Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
UM-Bot

Roerich

11 posts in this topic

William B Stoecker: Nikolai Konstantinovich Roerich (10/9/1874-12/13/1947) was one of the most colorful, mysterious, and ambiguous figures of the entire twentieth century. Born to a prominent family in St. Petersburg, Russia, he graduated in 1897 from the Petersburg Academy of Arts and pursued a career as an artist, writer, and amateur archaeologist. In 1901 he married (for life) Helena, Ivanovna Shaposhnikova. A mystic, Roerich believed in something called “Living Ethics” and believed that, while civilization is material (cities, industry, etc.) culture is spiritual in origin. He was the author of Roerich’s Pact to protect cultural values, an agreement signed by FDR and the representatives of thirty five other nations. Roerich studied Hinduism and Eastern mysticism and philosophy, and translated The Secret Doctrine, the work of the rather ambiguous, even sinister Russian mystic “Madame” Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. He searched for the legendary Shambhalla in Asia.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nicely written and interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, he seems to be a fascinating character.

I first heard about him because he was referenced in some of HP Lovecraft's stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William B Stoecker: Nikolai Konstantinovich Roerich (10/9/1874-12/13/1947) was one of the most colorful, mysterious, and ambiguous figures of the entire twentieth century. Born to a prominent family in St. Petersburg, Russia, he graduated in 1897 from the Petersburg Academy of Arts and pursued a career as an artist, writer, and amateur archaeologist. In 1901 he married (for life) Helena, Ivanovna Shaposhnikova. A mystic, Roerich believed in something called “Living Ethics” and believed that, while civilization is material (cities, industry, etc.) culture is spiritual in origin. He was the author of Roerich’s Pact to protect cultural values, an agreement signed by FDR and the representatives of thirty five other nations. Roerich studied Hinduism and Eastern mysticism and philosophy, and translated The Secret Doctrine, the work of the rather ambiguous, even sinister Russian mystic “Madame” Helena Petrovna Blavatsky. He searched for the legendary Shambhalla in Asia.

arrow3.gifView: Full Article

I love Roerich, discovered his works when I first got online in 1996. His art moves me deeply.

I went ot pick out some of my favorite works, but what does it matter?

I encourage you to pick:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Roerich&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=lZQoTtfnJ8Ls0gH1v4DtCg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1909&bih=1010

The initial remark on the article tho was why you continued to label Blavatsky as sinister? I never really held that impression tho I have not really gotten into her works much. What makes her sinister in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Roerich, discovered his works when I first got online in 1996. His art moves me deeply.

I went ot pick out some of my favorite works, but what does it matter?

I encourage you to pick:

This...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gonez.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there are several but they are not able to be linked here from this source: http://www.roerich.org/wwp.html

Mother of the World

Hidden Treasure (this one has a physiological effect on me)

Battle in the Heavens. 1912

And then a lot of the landscapes are particularly striking to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, there are several but they are not able to be linked here from this source: http://www.roerich.org/wwp.html

Mother of the World

Hidden Treasure (this one has a physiological effect on me)

Battle in the Heavens. 1912

And then a lot of the landscapes are particularly striking to me.

Talented fella. I like just about anything he's painted. Great use of color and vastness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talented fella. I like just about anything he's painted. Great use of color and vastness.

I have to agree. Some of his paintings create a emotional, mental and (sometimes) physiological shift inside when you view them.

In the 90's, I printed off his paintings (on a really bad printer, with the rollers and stuff) and sandwiched them between clear plastic and hung them in the windows. His paintings, while poorly printed, took on colorful life with the sun shining thru them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love Roerich, discovered his works when I first got online in 1996. His art moves me deeply.

I went ot pick out some of my favorite works, but what does it matter?

I encourage you to pick:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Roerich&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=lZQoTtfnJ8Ls0gH1v4DtCg&ved=0CCsQsAQ&biw=1909&bih=1010

The initial remark on the article tho was why you continued to label Blavatsky as sinister? I never really held that impression tho I have not really gotten into her works much. What makes her sinister in your opinion?

It's just my subjective opinion...I don't trust her. Partly it's because a lot of the things she said in her books are simply not credible and are contradicted by geological and archaeological evidence. And partly it's because her movement spawned Alice Bailey and the literally demonic Lucis Trust. William B Stoecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just my subjective opinion...I don't trust her. Partly it's because a lot of the things she said in her books are simply not credible and are contradicted by geological and archaeological evidence. And partly it's because her movement spawned Alice Bailey and the literally demonic Lucis Trust. William B Stoecker

Although I don't particularly like Alice Bailey, the Luciferian movement was originally a peaceful one, deliberately destroyed by the catholic church during the Albigensian crusade. Lucifer was also called the Light Bringer, meaning of course the bringer of knowledge. The church wasn't keen on letting masses learn anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just my subjective opinion...I don't trust her. Partly it's because a lot of the things she said in her books are simply not credible and are contradicted by geological and archaeological evidence. And partly it's because her movement spawned Alice Bailey and the literally demonic Lucis Trust. William B Stoecker

I respect that. I neither desire to defend her nor really want to take a stance of any kind on her. Just wondered why you felt the way you do. Thank you for explaining your impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.