Conference hydra::dejavu

    If you are looking for occult knowledge and experience, the Masons
    are NOT the place to go.  They have some secret rituals, but they
    have nothing to do with magic.  They are a social, mutual-aid, and
    community-service club.  They just happen to be a very old one.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    re .1:
    
    Maybe the query didn't have to do specifically with magic.
    
    re .0:
    
    The mystery religions/cults were common during classical times around
    the Mediterranean, particularly in Greece and Asia Minor.  Some
    descriptions of some of these are available in scholarly works,
    but like most Secret Traditions, the shells are visible and the
    meat is left out, for the most part.
    
    The current masonic group has little to do with ancient mysteries,
    though some have made a tenuous connection between it and the old
    Knights Templars group, which was broken up on a (highly probably
    trumped-up) charge of demon/devil worship.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    This is late. So what.
    
    Check a book called 'The Sufis' by Idries Shah, avail in paperback
    from E.P. Dutton. It pulls together all the guilds/brotherhoods
    stuff from the Middle Ages on. Just EXCELLENT. 
    
    The original spiritual brotherhoods were craft guilds to the world.
    The external appearance of the guild concealed the real work. In
    many cases there is a basic built in metaphor - the metalworking
    guild, for example, smelts metal from ore, then forms and finally
    engraves a beautiful/functional piece. The metaphor being, of course,
    creation of an evolved being from a base beginning.
    
    Check out ANYTHING by Idries Shah. In a world of charlatans and
    wannabe's, he's the REAL THING.
    
    karl moeller sws tucson az

    re .3:
    
    I second the endorsement on Idres Shah (actually, his name is Sayeed
    Idries Shah, but his book bylines drop the Sayeed).  Highly worthwhile.
    
    The _ancient_ mystery schools, however, were pre-Medieval.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

                          What Secret Powers
 
[Drawing of a lobster with light beams coming out of its eyes . . .]
 
                               Do These
                          Creatures Possess?
 
In the long process of evolution, most organisms have lost the secret
power formerly held by all living things - a power now shrouded in
mystery and preserved by only a handful of species, who have passed on
this priceless heritage from generation to generation.  What is this
strange hidden process?  Put simply, it is the amazing ability to
_regenerate lost limbs_, to literally grow new claws, legs, antannae,
from nothing more than the stumps of missing appendages.
 
                          THIS BOOK IS FREE
 
Once, all creatures had mastery of this ancient technique.  Now it is
possessed solely by The Crustaceans (not a mutation), an age-old order
of principally aquatic animals, _who invite you to share the practical
benefits of their primordial wisdom_.  Write today for a free copy of
the book, "The Mastery of Regeneration."  Address: Lobster H.N.B.
 
                     The CRUSTACEANS (ARTHROPODA)
 
                Grand Banks		North Atlantic

    One book i found interesting was The Meaning Of Masonry, by W.L.
    Wilmshurst.  it discusses the spiritual and philosophical underpinnings
    of the group.  the back cover also recommends reading The Spirit
    of Masonry, by William Hutchinson for a "fascinating" look at the
    history and philosophy of Freemasonry.  it is supposed to be "the
    classic study" on the subject.

    What's REALLY interesting is that the history of Freemasonary is very
    closely related to the original Rosacrutians (the European Version,
    not the guys from San Jose). There are threads throughout history
    for the past 1500 years. What's even more interesting is that some
    of the ancient rites were brought over to this country by a very
    select group of DPs (Wehner Von Braun and company) in 1945 when
    they were conscripted by NACA (now known as NASA) to re-engineer
    the German A4 missile into the Redstone (the beginning of our space
    program). I used to work with some of these guys and, believe me,
    the author of the previous note is RIGHT ON!!! Very intense stuff!

    Would anyone like to tell us what they were into or is that taboo?
    
      Mikie?

    
    
    re 11.  Let us decide....eh what?
    
            Curiosity killed the cat, but it had eight tries to get
            smart :)                                         
    
            Sides, maybe they're wrong.......
    
    
    Cheers  Lora

> < Note 106.13 by FRSBEE::CHRISTENSEN >
>                                -< Singing Pigs >-
> 
>    Never try to teach a pig to sing.  It is a waste of your time and
>     it just upsets te pig.
> 

Are you speaking as teacher or as pig? :-)

Seriously, if you chose to decline the request, thats fine. But sharing
knowledge is the best way to advance the work. After all, if you keep it
all to yourself, its gone when you die! I get very curious and interested
when someone says they have "secret knowledge" that they refuse to share.
I always wonder WHY they won't share it. Could it be there it doesn't exist?
If not, why don't they just share it and we can work on it together...

