Talk:Samael Aun Weor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Samael Aun Weor/Comments)
Jump to: navigation, search


1: Oct. 2004 - Aug. 2006


VM Samael founded various organisations. And these organisations split etc. etc. This has been discussed too many times. Also, it seems as if the various organisations are adding themselves and deleting others on the page etc. etc. Instead I propose that, in fairness, we have all or nothing. So I have removed the line "He founded the non-profit corporation, Gnostic Institute of Anthropology, Inc."

Please rather than everyone just changing this backwards and forwards could we at least post some discussion and sort it out properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please do not remove any information from the article. That is considered to be vandalism. If anyone wants to add information to the article, they simply need to provide a reference and citation for the information. If that is possible, the information can be added. If it is not, the information cannot be added. I personally have nothing to do with this individual or their organization(s). I personally added that particular piece of information, because that was the only citable organization I could find a reference for. I neither know nor care whether there are others, but to take it out even before discussing on the talk page is not a correct way to proceed. I highly recommend that you create an account and sign your messages if you wish to be taken seriously. At this time, the organization listed appears to be the only one notable to have an article on WP. Please review WP notability policy and make sure any organizations you intend to add meet WP notability and verifiability policies. I.e. commit to learn the rules of the place you are in before presuming to dictate to other editors by removing text from the article. —Hanuman Das 05:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. sorry about that... You are right. Sorry I did not discuss first, it was discussed in older versions of this page where every day the list of links would change as each of the movements squabbled. Earlier I tried to add 'The Gnostic Movement' and 'POSCLA' as these were actually founded by Samael Aun Weor to this page and they were removed. I did not realise that they would need citations...

Either way, the statement is incorrect as Samael did not found the GIA. It was created after he died as a certain offshoot of his movement. Even the GIA UK site states "Together with his wife Litelantes, he founded the International Gnostic Movement in the 1950's". So this should be corrected. -B.Jensen (IP address is an internet cafe)

Just going from what the site says, which is acceptable. An "according to the website" could be added. As for The Gnostic Movement, their site clearly states that they were founded in 1999 by Beelzebub. I'm not sure what POSCLA is, but if you can find a citation it can be mentioned. It is notable enough for its own article?
In any case, WP policy requires citations. I find this is the best way to keep competing orgs from changing the article back and forth, back and forth. :-) —Hanuman Das 13:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, POSCLA was a political party, probably not worth its own article. Both Samael and Mark Pritchard started organisations called 'The Gnostic Movement' which is confusing because Mark Pritchard (VM Belzebuub) was a disciple of Joaquin E. Amortegui (VM Rabolu), disciple of Samael. I think there used to be an article here called 'The Gnostic Movement' which defined the two. I just noticed that the AGEAC, Gnostic Movement and POSCLA are all mentioned later on in the article anyways. Well this is a good learning process for me, so thanks for your information -B.Jensen

The article is completely bias. I think the article needs a section where the theories and life could be better analyzed. There are things lacking as the misogyny views on woman, the anti-gay postures of SAW, and such… The articles of LaVey and Crowley are better balanced where they try to illustrate the good and the bad.

To help remedy this I propose to add this site A site dedicated to help the survivors of the Latin-American gnosis. It is well researched, and published by former members of the Latin-American Gnostics, they even have the origin of rituals and explanation of them. Before anyone raises any objection I like to use a precedent in WP. In the Scientology article in the external links section there are sites of detractors of the Church of Scientology. The article of SAW should have the same.

Also I will research further and add a section to this article regarding the anti-gay, misogynic and intolerant views of SAW.

Why would someone who knows little about the subject "research further": leave it to people who are familiar. SAW's attitudes regarding homosexuality are written quite clearly in the body. Comparing Crowley and LaVey to SAW is absurd, articles only need to state the facts, they are not essays where you need to present "a balanced argument". Crowley had his followers cut their bodies with razors, etc; as far as I am aware SAW did nothing of this sort, that is why this article will not be "balanced" in the way that one on Crowley inevitably would be.

A point about reliable third party info. It seems Samael mentions them in his own work e. g. Blavatzky, Steiner, Gurdjieff, Krumm Heller et al(capone). Wouldn't it be unfair to judge this article from a purely scientific point of view e. g. trying to prove the existence of solar bodies not in the realm of Physicas by physical means. After all, at the miracle of Lourdes when the people saw the sun rock'n roll (around the clock tonight), no Physicist noticed any change in its path across the sky; not even Dr. Teller who was able to detect a slight needle motion in the meter when the first Hydrogen explosion ocurred at the Bikini archipielago was able to notice anything. Another thing, the apparent bias of the article may stem from the partly occult nature of the subject due to the terrible persecution the Gnostics have suffered from the first centuries of Christianity which forced them to go and remain underground. The article on Opus Dei has a similar label appended to it. Now, shouldn't they be judged on their own merits and then bring up the opposite view or views and so arrive at a really neutral Wikipidean view with an article really worthy of Wikipedia and what it represents rather than just bark at the wrong tree all day long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDPhD (talkcontribs) 19:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Samael Aun Weor Books[edit]

Insert non-formatted text here

I dont know if the book list is complete but if not could somebody kindly create a complete listing of his books. Thanks

Bill (Feb 8, 2007)(talk) 20:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Was Samael really born on March 16? Some texts mention it was born on March 3, and some other on March 6.

TRUELLY SAMAEL AUN WEOR WAS BORN ON MARCH 6th. ANY OTHER DATE IS FALSE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

yeah, March 6 was the birthday for sure —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Order of external links[edit]

Does Wikipedia have a policy on the order of external links? I think that the most relevant to be first would be since it has by far the most material related to Samael Aun Weor and his teachings, or maybe Ageac or GIA. Gnosticweb, which is first at the moment, isn't as much related to Samael Aun Weor as it is to Mark Pritchard. I wanted to discuss this here first instead of just changing it to my own preferences, so what are your opinions? --Anton H 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It has some guidelines but nothing that I know of concerning the order. I agree with your ordering. I think the sites by Pritchard's group should be on articles concerning him and his group. I'll reorder them. --T. Baphomet 14:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed "History" section[edit]

Removed the "History" section lacking in sources and potentially being ill-intended:

Arnold Krumm-Heller traveled in occult circles around the start of the 20th century where he studied with notable figures such as Gérard Encausse of the Martinist Order and Franz Hartmann of the 'Ordo Templaris Orientis'. In 1910 he founded the Iglesia Gnostica (Gnostic Church) in Mexico. Not finding as much success as he hoped for, he moved through Latin America before settling in Brazil. There he founded the Fraternidad de Rosacruz Antiqua (Fraternity of the Ancient Rosicrucians), following Randolph's usage. Krumm-Heller moved back to Germany in 1920, where he made contact with Aleister Crowley. Krumm-Heller kept a low profile through World War II, but when he was able to travel again after the war, he resumed contact with his Latin America students. Between that time and his death in 1949, Krumm-Heller encountered and subsequently mentored Victor Rodriguez who would subsequently take the name Samael Aun Weor.[1] Weor states that Krumm-Heller taught a form of Sexual Magic without ejaculation that would become the core of his own teachings.[citation needed]

As you can see it claims that SAW stated the he was taught sexual magic by A. Krumm-Heller which as far as I know is far from the truth and as you can see it cites no sources to support this claim, therefore I removed this section-paragraph as being potentially ill-intended and lacking in sources. Arthur Clark 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed recent edits[edit]

I removed most of the recent edits by because of the following:

1. That the orgasm should not be reached during sexual intercourse is well explained in context in the text and I see no reason to state it again in the beginning of the section.

2. I don't think it's relevant or even necessarily true to state that nothing about what he teaches about sex could be scientifically proved. As far as I know there have been no scientific studies on the existence of solar bodies or the transmutation of sexual energy etc. I know some research on intercourse without orgasm that supports the teachings of Samael Aun Weor, but if you really think that it should be stated that it's not proved then please say it more specifically and provide sources.

3. That there is no proof that " 'The Doctrine of the Many' has been taught in the esoteric schools and religions since the beginning of time" seems highly irrelevant and out of place since what is described is esoteric and hidden knowledge.

If you disagree then I will be happy to discuss. Anton H 09:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems the question of plagiarism should also be removed e. g. if there is no actual corroborated court case. It is mere heresay if for example the Gurdjieff Foundation never went to the courts or brought forth a formal accusation. It's mere conjecture and should be removed as heresay with no factual reference whatsoever.JDPhD (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aun Weor sources[edit]

Could someone provide a link on where to get Sameal Aun Weor herbal remedies? (I'm very sick)


Apr. 22, 2007

In the book Occult Medicine and Practical Magic which can be bought here:
You can also perform a google search for a pdf version with less quality.
But you should see a doctor first if you haven't done that already.
By the way, please sign your edits with "~~~~", in order to place a link to your user page (if you have one). Like this: Anton H 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay thank you Anton. I really appreciate it! Ive been to the doctor but they offer me very little solution. I would like to try alternative approaches to healing.

(Unfortunatly I dont have a link page.)

Bill 25 April, 2007

About cleanup tags[edit]

Just to let the editors of this article know that I've added some cleanup tags. I can see that a lot of the content of the article is from primary sources written by Samael Aun Weor himself. Please try to find some other reliable sources. Also, as a result of this primary source editing, there is a lot of quotes on the text. Please try to rewrite their content outside the quote. Also i was tempted to put an "unencyclopedical" tag on this article. The article is about the character in question, but much of its content is an explanation of his philosophy. Please clean it up. BTW, most of his work is based on theosophy, so a lot of this content could be added to that article, in order to clean up this one. Thanks a lot. --Legion fi 07:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article is about his doctrine, so it is logical that those references are from his own works. The biography part however is another thing, but there seems to be very few reliable sources which talk about the life of Samael Aun Weor. I managed to find one though which I have added to the list. There is an entire biography written about him, but that one is in Spanish and I don't know if it counts as reliable. Regarding his philosophy and biography being in the same article, it used to be that way before and the other article was deleted and merged into this one (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic Doctrine (Samael Aun Weor)). And although his teachings have similarities with Theosophy, they are very different in many aspects and so I don't think it would be a good idea to add the content to that article. Anton H 20:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to add: His doctrine has as I said many similarities with Theosophy, but also with several other traditions; for example, the Fourth Way of Gurdjieff, as mentioned by the recently added reference. Anton H 20:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

About a year ago I try to bring in o more balanced view of Victor Gomez. The religious zealots did not allow so. As balance go there are a lot of inconsistencies in the samaelian Gnosticism. Not to mention all the teachings that are left out (maybe on purpose?) that is not good for public relations or a recruitment paper. With quite the skill misogynic and homophobic teachings are suppress. Not to mention all the plagiarism that Victor Gomez did. For closer inspections many of Victor Gomez works are translations or plagiarism from Victor Krumm-Heller, Gurdjieff, Gerard Encausse, Blavasky and Crowley (the samaelian Gnostic 1st Degree or Gnostic Mass in a variation of Crowleys Liber XV)

I invite any one to read Bel’s Revolution to read how Victor Gomez relate to others and the hate he display against other occult/esoteric organizations… also Tarot and Kabbalah for the way he expresses his opinion on woman… and finally Elementary Treatise on Magic on what he considers those who do not follow its doctrine… food for though.

Further for try to have a different view on Victor Gomez Gnosticism.

Latin-American Gnosticism has little to do with Gnosticism or Christian Gnosticism… its just Victor Gomez take on the occult…

Legion Fi if you are an idiot, at least you are an intelligent one. This article needs a lot of work to be encyclopedia worthy. The “unsigned” is nothing more than a religious zealot trying to sell its religion… Tanuky 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)tanuky October 10, 2007Tanuky 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Samael's view on homosexuality is mentioned in the article, and I don't know what you mean by misogyny as I have never seen anything like it in his works. Could you provide a source? I have added a line mentioning the accusations of plagiarism from Gurdjieff. As for Crowley it is said that he and Samael both took those rituals from the Gnostic Church. The others I don't know about and I don't see how it is important. After all, it is called the doctrine of the synthesis. The website you mention is very POV and I don't think it is a very reliable source. Anton H 09:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The question of plagiarism should be taken out of the article as mere heresay. If there is no formal accusation or court case then it should be taken out. Here say, it's hearsay. So is there a reference that the Gurdjieff Foundation brought charges of plagiarism against him in a court of law. Then the insinuation should be treated as such and considered unworthy of Wikipedia. The same goes for accusations of plagiarism in relation to other personalities of the occult e.g. Crowley.JDPhD (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where to Find Sameal Aun Weor Books?[edit]

How can I find more of his books. I'm very interested in learning more. I'm very excited.

-Bill May 30, 2007

You can find many of them on, and more are coming! You might also want to check Gnostic Forum if you have questions. Anton H 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you Anton. I'm soo excited! I want to read all his books.

-Bill June 1, 2007

WTF?? this is not a propaganda website. Please refrain from advertising books. This talk page is ment to discuss changes in the article. Thanks. --Legion fi 06:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All original books in Spanish can be found at for free download. (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Rodrigo Nov, 22nd 2009

Edits by Helios Solaris[edit]

I disagree to the Anael website because it is not about the subject of the article and the material there is not his original teachings but the modified ones by Rabolu. The Thelema Press website has a lot more information which covers that on the Anael website. I also disagree to any link to a website that is mainly about an organization, such as AGEAC and GIA, because if we have one we should have all, and that would be too many. Please see WP:EL. Why do you think "educator" and "author" are more correct than "teacher" and "writer", respectively? Perhaps I can agree with author, but educator seems to be more rarely used than teacher, while having practically the same meaning. Thank you, Anton H 20:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

About Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies[edit]

This website support my claim

Use Google Translate, the translation is so so, but the point comes across. Helios solaris 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I know enough spanish in order to be able to read. On the website it says that Samael Aun Weor founded the Christian Universal Gnostic Movement which eventually became AGEAC (Gnostic Association of Anthropological and Cultural Studies), and finally AGEACAC (Gnostic Association of Studies of Anthropology and Science, Civil Association). This is not the same as to say he actually founded AGEACAC. On Ageac's website ( it says that Oscar Uzcategui founded that organization. I also looked on the IGA reference and it doesn't explicitly state SAW was the founder of that either. There seems to be many organizations and institutions that claim to be "developments" of the original Christian Universal Gnostic Movement founded by Samael Aun Weor. I suggest that we change the text to that he founded the Christian Universal Gnostic Movement, and perhaps that out of that has developed many other organizations. Anton H 15:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

We need to come to an agreement on which external links should be included in the article. There is no need for a great many, and I don't think that links to websites about a specific organization should be included, because there are many of those. What do you think? Make sure that you are familiar with the external links guideline before stating your opinion. Thank you. Anton H 21:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent additions[edit]

Many of the recent additions made to the article have been unreferenced, original research and POV. Please read the policies listed on the top of this talk page before making any more edits. Thank you. Anton H 21:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

'Thelema Press' is now 'Glorian Publishing'[edit]

Check at the end of the text.

Poll on whether to include information about schools in the article[edit]

There is a difference in opinions whether the article should include information and history about different schools, organizations and associations. Perhaps a distinction between official schools that are under the authority of Osiris Gomez Garro, the son of Samael Aun Weor and Litelantes. State below if you agree, disagree or are undecided. Afterwards, if you want, add arguments for your position. Thank you.

Disagree. The article is mainly about Samael Aun Weor himself, and secondly about his doctrine. The history of the divisions of the schools is very complicated and is in my opinion beyond the scope of this article. It is also subject to a lot of controversy and it will be hard to find reliable sources which can portray the history in a NPOV way. Splitting the different schools between official and unofficial or "dissenting" schools seems very POV to me since it implies that official is "better". Anton H 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. I think people should decide for themselves. What is really 'official'? As long as an organization is loyal to Samael's teachings there shouldn't be any argument, therefore there shouldn't be a statement. --Helios solaris 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talkcontribs)
Disagree. Same reasoning as noted. It would be nice to at least mention the different schools started by Samael Aun Weor though. He started 5 of them, each in different areas of Central/South America and headed under different disciples. AGEAC, AGLA, Gnostic Movement, Gnostic Church and one other that I cannot remember. But, even that is a slippery slope because up until 1977 all of these schools cooperated with each other and they were all "official". --T. Baphomet 18:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The purpose of the Samaël Article is to inform mankind about the man, his teaching and the VECTOR of his teaching. The goal of this man is to give to humanity a precise teaching. This teaching is diffused to manking through an organisation he founded in collaboration with Mistress Litelantes. How this organisation conquered a part of the world, what happend, what people quit the official movement to set up their own organisation, who cease to recognise the Mistress Litelantes, etc. is important. The argument saying that "As long as an organization is loyal to Samael's teachings there shouldn't be any argument, and sense there is no "official"" is FALSE : it is not because an organisation is diffusing the teaching of Samaël that this organisation is an authentic school linked to the organisation of Samaël. This argument is clearly wrong because so, every one can create a new group, diffuse the teaching and say : "look i am an official organisation" BECAUSE i give the Samaël Teachings..." This is a non sense. This is only a bad trick to deceive people..., to let them beleive that a movement is right. And letting such lies in wikipedia is not possible. So the TOOL of difussion, the history of the movement is IMPORTANT. But there is another point, well explained by Litantes herself : the point of the betrayal. This is major point regarding the veracity of the teaching of Samaël and of the connection of an organisation to the White Lodge. So, it is important to have a section of the history of the movement. And it is important to divide organisations from the point of view of the history of the movement, letting so every one be judge (by the presence of the history of the movement) of where are the "dissenting" or "authentic" organisations, exactly as we proceed for all others subjects where we judge people by looking at the history. We must always REMEMBER that ERERY TIME some pepole want to OCCULT HISTORY, this is because of hidden bad purposes. For example, we must always remember the Shoah, and promote the COMPLETE HISTORY of WWII, in order to fight against the bad forces who want humanity to doubt, and witch leads to negationism ! So people who are fighting to SUPRESS history, are showing to the face of the world WHO THEY ARE in REALITY... Another point : it is also clear that some organisations are hidding their dissention. All those points argue that Wikipedia cannot occult the history of the movement. To finish, the point of view of OFFICIALITY is CLEAR, and cannot be corrupted by people belonging to unauthentic organisations. Here are the facts : Mr Oisris Gomez de Garro has been officially been made "President of the Worldwide Headquarters of the Gnostic Movement" by the Mistress Litelantes. So it is a fact we cannot occult, even if this will not please some dissenting organisations ; the history IS the history and CANNOT be changed. Before this, the Master Samaël Aun Weor made his spouse, the mistress Litelantes, the new "President of the Worldwide Headquarters of the Gnostic Movement". So, as you can see, HISTORY of the movement DO IS important, and division between (official-authentic organisations) and (dissenting and unofficial organisations) MUST be made. François LAMOUREUX.
Agree. Of course i agree! I have inserted many times some informations in the article but Mr Anton H is always UNDO what i have done, deleting my work under fallacious pretexts and of false charges. So, for me, to offer the history is indeed necessary. I agree with Mr Lamoureux when he says that people who want to supress or hide history are dishonest persons having bad reasons to hide the history of the world gnostic movement. So here are my conclusions:
  1. It is necessary to insert a section called "History of the organisation"
  2. It is necessary to inform the public that the actual President is Osiris Gomez de garro.
  3. It is necessary to classify the organizations in two types: Authentic official organizations / Dissenting organizations
  4. It is necessary finally to present also the various external links of organizations in two classes:
- external links towards the official and authentic schools
- external links towards the dissenting schools (or independent ones, if schools would be spontaneous generations) --Bluemanang 11:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC).
Disagree. There should be a separate article within wikipedia which gives reference to all official & unofficial schools. Arthur Clark 13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Aside from agreeing, disagreeing or being undecided, it looks like if this article is about Samael Aun Weor and he estblished an organization then it should be accepted as such on its own merits if well referenced not merely by hearsay. Also if there are opposing or dissenting organizations and they are well referenced they should also be presented. Only in this way will the article create a spirit of Wikipedean neutrality.JDPhD (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion related to the poll[edit]

