[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Near theend of the 18th century the master of Polish Rosicrucians with the title of "Justitiarius" was Count Karol AdolfBruhl, known in the Order as Frater Oscarus.An important and influential member was Count August Moszynski, amagnate and alchemist, who had a laboratory in his palace in Warsaw and conducted alchemical experimentsfinanced by King Stanislaw August Poniatowski.He is also known as the person who exposed the frauds ofCagliostro when the latter visited Warsaw in 1780.There is almost nothing known about the Rosicrucians in Poland during the 19th century.There were a number ofpeople interested in alchemy, as for example Jozef Bohdan Dziekonski, who wrote a novel about MichaelSendivogius and the Rosicrucian Fraternity (published in 1843), in many ways similar to Bulwer Lytton's Zanoni.There were also Polish patrons of Eliphas Levi (Count Branicki and Count Mniszech), a member of Soc.Ros.inAnglia and the Golden Dawn (Dr.Edward Bogdan Jastrzebski), and other later connections, but it is doubtfulwhether these were within the true "Rosicrucian succession".As far as the problem of "succession" is concerned, itseems to me that there may be three possibilities to be taken into account: (1) that there were two distinctorganisations using similar names, one of which was concerned with "universal reformation" in the spirit of variousUtopias (this was probably very loosely organised and would include Andreae and his circle, Comenius, etc.), whilethe other was concerned with alchemy and the hermetic philosophy and included among its members Julius Sperber,Michael Maier, Michael Sendivogius, Robert Fludd, and others; (2) that these were two branches of the sameorganisation, the alchemical branch being called "Golden" to distinguish itself; (3) that there was only one orderdevoted to the study of alchemy and the hermetic/gnostic tradition, while the Fama, Confessio and the ChymicalWedding were a joke played by Andreae on the real Rosicrucian fraternity.The third possibility, as far as I amaware, has never been suggested, and it seems to me the most logical explanation of the whole mystery, especiallyas it is confirmed by Andraea himself who said that he had written the Chymical Wedding as a satire.He may havelearnt about the existence of a secret association of people with rather doubtful beliefs and tried to combat it byissuing the manifestos in their name, not expecting that these would be taken seriously by the public.Rafal T.Prinke - The Great Work in theTheatre of the WorldArticle originally published in A Compendium on theRosicrucian Vault, ed.by Adam McLean, Edinburgh, 1985,19-34. THE GREAT WORK IN THE THEATREOF THE WORLDThe symbolic significance of the Vault of Our Father C.R.C.as described in the Fama Fraternitatis and other supposedlyRosicrucian sourcesGeneral RemarksThe Vault of Christian Rosenkreutz, the story of its foundation, later discovery and opening, and its description formthe central element of the first published document of the Rosicrucian Order, generally believed to be one of thethree "official" publications.The document is of course the Fama Fraternitatis published in Cassel in 1614.Theflood of various pamphlets and books on the subject which followed its publication and still continues to be issuedby different groups and individuals (either claiming succession to the original authors or analysing the Rosicrucianphenomenon) contains surprisingly little additional information about the Vault and its meaning.Before passing on to the presentation of my own ideas on the subject, however, I would like to devote some space todefining the approaches or angles from which the whole Rosicrucian problem can be (and is) studied.These can beroughly divided into the following groups:1.Extreme orthodox scholarship: investigations are usually meticulous but are concerned with the facts relatingdirectly to the problem and conclusions are strictly based on them.This attitude is shown especially by Germanhistorians such as Hans Schick.2.Progressive orthodox scholarship: conclusions are drawn from a wider array of facts, also those which seem tohave no direct relation to the problem, and far-reaching hypotheses are put forward, but no deeper significance ormeaning of them is given.Examples of this attitude may be found in Frances Yates or W.E.Peuckert.3.Sober esotericism combined with heterodox scholarship: existence of the esoteric tradition is accepted and factsare interpreted in its light but great effort is made to be in agreement with historically proven or provable facts.Thisattitude can be found in the writings of Arthur Edward Waite, Manly Palmer Hall, and Adam McLean.4.Far-reaching esotericism: historical facts get a highly sopsophisticated interpretation but they are nevercontradicted by it, i.e.it is a magical interpretation.The best example of this approach is the work of S.L.MacGregor Mathers.5.Naive esotericism: new and otherwise unknown "historical facts" are discovered by magical means (reading theAkashic record, communication with the Masters, clairvoyance, etc.) and conclusions are based on them.There aremany examples of this attitude, most notably Rudolph Steiner, anthroposophists, theosophists, AMORC ("Echnatonwas a Rosicrucian" !), etc.6.Crazy esotericism: the whole problem is either developed ad absurdum (as in Hargrave Jennings) or is not takenseriously (as in joking remarks by Aleister Crowley).Personally, I believe that the best two ways of approaching the Rosicrucian enigma by an esotericist are the thirdand the sixth.The value of the former is obvious, while that of the latter lies in the fact that by making nonsense outof the whole thing it enables one to break through the concentional reasoning and get to the "deeper meaning".It isthe way somewhat similar to the method of Zen.However, in this essay I will be concerned with the third approachonly.For this reason another, more general, differentiation has to be made.In the writings of early Rosicrucian apologiststhere are various strange "facts" given, which are obviously (for the most part, at least) not "historical facts" butsomething that can be called "traditional facts".Now, a question arises whether a "sober esotericist" should believethem or not.My point of view is that such facts are to be "believed" but with another kind of "belief".It is thedifference between magical thinking and scientific thinking that presents itself here and an esotericist should learn toswitch from one to the other without confusing them (as the "naive" esotericists" do) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl trzylatki.xlx.pl
