Talk:Samael Aun Weor

message: 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)
thread_title:  Samael Aun Weor Books 

message: Does Wikipedia have a policy on the order of external links? I think that the most relevant to be first would be www.gnosticteachings.org 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Order of external links 

message: 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.Dawson (2007) p. 55-57*  Weor states that Krumm-Heller taught a form of Sexual Magic without ejaculation that would become the core of his own teachings.
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)
thread_title:  Removed "History" section 

message: I removed most of the recent edits by 201.21.144.223 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)
thread_title:  Removed recent edits 

message: Could someone provide a link on where to get Sameal Aun Weor herbal remedies? (I'm very sick)
Bill
Apr. 22, 2007
:In the book Occult Medicine and Practical Magic which can be bought here: http://www.gnosticstore.org/servlet/Detail?no=2
: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)
thread_title:  Aun Weor sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  About cleanup tags 

message: 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 GnosticStore.org, and more are coming! You might also want to check Gnostic Forum if you have questions. Anton H 20:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where to Find Sameal Aun Weor Books? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Edits by Helios Solaris

message: This website support my claim
http://www.ageacac.net/secciones/ageacac/index.php
http://www.google.com/translate_t
Use Google Translate, the translation is so so, but the point comes across. Helios solaris 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (www.ageac.org) 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)
thread_title:  About Gnostic Association of Anthropological, Cultural and Scientific Studies 

message: 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)
thread_title: External Links

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent additions

message: 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)
thread_title:  About Marx, Lenin and fallen bodhisattvas 

message: 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 86.123.130.216 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  References 

message: 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)
replies: text: I will try to add page numbers when I have time. Anton H (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Notes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unnecessary references 

message: I have removed from the section "Doctrine of Synthesis" the following text as sourced with inadequate references:
Neither Eliphas Levi nor H. P. Blavatsky, Gurdjieff, P. D. Ouspensky, Steiner, H. Spencer Lewis, R. Swinburne Clymer, Manly Palmer Hall, Max Heindel or any other prominent exponent of esoteric loreDion Fortune Esoteric Orders And Their Work, Red Wheel/Weiser, 2007 ISBN 978-1578631841; Rider & Co., 1st ed. 1928  ever revealed publicly the Secret of the Great Arcanum: only Samael Aun Weor has. Eliphas Levi Transcendental Magic, p. 94, Weiser, 1995 ISBN 0-87728-079-7
__ meco (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated Claims 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits by user [[user:114.76.75.113]] 

message: 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 66.245.88.240 (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Moved to here. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 18:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerned about the modern 'gnostic' movement as identified by Wikipedia 

message: *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)
thread_title:  Prophecies 

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

message: 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 75.83.186.248 (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tract or encyclopedia article? 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources  

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religions 

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecies and Predictions   

message: samael  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.81.176.167 (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Samael! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 10:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  samael 

message: The current state of the article is that it to 65% cites Samael Aun Weor, and 35% others. That and the fact that citations are used to make a factual saga of Samael Aun Weor's life to sound like a bit of ueberfantatic:
:In his autobiographical account, The Three Mountains, Samael Aun Weor stated that because he was born with an awakened consciousness, he was analyzing the previous lives in which he awakened his consciousness before mastering how to walk.[5][sic!] At the age of 17, he was asked to lecture at the local Theosophical Chapter, and a year later was admitted into the occult society Fraternitas Rosicruciana Antiqua (F.R.A.).[8][should need an independent source] While a student in the F.R.A., Samael Aun Weor methodically studied the entire Rosicrucian library and it was here that he allegedly learned the secret of the "Great Arcanum", or white Sexual Magic – the esoteric key which purportedly underpins all of the world's great religions.[5]
While I admit that such citations might be very hard to find, as a general measure, the article should include more non-primary sources. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is still a problem so I have tagged the article as such, —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

text: If reliable sources can be found, they would likely describe this movement as Mystical Gnostic Christianity, syncretic, New Age and charismatic.  The current article also includes prophetic claims in Wikipedia's voice, like the prediction of his death...  Secondary sources should be found and used instead of mostly primary sources and original research or synthesis (and editor interpretation) using those (WP:PRIMARY, WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR).  —PaleoNeonate – 04:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

text: Hmm maybe another point... He claimed to have the keys to the universe, bodily immortality, body dematerialization and teleportation (i.e. in "Jinas"), at the same time, as he was obviously aging and falling ill like anyone else, he said that he wasn't practicing his own immortality techniques because he didn't want to remain on Earth.  He taught that ejaculation should be avoided at all cost yet sexual activity/stimulation maintained (either Vajroli or Maithuna) and that transmutated sexual energy could heal the body (other than feed the "subtle bodies" including with pseudoscientific claims related to hydrogen isotopes); yet as not everyone have noctural emissions, this can lead to bodily harm, hemospermia (when the unevitable happens with associated guilt), etc.  It would be interesting to see if some independent sources covered this.  —PaleoNeonate – 05:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article contains far far too much content on the Doctrine of Synthesis. This is supposed to be a biography yet we have 1900 words on the subject and 4400 on the Doctrine, the vast majority referenced to his own work. I don't think this section would stand up as a separate article, so I would suggest it is pruned to 1000 words or less.----Pontificalibus 14:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation balance, etc.

message: It's pathetically obvious that this article is completely biased. I have nothing against Samael, but this article desperately needs a hatchet job. It looks like no-one but Samael devotees has looked at this article since the day it was born. Sardaka (talk) 08:15, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree, I came to the talk page because this article is ridiculous. It reads like one of his books, not like an article about the man. I have been reading his books and get a lot out of them but this article is totally inappropriate. There is almost nothing balanced about the man in question. Not a single line of criticism, skepticism, which would be found on any other noteworthy figure. Why is this article about the individual while going in minute detail about a philosophy and spiritual teaching? When you do it like this, it becomes a joke. 2001:268:C20E:2A3:44CB:7719:8CD4:37AA (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias?