ancient secret societies

Jordan Maxwell does some interesting work in tracing lineages of ancient religions,while I don't agree with everything that he says, he has a lot of good points and ideas.You should check out some of his videos on google or youtube.

One more good one to run down is this page. The author uses extensive quotes and good notes to lead you to other more suitable texts.

www.sacred-texts.com...

Also,
Links to what you are looking for might be found in the avatars born of virgins:

Horus
Ra
Krishna
Bhudda
Codom
Lao-Tsze
Zoroaster
Cyrus
Plato
Apollonius
Pythegoras
Aesculapius
Quetzalcoatl
Zama

The list is just too long but all seemed to focus on soul culture and a large part were of the oldest teaching, The Philosophy of Fire.

For some reason Eulis keeps coming to mind as Greek but i'm sure it is Syrian.

A large part of the Christian Mysteries has to do with the Magi who prophesied the childs birth and were in attendance. The Magi worked from their temple in Helios but was one of the few ancient groups to span several continents and cultures at that time. The Magi and Essenes were linked as well as the early masons.

All speculation from memory on my part and the whole ball of wax may be wrong. Just trying to throw some leads out that might help.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
No I cannot explain. Hence this thread. There is a lot of rumour of rosicrucian, masonic, templar etc. traditions traceable to egypt, but I am not looking for hearsay.

Oh I see.

This is from the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology
which seems to confirm a cross over between the Egyptians and the Greeks in terms of beliefs, they certainly acknowlege Horus whom they call Harpocrates.

www.ancientlibrary.com...

HARPOCRATES. [HoRUs.]

HORUS (Tnpos), the Egyptian god of the sun, whose worship was established very extensively in Greece, and afterwards even at Rome, although Greek astronomy and mystic philosophy greatly modified the original idea of Horus. He was com­ pared with the Greek Apollo, and identified with Harpocrates, the last-born and weakly son of Osiris. (Plut. de Is. et Os. 19.) Both were re­ presented as youths, and with the same attributes and symbols. (Artemid. Oneir. ii. 36 ; Macrob. Sat. i. 23 ; Porphyr. ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. v. 10 ; lamblich. de Myster. vii. 2.)He was believed to have been born with his finger on his mouth, as indicative of secrecy and mystery ; and the idea of something mysterious in general was connected with the worship of Horus-Harpocrates; the mystic philosophers of later times therefore found in him a most welcome subject to speculate upon. In the earlier period of his worship at Rome he seems to have been particularly regarded as the god of quiet life and silence (Varr. de L. L. iv. p. 17, Bip.; Ov. Met. ix. 691 ; Auson. Epist. ad Paid. xxv. 27), and at one time the senate forbade his worship at Rome, probably on account of excesses committed at the mysterious festivals ; but the suppression was not permanent. His identification with Apollo is as old as the time of Herodotus (ii. 144, 156; comp. the detailed mythuses in Diod. i. 25, &c. ; Plut. de Is. et Os. 12, &c.) The god acts a prominent part also in the mystic works attributed to Hermes Trismegistus ; but we cannot enter here into an examination of the nature of this Egyptian divinity, and refer the reader to Jablonsky, Panth. Aegypt. i. p. 244, &c>; Bunsen, Aegyptens Stelle in der Weltgescli. vol. i. p. 505, &c.,and other works on Egyptian mythology. _ [L. S.]

This is a very interesting and academic piece drawing a comparison with Horus and Gnosticism

www.colba.net...

Some nice naked Greek statues of Harpocrates

www.mlahanas.de...

There seem to be plenty of academic works also that discuss the relationship of beliefs between the two civilisations.






[edit on 17-1-2008 by KilgoreTrout]

Originally posted by Illahee

Another possible lead may be in the Huna works by Max Long. He mentions the Huna tradition linked to the Berber tribesmen through language, but here again fuzzy memory may not be helping out much.

Ancient hawaiian natives are related to the morrocan and egyptian desert?That would be an entirely new lead. Amazing pointers here.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Yes.
The Secret Science of Miracles, by Max Freedom Long

Two short pages with the linkage. This branch likely to now be extinct it was documented.

