Arcadia Discussion Zone

Me? I'm nobody; just an interested observer, albeit one whose interest diminishes a little more with each passing day, as my disillusionment with the whole RLC "scene" grows. But I belong to no faction or confraternity, I can assure you of that. I've never met a single soul on this Forum, and don't suppose I ever shall. I joined up because I saw a certain "treasure" hunter (also unknown to me) getting the most fearful kicking from all quarters, and thought someone should step in and defend him, however inadequately I may have done so. And I thought I might learn more, through the process of interaction, although I'm not sure that I have. I feel more that I am eavesdropping on a series of private conversations and vendettas, about which I know little and care less. This was actually all a lot more enjoyable when it was a purely solitary pursuit, and I'm inclined to make it so again.

My interest in this affair stems more from a fascination with the RLC area's truly ancient mysteries, and the notion of it being a sacred landscape, rather than subsequent intrigues, interesting though these are. It's the place that truly inspires me; not just around RLC, but the Corbieres and the High Aude generally; and a love of being there amidst the scenery and the broken castles, writing my so-far unpublished fiction. It's all about the place; for me, at any rate. Little else seems to matter much anymore.

Thank you for your response.

I understand your feelings, Richard. There have been times when I've thought of giving up too, but I suppose it's my obsessive curiosity that draws me back. I don't belong to any fraternity either but have always found myself hovering around their locked doors, sometimes uncomfortably close! So close that I adopt some of their approaches. As I don't represent any faction I feel very much alone on this forum, but this doesn't bother me. I suppose I joined for the entertainment more than anything, although that's not to say that there's some good wheat among the chaff. On the other hand, I feel that the level of knowledge among English-speaking 'rennologistes' lags way behind and is easily diverted, so I thought it was time to add a little light (as I see it).

I too love the atmosphere of the countryside, whether it's France, the lakes of Karelia, the Burren of Ireland, the New Forest or Ilkley Moors. I immerse myself in legends, history, and the natural world and generally dislike modernity - and the internet!!!

'*'

Richard
you said


Your are lucky, I would love to ramble across this landscape and explore its megalithic past, but my trekking days are over unfortunately. For me, the mystery of RLC lies in the ancient usage of its landscape. Its a notion that relates to other mysterious places across the world. My own conversation is consigned to the fringes of this debate at the moment so I do appreciate your disillusionment, but please stick with it, you do bring a certain sanity to the party.

I'm also impressed by the historical and esoteric clues being introduced onto this forum by Irmine and others, but then I am wary of their assertion that they know what this mystery is all about. Thats not to say that their clues don't impact upon my conclusions, they do, but then I can't help thinking that they are blindly sticking pins into a dartboard?

Perhaps the usergroups facility on this Forum would help focus our discussions more; they are private, invited participants only, and the conversation is controlled by a chosen moderator? All we have to do is choose a subject and an objective.

John

TEMPUS OMNIA REVELAT!

Irmine

Your right, time will tell, but if you truly know what this mystery is all about, then so do many other peoplel, so why does it remain a secret?

John

Irmine, its a simple if somewhat naive question I know, but my father always taught me that getting the question right was paramount to solving any riddle. So the question stands, but I'll frame it a little better.

A secret can only exist if it shared, so you must share your professed knowledge with others, many others I would suggest. So my question is - what makes this secret so important that it hasn't once leaked out into the public domain?

Another clue amongst the many you have given isn't going to make that much difference is it?

John

Oh don't bother too much about the RLC mob spite-fest, you'll get that sort of thing on most forums of whatever subject I'll wager. As Nietszche put it - human, all too human.

I found the treasure when I was over there back in 2002. You know what it is ? The local people,.I'm not to sure about those of RLC and RLB, but the 'ornary' folk of Couiza are the salt of the earth.

.

John

I agree with your analysis of esoterism up to a point; most of it is about personal experience, self-realisation, the achievement of some form of divine perception or oneness with god.

However, I do believe there are people who have, and who want to experience something more physical, i.e. they want to manifest something they erroneously believe to be spiritual. What they employ is an ancient wisdom that was once the preserve of ancient prophets, kings, and high priests.

