PDA

View Full Version : Stone Riddle



horticult
01-07-2010, 05:56 PM
My current understanding is this:
First man get the stone in the form of "potable gold", with healing properties, with zero effect on metals. /4 transmutation it have 2 b appropriately fermented./

How is that possible? Why it has this effect? What can be from it deduced about material & process?

Andro
01-07-2010, 06:44 PM
My current understanding is this:
First man get the stone in the form of "potable gold", with healing properties, with zero effect on metals. /4 transmutation it have 2 b appropriately fermented./

How is that possible? Why it has this effect? What can be from it deduced about material & process?

First man not get the stone in the form of "potable gold". Later comes potable gold. Maybe.
__________________________________________________ ___________________

First man stop live in head & instead go learn good philosophy from life experience, so he knows 2 tell difference between vulgar friction & philosophical coherence.
But even some men w/much experience learn only vulgar friction... depends on who's learning...

Second man make PM /= 1 perfected matter married 2 itself/2 b abundantly found in vulgar state & 2 b philosophically upgraded & homo/genized by Art w/o (+) anything Xternal 2 it. Then it have fermental virtue 2 open/change/other things/i.e. gold/in2 its own perfected nature & have also some healing properties, heart 1st.
(heart healing not very pleasant /= many tears w/o nice geometry)

Third man need 2 use PM / not vulgar / then he can make gold 2 b open/also potable in dillution/& so it FX all things/4 transmutation takes gold 2 make gold/takes like 2 make like/etc... B cause if gold not open w/PM => man can not digest, also not ingress something in metals.

That's 1 way 2 look @ it...

AethreWicc
01-10-2010, 08:37 PM
I have only begun to work with the tangible aspects of the substances, but from what I have done so far and read from so many sources, it seems that we first obtain the "potable stone," which we can use in that form as a supplement to energize our physical vessel in myriad ways until our bodies reach K (remember the Sumerians knew that the bones of the "gods" were made of gold). Look at how you would ferment any other substance in accordance with the Alchemical processes. It is important to understand that by making the stone a part of a compound or mixture, you are not necessarily deteriorating the effects of the stone. Find or make a way to create a ferment compound, then? Yeast is key to ferment. The bread of the "gods" was leven. The drinks of the "gods" were described in ancient hebrew as being similar to beers and ales. The ideas are all there in several ways. Our great Alchemy is based on the knowledge of these ancients. It is now as it has always been.

solomon levi
01-11-2010, 07:29 PM
Not much to say here. This may be helpful:

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=1014&highlight=ferment

horticult
02-05-2010, 05:53 PM
IMO Au is good for nothing except 4 beauty.
Its supposed healing qualities are not usable 4 majority, cuz almost nobody know how to.
In some societies/enviroments it can be used 4 "shopping etc", but IMHO these societies are bad, although we do not know other.
So, the conception that alchemy was invented 2 make gold is nonsense.
It was invented or revealed 4 healing.
So the 1st is potable gold and is done without Au.



I know that logic is not all & that all logic is anthropomorphic...
But ... :D:D:D some says that there is nothing outside which is not anthropomorphic...
pls do not react 2 this philo bs, only 2 topic

Andro
02-05-2010, 06:26 PM
IMO Au is good for nothing except 4 beauty. Its supposed healing qualities are not usable 4 majority, cuz almost nobody know how to.

There is plenty of practical know-how info on this forum to make Au usable for healing. You're probably looking in the wrong places...

Just out of curiosity... R U doing any practical alchemical/spagyrical work @ the moment? Or just killing time with some activities, as U mentioned in another thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?p=6587#post6587)?


I am only a lazy boy with small knowledge which is killing time by some activities

As 4 UR conclusion:


So the 1st is potable gold and is done without Au.

If u refer 2 the Liquor Alkahest - then yes, indeed.
(also known as the universal ferment & extractor of medicines from & 4 all kingdoms)

horticult
02-05-2010, 06:36 PM
There is plenty of practical know-how info on this forum to make Au usable for healing. You're probably looking in the wrong places...