Annoyed at "secret" societies,
DDA

    
    
    re .15  
    
        This is confusing for my peabrain.         
    
    Q:  If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound or not? 
        object reality says it does and it doesn't.  Larry says it
        mattering (is that a word?) or not mattering doesn't matter.
        Is that correct?
    
    situation:
    
        If a tree falls on ME in thr forest I don't give a   _   if
        it makes a sound or not.  So making a sound becomes irrelevant.
    
    2nd Q:
    
        Does this matter?  To millions it doesn't.  To me and the tree
        (now dying) IT MATTERS.
    
    Seems to me to take things out of context promotes separateness,
    detachment and irresponsibility.  For ex:  Jane Doe isn't responsible
    for the tree falling - sound or no - so it doesn't matter about
    Jane.
    
    Q:  What if JD is with me when the tree lands on my person? If she's
        spaced out on the sound aspect, I'm in deep sneakers!
    
        If she recognized the whole of the the action maybe I got a
        chance.
    
    Oh my, Zen is too much for me...seems it's great for appreciating
    things and not getting emotionally involved, but what about the
    part pertaining to creative energy, creating one's own reality?
    
    If Object Reality is 'it' then why bother in the first place.
    
    If it does matter, I want to know why, if it doesn't then I want
    to do something that does.....
    
    Boy, I know I'm gonna get killed on this one :)
    
                                                                    
    
    Lora

    As one who has stood by as a tree falls in the forest, I can say
    that my only thought was to move or not to move; in my case, I figured
    it was a crapshoot, and stood still -- obviously, it missed.
    
    But getting back to the koan, I thought that I had solved it when
    I realized that the concept of sound was of the mind; obviously,
    if no one was there to attach the concept of sound to the movement
    of air associated with the real event, there was no sound.
    
    I dunno, it made me happy.  I do know, however that the old masters
    had definite things that they wanted to hear in a student's answer
    in a koan -- that the koan was designed to teach something, not
    simply produce brain fade; though it was by passing through brain
    fade that the answer came.  

    re last few:
    
    The "whether a tree makes a sound or not" was first recorded by
    Bishop Berkeley.
    
    The answer is how one defines "sound" or "noise."  If you define
    it objectively, as vibrations in the atmosphere capable of being
    recorded (whether there is a recirder there or not), then the tree
    makes a sound.  If you define "sound" or "noise" subjectively, as
    _perceived_ atmospheric disturbances, then it doesn't.
    
    The second view is anthropocentric; the first isn't.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    re n.20
    > ... If I ,look at the Dejavu notes, generally
    >I see people trying to find fascination in the non-ordinary. ...
    
    Well, "no generalization is true; not even this one."  Certainly,
    those with an inrterest in the paranormal will migrate towards a
    file dedicated to it.
    
    >... It is as if most people\>want to avoid there everyday lives\
    >and entertain themselves with the odd and unusual.
    
    It's really not so psychological/escapist.  _Many_ people throughout
    history were fascinated with the (for them) odd and unusual; that's
    the basis for modern science [restrictive as some people might think
    that to be :-)] -- someone saw something inexplicable and investigated
    it.
    
    I generally see two threads running through a lot of replies: some
    want to find out what's out there, and wonder about it; others seem
    to believe that somehow they can individually or collectively _create_
    what's out there by force of will, or some such.  This is not the
    place to get into that discussion, however.
    
    "Fascination with the unusual" doesn't mean ignoring the normal.
     a dear friend of my mother's (now deceased) once said to her, "I
    don't understand how a rainbow is formed, and I don't _want_ to
    understand."  
    
    The first statement's "understandable"; the second, unfortunate.
    You can appreciate something better if you know more about it.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    
    
    
            re .23  
    
        < asked my mother what that was ...... she said somehting about
    the sun reflecting on the raindrops....
    
    Too bad she didn't tell you about how the leprechauns magically paint 
    paint those beautiful colors in the sky to point the way to the pot of 
    gold buried at the end.
    
    You missed a lot more joy in your imagination.
    
    lora                                                                      
    
    
    
     

    
      Was that the first or the second Bishop Berkeley?    |:^)

    re .23:
    
    Well, she was about 70 years of the age at the time, and a salty-vo-
    cabularied woman.  Had I spoken of leprechauns (she was of Irish
    descent), I'm certain she'd have told me what to do with their
    paintbrushes, brush by brush.
    
    Imagination isn't quite the same as creative visualization; even
    that has some limits, after all.  While there is _great_ value in
    fable, it should always be applied in context.
    
    re .24:
    
    The one born in 1685.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.
    

    I just read this note for the first time and it sure drifts a lot.
     Is there a problem with replies getting connected to the wrong
    messages??
                                                 
    Back to the subject of the mystery schools.  I have never had anything
    to do with Masons (they insist on being all male), but I have been
    associated with the Rosicrucians(yes, the ones in San Jose) for about 
    a year and a half. So far I have found my studies with them to be
    worth doing.  At times they measure out information at a madningly
    slow pace, but the information appears valid.  I don't know if they
    have all of the answers, but they at least have a lot of the questions
    straight.  They claim a direct line of desent from the Europien
    Rosicrciansn and thus from the ancients.  Their data appears to
    support that claim.
    
    Membership, which includes all home study material (they are not
    a profit making group) cost $25 a quarter.  Send me mail if you
    would like more information about the group.
    
    The thing that I like most about their aproach is that they require
    no belief on my part.  They expect the student to be sceptical of
    everything presented, and to accept nothing on faith.  Study,
    experimentation and logic are the path to enlightenment, by their
    definition.  They do not call what they do magik, but I have seen
    very similiar material in books like "The Golden Dawn", which does
    call it magik.  I think the line between magik and science is not
    real sharp.  The difference being how much of the underlying theory
    you comprehend.  The Rosicucians aim at comprehention, not just
    ritual.
    
    THE780::BABCOCK (don't blame me, I didn't name it)
    Judy
    

    One man's school readily becomes another man's coven, conveniently.
    ==================================================================
    Let's consider that structurally, schools form to maintain a body
    of knowledge by both internal & external means: practice & theory.
 
    Some begin in practice, develop theory, & regenerate practice when
    the membership lapses (or is purged). Their books are their means
    of regeneration when the line-of-descent is broken (or is purged).
    
    Others begin in a perception which is theoretical, practice its
    implications, & retreat to theory if the experience is ungovernable
    (or a practitioner dominates to an oppressive degree & isn't purged). 
    
    This is generically true of all religions, all disciplines, both the
    religious & scientific. There is no serious difference between them,
    since both infer, extrapolate, & demonstrate their tenets. Rather
    than force some into oblivion for superstition, it's more useful
    to measure their degree of noxiousness as their discreditor. Any
    destructive effect is proof of serious imbalance as well as error.
    
    Example: the destruction of millions of cats during the Dark Ages
    as diabolical witches' familiars was noxious & helped spreading
    The Plague by rats who had a slightly better reputation than the
    cats. Whose religion was at stake? Science was hardly the issue;
    cats would have saved literal myriads of lives, including theirs,
    had they been understood as a means toward a beneficial end. QED.
    One man's cat was another man's familiar; result: Everybody died.
    
    For those of us reading these very notes, this is an exercise in
    communication amongst equals that presupposes a mutual safety in 
    random numbers. As such, we are an informal school in ourselves.
    Arguments that attempt to close discussion are abutted incrementally.
    (cf. Topher vs Past Lives Regression). The school stays open.
    
    In another time & in another place, we would be hauled away in carts
    to be hanged by the necks until dead (Salem, 1692). Presently the
    Fundamentalist Right (calling itself The Moral Majority, etc.) rages
    equally vehemently against Secular Humanists and so-called Satanists. 
    Ironically, we are distributed over a range of both interests: the
    Rationally Humane & the Perceptually Occult. We exist in a Modern Dark
    Age that is contesting 19th century Science with 17th century Religion.
    
    The conclusion is obvious: we are 20th century dwellers approaching
    the 21st century with a range of interests that will carry us over
    into it. Welcome to the Present perceptibly becoming the Presence.
    
    We hardly need to call it The New Age, having seen others equally
    New called by dramatic names: The Age of Faith, the Rennaissance,
    the Age of Invention, the Age of Discovery, the Age of Analysis,
    the Age of Anxiety (the 1st half of the 20th Century.
    
    - Boleslaw
    
     
    

    Re .27:
    
    >We hardly need to call it The New Age, having seen others equally
    >New called by dramatic names: The Age of Faith, the Rennaissance,
    >the Age of Invention, the Age of Discovery, the Age of Analysis,
    >the Age of Anxiety (the 1st half of the 20th Century.
     
    So how about The Age of Obfuscation for the latter half of the 20th
    Century and The Age of Relaxation for the 21st? :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

RE: .27
    
    I HAVE NEVER IN THIS NOTESFILE (or elsewhere to my recollection)
    MADE AN ARGUMENT ABOUT PAST LIVES REGRESSION WHICH WAS INTENDED
    TO CLOSE DISCUSSION. (and yes, I meant to shout).
    