How do you suggest that we create a history section that is well-referenced with reliable sources and NPOV? It seems to me to be impossible because of the lack of reliable sources and the controversy surrounding this area. Each source will say a different thing. One says that Litelantes was appointed the legitimate successor by Samael Aun Weor, another says that Joaquín Amortegui (Rabolu) was, and so on. The issue is difficult because if we add a statement that is disputed by others without allowing room for the other versions, it will be POV. And if we talk about the other versions that are out there it will become a mess. Maybe we should mention that since his death there have been several divisions within the Gnostic Movement and different persons claim to be his legitimate successor? I believe that would be NPOV, but the question is whether it should be in the article. What do the rest of you think? Anton H 15:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Creating a history section : I think this can be made easyly, and without any trouble, using the successive and official nominations of the President. The "head" of the movement is clearly, without any doubt, the President. If we start over from the beginning, the first President was the founder, the Master Samaël Aun Weor. During his presidence, his spouse, the Mistress Litelantes assited him. When Samaël died, his spouse witch IS a MASTER became naturally the new President (of course some people did not recognize her at this moment, but this is only a few). Later, the new president Litelantes declared that the new president in the future will be Mr Osiris Gomez de Garro. So, from this point of view of the history of the different presidents, we can build the history of the movement and explain the many crisis, dissention, etc., that occured from this point of view. Others persons like Rabolu, Oscar Uzcategui, and so on..., are clearly only disciples or Missionaries : this is an obviousness, a confirmed fact because they were NEVER president of the movement. So from this point of view, we understand, we see, that they quit or made a scission because precisely, they weren't in charge and that they were in disagreement with the official president for such or such reason... I think this approch is irrefutable because it is based on known and verifiable objective facts, and i suggest to build the history from this angle. Using this skeleton, we can after to recall the various adventures which occurred, treasons, the scissions, creations of new organizations, the people stating itself to be Masters, etc. So, at the end of the day, we will obtain a historical synthesis, clear, indubitable, irrefutable, which nobody will be able to dispute, because based on the facts which produced, and which were grafted on the model of skeleton that i proposed, and which proves to be absolute facts. Tell me what you think about this approach. François Lamoureux.
It's not that simple I'm afraid. You say that Litelantes became naturally the new president when Samael died, but this website says that Litelantes herself said that Samael left nothing verbal nor written that made Litelantes the world director. Here it is also mentioned that Julio Medina declared himself "Patriarch II", and three others declared themselves "Patriarch III". So we can't write that Litelantes was the legitimate successor of Samael because many dispute that fact. But we can write that she did become the new president after Samael. We can also write that her succeeding him was disputed by some who broke off from the movement and created their own. There are not enough sources to write more detailed than that in my opinion. Anton H 14:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Anton, this question of legitimacy can appears difficult, but it is not at all. What i am trying to say, it is that if our vision of the universe through a system, a model, reveals difficulties or paradoxes, it is because that model is not adapted, and that it is necessary to change our approach. In other words, i feel that you does not manage to see and understand that the legitimacy of the original movement rests firmly on THE COUPLE Samaël and Litelantes. Not only the organization and its development are based on THE COUPLE, but also all the Teaching given by the Master (THE COUPLE and the Great Arcana). And moreover, they are both some Masters… So, when the Master Samaël is deceased, we can only see “the robbers” leaving out of the wood, trying to steal, at any speed, the Presidence of the Master Samaël… And Litelantes in all this ? Litelantes was HIS WIFE, HIS LOVE, HIS PRESTRESS, the woman of its life, the woman who also sacrificed herself to build the gnostic movement, and the robbers forgot her, did not recognize her anymore, seeking only to reach the position of President or Patriarch, etc. They wanted to be a caliph in the place of the caliph! And they are not even masters... Of course this not written there or here, but the facts teach our consciousness : the facts are that some guys (i have called then before "the robbers") tried to seize the power by declaring this or that, without same taking account of Litelantes, its state of Master, all his work of wife and militant woman, with Samaël. It is pure and simple treason. What I want to say to you Anton, it is that your approach appears only intellectual : nobody can assert the succession and the presidency of the movement but only the Mistress Litelantes herself, and that, for all the reasons which i have just given before. In addition, you will be able to find a good site “more neutral” than those which you have just given to (uses Google Translation to translate the different pages from Italian to English), because the articles over there are set up for researchers on the state of the art. More, this web site is not belonging to a particular gnostic group. To conclude, i think more we are going to work collectively, more we are going to fing and collect informations, and the result will be that we will have an increasingly clear vision of what really did happened. But i think Anton that you should try to make a litle effort to exceed the purely analytical stage and to apprehend the phenomena and the facts, not on the basis of what people can say or write, but on the nonverbal and not written obviousnesses, that your consciousness will brings you. Read again this little article and see that only legitimus president was Litelantes. François Lamoureux. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I have said it before, and I'm saying it again; it's not about me and my understanding. My own opinion about all this is not important. The reason why I'm asking you to provide sources and to be neutral is not because my own understanding is lacking; it is because a Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable by those who read it and to have a neutral point of view. That is what I'm concerned with. So yes, in this case my approach is intellectual, because that is Wikipedia's approach. In my own personal work the case is different, but that is not relevant here. But it seems to be a very good source you linked to - CESNUR even has its own Wikipedia article. There seems to be information about many different movements, this we can use without problems. Anton H 21:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be a separate article within wikipedia which gives reference to all official & unofficial schools. Arthur Clark 13:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

About Marx, Lenin and fallen bodhisattvas[edit]

I am moving a part of the text that JDPhD added here because it seems to be original research. The following part explaining about fallen bodhisattvas will be superfluous if the first part wasn't there, so I'm moving that too. If a reference is provided I will move it back again.

"Apparently, fallen bodhisattvas (known in Theosophy as the Lesser Quaternary) right here on earth are really perfect beings in higher worlds of existence and he was looking at those two revolutionaries from a higher perspective. Presumably, the same thing could be said of Hitler and Herzl.
A fallen bodhisatva, in other words a "demon", fallen angel or Lucifer, is simply the intellect, emotions, vitality and gross physical body of a person ruled by the ego, suffering from ahamkara (ignorance) and divorced from the Higher Triad Atma-Buddhi-Manas (Soul-Enlightenment-Mind). "All sins shall be forgiven except the sin against the Holy Ghost". The Gnostic Doctrine accepts the Christ and becomes Christian-Gnosticism renouncing the dark doctrines of Simon Magus who remained looking back exclusively at the teachings in existence before the advent of the Christian dispensation."

Anton H (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Most of the article seems to be written with a bit of an appreciative / adulatory tone. And there are clearly some POV in the text, take a look at this:

Weor, without any lucrative ends, possesses activities for the International Gnostic Movement that promote and objectify to fight for the regeneration of the human being, raising its spiritual, moral, physical and intellectual level.

Needs cleaning up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what in that quote you mean to be POV. "without any lucrative ends" is right because he didn't earn any money from what he did. And the regeneration of the human being indeed is the goal of the International Gnostic Movement. Please explain further and give more examples where you think that the text is POV so that we can discuss that. Thank you. Anton H (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, English is not my first language so if there are words that imply a certain POV then I might not be aware of that. Anton H (talk) 00:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This article is going down the tubes fast. It needs a swift and strict cleaning. --T. Baphomet (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


I think the article is too verbose, or wordy. It really detracts from the article. I am going to work to make it more concise. --T. Baphomet (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Example: "His writings cite from such teachings contained within Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Kabbalah, Theosophy, Astrology, Alchemy, the Aztec and Mayan traditions and more, establishing the basis of his contemporary Gnosticism."
This should be: "Therefore his writings cite teachings contained within Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam (Sufi), Kabbalah, Rosicrucianism, Theosophy, Aztec, Mayan and ancient Egyptian tradition constituting the base of his contemporary Gnosticism."
This second sentence is how it was written about two months ago. The newer version is worse. There are edits like this all over the place. --T. Baphomet (talk) 00:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article should not read like a novel. This article uses too many loquacious adjectives and adverbs. It should be much more 'dry' (but not too dry!). By being wordy, the validity of the article is called into question. --T. Baphomet (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In trying to edit objectively, one should watch one's own subjectivity. If the link appears first in an article, it adds to the value of the encyclopedia to keep it rather than remove it. If it is used a second time, then it is politically correct to remove it without much ado. Try some dry vermouth! Ain't that what you saying? A truly Wikipedean article is neutral so it does not add to or take away from an article if used as a link the first time it appears and no more. Rather it adds to the value of the encyclopedia and makes use of one of the greatest information weapons ever designed by man THE CYBERLINK. JDPhD (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


It doesn't look like the statement "proliferated throughout the world" can be supported by ref(1) which is just the websight of Gnostic Institute of Anthropology UK. If there is another reference that is more encompassing it should be used. Otherwise, it should be dropped. JDPhD (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The new reference from AGEAC shows that at least their schools can be found all over the world, and since that association is a part of the Gnostic Movement it should be enough. Anton H (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


There is not even one note that a reader can refer to a specific page of the work cited e. g. Note (32) ..."all sexual desire is held as degenerate" (WOW!) then mention is made of a book published by Glorian but no exact page indicated where it may be corroborated that "all sexual desire is held as degenerate". Please, if you can't be truthful, at least be specific. Thank you.JDPhD (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add page numbers when I have time. Anton H (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There are in fact many references that have page numbers assigned to them, and many that tells the title of the relevant chapter. Look again. I have added some more. Anton H (talk) 17:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, cool! I see some numbers there. However, the standard rule is: author's name, title, p.#, publisher, year. So if those numbers indicate a page, they should appear between commas after the title e.g. Weor, Samael Aun The Perfect Matrimony, p. 156, Glorian Publishing, (year, isbn #, etc. -includes optional city and state). Jolly good job!JDPhD (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I just use the citation template and it appears in that order. What standard rule are you referring to? There are many systems, and there is none specifically recommended by Wikipedia so it is up to us to decide what is best for this article. The advantage of citation templates is that it is easier, because the formatting occurs automatically. However, I could add a "p." before the page number in order to make it easier to understand. Anton H (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Jolly good! Tallyho! A note on note (51): shouldn't that morass of info be hidden somewhat and make the note (51) look like the other notes. No ordinary reader will ever make head or tail of all that mumble-jumble and it isn't a very good idea that they should be made aware of what is going on behind the scene with all those hidden commands. That should be the editor's exclusive territory. Otherwise, there is no order. See. Good!JDPhD (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just read the chapter in The Perfect Marriage titled The Work with the Demon and there's not the slightest hint there that "all sex is degenerate" as note (51) presumably indicates. This chapter is mainly about the dissolution of the ego. There're some points about sex but none goes so far as to state that all sex is degenerate as note (51) seems to indicate. The on-line version of the Perfect Marriage that I consulted is at the following link: [1] JDPhD (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for examining the sources. It does not say that all sex is degenerate, rather that sexual desire is degenerate. However, you are right that it does not say this explicitly in that chapter I provided, and since I have not been able to find a source that does so, and because the statetement that homosexuality creates more karma neither is supported in the source provided, I will remove this paragraph for now. Anton H (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please fix the notes from 26 on; they've gone awry.JDPhD (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! Anton H (talk) 11:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Will someone please give me a hand with this note #51, I've not seen the Glorian Perfect Marriage of more than 250 pages. I've seen the original Spanish and it has about 179 pages. I've also seen two English versions that have one 189 pages and the other one about 215 pages. The section where the note appears it mentions a passage from the Gospel according to St. Luke but I've tried to locate this passage in the Perfect Matrimony and I've not been able to. There are some passages from the Gospel according to St. Mark but that's about it. Anyway, this passage in St. Luke 21: 19 is in the context of Jesus and his followers and the end of times. Nothing about soulless anything.JDPhD (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I own an edition from 2003 which is a total of 421 pages with index and everything included. Perhaps the Spanish version you are referring to is the first edition written in 1950, which was later updated and amplified in 1961. I suppose that other factors may be the dimensions of the book, the layout, font size, images etc. About the note #51 (which is currently #54), the closest thing I can find in the 2003 edition that I have, is on page 153. It doesn't contain the quote from Jesus, but it states: "The intellectual animal still does not have a Soul. Whosoever wishes to incarnate Soul, whosoever yearns to be a human with Soul, must have the Astral, Mental and Causal bodies. The human being of this day and age still does not have these Internal Vehicles. The Astral spectre, the Mental spectre, and the Causal spectre are only spectres." Anton H (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job! May I suggest then that the statement that appears on the page be removed. It states: "Samael Aun Weor states that according to Jesus in the New Testament, the ordinary person does not actually possess a soul". The whole idea behind my introducing the statements from the Holy Bible and Buddhism was simply to bring up the point that the doctrine of no-soul is not Christian but Buddhist. The statement "...according to Jesus in the New Testament" clearly means Christianity. JDPhD (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

About POV tag and Helios Solaris edits[edit]

Well, first of all I have to state that I have been following Helios edits closely. And I haven't reversed them because I felt I didn't have any arguments against them. And I still don't. But his clearance of the NPOV tag was the drop that spilled the glass. Im sorry. But all of the "Doctrine of Synthesis" section references come from primary sources from Samael Aun Weor himself. This clearly violates WP:PSTS. I beg someone with enought knowledge and/or time to dig into this articles problems besides Helios Solaris. Thanks. --Legion fi (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see how those references from primary sources violates WP:PSTS. It says:
" Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:
       * only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
       * make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
It says that primary sources may be used by the above conditions, and in my opinion they are fulfilled. Since the topic is about the doctrine itself it seems to me nothing less than logical to use the doctrine itself as reference. That way it could never be wrong, right? So, as long as there are no interpretations of the sourcetext there should be no problem. Anton H (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary references[edit]

Frankly I don't see the point of all these new references that are being added to the text. More is not necessarily better in this case. References should provide support for statements made in the article, not additional information on a subject. Quoted from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

For example, the very first source listed: G. R. S. Mead, M. A. Fragments of a Faith Forgotten: the Gnostics, a contribution to the origins of Christianity. I have not read this book, but I'm sure that it does not say anything about the International Gnostic Movement formed by Samael Aun Weor, since it was written before his time. It seems the Notes section needs a good clean-up. Anton H (talk) 16:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims[edit]

I have removed from the section "Doctrine of Synthesis" the following text as sourced with inadequate references:

Neither [[Eliphas Levi]] nor [[Madame Blavatsky|H. P. Blavatsky]], [[Gurdjieff]], [[P. D. Ouspensky]], [[Rudolf Steiner|Steiner]], [[H. Spencer Lewis]], [[R. Swinburne Clymer]], [[Manly Palmer Hall]], [[Max Heindel]] or any other prominent exponent of [[esoteric]] lore<ref>[[Dion Fortune]] ''Esoteric Orders And Their Work'', Red Wheel/Weiser, 2007 ISBN 978-1578631841; Rider & Co., 1st ed. 1928 </ref> ever revealed publicly the Secret of the Great Arcanum: only Samael Aun Weor has. <ref>Eliphas Levi ''Transcendental Magic'', p. 94, Weiser, 1995 ISBN 0-87728-079-7</ref>

__ meco (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"...the fact that more people are being born as homosexuals..." from the Homosexuality section isn't, in fact, a fact at all. If it is, it needs a reference since it's not referenced as a quote from Aun Weor's teachings.

Weor or Aun Weor as sort key?[edit]

Presently the article has "Aun Weor" as sort key for its categories. Is this correct? __meco (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The sort key is normally the surname of a person, right? It's not easy to decide which the sort key should be since his name cannot really be divided into first name and surname. But Aun Weor I think would be most correct since Samael could be said to be one part of the name and Aun Weor the other. Anton H (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by user user:[edit]

While your intention to contribute to this article is appreciated, there are certain rules and guidelines on Wikipedia that need to be followed. Your edits lacked an encyclopedic tone which is preferred on Wikipedia. Moreover, the added texts seem to be negatively biased by what appears to be your own opinions and experiences with the subject of the article, this is in conflict with the policies of Neutral Point of View as well as Original Research. The statements made need proper references as Wikipedia is not a place to state your own opinion but, as far as possible, to reflect statements already made in the published literature. I'm sorry having to remove all of that text which I'm sure took some time to write. Please read through the mentioned guidelines and make sure that your future edits are in accordance with these. Thank you. Anton H (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Concerned about the modern 'gnostic' movement as identified by Wikipedia[edit]