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/majority

& I of course mean all people of all ages, if you again are not able to understand common sense

Andro
02-05-2010, 06:54 PM
you again are not able to understand common sense

I find most of UR posts 2 B hardly intelligible, and this is not only my opinion. UR definition of common sense appears 2 me 2 B very different than that of the 'majority'.
Which is fine, just don't throw it back @ me.

And U didn't answer my question (which of course U don't have 2)

Are you currently performing any practical alchemical or spagyrical work? I'm just onestly curious, U don't have 2 answer that...
But I think such a question is in order, because U R after all showing genuine interest in the Philosopher's Stone.

I truly believe that if UR posts were less sarcastic and less overwhelmingly cryptic & 2 much extent mono-syllabical, we could indeed have some really interesting discussions.

Hellin Hermetist
02-05-2010, 07:17 PM
" The masters of the art teach us that the goal of their labors is triple. What they seek to realize first is the universal Medicine or the actual philosophers’ stone. Obtained in a saline form, whether multiplied or not, it can only be used fr the healing of human illnesses, preservation of health, and growth of plants. Soluble in any alcoholic liquid, its solution takes the name of Aurum Potabile (although it does not even contain the least atom of gold because it assumes a magnificent yellow color). Its healing value and the diversity of its use in therapeutics makes it a precious auxiliary in the treatment of grave and incurable ailments. It has no action on metals, except on gold and silver, on which it fixes itself and to which it bestows its own principles, which, consequently, becomes of no use for transmutation. However, if the maximum number of its multiplications is exceeded, it changes form and instead of resuming its solid crystalline state when cooling down, it remains fluid like quicksilver and definitely non-coagulable. It then shines in darkness, with a soft, red, phosphorescent light, of a weaker brightness than that of a common nightlight. The universal Medicine has become the Inextinguishable Light; the light-giving product of those perpetual lamps, which certain authors have mentioned as having been found in some ancient sepulchers. Thus radiant and liquid, the philosophers’ stone is not likely, in our opinion, to be pushed further; desiring to amplify its igneous quality would seem dangerous to us; the least that could be feared would be to volatilize it and lose the benefit of a considerable labor. Finally, if we ferment the solid, universal Medicine with very pure gold or silver, through direct fusion, we obtain the Powder of Projection, third form of the Stone. It is a translucent mass, red or white according to the chosen metal, pulverizable, and appropriate only to metallic transmutation. Oriented, determined, and specific to the mineral realm, it is useless and without action in the other two kingdoms."

So spoke the Adept.

horticult
02-05-2010, 08:28 PM
Hellin Hermetist, if u quote pls insert also "Fulcanelli" or something like that.

My problem with Fulcanelli is, although I am mightily biased by him, that he wrote his bux b4 he finished /& used??/ the stone. However we do not have this info about others ink-spillers.

I know that some thinx that my post are hardly intelligible. Its not my business.
But if u read what I say exactly & do not think nonsenses u should get it. Its it & not anything else. Just it.

No, I will not comment my contemporary doing /OK, in recent time I did cca 164l of high quality alco :D/ .

Hellin Hermetist
02-05-2010, 08:53 PM
How do you know that when he gave us these details, he hadn't acquired the stone? You seem to be sure about this fact.

memphis_mizraim
02-05-2010, 11:03 PM
Hellin Hermetist, if u quote pls insert also "Fulcanelli" or something like that.

My problem with Fulcanelli is, although I am mightily biased by him, that he wrote his bux b4 he finished /& used??/ the stone. However we do not have this info about others ink-spillers.

I know that some thinx that my post are hardly intelligible. Its not my business.
But if u read what I say exactly & do not think nonsenses u should get it. Its it & not anything else. Just it.

No, I will not comment my contemporary doing /OK, in recent time I did cca 164l of high quality alco :D/ .

Why you write like this, what are you on about. If English is not your mother language ok then I understand, but if it is then write ( his bux b4 he finished /& used??/) proper English.

solomon levi
02-06-2010, 01:11 AM
How do you know that when he gave us these details, he hadn't acquired the stone? You seem to be sure about this fact.

I share this opinion as well.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/5e/1c/2191225b9da0ae6e43725110.L._SL500_AA240_.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.amazon.com/Al-Kemi-Political-Schwaller-Traditions-Lindisfarne/dp/0892811714&h=240&w=240&sz=15&tbnid=itgYjMp_52m-QM:&tbnh=110&tbnw=110&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dal-kemi&hl=en&usg=__VXIakGU1YYlYHGfsRgqc07WWzZY=&ei=IL5sS4qlEZDssQPineCxDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CB0Q9QEwBw

If you've read this book and this one...

http://www.amazon.com/Fulcanelli-Alchemical-Revival-Mystery-Cathedrals/dp/1594770824


... they are quite convincing. And I just can't imagine Schwaller lying about it. His integrity is much greater than J. Champagne's IMO, and as
can be seen from history/evidence.

Champagne/Fulcanelli stole the original text when he worked in the booksellers. He couldn't understand it. Schwaller could.
He stole Schwallers' work on the Cathedrales to write "Mystere" and "Dwellings".
He stole/used his fathers identity to fool people to think he was much older
than he looked, and that he had thus succeeded in the work.
He was addicted to drugs and alcohol and died of gangrene on his leg.


I'm sure people will have their own beliefs and opinions, but the evidence
seems sound to me.

Green Lion
02-06-2010, 08:23 AM
The story of Fulcanelli is much more complex than that.
There are several possibilities regarding his identity.
Jean-Julien Champagne was not Fulcanelli. He just usurped his identity after Fulcanelli has disappeared.
Schwaller never met Fulcanelli. He has met Champagne who was passed to Fulcanelli. Schwaller had not lied, but he did not know everything.
The hypothesis of Genevieve Dubois seems valid, but there are some shortcomings, several authors have noted.
To check the consistency of all identities of Fulcanelli which have been proposed, I recommend reading the book "Presence de Fulcanelli" by Jean Artero.
I suggest you also the Fulgrosse's blog about Fulcanelli, who is very serious.
Regarding the source of Fulcanelli's books, instead of believing the statements of everybody, it's better to compare the texts. And I must say that Dujols and Fulcanelli do not speak the same way or do not write the same way ...

memphis_mizraim
02-06-2010, 11:47 AM
It was not one individual it was a group in direct contact with the tradition I feel?

horticult
02-06-2010, 03:14 PM
Comte de Chardonnet.

memphis_mizraim
02-06-2010, 09:59 PM
s*** man here we go again I presume you have something to back you claim.
To me it was a small group group and RA Schaller de Lubicz was the writer.

horticult
02-06-2010, 11:01 PM
Alchemy Journal Vol.7 No.2

memphis_mizraim
02-07-2010, 12:07 AM
Nice story but as I said all these guys were part of the group. The called themselves Brothers of Heliopolis. Then why did RA Schaller de Lubicz go to Egypt. Could this have some connection? de lubicz was an alchemist and very advanced.
Perhaps we will never know

Hephælios
02-07-2010, 12:30 AM
He knew what he was doing when he disappeared. He left an hydra of possibilities and no assured certainty. I used to believe he was Chardonnet...but that theory has its doubts. I don't believe he is Schwaller, nor do I believe he was a group of people. I agree with Greenlion; the Fulgrosse (http://fulgrosse.over-blog.com/) blog is a good place to start if you want to dig deeper.

solomon levi
02-07-2010, 11:28 AM
The story of Fulcanelli is much more complex than that.
There are several possibilities regarding his identity.
Jean-Julien Champagne was not Fulcanelli. He just usurped his identity after Fulcanelli has disappeared.
Schwaller never met Fulcanelli. He has met Champagne who was passed to Fulcanelli. Schwaller had not lied, but he did not know everything.

Did you see the signatures of Champagne and Fulcanelli?
They are the same handwriting.
Even same phrase.
It doesn't get more convincing than that for me.