Patrice Chaplin has, I believe, provided us with a glimpse of one such group and their activities, but there must be more. The RLC enigma has all the ingedients necessary for the activity of one of these groups, I just need to prove Sauniere involvement? Unfortunately, if you don't speak French like me then it is really hard to examine the individuals involved in this mystery.

John

Whoop_john and John - I agree more or less with both of you. From the mystery schools of Greece and Egypt to the present day the importance of progressive stages of initiation are paramount, for many reasons. However, as in intelligence services, many 'leaks' take place over the centuries.

Leaks may involve actual theft of documents (no cameras then!) and they occur in three ways: 1. officially (disinformation), 2. accidentally, 3. unofficially by those who have infiltrated the initiatory society in order to pass secrets on to 'rivals', for revenge, to right wrongs, for monetary gain, etc. The Prieure de Sion has experience of all three.

Jules DOINEL (a key figure in the affair, who also called himself Stanislas KOTSKA, after a Polish saint), colleague of PAPUS and of Abbe BOUDET, was one of many such leak-operators. He leaked the CBCS rite in 1895, which had enormous repercussions. (He had been converted to Gnosticism in 1888 by the revelations he discovered in a 1022 manuscript from the monastery of Saint-Samson, Orleans, seat of the Ordre de SION, and in 1891 he became 'Cathar bishop of Alet'). In 1899 Doinel published his 'Note sur le Roi Hilderic II' which deplored the displacement of the Merovingians. Alfred SAUNIERE, initiate of the Rite Primitif de Narbonne, and former tutor to M. CHEFDEBIEN de Zagarriga, was, almost certainly another such leak.

Another classic example of how facts are selectively mangled to suit starnge agendas.

The manuscript purportedly "discovered" in 1888 by Jules Doinel was actually found by E.-G. Rey and published in an article called "The Charter of the Abbey of Mont-Sion" in Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de France in 1887. We know that it is the same document because in the article itself Rey mentions showing it to M. "Doinelle" (sic), archivist of Loiret - a position Jules Doinel was known to have held at this point in time.

However, the documents discussed in Rey's article do not date from 1022, but from 1178 and 1281; and they make no mention of a 1022 document narrating the public execution of a group of heretics at Orléans later deemed by Doinel himself to have been Cathars.



Pity that Alfred couldn't have "leaked" the fact that Baron Fernand de Chefdebien-Çagarriga was no member of the Rite des Philadelphes started by his great-grandfather; or that his commission as the tutor to the Baron's children ended because they no longer needed tutoring once the youngest shipped off to university. Not sinister enough, I suppose.

TCP

.

Lovely sentiment from someone who nit-picks over a typo!

TCP

I couldn't agree with you more Whoop_john. As I never have my archives to hand, virtually all the information on my posts is from memory, so I don't do too badly. Thankfully, not all of us are perfect, and those who believe that they are are deluded. We are all humans with feelings after all and should treat one another with respect.

Opinions will always differ over the circumstances surrounding DOINEL's discovery, however, the important fact is that it was this which converted him to Gnosticism. The Doinel connection is very important for several reasons. He was a member of SESA (or was it SASC? - I cannot refer to books, etc. here like most of you can. Please forgive me) when he founded the Neo-Cathar Church with PAPUS. And if my memory serves me right, Abbe BOUDET was also a member of SASC, and was later accepted into SESA. There is no doubt that Boudet and Doinel knew each other well. Deodat ROCHER also claimed this.

In 1895, using the name Stanislas KOTSKA (after the Polish saint), Doinel published the CBCS rite - this caused much controversy.

I suppose it shows that the tendency to transpose contemporary sensibilities upon our ancestors was as prevalent in the 19th century as it has been in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. I get irritated when people attempt to portray the Templars as the far sighted purveyors of a more enlightened form of Christianity, or the Cathars as proto-feminists, when in reality such people would appear quite alien to us if we were introduced to them today. I guess all "histories" tend inexorably to view things through the prism of their own sensibilities and prejudices, hence the value of primary sources or at least histories that draw significantly upon chronicles and writings of the time under examination. A perennial problem in all matters of history writing, I think, and not just those related to RLC, although this tends to exacerbate the problem, thanks to all the deliberate obfuscation, and the multiplicity of "players" on the scene with agendas to serve.

