Jump to navigation Jump to search

the Introduction of the subcategory «Rosicrucian»


I ask for the removal of the introduction under subcategory «Rosicrucian»:

"The term Rosicrucian refers to a secret mystical society which became known to the public during the 17th century and -according to AMORC- started its work in Ancient Egypt"

This statement refers to an organization point of view. It is not a common reference, widely accepted, for the Rosicrucian movement origins.

Under the the subcategory «Rosicrucian» may be added more organizations and personalities which donnot recall their Teachings and the starting point of the Rosicrucian Order to a direct link to Ancient Egypt but to Christian esoteric knowledge; as such, the subcategory should be impartial and not mention a concrete theory of a particular organization (valid as it may or not be).

Under the new article Christian Rosenkreuz, the legendary founder of the Rosicrucian Order, you may find an impartial introduction based on historical XVII century documents.

Thank you --Ekhalom 18:58, 18 Oct 2004 (BST)

Elseware says: It could be changed to something less partisan. We don't insist on a Neutral Point of View, but where a Non-NPOV is used, it's good to indicate it. The phrase "according to AMORC" does indicate that this is an opionion of a group, so is within what I consider reasonable, but why not change it to something neutral and see if Magos cares. Changing it to your own POV would be kinda rude, but simplifying it is fine. Category introductions should only really need to describe what the remit of the category is anyway. Other articles can go into the details. How about we change it to articles relating to the Rosicurcian society in both history and legend.


Thank you for your prompt answer! Meanwhile I had already changed description to:

"The term «Rosicrucian» refers to a Mystery School of the West called "Rosicrucian Order", which according to legend was founded in the 15th century by "Christian Rosenkreuz" and became known to the public in the beginning of the 17th century through three manifestos."

I think this definition here is according to history and legend (publications of the 17th century). I am not sure if the term "Mystery School of the West" is consensual - universal: it means that Rosicrucian Order - which gave origin to that which is known as the Rosicrucian movement in our societies - is an esoteric (occult, mystic paths) Order and works in our Western World). I will change it to "esoteric school in the western world" (school instead of society since this last term - society - is a kind negative and also materialistic) and hope it is well-accepted by everyone.

--Ekhalom 19:47, 18 Oct 2004 (BST)


In order to try to change it to more universal accepted definition I've changed the words "school" to "Fraternity" and "Rosicrucian Order" to "Order of the Rosy Cross". The two terms - "Fraternity" and "Order of the Rosy Cross" - are used in the original manifestos to describe the Rosicrucian Order. So the definition:

"The term «Rosicrucian» refers to an esoteric Fraternity in the west called «Order of the Rosy Cross». This Fraternity was founded, according to legend, in the 15th century by «Christian Rosenkreuz» and became known to the public in the beginning of the 17th century through three manifestos."

Hope it is fine now, Thank you.

--Ekhalom 20:47, 18 Oct 2004 (BST)

I changed the introduction and I followed a "MPOV" (multiple point of view) approach. We do not want to be NPOV (neutral) here. If you find a definition you don't like, you can just add your definition in the article, but you should always cite the source. Magos 23:00, 18 Oct 2004 (BST)

I also think that we should create subcategories under the category "Rosicrucian". Max Heindel's "Rosicrucianism" has nothing to do with Rosicrucians and he was not a member of the Order (or at least this is my idea/opinion), so it would be better to create subcategories and keep the things separate. I think that we could have these subcategories: "Rosicrucianism according to Lewis", "Rosicrucianism according to Heindel", "Rosicrucianism according to Clymer" et cetera. I may implement this idea after some days if I don't see any opposition here, and I would welcome suggestions for shorter names or alternative categorisations. There are many-many-many groups that call themselves "Rosicrucian" but their philosophy is very different. FOr example AMORC is in accordance with the Ancient Egyptian practices, while the Fellowship follows a more Christian path and the Lectorium is like a Christian religion. To add to the confusion, there are groups that "forked" from the other organisations and became separate, such as the COnfraternity and the Universal RC or the Ancient RC (some people call them Lewis fundamentalists). Other groups also claim to be the true R+C like the FRC, but I have also seen groups that call themselves Rosicrucian and I think that they tend mostly towards Gnosticism or even close to the Left path. I think there is also another group named FRA and I have seen that many non-RC groups draw increasingly amounts of philosophy from Rosicrucianism, such as some Wiccan groups and The Guardians. It's just not practical anymore to keep all things that call themselves Rosicrucian under the same category. Magos 23:11, 18 Oct 2004 (BST)


Dear User:Magos,

I read and understood your articles under "Category:Rosicrucian" and "Category talk:Rosicrucian".

I apologize if my words were understood as a defense of a particular organization or system of thought. Although I have my personal preference, my perspective at any Encyclopedia into this (or any) subject is only one:

- Neutrality (of any paper or electronic Encyclopedia); I mostly agree with your view as MPOV, but they are not opposite and they can and should be together - MPOV and NPOV.