Since the discovery of the gnostic texts and much exploration and research as to the authenticity of these topics, we might also as students and scholars of all ancient texts, recognize that there will certainly be a wave of interest that will result in one of two outcomes. Since Gnosticism is a form of knowledge that is pure and absent from any attachments to conventional religion, the most effectual influence it may have is on students seeking a pure doctrine of Christ. This is a positive outcome for the discovery of the Gnostic texts, as the original message teaches that each and every one must come to 'gnosis' by seeking knowledge on a single and solitary path. The other effect it may have, is as in the days of Roman rule, is to create a variety of 'sects' or 'cults' which are fallibly based on the underdeveloped intellect of the 'worldly' as the Savior describes it in some of the readings. These sects and cults although very knowledgeable about the 'techniques' of occult and hermetic (black magic) arts may superimpose their interests and ideas as 'gnosis' although they may be far from a true and mystic gnosis. This negative coloring thus would be expanded to serve a selfish interest and promote the 'worldly', that which the Savior states he hated about those who revel in darkness. It is important to understand that now in our modern times, as Gnostic scriptures are once again being revealed, that we guard carefully against this sort of mingling the sciences and arts with concepts of knowledge that were meant to enliven or illuminate, not to darken or decieve. The capacity of cults and sects in our age is just as potentially proliferant as it was in the times of the early Christians, and has happened again in the growth of a gnostic movement that is not truly gnostic in origin. To avoid occult contamination of the mind with what is not the true Gnostic teachings, one must first search for the authenticity of the real documents, read the real documents as found in thier original state and read them as they were written from direct literal translations in the original language. Each seeker must have a chance to examine the real historical documents and references so that he/she would know what the real teachings are. Certain prolific authors who may or may not have good intentions, may have rewritten their 'idea' of what the gnostic teachings said without giving any reference to the original documents. In some extreme cases, they may have proselytized their 'own' version of gnosticism by not considering whether their quotations and discourse about the original texts differs in 'meaning' from the original text. Meditating on what was said in the gnostic scriptures and then writing about one's meditations is truly different from the actual reading and contemplation of the gnostic scriptures and actually teaching it verbatim. To do the former, is an outrage to all seekers who are seeking their own path indiscriminately from the polluted viewpoints of others. To do the latter is to receive the message as written by the historical recorder in its true form. To read the original writings and to evaluate them for what they truly say in the original language and regard them as similar or dissimilar to one's own is to be truthful to oneself. Each seeker of truth must examine oneself prior to applying these gospels or any other ancient writing. A benevolent seeker of truth may be more interested in his or her salvation rather than trying to sway or influence others towards a particular idea or application of doctrine. Remember each must follow his own path. That is the true gist of Gnosticism. Currently I am aware of only a handful of gnostic thinkers that serve a group. In any event, I am sure none of these would be interested in leading a group because 'leading' itself is unworthy of 'gnosis'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Too long text - I haven't read it! I believe you are saying that this "Samael Aun Weor" is not gnostic and that the article should be consistent in marking this if it is marked in the intro. Then peruse the source Samael Aun Weor (The Gnostic Movement) from the Gnosis Institute, and rewrite the article to fit that site's definition of Gnosis. They seem to be reliable, and like me, they dismiss Voegelins faulty definition. There are too many non-gnostics out there declaring themselves "gnostics" just as a catchy name. ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 08:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved to here. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


  • The first paragraph in the section on Prophecies uses a reference video that although originally it is Samael Aun Weor's, it has been dubbed by another party and it violates Wikipedia neutrality. Among other things, it equates Samael Aun Weor with Hitler. The translation of the spoken word as it is depicted in this paragraph is also quite inaccurate. It should be part of all the rest of the references subject to clean up. JDPhD (talk) 21:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

  • The clean-up is practically done. If something else remains, it should be minor.JDPhD (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Tract or encyclopedia article?[edit]

I see a 2009 discussion comment that the clean up is largely done.

But to me the very long piece still reads like a tract for Weor-ism, very unlike the typical, concise, neutral encyclopedia style of Wikipedia.

Is the section title "Master and avatar" a little promotional?

With reference to the long paragraph on "Initiations of higher mysteries," the article on Buddha headlines similar experiences with the more neutral "Enlightenment."

The text of the Buddha article runs 23 screens on my computer, the Weor article 38, suggesting to me that we're over-emphasizing the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it needs cleanup and some neutral analysis. See the gnostic institute's characterization of the Samaelians as "sex magic" rather than "gnostic". Their reputation amongst gnostics is not good. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The Social Christ etc[edit]

I have added sections on 'The Social Christ', 'Elemental Medicine' etc and will be cleaning up some things in the article over the next few days or weeks.

I dispute T. Baphomet's comment that "The Social Christ" is not encyclopedic as it is a key aspect of the life and work of Samael Aun Weor and POSCLA was one of the key elements of his doctrine. To write an article on him without devoting fair space to this is absurd.

Furthermore "Elemental Medicine" was also a key aspect of his life and work, it is mentioned in the first part of the article that he was a wanderer living with the Indians of the Sierra Nevada and so this is evidently a crucially important aspect of his life. "The Esoteric Antithesis" was a key element of his teaching as it says in practically all his books "sex is the key which creates Angels or Demons", and in all of his books there is mentioned the duality of the White and Black lodge.

However there are many things in the article which are evidently just gleaned from his work and improperly explained. I dispute the neutrality of this as it leans towards promoting the doctrine of the Glorian school, of who I assume Mr 'T Baphomet' is a follower.

For example there are direct links within the article to the website of Glorian publishing.

This article should not be promoting any particular school, rather it should explain the life and doctrine of Samael Aun Weor. Furthermore why are the books given as 'Thelema Press' books with their ISBN, are the freely available online translations made by his early students mentioned anywhere?

I will try over the next few days to place these entries in their proper position within the article and to add to and clean up the article where it is necessary, for example in "The Esoteric Antithesis" I should have mentioned his second book "The Revolution of Beelzebub", and also I must clear up mistakes in other parts of the article like where it says "any school which does not posess the three factors (sexual yoga etc) is degenerated". This is not directly quoting Samael Aun Weor and is creating a misconception of his teachings, he did not use the word degenerated in relation to any religion in fact he said "we are not against any religion, school, sect etc.

At present the entire article reads like a Theosophical reference book, it's far too wordy, and everything seems to have about 6 different terms from different religions attached to it, endless qualifications and justifications etc. It would take a big spade for your average person to dig through this article hey!