Very refreshing observations, Richard. I couldn't agree more.

TCP

No, you're not the only one. Just as odd in my opinion is the fact that these neo-Cathars based their sacraments and liturgy on Catholic rites that the original Cathars had rejected and scorned. Then again, a romantic rehabilitation wouldn't have found much useful in the sparse, colorless asceticism of the Cathars.

TCP

It caused much controversy because he labeled it Satanic. In 1895 Doinel - writing as Jean Kostka (not Stanislaus Kotska) - published the rite in Lucifer Démasqué after his renunciation of Gnosticism and return to Catholicism in 1894.

TCP

Really? Then why, after nearly three decades since HBHG was published and dozens (if not hundreds) of copycat works on the topic, have so many authors and their fans parrotted this baseless claim and yet failed to ever produce one single documented record? In fact, they seem to go to great lengths to cast doubts on the veracity of historical records. Why do you suppose that is?

TCP

Whoop_john.

Of course what you say is true, and we don't have to go very far to find people and organisations who believe in the Jesus-married-MM (and had children), Jesus-survived-the Crucifixion, MMM-came-to-France theories. Virtually all legends contain kernels of truth. It is folly to sweep them aside as worthless. Robert GRAVES built his reputation on analysing myth, much of whose work is now generally accepted in academia. Isaac NEWTON, Robert BOYLE, Blaise PASCAL, Athanase KIRCHER, Giordano BRUNO, COPERNICUS, C-G JUNG, and countless other great figures, valued their intuitive sides just as much as their rational sides. THEY certainly never dismissed the 'non-provable' out of hand. Although, less well-known, the extent of their 'esoteric' interests was considerable.

Going back to the Jesus-Madeleine related theories why do so many of us treat them seriously? Because those who research these subjects are discovering more and more circumstantial evidence in a wide range of areas, and it is becoming difficult to simply ignore, for this is patently INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST. More and more people are (quite rightly) beginning to distrust the orthodox historical records. Even some 'orthodox' historians are now beginning to question their orthodoxy. This is good news for truth - if that's what we are gradually uncovering. So far, nobody has remotely changed my view on this, but I concede that, they may (...just may) one day. None of us can be sure of what future discoveries lie ahead of us during our short lifetimes. On that humbling note I'll end my sermon - for now!

.

I think the mantra originated with John Ford, but he was a maker of feature films (inc. the best one ever made, IMHO, "The Searchers"), so I guess he gets a pass.

"Print the legend" - that's what the newspaper editor said in "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance"

And yet you seem comfortable enough stating that there are documented records. Interesting.



But you've just written, seemingly with some degree of certainty, that such records do exist. Not having seen them yourself, where might you have heard that such records exist except from the same authors you've just stated "do not know of" them?



How many times is Jesus mentioned in the Dead Sea Scrolls? They're not about Christianity, they're about a strain of ascetic Judaism.



So they leave in all the other human traits like sin, anger, hunger, thirst, temptation, pain, and physical death, but take out all references to marriage because only the latter might make him seem too "human"...? They leave in scriptural references to Jesus having been "fully God and fully man", and persecute "heretics" like the Cathars for daring to suggest that Jesus was pure spirit and never human, because they wanted to hide the human element? Don't you think that's just a bit of a stretch? There are no direct or indirect references in the Gospels to indicate whether Jesus did or did not have a wife. There are also no direct or indirect references to Jesus having a dental degree, but should we assume he did when and if it fits nicely into someone's new theory?



What you said was that you would not be surprised if information regarding the "true" nature of Jesus, his philosophy, and his "putative" wife came to light because there are "documented records". So, where are these records?



How would you be in a position to know the workings or the purpose of organizations that "may" have tangible ancient records after admitting you don't even know if such records exist?



Exactly - distraction.



True - because they can't fake their way through historical discussions.

TCP