When I wrote the other material we talked about on the other thread one of the chapters was miracles, and I tracked down all of the groups that had the main sets of miracles in common so they could be relabeled and converted to the healing audience in an updated format. I have the book handy here. It says the polynesian words are scattered from the pacific to the near east, including Japan. At the time of Stewart's visit to the atlas mts. only one kahuna was still alive among the Berber tribes, a woman named Lucchi. The linkage in word is such: the hawiian word Kahuna even was spoken as quahuna, and the term for a woman kahuna was similar in kahuna wahini to quahini. The words for God were the same, akua and atua either being used, as well as many others.

What went beyond any similarities in using the polynesian dialects were the secret systems of magic being exactly the same in every aspect.

Documented by William Reginald Stewart. English journalist.

I don't know how to research this. The book was printed in 1948 and he met DR Brigham around 1917 so Long could have met Stewart anytime after 1917.

I cross referenced this branch of magic with both the Christian Mysteries and The most secret magic known and all three are the exact same system with different labels, the Berber being the fourth instance.

Hope that helps.

Keep in mind Max's books are far different than any of the other Huna Teachings and you could end up sinking a ton of dough into the others and not get any information. While I was there I was given the mental instruction to dive into the water and seek my answers. After being trashed around in the surf for a while I spotted a brown encrusted ring. After removing the black and brown encrustation it was clear it was direction from the turtle clan the entire band with turtle glyphs. It actually cleaned up very nice and I wear it. When I opened the book just now it still smells of flowers and surf in the pages so to answer your question, I did go and see for myself, just to be certain.

masonica_esoterica:

I think you may be confusing the fields of theology and religious studies. Theology as a field of academic study is indeed slanted toward the theology of whoever is writing. Religious studies, however, is the secular academic study of religion. It is far from being pro-religion, in fact, a vast majority of scholars in the field would love the chance to destroy any religion. A peer reviewed journal article in religious studies is at most anti-religion, and a vast majority of them are usually very unbiased.

The historical and religious evidence (Judaism would not have accepted anyone inducted into such a school, the works of many jews have been thrown out by jewish scholars for far less) is largely and overwhelmingly against any theory of any "good" biblical character being in such a school.

2. Is it true that fraternal priesthoods and secret societies were part of ancient egyptian culture?

3. Is there any link whatsoever between ancient egypt and modern societies as far as ritual and belief go?

The book "Talisman" by Graham Hancock takes the stand that the answer to those two questions is 'yes'. I didn't agree with all of Hancock's reasoning in the book, but from what I could tell, it was historically accurate. It was some of his logical leaps that I didn't agree with rather than his factual base.

Originally posted by Illahee

Hope that helps.

Yes, that post was of tremendous assistance as a lead.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by Skyfloating]

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
The book "Talisman" by Graham Hancock takes the stand that the answer to those two questions is 'yes'. I didn't agree with all of Hancock's reasoning in the book, but from what I could tell, it was historically accurate. It was some of his logical leaps that I didn't agree with rather than his factual base.

Well, of course Hancock would take that stance. No surprise there.

Still, do you remember his reasoning on ancient egypt and could you summarize it into two or three sentences?

reply to post by Skyfloating


Basically he argued that there is a secret society/religion dating back to ancient Egypt, and that ancient Egyptian religion, Hermetic texts, the Cathar heresy, the Masons, and the Bavarian Illuminati are all connected. I don't recall all of the details, but he was comparing the ancient texts and pointing out similarities of belief, as well as the more modern fascination with Egyptology, like Napoleon going into Egypt and that sort of thing. He also claimed that cities like London, Paris and Washington were designed by this secret society, and showed some architectural evidence and maps to try and prove his case.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

4. What were the secret socieities or fraternities in ancient rome and greece?

I dont know precisely what you mean by "Secret Societies," but if you are looking for secret wisdom, handed down carefully from master or adept to initiate, you need look no further than Plato. You do have to have the right mind to see it in his work though. He hid his secret out in plain sight, and wisely too. It survived virtually intact.

Parmenides poem is another more explicit "treatise" on the "mysteries" if you want to call them that. Again, it helps if you have some affinity for the subject already. (Though intellectual "knowledge" about the traditions is not required or even particularly helpful.)

My guess is, from the way your whole post is phrased, you would like Peter Kingsley's book "Reality." He is a philosopher and specializes in ancient Greece, and has exactly what you are (seem to be) looking for. I also specialize in ancient greek philosophy, and ran across his work when I was assigned another of his books for a class. That one was called "In the Dark Places of Wisdom." I have "Reality" and I am reading it along with several other books, so I havent gotten very far, but it seems to be just the sort of thing you are looking for as far as the Greeks are concerned.

