Talk:Samael Aun Weor/Archive 1

Untitled

For a previous debate over deletion of this article see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Samael Aun Weor.

---

Life Story Details

The tribe that Samael and Litelantes stayed with was similar to the Kogi, but it was not them. I changed the article in this regard. - 1gnostic

What's in a name?

Samael also known as Saklas is the Valentinian "satan" or anti-god known as the Demiurge. Anyone else see the irony? At any rate the followers of Samael, like the Church of the East & Abroad have multiple websites and put their plethora of links in Wikipedia to advertise.

Their group has not been looked upon favorably by the two original "Apostolic" (and very catholic feeling) neo-gnostic churches known as the Ecclesia Gnostica and Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Apostolica. These two churches were the first neo-gnostic churches in the US and Canada. These two became stepping stone experiences for many and because of political reasons helped launch more neo-gnostic churches such as the Apostolic Johannite Church, l'Eglise du Plérôme, Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica Hermetica and the Ecclesia Gnostica Mysteriorum. None of these groups speak for the entire neo-gnostic movement and any of them that try to are showing themselves to be acting counter to and ignorantly of the historical gnostic movement.

There has never been a one "full name" of the Gnostic movement(s). There were Sethians, Valentinians, Ophites, Carpocratians, Thomasines and so on. As can be seen by the new churches above there are new gnostic sects born out of old ones even if their theology is not all that disimilar. --66.82.9.90 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Samael Aun Weor never stated to be related with all Gnostic sects. Nevertheless, he did state that, as a student of Abermentho (Jesus), he was representing the essential Gnostic wisdom, which is the transcendental self-knowledge that liberates one' soul. --Paul Stone 22:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

---

What is the full name of the Christian Gnostic Movement? link it to its own article.There is some confusion as to the real, official, full title. I couldn't find the proper name with google. A recent anonymous user changed "Gnostic Movement" to "International Gnostic Movement". Isn't the word "Christian" part of the name? AugustinMa 03:56, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• In his autobiography, Las Tres Montanas (The Three Mountains), Samael states: "Movimiento Gnostico Cristiano Internacional Universal." Translation: "Universal International Christian Gnostic Movement." Shall we trim the fat for those wishing a lean, digestable phrase? --simplea 18:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Work in Progress

This is still a work in progress. Exact dates for some of this information are hard to come by, resulting in a rather vague picture, however this is the best I could do at the moment... Paul Stone

• Readded by Ambush Commander, please don't delete discussion (rather, archive it when it gets too large)

• I have to say that someone here is too quick to eliminate any information that may seem critical of "Samael Aun Weor". I wrote in some information about Samael and his legacy in the criticism section that was promptly removed (just a couple hours later) -- and I know what I am talking about, I was a member of the Gnostic movement for 15 years. Stop protecting this self-proclaimed guru and tell the full story. --72.40.6.255 04:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Adding my comment again, now that I'm logged in, in case anyone has any questions. There's definitely a lot more that should be added to the criticism section to offer some balance -- but I'm not going to waste my time adding it, like I did today, if it's going to be summarily removed without even checking with the person who inputs the information. The source could be Samael's own words in more than 70 books.--ESCRIPTOR 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed what you wrote because the majority of it was either stated elsewhere, was rhetoric, or otherwise simply untrue.

Though he called himself “the master of synthesis,” he seemed at time to be taking entire sections off other books, often without proper attribution -- and repeatedly claiming that well-documented doctrines came to him through inner experiences and not from his familiarity with other occultist and religious authors.

I have never seen himself call himself the master of synthesis, could you tell me where? Concerning the last part, he actually talks about many other doctrines throughout his works and encourages others to study them. He does however, state that what he wrote about he experienced himself, which would be a good note to add into the current article.

For instance, his “great arcanum” is found in the teachings of Arnoldo Krumm-Heller.

It is already stated in the article that the introduction to the “Great Arcanum” came from Krumm-Heller. However, it is duly noted that Sexual Magic is taught throughout many (really all) other esoteric orders and religions, most easily seen, I think in Karmamudra of Tibetan Buddhism. Therefore, that teaching is neither Samael Aun Weor’s nor Krumm-Hellers. He never called the Great Arcanum to be his.

His teachings about inner bodies, chacras, special faculties, seem to derive from the Theosophical Society, Rosicrucians and authors such as Madame Helena P. Blavatsky, Charles Webster Leadbeater, Tuesday Lobsang Rampa and Eliphas Levi. His psychological observation and ego elimination techniques borrow from G. I. Gurdjieff and Jiddu Krishnamurti.