.Near theend of the 18th century the master of Polish Rosicrucians with the title of "Justitiarius" was Count Karol AdolfBruhl, known in the Order as Frater Oscarus.An important and influential member was Count August Moszynski, amagnate and alchemist, who had a laboratory in his palace in Warsaw and conducted alchemical experimentsfinanced by King Stanislaw August Poniatowski.He is also known as the person who exposed the frauds ofCagliostro when the latter visited Warsaw in 1780.There is almost nothing known about the Rosicrucians in Poland during the 19th century.There were a number ofpeople interested in alchemy, as for example Jozef Bohdan Dziekonski, who wrote a novel about MichaelSendivogius and the Rosicrucian Fraternity (published in 1843), in many ways similar to Bulwer Lytton's Zanoni.There were also Polish patrons of Eliphas Levi (Count Branicki and Count Mniszech), a member of Soc.Ros.inAnglia and the Golden Dawn (Dr.Edward Bogdan Jastrzebski), and other later connections, but it is doubtfulwhether these were within the true "Rosicrucian succession".As far as the problem of "succession" is concerned, itseems to me that there may be three possibilities to be taken into account: (1) that there were two distinctorganisations using similar names, one of which was concerned with "universal reformation" in the spirit of variousUtopias (this was probably very loosely organised and would include Andreae and his circle, Comenius, etc.), whilethe other was concerned with alchemy and the hermetic philosophy and included among its members Julius Sperber,Michael Maier, Michael Sendivogius, Robert Fludd, and others; (2) that these were two branches of the sameorganisation, the alchemical branch being called "Golden" to distinguish itself; (3) that there was only one orderdevoted to the study of alchemy and the hermetic/gnostic tradition, while the Fama, Confessio and the ChymicalWedding were a joke played by Andreae on the real Rosicrucian fraternity.The third possibility, as far as I amaware, has never been suggested, and it seems to me the most logical explanation of the whole mystery, especiallyas it is confirmed by Andraea himself who said that he had written the Chymical Wedding as a satire.He may havelearnt about the existence of a secret association of people with rather doubtful beliefs and tried to combat it byissuing the manifestos in their name, not expecting that these would be taken seriously by the public.Rafal T.Prinke - The Great Work in theTheatre of the WorldArticle originally published in A Compendium on theRosicrucian Vault, ed.by Adam McLean, Edinburgh, 1985,19-34. THE GREAT WORK IN THE THEATREOF THE WORLDThe symbolic significance of the Vault of Our Father C.R.C.as described in the Fama Fraternitatis and other supposedlyRosicrucian sourcesGeneral RemarksThe Vault of Christian Rosenkreutz, the story of its foundation, later discovery and opening, and its description formthe central element of the first published document of the Rosicrucian Order, generally believed to be one of thethree "official" publications.The document is of course the Fama Fraternitatis published in Cassel in 1614.Theflood of various pamphlets and books on the subject which followed its publication and still continues to be issuedby different groups and individuals (either claiming succession to the original authors or analysing the Rosicrucianphenomenon) contains surprisingly little additional information about the Vault and its meaning.Before passing on to the presentation of my own ideas on the subject, however, I would like to devote some space todefining the approaches or angles from which the whole Rosicrucian problem can be (and is) studied.These can beroughly divided into the following groups:1.Extreme orthodox scholarship: investigations are usually meticulous but are concerned with the facts relatingdirectly to the problem and conclusions are strictly based on them.This attitude is shown especially by Germanhistorians such as Hans Schick.2.Progressive orthodox scholarship: conclusions are drawn from a wider array of facts, also those which seem tohave no direct relation to the problem, and far-reaching hypotheses are put forward, but no deeper significance ormeaning of them is given.Examples of this attitude may be found in Frances Yates or W.E.Peuckert.3.Sober esotericism combined with heterodox scholarship: existence of the esoteric tradition is accepted and factsare interpreted in its light but great effort is made to be in agreement with historically proven or provable facts.Thisattitude can be found in the writings of Arthur Edward Waite, Manly Palmer Hall, and Adam McLean.4.Far-reaching esotericism: historical facts get a highly sopsophisticated interpretation but they are nevercontradicted by it, i.e.it is a magical interpretation.The best example of this approach is the work of S.L.MacGregor Mathers.5.Naive esotericism: new and otherwise unknown "historical facts" are discovered by magical means (reading theAkashic record, communication with the Masters, clairvoyance, etc.) and conclusions are based on them.There aremany examples of this attitude, most notably Rudolph Steiner, anthroposophists, theosophists, AMORC ("Echnatonwas a Rosicrucian" !), etc.6.Crazy esotericism: the whole problem is either developed ad absurdum (as in Hargrave Jennings) or is not takenseriously (as in joking remarks by Aleister Crowley).Personally, I believe that the best two ways of approaching the Rosicrucian enigma by an esotericist are the thirdand the sixth.The value of the former is obvious, while that of the latter lies in the fact that by making nonsense outof the whole thing it enables one to break through the concentional reasoning and get to the "deeper meaning".It isthe way somewhat similar to the method of Zen.However, in this essay I will be concerned with the third approachonly.For this reason another, more general, differentiation has to be made.In the writings of early Rosicrucian apologiststhere are various strange "facts" given, which are obviously (for the most part, at least) not "historical facts" butsomething that can be called "traditional facts".Now, a question arises whether a "sober esotericist" should believethem or not.My point of view is that such facts are to be "believed" but with another kind of "belief".It is thedifference between magical thinking and scientific thinking that presents itself here and an esotericist should learn toswitch from one to the other without confusing them (as the "naive" esotericists" do) [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]