Monday, March 8, 2010

Link: I have Royal Arch tool envy and who are these deniers

As most of my readers know, I follow several blogs. Today, on Gyllene Gryningen, there is a posting that brings out the tool envy in me; such pretty tools and wands, I have not.

Now my big question is: Who are these people trying to deny the connection between Freemasonry and Golden Dawn? Outside of Howe, I can't think of any serious attempts to do so.

Of course, there are those of us who refuse to believe that a Master Mason is the equal of an Adept Minor. Those of us who refuse to answer to the Masons are simply stating that the systems have went separate ways long ago...and that is merely an administrative issue. (Some of us also refuse to be demoted because of certain curriclum changes and because our lineage is not perfect, go figure that one out...again, an administrative issue.) We are not denying the connection, merely stating that just being a Master Mason grants you no special rights in our system.

(It is much like the relationship between the Elks, Odd Fellows and the Freemasons. They are all related, but different Orders.)

In fact, I think that it is safe to say that the connection between the two systems, if it has ever really been forgotten (or downplayed) has been rediscovered in recent years. If nothing else, my own interest in the Freemasons stems from my Golden Dawn involvements.

The only thing I can think of is perhaps it is different in the circles that VH Frater SR walks in. Then again, it is probably is considering that our two circles have the promotional "free in every box of cracker jack" land mine field separating them. We also have a pond separating us...oh, wait, that is an ocean.

Nevertheless, I cannot help wondering exactly who VH Frater SH is talking about. I am quite sure that I will find out soon enough.

(And guys, if we can't joke about the distance between us, and the reasons for it, what can we joke about?)


Peregrin said...

Hi Morgan,

Here in Australia at least most GD magicians or people inspired by the GD practice solo, in circles or groups, not Orders. Most of these people are more interested in the magical not ceremonial aspects of the GD/RR et AC and are very surprised when Masonic antecedents are pointed out. And yes, some have (initally) argued against the connection.

Maybe these are the types of magicians GH Fr S.R. refers to?

Morgan Drake Eckstein said...

Ok,that makes sense. I occasionally forget that being a lodge member is unusual in Golden Dawn circles.

Sincerus Renatus... said...

Care Morgan,

The main motive behind my essay is that I have sensed the urge to deny the worth of freemasonry for the average G.D. member, and emphasis being laid on the differences between freemasonry and G.D., in the mouths of some modern Temple Leaders of good standing and other Adepts on the internet.

For example the denial of any lineage of worth from freemasonry for the G.D. I.e. that the founders of the G.D. only were initiates of Freemasonry and hence were "self-initiates" (or even "astral initiates") of the G.D. Even though I do belive the founding fathers of the G.D. had other and genuine Rosicrucian lineages predating the G.D. they still could draw some authority from their freemasonic standing alone. At least I don't believe this was as foreign idea as it is today.

If we are looking at the Rosicrucian currents of the 18th Century, you will find a REQUIREMENT of being a freemason to be even admitted for membership in a Rosicrucian circle.

However I agree that being a Master Mason doesn't make you a G.D. Adeptus Minor. But in my opinion it is the equivalent of being a Neophyte in the G.D. and equally authentic from a Rosicrucian viewpoint, at least if you do take consideration to classical Rosicrucian thought.

Perhaps I'm exaggerating in my essay regarding the tendencies of separation in the G.D. community, and I have also seen lately the tendencies of scholarly research into this field in certain G.D. circles. I of course don't question that most G.D. practitioners are aware of the historical connection, but I cannot help but feeling the need for ignoring the worth of freemasonry for the modern student in certain teachers of the G.D.

As you point out, there perhaps is a difference between the two sides of the "pond" which separates us. In Europe it is common that G.D. practitioners and Rosicrucians in general also are freemasons, especially in France and Italy, but also in Sweden. Like yourself I was introduced to Freemasonry through the G.D. My sponsor in the Swedish Masonry was also my G.D. mentor.

Perhaps I also have warm sentiments about freemasonry because of the fact that I am a member of the Swedish system, which is known to be an "esoteric" rite and thus perhaps is a bit unique. The reformer of the Swedish rite, which later became the Swedish King Carl XIII, was a member of the Asiatic Brethren, E.L.U.D. (and some say) the Gold und Rosenkreutz. Original documents from all these Rosicrucian bodies reside in the Swedish Masonic Library in Stockholm.

So in my opinion, to be initiated into the Swedish system is as close as you will get today in receiving "lineage" or taking part of the "egregore" of these old continental Rosicrucian currents, as I doubt that any of these exist today in their original form.

A fact also worth taking into consideration is that freemasonry, contrary to most (if not all) Rosicrucian rites known today, represents an unbroken initiatic lineage of continuous Lodge work. Esoteric and Rosicrucian Orders come and go, but freemasonry remains. Thus it isn’t a recreation or revival as is the Golden Dawn. And therefore it presents a viable source of inspiration for modern G.D. Chiefs when it comes to learning and nurturing an “Order culture” of conduct. I personally have learnt a lot from being a member of the Swedish Freemasonic Order in this respect.

So my point is that freemasonry is very sympathetic to and harmonious with the Rosicrucian currents, and to the G.D. as well.

In my essay I took the liberty to take the other position in this argument over the G.D. and freemasonry connection, just to try to balance out the discussion. I tend to do that in discussions, sometimes just to get to know the other side of the argument even if I myself am uncertain or ambivalent in my own position.

In Licht, Leben und Liebe