Every book of occultism, nay every book on anything, derives from somewhere else. Samael Aun Weor used the nomenclature from notable occultists because in order to not reinvent the wheel. His psychological discourses are only superficially similar to that of Gurdjieff and Krishnamurti. I do not want to underestimate those teachers, but if you were to have a conversation with a student of the former teachers, you would see that the message different. For example, Samael Aun Weor repeatidly states that the Gnostic Work has to do with “comprehension.” If you state to someone who read Gurdjieff that the work is concerned with comprehension, they would disagree. Obviously, the words and techniques are similar, obviously he used concepts already developed in other schools. This I think should be stated in the main article, I plan to add it.

When a subject became popular in the popular imagination, he took it on.

I believe this is your opinion. How exactly is Sexual Magic popular? Do you know how popular Tibetan Buddhism, UFOs, Kabbalah, etc., was in 1950? He was put in jail and had his life repeatedly threatened because of his views. He had to literally escape mobs of people who wanted to kill him.

He claimed to have contacts with aliens; he claimed to be a reincarnate Egyptian master; he claimed to be a Tibetan lama; he claimed to be the reincarnation of Julius Caesar; he claimed to be the 5th angel of the Apocalypse; he claimed to be the World Savior of the new Aquarian Age. He also claimed to be working in conjunction with Sri Swami Sivananda and to have personally met with the XIV Dalai Lama Tentzin Gyatso in an extraordinary event, where the Dalai Lama reportedly traveled with his physical body through another dimension and appeared at Samael Aun Weor’s home in Mexico. These reported affiliations with the Dalai Lama and Sivananda remain unconfirmed.

Some of this is already stated in the article. The rest should be rewritten without sarcasm and placed within the content of the article.

Weor left a legacy of disparate “Gnostic” organizations and “masters” who claim to continue his work that is still partly led by his family and close friends – all engaged at times in a struggle for control of those organizations.

Yes, but you fail to mention the many schools that are not involved in politics and do not follow any Master, including Samael Aun Weor. They simply teach the doctrine.

Spreading his message are thousands of “missionaries” and instructors through mostly Latin America, Hispanic neighborhoods in the United States and Canada, Spain and some scattered places in Europe and the other continents. They leave family, possessions and earthly ambitions behind to dedicate themselves to “sacrifice for humanity,” one of the doctrine principles, even though Weor’s own children remain in Mexico City in some cases with successful professional careers.

The second sentence is wrong. Sacrifice for Humanity has nothing to do with how much money one makes or how many material objects one owns. Probably everyone who has “left family, possessions and earthly ambitions” – in the way you state it – are from the very mistaken schools who follow this or that Master, or who are constantly fighting with each other. Therefore, your description is biased.

What economic benefit, if any, derives from that network is not entirely clear, but some of Weor’s descendants have tried to issue authoritative editions of his most popular books.

This assumes that one is attempting to derive economic benefit. The reason that a certain sibling wanted authoritative editions is so that one could rely on a particular edition to be accurate. Some schools publish adulterated books.

Samael Aun Weor said he was immortal, because he had a second body saved for himself in Egypt, and promised to return. Many are still awaiting such a return.

That is not really true, because he stated that he integrated that body before he died. The last sentence does not belong in the article, at least not in that format.

In short, the tone of the additional criticisms you made were written in such a manner that I could not even attempt to fix them to become NPOV, so I removed them entirely.

On a side note, I think the “Criticisms” should be used at a minimum, instead integrated whenever possible into he main flow of the article. --Paul Stone 00:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A warning to readers.

I just want to warn readers not to trust this article because it is flawed. There's so much more about Samael, so many contradictions and different sides that are not explored here. The guardian of this text censured some information I had inserted, and it's obvious that he does not have access to the original Samael texts in Spanish, because all the information was verifiable. But if you only read the few translations out there you don't know the man.

72.40.6.255, feel free to present what you please, but if it is not NPOV and not written in a professional tone, it will be removed. I do not believe your additions had both. Paul Stone 21:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed non-english "External Links" because there are plently of resources in English. Those who wish to post non-english links, I feel you should do so on the articles that exist within those languages. --Paul Stone 19:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments by Anon

I am guessing this is Smacksoftruth. You are free to state that he had children, just write it well. If you read your additions, they look choppy and out of place, because they were written in a hurry. You also keep posting an article from a Catholic World News from 1997. The Catholic Church has, since 1950, accussed Samael Aun Weor of many things and in fact jailed him, because he states very clearly that Catholic Church has devated from the message of Jesus. The article is biased, in my opinion.

That "cult watch" groups state this or that about him is also meaningless. I don't doubt that there are many fanatics who state they teach the doctrine of Samael Aun Weor, but it does not mean that they do. It is the same thing with Fourth Way groups, there quite a bit of fanatical groups there, and these same cult watch groups label them in the same way.

