posted December 21, 2001 11:21 PM           

I loved your idea of a book (which may be bio or not) about Linda!

One thing I would really like to k-now is about her life/experiences with the Rosicrucian Fellowship. It's a topic that almost never gets mentioned, yet would probably be extremely interesting for many.

posted December 21, 2001 11:52 PM           

Is your Moon, by chance, in Pisces? It's quite hard to tell, I had to guess a few times.

posted December 22, 2001 01:35 AM           

Yes how did you guess my Moon was in Pisces? Psychic or what.

We're gentle souls really - even ones with Aries rising like me.

posted December 22, 2001 10:49 PM           

Okay, here are the reasons why I assumed Linda was in the R. Fellowship. Tell me what you think.

1. Her beliefs obviously changed drastically between writing Sun Signs and Love Signs. In Sun S, she writes happily about eating meat and wearing fur coats - by LS they have become two cardinal sins that will darken anyone's karma immeasurably. In Sun S, she advises Aquarians to be hypnotised, yet in LS, she uses hypnotism as an example of something psychically dangerous, like seances and visiting mediums. All three are complete anathema to the Rosicrucian Fellowship.

2. In LS, she mentions San Diego and places near them again and again. In particular, she mentions various friends who live in San Diego. Is it just coincidence that the Headquarters of the RF are in Oceanside, just north of San Diego?

3. The Preface to LS is practically a Rosicrucian Fellowship manifesto, with all sorts of key words like "dense body" for example. Star Signs goes through basic RF beliefs chapter by chapter. While Linda may have got her ideas from many sources, Star Signs seems almost pure Rosicrucian.

4. There are also many little hints, such as the great belief in the power of grape juice, the importance of the purity of sexuality, and the need for psychic powers to be used in a spiritual way. Also the vital importance of music and poetry to enlightenment.

5. The Preface to Star Signs discusses a mysterious stranger called Nahtan who comes to her hotel room to give her a mission, and who uses musical incantations, with his hand on her crown chakra, in order to magnetise her vibrations. This is a perfect description of Rosicrucian initiation (often said to be like being tuned with a tuning fork), and the man seems to be one of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood.

6. Linda hints several times in Star Signs that she is contact with illuminated people from Europe, far more advanced than she, and mentions Germany in particular. The Headquarters of the Rosicrucian Fellowship are in Germany.

7. Finally, she only recommends the ephemeris and table of houses published by the Rosicrucian Fellowship for use in astrology.

I realise that separately these things don't sound like much, but taken together they do seem to point to the Rosicrucians. The evidence is all circumstantial, of course.

The other thing, not even enough to be a point on its own - a sort of 7a so to speak - is that Linda hinted constantly in her work that she was privy to much greater secrets than she was able to tell us, but which we would find out for ourselves if we followed the right path. I can't imagine what she had in mind except Rosicrucianism. I have gone down the path again and again, trying to find out, and I just seem to bump into the same answer, no matter what twists and turns I take.

Anyway, I am inviting and welcoming criticism to everything I have said. Maybe there are better explantions that I am too blind or ignorant to see. In fact, sometimes I'm sure I've missed some vital clue.

posted December 23, 2001 02:17 AM           

I was once a member of the Rosicrucians. I dropped out because of financial and time limitations. But, that was a long time ago.

My grandfather attained the highest degree of the Rosicrucians, so, I grew up with their teachings. From the time I was very young, I heard about the macrocosm and the microcosm and, oh, the tales he used to tell me. It was fascinating. So, when Star Signs came out, it was really nothng new to me, just a nice condensed version of everything my grandfather told me.

Also, those darn mandata manuscripts they use, well, they are so difficult to follow sometimes. But, the truths are there and if one has the time and the inclination, they can learn them.

The diagrams Linda used in Gooberz are actually from the Rosicrucians. She just redrew them in her own hand in her own interpretation. Here is a link that can shed some light on some of it. http://www.levity.com/alchemy/secret_s.html

I am speaking, of course, of the ones in Cantos 20. Most of that chapter is very Rosicrucian.

posted December 23, 2001 05:01 AM           

SF, I'm not sure whether you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

I fully understand what you mean about Linda's pain about not beng allowed to write as much as you would have liked - and under such difficult and painful personal circumstances that very few would have written at all in her place.

I guess the question is - who was disallowing her writing?

As for other organisations with similar beliefs, I had considered them, and certainly Theosophy would be a good "Theory B". However, Rosicrucianism is the only one which fits all the criteria, not just many or most.

If Linda was in the RF, then I can't really imagine her being with them forever.

posted December 23, 2001 01:06 PM           

I actually believe Linda may have read both the Fellowship and AMORC. Why? Well, she was so big on the Isis/Osiris story. The Fellowship isn't big on Egyptology. AMORC is very big on Egyptian studies. AMORC is very big into symbols, the Fellowship isn't.

I also bought the Rosicrucian Ephemeris many, many years ago, thinking it was from AMORC, just not being very "worldly" back then. Heck, I am still not worldly, LOL, cause I thought Max Heindel and H. Spencer Lewis were acquaintences. As well as Manly P. Hall!!

I have read Annie Besant, Helena Blavatsky, Alice Bailey and Dion Fortune. They all have similar beliefs, stemming from esoteric orders they all belonged to or helped found. So, I have found a lot of Linda's writings echoing these people. Except Linda has such a way of expression, so articulate and wonderful, she got the ideas across in a more understandable way. Also, I think it was her interpretation of their writings and her understanding of them, that made her the best teacher of these ideas. Of course, this is just my opinion and I sure have lots of them!!