And it was Schwaller who was successful reproducing the glass.
I don't see how there could have been a Fulcanelli before Champagne.
The dates match fine.

memphis_mizraim
02-07-2010, 11:42 AM
You have to ask yourself the question " why hide the real identity" what would be the reason. If Canseliet knew the true identity then perhaps we should ask why could he not reveal the secret. Something bigger was at play here bigger than the personalities involved. The Tradition of alchemy.
All the names mentioned are very interesting, but you don't learn alchemy from the sky, you need a Master, who was the Master of Fulcanelli, this is what we need to find out?? This is my research.

horticult
02-07-2010, 12:46 PM
All the names mentioned are very interesting, but you don't learn alchemy from the sky, you need a Master, who was the Master of Fulcanelli, this is what we need to find out?? This is my research.

I am not sure about that sky method.
Some rather confused passage in Fulcanelli suggested possibility of Basil Valentine.
But I have next question: who is Fulcanelli´s disciple?!?

solomon levi
02-07-2010, 01:40 PM
All the names mentioned are very interesting, but you don't learn alchemy from the sky, you need a Master, who was the Master of Fulcanelli, this is what we need to find out?? This is my research.

I can only tell you from the above perspective I have already mentioned, which
seems the most reasonable to me.
Champagne was the leading lab alchemist of the group and owner of the name
"Fulcanelli". He was a great alchemist when it comes to manipulating the fire and
the vessels. But Aor/Schwaller was the one who understood the Cathedrales
and the Egyptian monuments through the intelligence of the heart, which if you
read his works, it becomes apparent.
Champagne offered to show Schwaller's work to a publisher and stole it for himself.
Canseliet and others looked to Champagne as their master, but Champagne went
to Schwaller for help when he didn't know something, unbeknownst to his disciples.
Canseliet, it is said, only began to realise that Schwaller was helping Champagne
late in the relationship, and tried to seek out Schwaller, proven by a letter sent to him.

Ab Roek
02-07-2010, 04:47 PM
You will be missing a large piece of the puzzle concerning the youngest Vulcan, if you overlook Henri Coton-Alvart.

http://www.lemercuredauphinois.fr/data/pages_site/bio_henri.php

http://www.archerjulienchampagne.com/article-3552044-6.html

Ghislain
02-07-2010, 06:21 PM
This was taken from Alchemy journal Vol.7 No.3

Are these facts or suppositions?



Based on the foregoing research, the following is a brief summary of the few characteristics that we now know about Fulcanelli:

1. He was born in 1839.

2. He died (“disappeared” or “departed”) either in 1923 or 1924 (the early part of 1925, “long before” October, is also possible but unlikely). It is possible that he died in the vicinity of Paris

3. He was an aristocrat.

4. He had a strange, eccentric appearance.

5. He was trained as an Engineer.

6. He had a strong chemical background

7. He had a possible architectural background

8. He was familiar with Paris.

9. Fulcanelli participated in the war of 1870-1871 between France and Germany.

10. He had a dignified, noble face with a beautiful smile.

11. His face was “bathed in long gray hair.”

12. He wore a “baphometic ring” of transmuted gold and of Templar origin.



Ghislain

Andro
02-07-2010, 06:30 PM
I only fit into 4, 7, 10 and 11.

So I guess I'm not Fulcanelli... At least this narrows the search :)

On a more 'serious' note, I personally don't see the importance of focusing on who Fulcanelli was or wasn't. It's the message that counts. The messenger will attend to himself. But that of course is only my opinion...

Green Lion
02-07-2010, 06:39 PM
Did you see the signatures of Champagne and Fulcanelli?
They are the same handwriting.
Even same phrase.
It doesn't get more convincing than that for me.
There is no real Fulcanelli's signature...
The only evidence would be the comparison with the Fulcanelli's notes which have recieved by Canseliet to make the books.
But this manuscripts have been lost...
Concerning the keys on cathedrals, the source is not Schwaller, but Violet le Duc. You must read the book "Dictionnaire raisonné de l'architecture française du XI e au XVI e siècle". This is the source of the architecture reference of Fulcanelli.
Canseliet would contact Schwaller because he is in contact with Champagne. Champagne was a great practical alchemist, but he was not Fulcanelli. Champagne was the first "disciple" of Fulcanelli.

Green Lion
02-07-2010, 06:47 PM
1. He was born in 1839.
Supposition : Canseliet said that, but it was not a proof because Canseliet said that he never said two things : the name of the first matter and the identity of Fulcanelli...


2. He died (“disappeared” or “departed”) either in 1923 or 1924 (the early part of 1925, “long before” October, is also possible but unlikely). It is possible that he died in the vicinity of Paris
Supposition


3. He was an aristocrat.
Supposition. Canseliet said that Fulcanelli lived in a big appartment and that he never saw Fulcanelli on work. But he was perhaps in "retreat".


4. He had a strange, eccentric appearance.
Canseliet said that. Correct. He was an "italian" type.


5. He was trained as an Engineer.
Supposition. In the Fulcanelli's books, the author explains the Polytechnique symbol : SXKOH. But it is not a proof that Fulcanelli was a polytechnician...


6. He had a strong chemical background
Correct. Fulcanelli said that he was forced to relearn what he thought to know...


7. He had a possible architectural background
Correct. But perhaps he was just a disciple of Violet Le Duc...


8. He was familiar with Paris.
Correct.


9. Fulcanelli participated in the war of 1870-1871 between France and Germany.
Correct. Violet Le Duc was his superior during this war.


10. He had a dignified, noble face with a beautiful smile.
Supposition. Canseliet said he was small, with not a real beautifull face.


11. His face was “bathed in long gray hair.”
Correct. At the end of his life.


12. He wore a “baphometic ring” of transmuted gold and of Templar origin.
False.
There was no templars at Hennebont...

True Initiate
02-07-2010, 06:51 PM
:D:D:D

memphis_mizraim
02-07-2010, 07:26 PM
Again all off this is very interesting but all these stories are covered in the numerous books by different authors over the years. Nothing new. All hear-say no positive proof.

So who was the man Canseliet met in Spain years after the supposed death of Fulcanelli and the names listed here would all be dead years before.

I personally don't believe he met a person, he perhaps met the Alchemical Tradition or its Custodians, maybe. We will never know. Perhaps he made it up.

I am sure many more books will be written on who he was but it will be like who shot John F Kennedy.

We have to ask where did the alchemical tradition come from, it spread across Europe and who still bears this tradition. Its not just kept alive over the centuries by a few on these forums trying to do the work. Something higher protects this Tradition. Some living tradition. That is what I hope to find.

Ab Roek
02-07-2010, 08:28 PM
We have to ask where did the alchemical tradition come from, it spread across Europe and who still bears this tradition. Its not just kept alive over the centuries by a few on these forums trying to do the work. Something higher protects this Tradition. Some living tradition. That is what I hope to find.

Still quite alive, oh yes. And watching us even now. Even you. Even me.

horticult
02-07-2010, 08:46 PM
Now it looks it could be Paul.
Anyway, he did a good job /disappearing/ :D .
& I think he wish R.I.P.

solomon levi
02-08-2010, 03:37 AM
Thanks Green Lion. I'll look into that angle. I respect your knowledge of alchemy.
But that would make Schwaller or Vandenbroek a liar.
Do you think Vandenbroek made it up?

And i don't understand what the difference is between a Fulcanelli signature
and a real Fulcanelli signature. I think the fact remains that Champagne
signed some document "Fulcanelli". This is not hearsay. It doesn't make him
Fulcanelli, but it is evidence that some believed him to be Fulcanelli.

Green Lion
02-08-2010, 05:43 AM
Vandenbroek and Schwaller were not liars.
Schwaller really believed that Champagne was Fulcanelli because every time Schwaller ha seen Champagne or when Champagne signed a document in his presence, it was with the pseudonym Fulcanelli.
But Schwaller had never seen the real Fulcanelli.
So Schwaller did not lie. It is simply a mistake due to Champagne's lies.
André Vandenbroeck believed Schwaller in good faith. He was right. Schwaller said him who he really thought to be Fulcanelli.