English is not my mothertongue so my words may accidentaly not be so objectiv as I would like it to be; so I will try to explain through small parameters my reasons:

  • a) Let us not forget that an Encyclopedia - although made by persons who understant and (perhaps) study the concepts on a given subject - is made especially in order to clarify persons (majority) who do not know anything (or just little) about the subject - it is Enlightnment. So, when we write something we must not forget that it should be written to these people and should be clear, specific, concise, impartial as possible (neutral) and as you said has to present the multiple points of view on the subject. Presenting MPOV is not being partial (it is being accurate) but while presenting the point of view of each organzation/person we should structure the way we present information (not the information itself which is partial in the sense the article is related to a specific organization point of view) in a NPOV way.
  • b) General contents (as the Category) which contain inside MPOV links (subcategories or articles) should only have a small brief accurate general description (which can be longer and more detailed under a specific generic article: Rosicrucian); like saying to someone who for the first reads about this subject: "listen, this is the concrete historical data about the subject - "Rosicrucian" - that we can trace through historical documents; then nowadays there are organizations, each one has a different concept, teachings and origins related to term Rosicrucian and you can find it inside each link":
    • b.1) meaning we present to the reader a small neutral conception and then each link presents to him a different point of view (according to the specific organization and persons). It is up to the reader to study and create his own thought and conception about each one of these MPOV.
    • b.2) It is not our function to say any intitled "Rosicrucian" organization has nothing to do with Rosicrucianism - these kind of perspective requires a kind of knowledge, perception and conscioussness far above our human logic mind (you may have it but the majority of readers and human beings relies upon logical mind); also you may be wrong and then induce readers to wrong conclusions.
  • c) In your introduction under the Category your comments are not new to me and also not new to you and not new to all of the MINORITY of human beings who study them through a particular organization. But the point is that each one of this brief numbered comments in your introduction should be under the related subcategory (perhaps as you suggested: "Rosicrucian according to Y, W, X, Z, ..."):
    • c.1) put yourself in the place of a person who for the first time reads about "Rosicrucianism" and then reads something like "many groups, many times with conflicting points of view" and "According to X works like this and According to Y works like this" and "claim to be "true" Rosicrucians". Conclusion of the reader: "what is this all about?!" and perhaps turn off the page. This is not NPOV or MPOV - it is to the mind of that reader a NEGATIVE approach;
    • c.2) the majority of times, although the teachings and organizations have different concepts, the conflicts are not created by these different perspectives and concepts but by the persons who study them in each organization; we should focus more on the aim: as you said "Rosicrucianism usually refers to some system for the advancement of the soul".
  • d) When I re-wrote my definition "the term Rosicrucian refers to an esoteric Fraternity in the West..." you adapted it to be the concept of "groups which focus mainly on the Christian philosophy":
    • d.1) This concept has as its source the first historical (physical) EVIDENCE (paper documents) in the 17th century (period "."). Although we can establish historical connections 2 to 3 centuries earlier (through paper documents, architectonical symbols and others in some countries: Portugal, Germany, Poland, ...) which implies the existence of the Rosicrucian Order, there is till now no physical evidence with name "Rosicrucian" or similiar before 17th century;
    • d.2) About philosophies origins from different modern groups you may trace them (the philosophies or teachings - not the groups) to much earlier times: Pre-Christian times (Essenes, Onnas, ...) or immediately post-Christian times (Alexandria, ...) as you may also establish to Ancient Egypt (Mystery Schools) as you may even look for and establish connections among them (in an historical period of time) as you may also do comparative studies between them. But, till now, you may not yet point out the name "Rosicrucian" to any of these times through physical evidence (any kind of documental evidence).
    • d.3) The three 17th century documents (Fama, Confessio, Chy(e)mical Wedding) are the first historical evindence referring the "Rosicrucian Order" and are accepted by all modern groups. In this link you may also find an other approach (common to the majority of modern groups whatever their teachings and origins may be):
  • e. When you said "It's just not practical anymore to keep all things that call themselves Rosicrucians under the same category":
    • e.1) Although they have different concepts and claim different origins (MPOV), they are - in our recent human history - under the same category (movement): "Rosicrucian(ism)"; it is not up to us to say if one is true and the other is not and does not belong to it (as explained above). All we should clarify is the MPOV in a way to be understandable to any reader of the Encyclopedia (like your purposal "Rosicrucianism according to...");
    • e.2) Also perhaps modify the article named "Rosicrucian" in order to show these MPOV and try to be at same time NPOV.

I hope my words are able to clearly transmit my thought on this subject. Thank you. In Friendship, --Ekhalom 18:27, 19 Oct 2004 (BST)

new text

Hi I changed again the text of Category:Rosicrucian. I think it's better to explain the historical information about R+C in the Rosicrucian article (which is linked from the category). Do you think it's better now? Peace Profound, Magos 20:55, 19 Oct 2004 (BST)

Dear friend, whatever effort is made by each one of us - with our heart and mind - to aid in the creation of a peaceful world and to transmute us into better human beings working together, it should be fine...

Yours, --Ekhalom 23:50, 19 Oct 2004 (BST)

N: N: D: N: N: S: N: T: D: G: