As one looks at various cosmological systems, it is not unusual to see various terms and ideas used somewhat differently. Although the Master Monograph, Fourth Degree No. 2 is utilizing the Nodin Manuscript, it quotes from Anaxagoras, the Pre-Socratic Philosopher, 500-428 B.C., saying that the manuscript quotes the Pre-Socratic, utilizing his words, “aether” and “nous.”
The quotes seem to define a kind of creation story similar to that described in the early stages of the Biblical Genesis, where the firmament is separated from the heavens, where earth is separated from the waters.
The quotes seem to define a kind of creation story similar to that described in the early stages of the Biblical Genesis, where the firmament is separated from the heavens, where earth is separated from the waters.
According to AMORC’S claims about the Nodin manuscript, there are four laws pertaining to Nous.
The first law is that “Nous manifests in matter in terms of elements, divinities and principals of Spirit.”
The second law is that: “Electricity is the passion of space, magnetism of matter; Nous is the energy which animates and maintains this passion.”
The third law is: Nous permeates animate matter as well as inanimate matter.
The fourth law is: “On the material plane, the manifestations of Nous are predominantly negative. On the spiritual plane, they are predominantly positive.
Let us look at the first two laws.
In the first law, it is interesting that AMORC claims that the elements are “none other than the atoms which, by combining into an infinity of molecules, give birth to all material substances.” It further enjoins the reader to recall “that the Rosicrucian tradition relates that there exist in all 144 elements, each one having physiochemical properties determined by the number of electrons, protons and neutrons of which it is compose.”
Whereas AMORC does not really go into why it thinks the “elements” it mentions are “atoms,” it should be noted that although the concept of atoms was publicly written about in the 5th Century by Democritus and later explored by the Latin poet, Lucretius, this ancient concept of the atom was nothing like the concept of atoms as developed by Dalton in the early 1800’s, a brilliant theory that led to the modern concept of the atom. The atoms spoken of my Democritus were differentiated by shape- not by spinning bands of electrons. This is not to say that it isn’t possible that some ancient scholars kept some of the scientific secrets of the ancient Atlanteans under their belt but the language of the so-called First Law seems quite archaic.
The second law regarding electricity is quite poetic, saying “Electricity is the passion of space.” The use of that term is very startling to be found in a 720 AD manuscript, when the term was first used by Sir William Gilbert in 1600, who took the term from the word, amber. Amber, when rubbed with jet, a lightweight stone, had been known to attact small particles- owing to what we now call static electricity and was first introduced in Gilbert’s De magnete, magneticisique corporibus or, in Engish, On the Magnet." This was published in Latin in 1600. Did he cop it from the Nodin manuscript or some other R+C manuscript that predates the manifestos?
So, it is possible to question pedigree of the Nodin manuscript in terms of: the R+C attribution of the manuscript centuries before the Manifestos or the alleged birth of Christian Rosenkreuz; the use of the term “elements” in conjunction with the modern concept of atoms and the seeming translation of the term, “electricity,” which wasn’t used.
The first law is that “Nous manifests in matter in terms of elements, divinities and principals of Spirit.”
The second law is that: “Electricity is the passion of space, magnetism of matter; Nous is the energy which animates and maintains this passion.”
The third law is: Nous permeates animate matter as well as inanimate matter.
The fourth law is: “On the material plane, the manifestations of Nous are predominantly negative. On the spiritual plane, they are predominantly positive.
Let us look at the first two laws.
In the first law, it is interesting that AMORC claims that the elements are “none other than the atoms which, by combining into an infinity of molecules, give birth to all material substances.” It further enjoins the reader to recall “that the Rosicrucian tradition relates that there exist in all 144 elements, each one having physiochemical properties determined by the number of electrons, protons and neutrons of which it is compose.”
Whereas AMORC does not really go into why it thinks the “elements” it mentions are “atoms,” it should be noted that although the concept of atoms was publicly written about in the 5th Century by Democritus and later explored by the Latin poet, Lucretius, this ancient concept of the atom was nothing like the concept of atoms as developed by Dalton in the early 1800’s, a brilliant theory that led to the modern concept of the atom. The atoms spoken of my Democritus were differentiated by shape- not by spinning bands of electrons. This is not to say that it isn’t possible that some ancient scholars kept some of the scientific secrets of the ancient Atlanteans under their belt but the language of the so-called First Law seems quite archaic.
The second law regarding electricity is quite poetic, saying “Electricity is the passion of space.” The use of that term is very startling to be found in a 720 AD manuscript, when the term was first used by Sir William Gilbert in 1600, who took the term from the word, amber. Amber, when rubbed with jet, a lightweight stone, had been known to attact small particles- owing to what we now call static electricity and was first introduced in Gilbert’s De magnete, magneticisique corporibus or, in Engish, On the Magnet." This was published in Latin in 1600. Did he cop it from the Nodin manuscript or some other R+C manuscript that predates the manifestos?
So, it is possible to question pedigree of the Nodin manuscript in terms of: the R+C attribution of the manuscript centuries before the Manifestos or the alleged birth of Christian Rosenkreuz; the use of the term “elements” in conjunction with the modern concept of atoms and the seeming translation of the term, “electricity,” which wasn’t used.
Comments