Albert Pike on the True Nature of Masonry

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


The 33rd degree is a honorary degree, and part of the side order of the Scottish Rite.
The Scottish Rite is a side order, and therefore a member of the Scottish Rite is no higher ranked than a 3rd degree Master Mason.
And, when it comes to degrees, it's similar to karate.
You start out as a novice, you learn the basics, and everything from there is built upon the basics you learn at the beginning.
A black belt, or a Master Mason, is ranked because of experience, as much as anything else.

As for the astronauts, there were a few who were Masons, but not all of them.

*Point of note*

Given that there is no degree higher then the 3rd, the corelation between master mason and black belt isnt totally accurate.

Black belt means your no longer a novice, but far from a master, you still have some 6 or 7 degrees of blackbelt before you make master depending on the style, and 3 to 4 on top of that before you reach grandmaster.

That having been said, i agree with the spirit and intent of the statement, just not it's literal accuracy.

But thats just me spiltting hairs

I thought he merely went over the old rituals and rewrote them and ordered them in some manner of significance for learning purposes?
Did he not (in morals and dogma) go over much of the philosophy and mythos from antiquity up until his present day and arrange it in a way that made sense (to him) and obviously others in the form of tidbits of interpretation and logical associations?

I haven't read the entire book, since I love reading and have read quite a bit, it was interesting to read the bits that I did because he expounded on some things that I have read previously.

What is the "modern" masons take on Albert Pike anyway? The man was obviously a thinker lol

He did make ALOT of correlations on the mythos' of antiquity. The 28th chapter is HUGE, biggest in the book and is a deep look at Qabalism.

It's been awhile, but i believe he also examines similarities between christianity and the pre-christian faiths who's mythologic histories all but parallel christianity. Something which i am strongly in favor of, the base teachings of christianty (Love thyself, love thy nighbour) are as pure and decent as anything man has ever thought before, but they are nothing new, and nothing exclusive.

Which was what he was getting at, religion should be inclusive, not exclusive.. it should examine ideas and find the similarities, not the differences. and isnt that what our masonic contributors here have been saying all along?