Theos-Talk Archives (November 2006 Message tt01080)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, gregory@... wrote:
>
> I have never seen any direct claim by the TORC to any "physical"
> succession (after all, if The Master The Count helped to start it 
any mere
> mortal could not contribute much of additional value!). 

While an absence of 'physical succession' appears reasonable, I've 
noticed groups in 'Western' traditions typically point to some 
physical succession or personal initiation alongside messages from 
various Masters or Superiors, Secret Chiefs and the like. 

This 'composite' approach may have something to do with the primacy 
of the Roman Catholic Church in many European countries- occultists 
under the shadow of the Church's claims to apostolic succession 
maybe feeling a bit naked without some tangible succession of their 
own ?  
 
Lineages from Reuss and Yarker have been the raw material for a 
number of claims. I mentioned the Freres-Aines de la Rose-Croix of 
Roger Caro which seems to have emerged between 1968-73.  Inspired, 
like the Priory of Sion, by AMORC promotional literature, Caro 
claimed a list of Grand Masters including Steiner and Crowley, which 
seemed implausible, but when one considers the recent work on links 
between Steiner and Reuss and what we already know of Reuss and 
Crowley, the myth of so-called 'Elder Brothers of the Rosy Cross' 
may not be as fanciful as I had first thought.  
 
Max Heindel also talked both of 'Elder Brothers' and 'Elder Brothers 
of the Rosy Cross' and is believed to have been heavily influenced 
by Steiner.  Obviously, Theosophical use of the term is widespread 
too.  
 
Whether these diverse parables are hinting at a specific, 
tangible 'inner claim' is a different question.  
 
While I agree that plumbing for 'option (ii) direct authority from 
the Masters' is more straightforward, seemingly relegating difficult 
questions of 'authenticity' into the realms of the unprovable, I 
wonder if in fact, it imposes a heavier onus on the person claimed 
to be the intermediary of the Masters ?  The moral failings of a 
Leadbeater surely call into question not only messages transmitted 
from the Masters, but even the Masters' judgement in selecting such 
a fallable mouthpiece in the first place.  
 
By contrast, the composite approach of an AMORC, while possibly 
inconsistent, does allow the group some 'wriggle room' when 
confronted with the founder's failings. 
 
Briefly, AMORC claims both connections with Masters of obvious 
Theosophic origin, eg 'Morya-El', 'Koot-Hoomi' and the like, a 
communication with a discarnate being called 'AMORCUS' which 
apparently appeared to HS Lewis in a church in New York, I believe, 
and many other mentions of an ethereal 'Great White Lodge' which 
instructed Lewis from time to time.  

Mundane sources included an early flirtation with the OTO, hotly 
denied by the group, a 'charter' from the 'Toulouse Rosicrucians' 
which vanished c.1918, apparently after Crowley pointed out the poor 
French grammar therein, and a letter from a French Rose-Croix 
visiting New York which was subject to similar linguistic 
criticisms.  
 
In the AMORC schema, the 'real story' was formerly only given to 
members of the 12th degree, and this was HS Lewis' experience of 
a 'rare initiation' while in the presence of occultists in 
Toulouse.  Lewis appears to have known the names of these 
individuals, and he certainly did travel to Toulouse, so the 
account, while fanciful, seems to have some basis in reality. 
 
Aspects of AMORC ritual indicate strong French influences, from 
either Cagliostro's 'Egyptian' rite, or Martinism.
 
AMORC in previous years had a somewhat noxious and 'fundamentalist' 
personality cult surrounding both HS Lewis and his son. However, one 
impact of years of criticism of Lewis' dubious claims to 'historical 
continuity' may be seen in that when I rejoined AMORC in 2003, the 
orientation for neophytes relegated HS Lewis to 'a significant 
player in the movement in the early years of the 20th century'.  
 
This is pure hokum, AMORC being Lewis' creation entirely, but their 
reinterpretation of Rosicrucian history, which in the AMORC myth 
stems from Egypt c.3500BC, allowed for the downplaying of Lewis' 
mundane contacts - always highly questionable - in favour of 1. a 
more public declaration regarding his 'rare initiation', as per 
Rebisse's book, and 2. assertions of a 5500 year old 'historical 
continuity' which is vague as to explicit modes of transmission.  
 
In this schema, the personal failings of HS Lewis matter far less, 
as he can be presented both as a mere functionary passing on a 
transmission, and as only one individual in a movement allegedly 
stretching back 5500 years.  Whether AMORC moves toward a more 
flexible and adult discussion of its history in the years to come is 
unknown at this point, but perhaps it's a stronger chance than 
previously.
 
Dr Tillett mentions the SRIA and at the risk of running off topic, I 
will briefly mention a few thoughts in relation to this group.  

SRIA emerged c. 1865, a little while before the emergence of the GD, 
OTO and AMORC and other 'neo-Rosicrucian' movements from the 1880s 
on, but slightly after PB Randolph's 1858 mix of spiritism and 
mesmerism.  

It is my view that while there are similarities, most particularly 
between SRIA and GD, that the SRIA represented the last 
manifestation of 18th century 'Gold Und Rosenkreuz related high-
degree Masonic Rosicrucianism, and was *not* merely a early 
precursor of late 19th and early 20th century neo-Rosicrucianism. 

In contrast to the GD, TS, AMORC, BOTA and other groups, SRIA is 
solidly Christian, Masonic, and heavily ritualistic.  

It has no teachings of 'Eastern' origin, no notion of 'Masters' and 
despite the early fantasies of Westcott, no romantic founding myth- 
such notions were never important and were finally debunked by 1947. 
Further, the notion of a personality cult is entirely alien to SRIA. 

SRIA's particular lack of founding myths and personality cult are 
the most distinct differences from later groups, all of which, in my 
opinion, used myths around founders and foundations as a counter to 
their own non-sectarianism.  Basically, neo-Rosicrucian and 
Theosophical groups, while prescribing no religion for members, have 
in one way or another all functioned as small religions.

Paradoxically, the very dullness of SRIA's founding is perhaps its 
mark of authenticity.  A moribund, Masonic-related Rosicrucian body 
which appears to have stumbled out of history in Edinburgh, 
chartered two English Masons and ingloriously expired.  
  
Stipulating 'Trinitarian Christianity' as a membership requirement, 
lacking personality cults or founding myths, and heavily steeped in 
Masonry -with its harmonious dichotomy between 'traditional' and 
recorded history, SRIA remains a largely speculative and 
investigative body.  It embodies a slightly boffinish and absurdist 
tone ? hints of The Goons, Monty Python spring readily to mind at 
its rituals.  

It lacks much in the way of teachings, though the best 'fit' is with 
instruction in laboratory alchemy, which presumably existed in the 
group at one time, but was all but lost by the time of the Edinburgh 
group's inglorious stumble into the light of modern history and 
subsequent expiry. 

I should state a few things in relation to my own biases and ability 
to comment on these matters.  I'm a member of SRIA, BOTA and Craft 
Masonry, a Martinist group, and a former member of AMORC, GD and 
Pythagorean groups. 

Ben Scanlon