René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz (1887–1961)
Author of The Temple in Man: Sacred Architecture and the Perfect Man
About the Author
Works by René Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz
Symbol and the Symbolic: Ancient Egypt, Science, and the Evolution of Consciousness (1978) 117 copies, 1 review
Esoterismo y simbolismo 2 copies
The Temple in man: 1 copy
Le Temple de l' Homme - Apet du Sud à Louqsor. En 3 volumes (2 volumes de texte et 1 volume d' illustrations). (1985) 1 copy, 1 review
Adamo l'uomo rosso 1 copy
Tagged
Common Knowledge
- Canonical name
- Schwaller de Lubicz, René Adolphe
- Other names
- Aor
- Birthdate
- 1887
- Date of death
- 1961
- Gender
- male
- Occupations
- Egyptologist
occultist
author
writer - Relationships
- Schwaller de Lubicz, Isha (wife)
- Nationality
- Germany
- Places of residence
- Alsace-Lorraine, German Empire
Luxor, Egypt
Members
Reviews
I spent much of my late 20s and early 30s plowing through C.G. Jung. That fascination led me far afield, into Gnosticism, mysticism, parapsychology, and of course to the writings of alchemists. These half-serious readings took me from the puzzling works of Basilius Valentinus to Thomas Aquinas and finally to the great 20th century practitioner of esoteric science, Fulcanelli. I'd often been confounded by the odd pagan mythological and Zodiacal signs carved into Gothic cathedrals in Europe, show more sure somehow that they "meant" something, and consequently I found Fulcanelli's Le Mystère des Cathédrales an enormous delight.
Various literary meanderings led from Fulcanelli to R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz (an outstanding biographical sketch here, penned by of all people the bassist from Blondie), and his at times impenetrable works concerning perennial philosophy. Schwaller was an artist, a chemist, a philosopher, an Egyptologist, an inventor, a linguist, a mathematician--a smart fucking guy. That he was also an alchemist might strike one as surprising, given that alchemy is regarded these days as primitive chemistry or, if one follows Jung's presumptions, as merely a symbolic system for self-discovery. But Isaac Newton regarded his alchemical work as the most important project of his life, and he weren't no dummy. Nor was Goethe, nor Aquinas. Nor Jung, for that matter, though Schwaller thought Jung got it wrong. To Schwaller alchemy was spiritual, but at the same time it provided true insights into the nature of Matter. In The Egyptian Miracle he points out that Johannes Kepler left no evidence--no notes, no calculations--describing how he came to formulate his Three Laws of Planetary Motion. I learned from Carl Sagan that Kepler "foolishly" used to play with Platonic solids in order to understand the solar system, but then turned to real mathematics (as opposed to Pythagorean mysticism)to finally figure things out. No evidence needed, of course--he must have used mathematics as we understand them today, right? Logic demands it!
Schwaller quotes from Kepler's writings about the origin of his Laws:
It was eight months ago that I first saw a ray of light; it has been three months since I have seen the light of day; finally, a few days ago, I saw the sun of the most admirable contemplation. I am abandoning myself to my enthusiasm. I want to challenge mortals by the ingenuous confession that I have plundered the golden vessels of the Egyptians in order to furnish a sacred tabernacle for my God out of them, far from the borders of Egypt.
Strange for a mathematician of note to behave thus--to admit a revelatory or an intuitive scientific illumination--with a basis in Egypt. (But think of savants with no training who can provide the answers to enormously complex problems, and you'll be less skeptical perhaps?) Newton credited his alchemical studies for his discoveries in optics and color. Are we on to something?
Schwaller believed that the wholly unintelligible renderings of hieroglyphs into modern languages were unsatisfactory for a reason, and he spent 15 years at Karnak formulating his magnum opus. Along the way he discovered evidence that the Egyptians were master mathematicians who knew of Pi and Phi and the Pythagorean Theorem millenia before Pythagoras (who learned his craft in the Alexandrian Temples) existed, and that their knowledge of astronomy and physics might have been superior to our own in many ways. He claims the Egyptians had a completely different consciousness, and could read the symbolism of Nature, and used said symbolism to create a unique writing that is more than merely grammatical.
Schwaller's explanation of his theory of the symbolique is beastly difficult. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I'm intrigued. The mathematical stuff is absolutely convincing, and given what we now know about the Egyptian's advanced knowledge of the precessional cycle and the dark twin of Sirius and the alignments of their monuments, I don't think there's any doubt that Schwaller was ahead of the curve here.
And yet mainstream Egyptologists dismiss his stuff completely. I enjoy punishing myself with his books, but don't quite "get" them. They read like alchemical texts, which by their nature are supposed to hide true knowledge, reserving it for an elite capable of grasping the Truth (much as the Egyptians kept their "science" to an elite in the Temple). My "Intelligence of the Heart" must be lacking. show less
Various literary meanderings led from Fulcanelli to R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz (an outstanding biographical sketch here, penned by of all people the bassist from Blondie), and his at times impenetrable works concerning perennial philosophy. Schwaller was an artist, a chemist, a philosopher, an Egyptologist, an inventor, a linguist, a mathematician--a smart fucking guy. That he was also an alchemist might strike one as surprising, given that alchemy is regarded these days as primitive chemistry or, if one follows Jung's presumptions, as merely a symbolic system for self-discovery. But Isaac Newton regarded his alchemical work as the most important project of his life, and he weren't no dummy. Nor was Goethe, nor Aquinas. Nor Jung, for that matter, though Schwaller thought Jung got it wrong. To Schwaller alchemy was spiritual, but at the same time it provided true insights into the nature of Matter. In The Egyptian Miracle he points out that Johannes Kepler left no evidence--no notes, no calculations--describing how he came to formulate his Three Laws of Planetary Motion. I learned from Carl Sagan that Kepler "foolishly" used to play with Platonic solids in order to understand the solar system, but then turned to real mathematics (as opposed to Pythagorean mysticism)to finally figure things out. No evidence needed, of course--he must have used mathematics as we understand them today, right? Logic demands it!
