in 
esoteric circles that stems from the flemish Franz Mercurius van Helmont. >>>

Leibniz did define the monad as being an indivisible unit, and therefore the very opposite of an aggregate. Van Helmont is mentioned a good deal in Jung's works, where Jung looks at it from a psychological perspective.


<<<<But the most striking is of course that they both used the same source where they developed their theories of the "Monad" from, that is the Lurian Cabalah, and I think you are one those along with 
Steve Stubb, and myself that pointed out how the whole of Blavatsky's system is really the cabalistic tree of life put in a circular fashion called "rounds". >>>

Yes. Blavatsky does this very clearly in the SD in a figure in Vol I. Anyone familiar with the Tree of Life will clearly recognize her Globes are simply the Sephiroth re-arranged in a circular plattern. Although this seems almost trivial, I found it profound. I have pathworked both, and I have found that her circular pattern is much more effective, and produced much better results for me. While the Globe=Sephirah equation holds, her "pathways" between them are very different (for example, all pathways bisecting planes are laya-centers rather than true paths) and the entire dynamics are different. I think her re-arrangement is nothing short of genius, and have wondered where she got the idea.


<<<I have since the last few days been working on an article that I will place on my web site in a matter of days (will send the link to this list) that will expand extensifly on the above but particularly also on the genesis of the (original) Rosicrucians and the fact that the initial referencc to the Rosicrucian fiction is the call for a brotherhood, a Christian/kabbalist assembly of reformers prepared to spread support for a wave of change throughout Europe.>>>

I understand that they did, in fact, form such a brotherhood. Theosophy is certainly not the first organization to be based on brotherhood.


<<<First, Rosicrucianism never was the successive unfolding of a clearly held together programm of scientific reform that she believed it to 
be.>>>

Agreed.


<<<Second, a number of scholars point out that the early British influence on the Würtemberg Rosicrucians was overemphasized, particularly when Yates concentrated on John Dee (Jerry I don't know 
what wyou have to ad to that ?)>>>

The Golden Dawn, which Yates was a member (or was it Yeats??), and Westcott was a co-founder, praticed Enochian magic ala John Dee. The GD had much more influence than the Rosicrucians, but in fairness it is said that some of the GD rituals (the crypt) were taken from them. It has been some years since I researched all of this, and my memory is rusty.


<<<<Most interpreters do agree, however, that 
the Rosicrucian texts are Part of a more profound central European context, a context rooted in late sixteenth century Paracelsism and by theosophy, magic, Christian Kabbalah, and alchemical ideas that at first glance have nothing to do with Dee's British Imperialism.>>>

All of these ideas relate to theosophy (small t). Dee was a pious Christian, trying to discover truth via the angels. He did come away with a new language and a whole new universe model, but during his life he seems never to have been aware of what the angels actually gave him, and he died penniless and in despair. Little to nothing was done with his findings until Mathers adopted it for the GD. And after that little to nothing was done until I came along. I wrote 6 books on it. Now it is pretty well known and one can find it all over the Internet.


<<<<Yates's third, even more consequential claim is that the secret doctrine of the Rosicrucian documents is encapsuled in their use of 
the "Monad" sign taken from John Dee, and although that might be true for Blavatsky, a recent critic, Roland Edighoffer, argues that Andreae's application of Dee's Monas sign in the Chemical Wedding derives merely from its occurrence on the gate to the fortified City of wisdom displayed in Heinrich Khunrath's theosophic summation Amphitheatrum Aetherne (Frankfurt, 1595, 2nd ed. Hanau, 1609), a 
tract that Andreae certainly read and from which he quotes the motto "e millibus vix um". The elaborate doctrine behind the construction of the Monas is, however, not at all explained in Khunrath's summation.>>>>

John Dee's monad and Blavatsky's monads all have one main thing in common - they are not indivisible units ala Leibniz, but compounds combined together to form relative units. As such, they are useful for meditation, but when folks treat them as real monads they get into distorted views.


<<<It seem to me therefore that we are left with the scenario that the printers of the Fama borrowed Andreae's fiction of "Cristian Rosencreutz," but without concern for the other elements of his do ctrine presented in the chemical Wedding at the time of its printing in 1616 at Strassburg.>>>

Could be, but I am in agreement with Jung that the marriage itself is archetypal, and so could come into the minds of different people at different times.


<<<A book that shows details about the van Helmont Monadic theories by the way is is Frank Baudach "Planeten der 
Unschuld"(translated:Planets of Inocence), 1993.
It ultimate as I mentioned van Helmont Monadic theory has many elements that one finds back with Swedenborg who stood under the direct influence of van Helmont but also the early Blavatsky, the works of P.B.Randolph ,E.H. Britten and other litterature and was verry present in Blavatsky's Isis plus her other compilations. More 
detailstomorrow. Brigitte>>>>

I don't think anyone can disagree with you here. But doesn't she clearly say that she never "invented" anything herself? So I am not sure what your point is. Are you trying to determine exactly what her "nosegay" was? If so, then Qabbalism was surely a part of it. Mathers' book The Kabbalah Unveiled was first published in 1888, and she may have read it (I have a copy, and it is a very good intro to the subject).

Jerry S.
--