Amórtegui (Rabolu) deveated from the doctrine, and if you were a follower of Amórtegui, then you did not study the doctrine at all and you have no idea what you are talking about. I have spoken to many people like yourself, who because they have been physically close to a person, place or thing, they believe to have objective knowledge about it. In reailty if you have not awakened your consciousness in the internal planes of the universe then you know nothing. I don't doubt that you have had a sour experience, but it has nothing to do with Samael Aun Weor or his doctrine. The purity of the teachings in Central and South America is a mixed bag, and it seems to be degenerating very quickly, beginning with Amórtegui. Thankfully, North America has not been totally infested by the fanatical "teachers" of these countries, yet.

Do not assume that what I know comes from the internet, because that wrong. I will continue to remove anything that is biased or seeks to promulgate the idea that Samael Aun Weor began a "dangerous cult." --Paul Stone 16:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC) it?

Hello again. I do not think you are a jerk, but you did assume that what I know is from the internet. ("Maybe its time to admit that your knowledge from a couple of web sites sects"). Gnostic followers are indeed followers, but that has nothing to do with Samael Aun Weor or his doctrine, which states very clearly that everyone should only follow their Inner God. If you, at any time where a "follower" that is your own mistake. There is no contradiction with having children and practicing sexual magic, why are you so scandalized by this fact? I have already told you that the reason I deleted your comments was because you wrote them in haste, you have to write things on Wikipedia with a degree of sophistication. Your further edits, such as replacing the entire article with "He created a crazy cult" leaves no choice but to deal with your actions firmly. The article stated that he had children before you made your edit, and it still does. So, what are you yelling about? In sum, the article merely states what he did in his life, and what he taught, no where does it attempt to make "believers" or "followers." The reason one should not waste their sexual energy is clearly taught by Samael Aun Weor, as well Hinduism (Brahmacharya), Buddhism (Kamamudra), Alchemy, etc., which has nothing to do with your ideas. My friend, I wish you good luck too, but remember that any ill thought or deed returns to its maker. --Paul Stone 22:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Question about Samael Demiurge

From the article: "This ignorant creator is birthed through the abuse of the sexual energy, the antipode of sexual strength, and in turn creates false psychological worlds that entrap the true nature of each person". This sentence says very important things. I want to "make sure" if I understood it correctly. The word "abuse", through abuse here means through not spilling semen and transmutation? Second, the "antipode of sexual strenght", could the author of this sentence, describe it clearly, in other words?

Yes, by abuse it means making use of the sexual energy to fornicate through any of the three brains (intellect, emotion, sex). The antipode of sexual strength would be sexual weakness, meaning, not being able to dominate the sexual energy and instead being dominated by the sexual energy through unconscious, instinctual impulses of various infrahuman qualities, just as animals are. Infrahuman impulses create with the sexual energy infrahuman qualities that while suitable for animals, are not suitable for humans. These impulses are the refuse of our necessary evolutive development aquired while we were irrational animals. This is why Jehovah stated "Thou shalt not fornicate," because he is intrested in developing intellectual animals into humans, not back into irrational animals. --Paul Stone 22:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Samael Aun Weor

False prophet, false avatar.

LED

Great Arcanum

But an invention.

LED

I’m forced to believe English translations might be incredibly better than their originals!!!

In Spanish (or even Portuguese), Samael works are barely acceptable even if we consider it was written by an eight years old child. It seems (to me and to any reasonable person) he gathered a few dozen unusual words from respectable writings – mainly the ones he damned later – and grossly arranged them in a miserably poor text lacking coherence, consistence and (philosophically) sustainable evidences. Furthermore, his style prose-poetry-journalistic-mystic-fictional is way too “free” to fit anyone’s literary taste, what probably makes it so hard to take it seriously. There is, thus, an enormous quality distinction between Samael texts and those written by Blavatsky, Papus or Levi – a slight but necessary scientific tone (mainly Blavatsky). This is my opinion however… hundreds will certainly agree! Forgive my humble English, please, gentlemen!

JckoD.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Samael Aun Weor/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

== About assessment == Okey...I've assesed this article as B-class Mid-importance. AS the length of it shows, the article has a good amount of content, and has serious divisions and subdivisions to explore. Even though, it needs a lot of clean up, NPOV check and a reference check. IT NEEDS A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO A GA, although it does meet the assessment requirements for a B-class. About its importance, I can clearly see that this person is important in the history of occult (a lot of his work is based in teosophy knowledge) but it is not key to understandig the occult (for the same reason). People interested in teosophy may found this article very useful, but others may not. --Legion fi 06:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)