And i don't understand what the difference is between a Fulcanelli signature and a real Fulcanelli signature. I think the fact remains that Champagne
signed some document "Fulcanelli". This is not hearsay. It doesn't make him
Fulcanelli, but it is evidence that some believed him to be Fulcanelli.
A Fulcanelli signature is like the Champagne's signature with the name Fulcanelli : there is no proof that is the real Fulcanelli. Champagne was the first disciple of Fulcanelli. But he was too proud, he would to be recognized. So Fulcanelli does'nt continue to teach him...

memphis_mizraim
02-08-2010, 11:39 AM
Vandenbroek and Schwaller were not liars.
Schwaller really believed that Champagne was Fulcanelli because every time Schwaller ha seen Champagne or when Champagne signed a document in his presence, it was with the pseudonym Fulcanelli.
But Schwaller had never seen the real Fulcanelli.
So Schwaller did not lie. It is simply a mistake due to Champagne's lies.
André Vandenbroeck believed Schwaller in good faith. He was right. Schwaller said him who he really thought to be Fulcanelli.


A Fulcanelli signature is like the Champagne's signature with the name Fulcanelli : there is no proof that is the real Fulcanelli. Champagne was the first disciple of Fulcanelli. But he was too proud, he would to be recognized. So Fulcanelli does'nt continue to teach him...

So if Champagne was Fulcanelli that truly is an inspiration too us all, living as an addict with no money living just on handouts in desperate living conditions, and dying alone in agony, is that the Path of Alchemy for an Adept?
If this is the case I will be happier in a bar with a cool beer and a pretty girl.

teofrast40
02-08-2010, 11:51 AM
But I have next question: who is Fulcanelli´s disciple?!?

hallo
I am not interessed in the Fulcanelli affair, as I find his writings enough to keep me busy.. ars longa vita brevis ;)
instead your question seems a valid one.
many say that we cannot consider even Canseliet as a Fulcanelli's disciple (personally I am waiting to read Canseliet books when I will be more founded on the classics, as many people find him disguising).
instead I would like to point out an often oversought Fulcanelli disciple: Renè Alleau, who wrote the best introduction to alchemy that I managed to find.

Green Lion
02-08-2010, 12:23 PM
René Alleau was born in 1917, 18 years after Eugene Canseliet.
Eugene Canseliet met Fulcanelli when he was 15 years.
Then Fulcanelli disappeared in 1930.
René Alleau was only 13 years old when Fulcanelli left...
There is no chance that René Alleau have met Fulcanelli.
René Alleau was actually a "disciple" of Canseliet.

teofrast40
02-08-2010, 12:57 PM
I see.. thank you
I desumed that he was Fulcanelli's disciple from what Canseliet says in his preface to Alleau's book.

solomon levi
02-10-2010, 08:08 PM
Thanks Green Lion.

If you don't mind, may I ask - why did Champagne seek out Schwaller if he
had Fulcanelli as a teacher?

sol

Green Lion
02-10-2010, 08:14 PM
Champagne not "sought" Schwaller. The two exchanged on alchemy. There was no relationship of master to disciple. Although Schwaller learned more from Champagne than the reverse ...
It's just the same as the relationship between Eugene Canseliet and José Gifreda. A relationship between two friends of the Art.

solomon levi
02-10-2010, 08:29 PM
Sorry. "Sought" was the wrong word. But he supposedly needed help translating,
or understanding the text he found in the pages of Newton's works.

If what you say is true, then Schwaller did lie.
He said Champagne was a great chemist but didn't understand the alchemy part,
and that it was he (Schwaller) that made their work with the colored glass
successful, and that Champagne couldn't succeed on his own, and never reproduced
the work, because he didn't understand alchemy.

???

Green Lion
02-10-2010, 08:39 PM
Indeed, Schwaller has lied about that.
Champagne was a great alchemist.
He also wrote a manuscript of top level which was discovered just shortly:
http://www.archerjulienchampagne.com/article-32335725.html

Moreover, he translated the English easily because he had translated the manuscript of Yardley:
http://www.archerjulienchampagne.com/article-25758488.html

horticult
02-10-2010, 10:52 PM
From a logical analysis it could not be a group.