i am interesting in ceremonial magic and the golden dawn; the golden dawn originated from SRIA although SRIA was not involved.
so my point
what is the difference between martinism and rosicrucianism? in beliefs what is the difference betweem HOM and SRIA? in beliefs?
i read the Chic Cicero is part of the golden dawn and is martinist so to me look like they are compatible; what do you think?
To know the difference between Rosicrucianism and Martinism? I think that could only be a metter of opinion of a member of both, I can only advise you to join both and find out for yourself!
The difference between HOM and SRIA in beliefs? I think that as one must be a member of SRIA to become a member of HOM logically they must be similar.
Chic Cicero is part of the golden dawn and is martinist so to me look like they are compatible; what do you think? I think compatibility is really a personal choice regarding the esoteric Orders, something for each individual to work out for themselves. I have never read any statement or piece of work suggesting a member of either should not be a member of the other. Therefore I would conclude it is a matter for conscience
With regards to Rosicrucianism, there are a heap of different ways people people have interpreted 'Rosicrucianism', and not all of them are necessarily compatible definitions. For example, is Rosicrucianism an expression of universal religion, or does it have a specifically Christian reference? Sound and convincing arguments have been mustered on both sides of that debate and there can be no cut-and-dried answer to that particular question. As a result it would possibly be more use to make some comment about Martinism.
Martinism is explicitly mystical and Christian in focus, but non-dogmatically Christian. Saint Martin's writings are grounded in his personal experience of the Divine and thus go beyond church-defined theology. Indeed, he talks about approaching God as an inner awaking to His ever-presence and he often refers to 'voie cardiaque', the Way of the Heart. It is my personal opinion that Saint Martin was a proto-Gnostic in that many of his ideas and insights are moving towards a Gnostic position at a time in which there were no surviving gnostic texts in Europe. However, he also departed from Gnostic world views in a number of critical areas so, IMHO, he can not really be called a Gnostic per se, rather he represents a parallel stream to Gnosticism. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if he had been exposed to the rediscovered Gnostic texts of the 19th and 20th Centuries.
Personally, I don't see any incompatibility between Martinism and Rosicrucianism, nor do many, many others.
As for HOM and SRIA- HOM are Martinists made up exclusively of SRIA members and are thus all males. The reason for this anomaly (Martinists accepted women members from its earliest days) is simply because some SRIA members wanted to meet together as Martinists but the lease agreement for the SRIA headquarters states that only SRIA members may use/tenant the building, hence any Martinist organisations using the building must only be made up of SRIA members (who must be Master Masons in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England).
Regarding the difference between the SRIA and HOM in terms of beliefs, this is a null question. Neither the SRIA nor HOM are dogmatic apart from each member making a Trinitarian confession. Each organisation encourages a personal understanding (and hopefully, experience) of God and as such does not make a habit of trying to define how that experience must be experienced- irrespective of what that mad-as-a-meataxe nutjob Griffin might write.
The relationship between the GD and Martinism was explicitly addressed by name over a hundred years ago. At that time (circa 1903), the position was that the GD had no objections at all to GD members being Martinists and the short official note outlining policy wrote in guardedly positive terms of Martinism. No doubt it was Westcott and Waite's relationship to Papus which provided definitive foundation of the 'no objection' policy. However, that was over 100 years ago and many things have changed, though as a personal statement I see no outward incompatibility between them.
That being said, however, I would express some caution. Both the GD and Martinism (and many other Orders as well), use different ways to sensitise the psyche to the workings of the subtle worlds. To engage in committed practice of more than one process of sensitisation may blur rather than clarify perception. But then again, it may not. In sensitive and honest engagement with the Work and the self, introspection is the only yardstick- hence the importance of the saying "know thyself".
You admit that you were attracted to the Golden Dawn; thus is it fair to assume that you were attracted to their ideas or ideals?
Further, there are many different groups out there, all of whom assume the broad GD mantle, but, more than likely, none of whom can lay a legitimate tie to the original Golden Dawners.
But the problem is that you're equating "Golden Dawn" with people on the internet who claim to be something or other, and then further, you state they're the "worst people" you've ever encountered, which is simply throwing a big dirty blanket over the entire shebang. This type of construct is called a "straw man". ;D
This is what has me so interested. I suspect Martinism to be the next step in my Esoteric Christian path. I'm a Rosicrucian and I see Martinism as another half to the whole.
"Eternity knocks at the door of our hearts and seeks to enter. . . . to obey its calls, to entrust ourselves joyously, with our souls and bodies, to the inner light, is the beginning of true life." Rosicrucian Manuscript