I do recommend you read at least Parmenides Poem yourself first, if you havent already. I like this translation, as it allows you to see how some of the words were chosen and so you can decide yourself if that was the correct word choice.

www.gmu.edu...

Mr. Kingsleys work is very good, and his scholarship is unquestionable, but he has a strong interpretation, and IMO you should have some exposure yourself to the actual work before reading someone elses take. No slight on Prof. Kingsley, that is just my general opinion on any original document. Think for yourself first, then read what others think or it is too easy to let their views color your own. The Poem is short, and there is no excuse for not reading it first. Prof. Kingsley does recreate the "secret society" aspect of it for the reader however, and in the original texts all you get is the "mystery." The "secret" if you will. Sans "tradition." Some people like interpretation, via tradition, as it saves them having to work out the fine details themselves, which is fine if the tradition is accurate. However what often happens is that the tradition becomes a mockery of the "mystery" over time. You see this with loads of modern religions.

Plato on the other hand is widely read, unlike Parmenides, and he has a wealth of information in all of his works. But, it is woven in, and if you arent the right sort to see it you wont. Period. He intended it that way, as he hints at in the "7th Letter." (Also short and worth reading if you actually care to get an insight into the "mysteries" of ancient Greece.) The modern popular philosophic take on Plato is quite simply, imo, gravely mistaken. I strongly recommend you read the Seventh Letter if you are sincerely interested in the subject. The significant piece is buried towards the middle of the letter, but it gives the closest thing to an explicit statement from Plato that you will get as to his take on the subject.

classics.mit.edu...

Basically, (also my opinion,) if you read widely enough in the actual texts, the Rig Veda, Diamond Sutra, the Greeks, etc., etc., you begin to realize it is all the same mystery. Different interpretations, different wording, but the core is the same. I dont limit myself to Greek philosophy, obviously I love the East as well. Where the actual "source" country for this mystic truth is, we may never know. I think it is actually more likely that there are born those who discern it in every time and place. We only have the recorded words of some very few of them.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

A couple of Plato's discourses (off the top of my head from Republic, but I'd have to check that) discuss the secrecy and initiation into the trade guilds. It being Greece, they were of course fraternal, none of those nasty women allowed in there, bah.

Though Plato himself did not exclude women from his Academy.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Plato uses the guilds secrecy as a comparison to the Sophists, who were willing to impart knowledge in exchange for a fee - ie is knowledge more valuable and or elitist when it is secret and guarded or when it can be exchanged for payment. Very interesting.

If you do find the chapter (book) of the Republic that is in, please post it. I have read the Republic many times, and many different translations, and I dont recall that. Not that it isnt in there, but it hasnt stuck in my mind if it is and I would love to re-read that portion. It is a very rich text, and you can pull something new out of it every time you read it. I have never read it "looking" for references to "initiations" before. And dont forget, the very thing that made Socrates the wisest among men (as the Oracle at Delphi proclaimed him to his friend) was that he alone knew he didnt know. That is more important than many realize, since he said it so lightly.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Generally you will find that Plato and Socrates for that matter, looked down up on the Sophists, prefering selection of initiates and the exclusion from knowledge of those not priviledged enough to be selected.

It wasnt simply the fact that the Sophists taught any old body, and for money that Plato and Socrates looked upon them with disdain. It is because they had no regard for the truth. Or should I say Truth, with a capital T. They (the Sophists) were all about swaying the minds of people, and truth meant little to them. Winning at argument was more important.

And the exclusion thing wasnt snobbery. It was a recognition of the fact that not everyone has the proper character or capacity to understand the Truth. (Mysteries if you want to call them that.) Look, for an example at Buddhism. Tons of explicit writings survive, lots of "masters" to teach you, numerous and sundry "pop" books on the subject, and the world isnt exactly overflowing with Buddhas. It requires more than "knowledge" of the sort that can be transmitted in writing or speech. "Gnosis" is translated as "knowledge," and we think we know what that meant to them, but Greek is a very nuanced language. It is much more likely, imo, that Plato intended that word more like we would use "discernment." Though even that falls short. Perhaps "intelligence in the moment" is closer. He certainly didnt mean it as discrete bits of information, as we commonly do.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I
Still wondering where all these elaborate rituals come from...