    Perhaps you are referring to the people who seemed to object to
    my stating information (based on personal experience and extensive
    experimentation by others) which conflicted with what they wanted
    to be true. (To wit: that it is easy to generate in a hypnotized
    subject counter-factual pseudo-memories which are vivid, absolutly
    believable to the subject, and may even be useful to them; and that
    it is unnecessary to directly make such suggestions).
    
    Some people felt that my posting was premature, that by posting
    it I might have discouraged people from coming forward with their
    personal experiences, for fear that they might seem gullible.  This
    had not occured to me when I posted since I knew quite well that
    gullibility has nothing to do with it.  The characteristics most
    commonly associated with good hypnotic subjects are intelligence,
    openness to new experiences, vivid imagery and a type of concentration.
    All characteristics which I would rate as positive.  The only way
    that a good hypnotic subject can distinguish pseudo-memories from
    real ones is to know that vivid pseudo-memories can be generated
    by hypnosis -- a "protective" fact which I was attempting to make
    available.  In any case, once it was pointed out that there was
    a potential problem, I appologized for being so quick with my posting.
    
    I welcomed (and still do) civil discussion, pro and con, both on the
    sub-topic which I started, and on the original topic.  I was rather
    looking forward to some interesting notes describing people's
    experiences with past lives regression, and I doubt that anyone
    regrets more the possibility that some people may have been discouraged
    from such postings.
    
    Some people are unable to accept the fact that anyone can have a
    contrary opinion and yet still respect theirs.  I (respectfully)
    suggest that those people work on the self confidence and self
    esteem.
    
    Some people claim a belief in the rights of everyone to express
    their opinions -- until someone expresses an opinion which is contrary
    to theirs.  It is then convenient to invent a motivation for that
    other person which justifies a suspension of their rights to
    expression.  This is a temptation we all must fight.  I (again
    respectfully) suggest that we all examine our own motivations before
    attributing motivations to others.  The Delphic Injunction (i.e.,
    "Know Thyself") applies.
    
    Some people react to information which appears contrary to their
    beliefs by attempting to censor that information, rather than b
    attempting to reconcile the information with their beliefs or by
    legitimately discrediting it.  These people I pity, but have no
    respect for.  One school of Tarot interpretation equates the card
    The Devil with willful ignorance: this then is these peoples card.
    
    In the mean time, I will continue to post on the assumption that
    the majority of the readers of DEJAVU are interested in learning
    by sharing with others whether or not they agree with them.
    
    				Topher

  This reply is intended to introduce to a system taught by G.I.Gurdjieff and
(a student of his) P.D.Ouspensky in the early 1900's.  This system appears to
qualify as a recent manifestation of the teachings of the ancient mystery
schools.  All quotations presented here come from the book "The Fourth Way"
by Ouspensky, which is representative of the books on this system of teaching.
Please excuse the use of 'man' instead of 'person' in the quotations; let me
assure you that this system of teaching is open to any person.

  Of course, the actual teaching covers a far wider range of topics than is
covered here, and in much greater depth.  Here I will focus upon a general
introduction, an explanation of what is meant by the "Fourth Way", and an
attempt to define the term "esoteric".

  Ouspensky always introduced the system to new students by saying:

	"The most important ideas and principles of this system do not belong
	to me.  This is chiefly what makes them valuable, because if they
	belonged to me they would be like all other theories invented by
	ordinary minds - they would give only a subjective view of things."

  After Ouspensky's death, one of his students related the following:

	"This was a method by which certain essential truths were formulated
	and passed on in such a way that the real understanding of them could
	be reconstituted by others much later."

  Ouspensky claimed that his teaching was a school based upon what he called
the "Fourth Way".  The following passages introduce the Four Ways.

	"The FIRST way is the way of the FAKIR.  It is a long, difficult and
	uncertain way.  A fakir works on the physical body, on conquering
	physical pain.  The SECOND way is the way of the MONK.  This way is
	shorter, more sure and more definite.  It requires certain conditions,
	but above all it requires faith, for if there is no faith a man cannot
	be a true monk.  The THIRD way is the way of the YOGI, the way of
	knowledge and consciousness." "When we speak about the three ways we
	speak about principles. In actual life they are seldom met with in a
	pure form, for they are mostly mixed.

	"Although in many respects these ways are very efficient, the
	characteristic thing about them is that the first step is the most
	difficult.  From the very first moment you have to give up everything
	and do what you are told."  "But there is a Fourth Way which is a
	special way, not a combination of the other three. It is different
	from the others first of all in that there is no external giving up
	of things, for all the work is inner... So at first one	continues to
	live the same life as before, in the same circumstances as before.
	In many respects this way proves more difficult than the others, for
	nothing is harder than to change oneself internally without changing
	externally."