That is an interesting question about who was disallowing her writing. I wonder if it was due to her explanation of the works of others so as not to be sued for plagarism from the "organized" societies or fraternal orders. That is just a thought, as I in no way am implying plagarism on her part, just that those in the publishing world have to be so careful due to the lawsuit happy copyright people. In other words, to be able to write about beliefs and philosophies of an organization, one must be a member of such and credited or officially recognized as a writer of those things. I am probably rambling, just as my thoughts are.

Donna

posted December 26, 2001 02:59 AM           

On page 285 of Canto Eleven in Gooberz, Linda mentions the Rosicrucians and refers to them as the "White Lodge". In AMORC, they call themselves "The Great White Brotherhood". I took this to be a discreet and poetic reference to the Rosicrucians my grandfather belonged to and the AMORC, as they refer to themselves only as Roscrucians.

Interestingly, my grandfather often spoke of immortality and he told me had once had a conversation with the Comte St. Germaine when he was in San Jose to visit the AMORC building, in the 1920's And everything Linda wrote from the middle of that page is almost exactly how my grandfather explained things. I guess that is the reason I always thought, when I read Gooberz, that it was the AMORC she was referring to.

I must say, you are making me think about things I had forgotten about.

I bet I have gazillion posty notes in my copy of Gooberz, because I didn't want to write in it. So, every time I found something I wanted to refer to later, I placed a posty with note on it about what that page's contents were referring to.

Yes, she did mention Cayce and she recommended any book about him or any book published by the A.R.E. Hmm, I wonder if she belonged to that organization?

posted December 27, 2001 04:17 AM           

I did a bit of reading about the Great White Lodge (a place existing on the spiritual plane rather than the material one if anyone is wondering. It is said to be a Theosophical term by spiritnetwork.

It is mentioned in the Rosicrucian Manual by Spencer, it seems to be one and the same with the "Great White Brotherhood".

A Tibetan Master called Lord Djwhal Khul who wrote "through" Theosophist Alice Bailey by automatic trance writing. Interesting, LDK said that the Great White Lodge (of which he is/was/will be a member)was controlled from Sirius! When Alice Bailey first wrote about it, the Lodge was over a Mayan temple in Ibez, but is now throught to be over the Gobi Desert.

The Great White Lodge is also important to the Freemasons, who I believe have very close ties with Rosicrucianism.

It is also part of the I AM Movement, where they believe the gates of Shamballa (another name for the Sirius Lodge) open on the 17th December and stay open for 30 days

I guess Linda could have heard about the White Lodge from any of these sources - or else Nahtan was one of the Masters of the White Lodge and he told her about it!

Maybe we'll never find out ...

PS I always assumed Linda was a member of ARE - she was very open about recommending them and was close friends with Edgar Cayce's mentor.

posted December 27, 2001 03:43 PM           

Neither can I imagine ever giving over my will to any *order* ... I am however working on giving it over to God/dess Is that the supposed cappy *elitist* thing showing ?

~Princess

posted December 28, 2001 01:22 PM           

~Princess

PS~ It's hard enough leading mysElf ... and only want to be in control of mysElf leading others ?

posted December 29, 2001 10:28 PM           

The 'crazy' thing is most times they are right...doesn't that just 'bug' you

posted December 29, 2001 11:22 PM           

And, trust me... it's a burden ... sigh

~Princess

posted December 30, 2001 02:20 AM           

I don't really know if Linda was a member of AFA or not. I do know that, being a member myself, we get a monthly Bulletin. This Bulletin always lists the passing of astrologers/members who belong to AFA. When Linda passed on, she was not mentioned. Yet, when Lloyd Cope, one of her mentors passed on, he was listed in the "Passing Stars" section they have for members. So, I did not find out Linda died until I read it in the Sunday section of the newspaper called Parade Magazine, a few months after her death. I have been a member of AFA since 1990 and I read the Bulletin, called "Today's Astrologer", very thorougly each month.

Yes, she definitely seemed to be a "Free Agent", independent and her own person. One I admire so very much. I just thank the God/dess that she got "Gooberz" published when she did. And yes, I can't see her limiting herself to one group either. But I can see her taking the best information from each group and applying it to her own philosophy.

posted December 30, 2001 02:45 AM           

Yet on the other hand, how would she have gained all her knowledge without access to such a group, or number of groups? While some orders are very open and publish information freely, others most certainly do not. If not a member herself, she probably had close ties with at least one person involved in such an order.

Also, we all get the strong impression from her writing that she had deeper knowledge that she was, in some way, constrained from speaking of more freely. This suggests that some person or organisation was holding her back. If she was a *completely* "free agent", then what was stopping her?

I guess my questions are:

1. With which order/s was Linda in personal contact?

2. With whom were these contacts made?

3. What were the secrets that she held back, and why?

I'm not trying to create a paranoid "conspiracy theory", but without at least some educated guesses at the answers to these questions, I don't think we can say that we really understand Linda or where she was coming from at all.

And, this might sound a bit crazy to some and I'm sure not everyone is going to agree, but I believe Linda *wanted* us to find out. I also believe that the information is contained within her writings in code form.

Anyway, that's my two bucks worth!