Well that is easy. (From the Tao de Ching.)

38. Ritual

Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.

Harmony does not care for harmony, and so is naturally attained;
But ritual is intent upon harmony, and so can not attain it.

Harmony neither acts nor reasons;
Love acts, but without reason;
Justice acts to serve reason;
But ritual acts to enforce reason.

When the Way is lost, there remains harmony;
When harmony is lost, there remains love;
When love is lost, there remains justice;
But when justice is lost, there remains ritual.

Ritual is the end of compassion and honesty,
The beginning of confusion;
Belief is a colourful hope or fear,
The beginning of folly.

The sage goes by harmony, not by hope;
He dwells in the fruit, not the flower;
He accepts substance, and ignores abstraction.

So, in other words, the further from the core "mystery" or "truth" you get, the more elaborate the rituals become. When you get back to the source, you should expect to find none. Are you looking for the source of the mystery, secret, truth? Or just the rituals?



[edit on 21-1-2008 by Illusionsaregrander]

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


After reading through the material you referenced I can see that the connection can be made academically and not only in terms of esoteric speculation.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander

So, in other words, the further from the core "mystery" or "truth" you get, the more elaborate the rituals become. When you get back to the source, you should expect to find none. Are you looking for the source of the mystery, secret, truth? Or just the rituals?

In this thread I am not looking so much at spiritual truths.
Im looking to see if it can be proven (in a scholary fashion) that there is a lineage originating from ancient egypt and before and what secret societies the ancients had. Its a matter of curiosity.

Skyfloating I was just reading through Illusionsaregrander's post and particularly in this...

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
I do recommend you read at least Parmenides Poem yourself first, if you havent already. I like this translation, as it allows you to see how some of the words were chosen and so you can decide yourself if that was the correct word choice.

www.gmu.edu...

It reminded me of this

freemasonry.bcy.ca...
mastermason.com...

Just had another read through and I definately see some similarity, though crypticism is not my forte - there is a similarity in narrative, linguistic symbology, implied meaning and rythmn (sp?) in my opinion.

I'd be interested in what you think.

I must emphasise that I am not saying they are exactly the same, simply that they use a similar pattern/form to convey information.

Originally posted by Skyfloating

In this thread I am not looking so much at spiritual truths.
Im looking to see if it can be proven (in a scholary fashion) that there is a lineage originating from ancient egypt and before and what secret societies the ancients had. Its a matter of curiosity.

So you are not looking for the acutal "secret" just the children playing at "I have a secret."

This organization may have material that would lead you to that answer. Although while they are interested in the scholarly tradition, their main focus is on the "mystery" itself.

www.ihpusa.org...

And do read the book by Prof. Kingsley. It is at least the Greek version of what you are looking for, and if you are trying to create a "lineage" of some kind Parmenides is a very strong link. He inspired many, Plato himslef called him "father" in a couple of his works, though in one piece many modern scholars of philosophy interpret Plato as criticizing Parmenides' description of "Truth," which he is, but he is showing the flaws in the language, not so much the view itself.

What you really cant do, if you are looking for some sort of academic "truth" is use similarities between writings alone to establish some proof of a lineage. All the writings about the "mystery" itself that you are uninterested in are describing some experience of "All that is." Not surprisingly, (if they were describing some objective Truth) they will have a similar flavor, though the life experience of the "initiate" will create variation in specific descriptive terminology. Having this experience is not dependant upon being a part of a lineage, and it arises spontaneously here there and all over. In fact, the simple fact that explicit writings are left is a sure sign of the work not being left by the most experienced of initiates to the mysteries. A "master" would not attempt to do so. Like ritual, the further from understanding you go, the more elaborate and explicit the text. (ie; Aristotle left an attempt at an explicit treatise that Plato himself refused to write, albiet a poor attempt, however it inspired many that followed.)