Schwaller quotes from Kepler's writings about the origin of his Laws:
It was eight months ago that I first saw a ray of light; it has been three months since I have seen the light of day; finally, a few days ago, I saw the sun of the most admirable contemplation. I am abandoning myself to my enthusiasm. I want to challenge mortals by the ingenuous confession that I have plundered the golden vessels of the Egyptians in order to furnish a sacred tabernacle for my God out of them, far from the borders of Egypt.
Strange for a mathematician of note to behave thus--to admit a revelatory or an intuitive scientific illumination--with a basis in Egypt. (But think of savants with no training who can provide the answers to enormously complex problems, and you'll be less skeptical perhaps?) Newton credited his alchemical studies for his discoveries in optics and color. Are we on to something?
Schwaller believed that the wholly unintelligible renderings of hieroglyphs into modern languages were unsatisfactory for a reason, and he spent 15 years at Karnak formulating his magnum opus. Along the way he discovered evidence that the Egyptians were master mathematicians who knew of Pi and Phi and the Pythagorean Theorem millenia before Pythagoras (who learned his craft in the Alexandrian Temples) existed, and that their knowledge of astronomy and physics might have been superior to our own in many ways. He claims the Egyptians had a completely different consciousness, and could read the symbolism of Nature, and used said symbolism to create a unique writing that is more than merely grammatical.
Schwaller's explanation of his theory of the symbolique is beastly difficult. I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I'm intrigued. The mathematical stuff is absolutely convincing, and given what we now know about the Egyptian's advanced knowledge of the precessional cycle and the dark twin of Sirius and the alignments of their monuments, I don't think there's any doubt that Schwaller was ahead of the curve here.
And yet mainstream Egyptologists dismiss his stuff completely. I enjoy punishing myself with his books, but don't quite "get" them. They read like alchemical texts, which by their nature are supposed to hide true knowledge, reserving it for an elite capable of grasping the Truth (much as the Egyptians kept their "science" to an elite in the Temple). My "Intelligence of the Heart" must be lacking. show less
Symbol and the Symbolic: Ancient Egypt, Science, and the Evolution of Consciousness by R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz
A very brief introduction to a very complex subject. In reality, I feel as if the book is nothing more than an introduction to a much more extensive book. The content really is not sufficient enough to justify the cost of the book.
The culminative work of a genius whose vision of Ancient wisdom through the evidences left by the sacred architecture of Ancient Egypt, this two volume set covers over 15 years of de Lubicz's research on site. For any student of ancient mysticism, a must-have book that will require reading many times over.
Un riassunto del famoso ed enciclopedico libro Il Tempio dell'Uomo sempre di R.A. Schwaller De Lubicz. Ovviamente per la brevità dell'opera, molti dei concetti sono stati solamente accennati e si è cercato di fare trasparire nel modo più sintetizzato possibile il messaggio che voleva trasmettere l'autore.
I concetti fondamentali ripresi sono:
E' impressionante vedere dalla moltitudine di raffigurazioni riportate nel libro, come ogni dettaglio avesse un senso, una Causa, diventando quindi Simbolo vivente. show less
I concetti fondamentali ripresi sono:
show more
Noi dobbiamo, una volte er tutte, concepire il tempio faraonico come un seme che ha in gestazione il proprio frutto. Per loro la costruzione deve
vivere, Herbert Ricke la considera addirittura come "vegetale".La crescita avviene in tre dimensioni; una gestazione è una trasformazione costante sino alla perfezione del seme nuovo.
Il mito è un tutto, la sintesi di ogni scienza, dato che trascrive la Conoscenza fondamentale delle Leggi di Genesi che si applicano a tutto. Così i Neter hanno il loro significato, sia in medicina che in astronomia, o in teologia che è la metafisica del Divenire con Ritorno.
La mentalità faraonica è tipicamente indiretta. Ci si servirà di una forma definita per evocare l'Idea di questa forma, cioè il complesso astratto che presiede a questa forma definita.
Tutto nella Natura che è Viva, è provocato dall'azione del complemento. Questo costituisce l' "incrocio" e il gioco della resistenza.
Quando gli Antichi tracciano una figura, non è più la figura che guardano, ma ciò che vi proiettano da se stessi: fisicamente la guardano come un'ombra, un traforo nella luce della sua assenza. Individuano i suoi contorni. Quando tracciano una figura geometrica, non è più questa figura ad interessarli, la la Legge fatale che la impone e la conseguenza fatale che esse provoca. Così la geometria assume lo stesso carattere di vita delle immagini che scolpiscono o tracciano.
E' impressionante vedere dalla moltitudine di raffigurazioni riportate nel libro, come ogni dettaglio avesse un senso, una Causa, diventando quindi Simbolo vivente. show less
You May Also Like
Statistics
- Works
- 35
- Members
- 936
- Popularity
- #27,446
- Rating
- 4.0
- Reviews
- 16
- ISBNs
- 51
- Languages
- 5
- Favorited
- 2