Rosicrucian order coming out of the closet?

[Byrne]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>that jackass who duped the Beatles may well have been a spook....Maharishi Mahesh Yogi<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I remember the story of when the Beatles were fed up with their spell in India with the Maharishi (the story is that the Maharishi attempted to get frisky with Mia Farrow), & they all wanted to go home (Ringo didn't like the food apparently & brought his own tins of baked beans..).<br><br>The Fab 4 were arguing over who would tell the Maharishi & it was then decided that John would tell him. So he told the Maharishi "We're leaving to go back to England". The Maharishi, distraught at losing his world famous students asked why? <br>Lennon said, "If you're so cosmic, you'll know why."<br><br>Go 'head La........... <p></p><i></i>

[*]

<br><br>It's no surprise that a left-hand-path proponent might consider Steiner's right-hand-path to be "wacky"<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

I find Steiner's assertions about consciousness and its interrelatedness with astrology to be "wacky". That is, lacking in any evidence whatsoever. When I read HIS books, I can't help but imagine they were written in the seventies, as opposed to much earlier. He seems an example of everything that is misleading in the New Age Movement.<br><br>I found the book on the Rose Cross interesting, specifically because MOST of it isn't by Steiner, it is mostly a collection of the original RC pamphlets that appeared all over Europe and MADE the RC movement.<br><br>Steiner's own doctrines are exceedingly difficult to understand and seem contradictory at times. I normally view an inability to be self-consistent as a sign that one should proceed with caution. <br><br>BTW, LHP?<br>I hope you're not talking about me, as I've never been a proponent for LHP.<br><br>And not because it is 'evil', but because it is 'inferior'.<br><br>Of course, maybe I'm asking for too much. Some people like their information spoon-fed to them by ex-hippies. I like to go to the source, and Steiner's book is the only place I've found such a large collection of RC 'sources'.<br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Homeless Halo]

Of course, from what I've seen, you seem to be fairly taken by Mr. Steiner's approach. I personally find it lacking in certain respects, not the least of which is its failure to line up with various aspects of religious history. If seen in a symbolic sense, Mr Steiner may have a number of genuine insights, but taken without salt, he seems like just another bubble headed new ager. <br><br>I'm particularly skeptical about his "hierarchies" of spiritual entities, as I find it unlikely that such information, even if true, could be known so certainly. He appears to give a mishmash of redacted Christian mysticism and Theosophical leanings. I'm still bothered by his assertions as to the fate of the world and such things as his confusion over the Satan/Lucifer/Molech/Christ relationship, as his opinon on this issue seems to vary with time is always at odds with historical scholarship on this issue.<br><br>It is possible that as, I assume, at least a partial adherent to his teachings you could explain it better to me.<br><br>Also, if it was me you referred to above(your sub line re: my post), you could explain how I am a LHP proponent, and what the essential differences between this and the RHP are so that I might mend my ways, if this is so.<br><br>Beyond that, we could discuss further the teachings of the RC. I've always been fascinated by these fellows as my own Occult "branch" owes much to their knowledge and traditions.<br><br>Such are my thoughts.<br><br>Love is the Law,<br>-SHCR<br><br> <p></p><i></i>