The "secrets" are not secret because of some desire to retain powers for oneself and one's friends that one wishes to deny others. (At least not at the highest levels of understanding, at the lower levels absolutely people are trying to retain power) The "secrets" are secret because they cannot be spoken efffectively. Language alone is not capable of conveying the experience or understanding of it from one to another. There are in fact restrictions against trying to convey the teaching in language in many traditions, but this is to prevent, as Plato describes it;

There neither is nor ever will be a treatise of mine on the subject. For it does not admit of exposition like other branches of knowledge; but after much converse about the matter itself and a life lived together, suddenly a light, as it were, is kindled in one soul by a flame that leaps to it from another, and thereafter sustains itself. Yet this much I know-that if the things were written or put into words, it would be done best by me, and that, if they were written badly, I should be the person most pained. Again, if they had appeared to me to admit adequately of writing and exposition, what task in life could I have performed nobler than this, to write what is of great service to mankind and to bring the nature of things into the light for all to see? But I do not think it a good thing for men that there should be a disquisition, as it is called, on this topic-except for some few, who are able with a little teaching to find it out for themselves. As for the rest, it would fill some of them quite illogically with a mistaken feeling of contempt, and others with lofty and vain-glorious expectations, as though they had learnt something high and mighty.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
If you do find the chapter (book) of the Republic that is in, please post it. I have read the Republic many times, and many different translations, and I dont recall that. Not that it isnt in there, but it hasnt stuck in my mind if it is and I would love to re-read that portion. It is a very rich text, and you can pull something new out of it every time you read it. I have never read it "looking" for references to "initiations" before. And dont forget, the very thing that made Socrates the wisest among men (as the Oracle at Delphi proclaimed him to his friend) was that he alone knew he didnt know. That is more important than many realize, since he said it so lightly.

As I said I am not sure if it is Republic, but there is definately a dialogue relating to Protagoras and the secrecy of the guilds in some form by Plato. I have to admit that I find these 'classics' hard going and I struggled with the Republic. I think that the reference to Protagoras was in a collection of the Sophists that I read a few months back so next time I am in the library (later this week) I will pick it up and if so I'll pass it on - I am curious to confirm that I didn't just dream it.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
It wasnt simply the fact that the Sophists taught any old body, and for money that Plato and Socrates looked upon them with disdain. It is because they had no regard for the truth. Or should I say Truth, with a capital T. They (the Sophists) were all about swaying the minds of people, and truth meant little to them. Winning at argument was more important.

While I agree to an extent, I think that in terms of Protagoras, this is a difficult one to call and we really only have Platos judgement to go by. I do not believe in elitism and believe that we can all train our minds to process difficult concepts and of course truth can be subjective. Sometimes winning the hearts and minds of people is of greater importance. I am sure that you are far more educated on this topic than I the casual reader, but that Protagoras work was destroyed and Platos remains seems to me more telling than anything else.

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
And the exclusion thing wasnt snobbery. It was a recognition of the fact that not everyone has the proper character or capacity to understand the Truth. (Mysteries if you want to call them that.) Look, for an example at Buddhism. Tons of explicit writings survive, lots of "masters" to teach you, numerous and sundry "pop" books on the subject, and the world isnt exactly overflowing with Buddhas. It requires more than "knowledge" of the sort that can be transmitted in writing or speech. "Gnosis" is translated as "knowledge," and we think we know what that meant to them, but Greek is a very nuanced language. It is much more likely, imo, that Plato intended that word more like we would use "discernment." Though even that falls short. Perhaps "intelligence in the moment" is closer. He certainly didnt mean it as discrete bits of information, as we commonly do.

Again I agree and disagree. How was one selected for the "Truth"? Surely the only criteria should be that you are a seeker. If Plato refused because he didn't like the cut of your jib or felt that you, by his standards were not ready, should you walk away. Or, seek another mentor, someone who was willing to educate for a fee. Do we simply accept rejection or do we find a path less well trod?

Personally I agree that the true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing or rather that you can never know everything. Without this understanding you never change and you never learn. I am to an extent though a literalist, I like to read not interpret. When we start to try and understand the hidden meaning we start to fill in the gaps and reach conclusions that the writers would never have imagined. Sometimes for the better, sometime for the worse.

Despite Platos acceptance of women, I doubt I would have made the grade, but Protagoras may have accepted my fee, so I like the Sophists a little better for it.

From one of the masonic writings that Kilgore so kindly posted. Lines 661-665 of that Halliwell Manuscript. Thanks for posting that Kilgore, I have never really looked into the Masonic writings, but since they came along serendipitiously it was nice to get the introduction.

For glad may a man that day be,
That once in the day may him see;
It is so much worth, without nay, (doubt)
The virtue thereof no man tell may;
But so much good doth that sight,

Just another reminder that the "Truth" is unspeakable. Literally.