 'sparkandstir'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 
The article is already tremendously large. To me, I do not see the necessity of increasing the length of the article with more large sections. This was the primary reasoning for me making big cuts. I don't think the article should cover every topic in depth, not because I want to hide the truth or something, but because I honestly believe it benefits the reader. I think, honestly, that topics such as POSCLA, Elemental Magic should be at most a few sentences, not even needing a subheading. Otherwise, there are dozens of other topics that would have to be added at length too. Where do we stop? If we flushed out the whole article at the level which was recently done in those named sections, we would have an article about 10 times as large or larger. To me, that does not help the average person. Even without those additions, in the Doctrine section I think there is more that could be cut as well. I think that would make a better article.
Concerning "Esoteric Antithesis" I think the entire section should be removed. It is accurate and written reasonable well, I have no problem with the content, it is just appears arbitrary to pick that topic and not one of the dozens of other pervasive topics and write at length about it.
  1. Should we have a dedicated topic on the Runes? (Mentioned in multiple books, one dedicated to it)
  2. Should we have a dedicated topic on UFOs? (Mentioned in multiple books, two dedicated)
  3. Should we have a dedicated topic on the Mayan mysteries? (Mentioned in multiple books, two dedicated)
  4. Should we have a dedicated topic on the Kabbalah? (Mentioned in almost all books)
  5. Should we have a dedicated topic on the Tarot? (Mentioned in almost all books)
  6. Should we have a dedicated topic about Alchemy symbolism? (Mentioned in multiple books)
  7. Should we have a dedicated topic about Astral projection? (Mentioned in almost all books)
  8. Should we have a dedicated topic about Kundalini yoga? (Mentioned in multiple books)
  9. Should we have a dedicated topic about criminology?
  10. Should we have a dedicated topic about Tibetan exercises?
  11. Etc., etc., etc.
Other people could appear and argue that to not have those topics would be absurd just as you belive so with POSCLA and The Esoteric Antithesis. If everyone added more, then what happens is a big hodge podge with no clear organizational flow. Perhaps those topics are more dear to them, that is ok, but we have to make an article that actually helps people understand the subject matter at hand. To me, I think it is best to focus the article on the real importance of the gnostic doctrine, which is how does one experience gnosis? E.g.: sexual transmutation, self observation, meditation, the state of humanity, awakening consciousness, etc.. Everything else, to me, comes second. And if that means that 50 things are on the second tier, then, all of them should only have a little bit of space dedicated to it. In the current article, I would argue that POSCLA and Sexual Transmutation appear to be about the same importance to the reader because they both have a second level heading, and that, to me, is terribly misleading.
Concerning the links to Glorian publishing. They also happen to have the largest website in English of Samael Aun Weor's teachings. I do not care where the article reference comes from, but, if the reference is valid, then there is no reason to waste time and change it.
Concerning the ISBNs. Originally I referenced, down to the page number, in many of the books. That page number would only be valid in a specific publication of a book, thus they would need to correct ISBN. Other times, I only had that ISBN known for the book. Wikipedia likes to have ISBNs, and I gave the ones I knew. This is an English website and many of the books have no other publisher besides Glorian.
I agree that it is too wordy in many areas. Other areas, I believe it is beneficial to list many different terms, because it highlights the Doctrine of Synthesis aspect.
--T. Baphomet (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

ALRIGHT YO! Samael Aun Weor stated in clear terms in a 1977 letter published in Bolivia;

"In the circular 007 aimed at Colombia we declared in an emphatic way that the Gnostic Church, movement and organisation in general are living organisms of the POSCLA and of CHRISTISM SOCIALISM...

...The authorities of the Gnostic Church and Movement as well as any affiliated organisations are absolutely Christian and Social. They are never anti-Christian or antisocial."

Therefore, yes, The Social Christ is a key element of the doctrine in fact quite as important as the Esoteric Inner Work of the Gnosis.

Links to Glorian publishing should be removed since it is concretely demonstrated that they have intentionally falsified words and edited translations such as in the book "Logos, Mantram, Theurgy" where they edited the Seventh Key to Astral Projection by adding words decrying the use of Yage. Therefore they cannot be regarded as a reliable source for information about the Doctrine of Samael Aun Weor, as no group who are proven to have released false translations can be regarded as such. I am speaking in the realm of concrete and verifiable facts, which if you wish to dispute you must dispute from the same platform of verifiable fact. Speculation and emotional loyalty to a certain source is not the same thing as the facts of the Truth of the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkandstir (talkcontribs) 18:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


Glorian Publishing have proven themselves to be a disreputable source. For example in the editing of "Logos, Mantram, Theurgy", there are also some changes made to "The Revolution of The Dialectic" and to other books. Unfortunately as there is not time to embark on a project of cataloguing and verifying every one of these errors in translation, it is not possible to provide a complete list, nonetheless it is concretely demonstrated and proven that Glorian have made intentional edits to the work of Samael Aun Weor, which they have later defended and not acknowledged their error. Given this we see that according to academic good practise and logical sense, Glorian cannot be regarded as a verifiable source for the works of Samael Aun Weor until they have publicly acknowledged their errors.

Therefore all references to Glorian publishing should be removed from the article. Does anyone have any reason to dispute this? Perhaps this case should be heard before the Wikipedia sources verification board or some independent adjudicator. If this must be the case then I will make efforts to collect all of the errors in translation found in Glorian books, comparing them to the original Spanish editions of which it is possible for me to obtain copies. If nobody has any objections to make within one week, I will begin this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkandstir (talkcontribs) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


The whole The Doctrine of Synthesis reads horrible & the Religions may be the worst. For example the section Psychology, under The Doctrine of Synthesis, uses words & phrases like "stated," "taught" and "responded." The "Religions" section reads like it was either lifted directly from another source &/or sci-meta mumbo-jumbo. Dubious &/or neutrality issue?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ka'Jong (talkcontribs) 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Prophecies and Predictions[edit]

Hi everybody. I have read a lot of marvellous books of this man. Thats why im speaking and writing. I see your beautiful article in "esoterism" category not complete. As a reader of this author - Samael Aun Weor, i appreciate his works very much, because i found them very real or very close to reality. As a reader i know that in many of his works he give various predictions very well and logically described. Some of them i saw. Some of them im seeing in present moment. I know that others i will see in close future.

I advise you to form a headline about this. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evgeny Latishev (talkcontribs) 13:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to the above - please put in the predictions.


samael — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Dawson (2007) p. 55-57*Dawson, Andrew (2007). New era, new religions: religious transformation in contemporary Brazil. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7546-5433-9.