	"Then in the Fourth Way the first principle is that man must not
	believe anything; he must learn; so faith does not enter into the
	Fourth Way."  "You cannot say this system IS the Fourth Way, the
	Fourth Way is very big, and this system is very small by comparison."

  Hopefully some will recognize aspects of "The Fourth Way" in what was
mentioned in .26 about the Rosicrucian teaching, namely that they "require
no belief on my part".  Belief is related to the Second Way and is
inconsistent with the Fourth Way.  One point to notice is that this system
describes how and why the other "Ways" operate as they do, and it is this
higher level understanding which exemplifies the "Fourth Way".

	"The idea of the Fourth Way is that it discards from the three ways
	all that is unnecessary in them, because besides the necessary things
	the three ways have other things which have remained there purely
	through tradition, imitation and so on.  In the Fourth Way all the
	sides that can develop, develop at the same time, and this makes it
	different from other ways where you first develop one side and then
	go back and develop another."

  In the following passages, I will clarify what is meant by the term esoteric,
and some characteristics of an 'esoteric' school.  This is in partial response
to .14 who is "annoyed at 'secret' societies".

	"The word 'esoteric' means inner. Esotericism includes in itself the
	idea of the existence of an inner circle of humanity.  The idea of
	esotericism implies transmission of knowledge; it presumes the
	existence of a group of people to whom a certain knowledge belongs.
	This must not be understood in some mystical way, but more definitely,
	concretely."

	".. Humanity can be regarded as divided into four concentric circles.
	The three inner circles are called Esoteric, Mesoteric and Exoteric.
	The fourth circle is the outer circle where (most people) live.
	The outer circle is also called the circle of confusion of tongues,
	for in this circle people cannot understand one another.
	Understanding is possible only in the inner circles."

	"A man who lives in the outer circle is under the law of accident,
	or, if he has a strongly expressed essence, his life is more governed
	by the laws of his type or the laws of fate.  But when a man begins
	to work towards consciousness, he already has direction... Only
	individual effort can help man pass from the outer circle into the
	Exoteric circle."

  Throughout the Gurdjieff and Ouspensky teachings they stress the possibility
for change, the importance of work on oneself in order to change oneself.
These schools are 'secret' only to those outside of the system who have not
undergone the initial effort to progress at least to the 'Exoteric  circle'.
Beyond this point, appropriate lessons for the inner circles are presented
in a concise language which must be learned by each person (internalized)
before they will understand the true meanings.

  Thus, if this 'secret' knowledge of the inner circle were widely distributed,
it would not be properly understood, and would result in an extreme distortion
of the actual teaching.  This would not be simply useless, but actually damaging
to both the individuals and the school (eg. see references to use of esoteric
magic by untrained 'inepts' instead of 'adepts').

  Finally, the following question and answer may highlight the inevitable
separation between esoteric knowledge and the population at large.

	"Q. Why is this system not widely known and popular?"

	"A. It cannot be because of its negative character. We study the
	way not of acquiring but of losing.  People want positive things
	without realizing what is possible.  They want to know straight
	away what they can attain. But first they must lose many things.
	The ideas of this system can never be popular so long as they are
	not distorted, because people will not agree that they are asleep,
	that they are machines - people who consider themselves important
	will always oppose this idea."

	"The system does not want to offer ideas to people who do not want them.
	If people have tried other methods and realized their futility, they
	may wish to try this system. This system is only for those who need it."

  I hope that I have not distorted the principals of the "Fourth Way" beyond
recognition in this initial introduction. :-)

						Todd

>    Does anyone know anything about "Ancient Mystery Schools" and 
>    groups (?)  like  "Masons" and "Rosicrucians" ?   I am interested
>    knowing more about what they were, their beliefs as well as  their 
>    philosophies.  
    
     The Golden Dawn can be contacted through:

	Christopher S. Hyatt, Ph.D.
	c/o Falcon Press
	3660 N. 3rd St.
	Pheonix, Arizona   85012



						-- Mike

    
    	There is a group known as the Aquarian Foundation that is in
    the tradition of a mystery school.  It takes off where Theosophy
    and Blavatsky left off.  It is the only group I know of that is
    based on scientific proof & evidence, and they encourage you to
    use your mental faculties - don't take anything at face value.
    It was founded in Seattle in 1955 by a man named Keith Milton
    Rheinhart.  He is considered one of the most scientifically-tested,
    physical-phenomena mediums in the world.  They have branches & study
    groups all over the U.S. & Canada, and in South Africa (I think
    there is a study group starting up in Australia, also).