View Full Version : How to Rectify

01-27-2010, 02:28 AM
In an effort to help Solomon out I've moved my replies here as it responds and proceeds down several tangents-

I have often wondered why those that have little background in the foundational works of alchemy have come to believe that what they practice is alchemy. No dentist would call themselves an acupuncturist by virtue of working on the same patient. I suppose the crux of it is misleading more so than that comparison. Everything nowadays is "alchemy". It is so misunderstood and impressed upon things that bear no semblance to its original form. I will readily admit that true alchemical works are difficult to comprehend...but they are not difficult to find.

I have posted similar diatribes in the past. I suppose it is not very pleasant to have a contrarian view in these matters...but regardless; if you do not base your works upon the source material than what source do you draw from? I can easily trace my notions through Sedivogius, Bacstrom, Lully etc..., all the way to Plato, Homer, and beyond. Perhaps you base your works upon Nature...but are your works natural and universal?

Consider Trevisan, who labored in vain on foolish works wasting his fortune and years. It was only at the age of 65 when he stopped all experimentation and studied for eight years that he began to find truth: "I therefore resolved to study first rather than begin to operate again at a great expense and without fruit....I considered strongly in what places of the book chiefly concurred in the same meaning, thinking that there the truth lay concealed which cannot exist in many meanings, but in one alone; in this manner the truth became obvious to me and what I so anxiously sought after was contained in one point."

How do you rectify the differences between your works- and the words taken from many notable alchemical luminaries? When they tell you to abandon all sophistical processes and false materials- do you gloss over unconcerned? Can you really see Homer, Plato, or Aristotle hovering over fires, odd chemicals, minerals, and waters in an effort to reach for their philosophy? You do realize that it is their works among many others that all western alchemy is based upon?

Below are a few quotes by men that I hold in high regard... I can give many such quotes that agree if you need more. What is philosophical about your works? Can you rectify your works with the quotes below? How is it Geber, Hermes, and Lully found mastery of something if they were ignorant of sophistical operations?

John French- The Art of Distillation (Book VI):
What unworthiness God saw in gold more than in other things that he should deny the seed of multiplication (which is the perfection of the creatures) to it, and give it to all things besides, seems to me to be a question as hard to be resolved, yea, and harder than the finding out the elixir itself, in the discovering of which the greatest difficulty is, not to be convinced of the easiness thereof. If the preparations were difficult many more would find it out than do (says Sendivogius) for they cast themselves upon most difficult operations and are very subtle in difficult discoveries which the philosophers never dreamed of. Nay, says the aforenamed author, if Hermes himself were now living together with subtle witted Geber and most profound Raimund Lullie, they would be accounted by our chemists not for philosophers, but rather for learners. They were ignorant of those so many distillations, so many circulations, so many calcinations, and so many other innumerable operations of artists nowadays used which, indeed, men of this age did find out and invented out of their books. Yet there is one thing wanting to us which they did, viz., to know how to make the Philosophers Stone, or physical tincture the processes of which according to some philosophers are these.

Philalethes- An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King:
I have spoken about Mercury, Sulphur, the vessel, their treatment, etc. and, of course, all these things are to be understood with a grain of salt. You must understand that in the preceding chapters I have spoken metaphorically; if you take my words in a literal sense, you will reap no harvest except your outlay.

In reply:

Since you still view these concepts as separated (not bound together), you demonstrate a lack of intimate aquaintance with this Universal Magnet - which ironically places you in the same league of 'platonics' that Vaughn is talking about
No it doesn't, it just means that you have no understanding of the source material and wish to impress upon it your hubris.

Holding too steadfast may not be in the best interest of progress/advancement...
Apparently the foundation that I base my notions on is paltry to you? I follow source material, something I doubt you know very little of as is apparent in your posts. Perhaps you find the works of Bartlet, "the Essene", Frater Albertus, Manfred Junius, or potentially eNDC's works to be comparable to Philalethes, Trevisan, or Lully? I don't, I find their works to be interesting...but in no way comparable to alchemy. Whatever advancement you find- you will not be able to calcine, distill, or sublimate your way any closer toward the truth. These are not my words and opinions alone, but are readily found within source material. What you take at face value is in fact metaphor.(see above)

Why are you here?
To find others that know more about the phonetic cabala... (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/introductions-f1/yo-t288.htm)('yo Saturn)

As for my prior post concerning ph. mercury, and water and the impression of thoughts upon thereof (think dew) and quantum physics/uncertainty , ....What do you think about all of this Hephælios?
I'll let Paracelsus answer concerning crude mercury. As for the rest; it is my opinion that quantum physics, though fascinating, has absolutely nothing to do with the practical workings and processes of alchemy nor the development of the stone. However, I believe it is relevant during transmutation of metals...how so?? I wouldn't want to speculate. Emoto's work is interesting if true, but he's not exactly reaching out to the science community to refute or prove his claims (double blinds (http://www.is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com/) etc...) and I find that disconcerting.

Paracelsus- Concerning Those Who Have Sought the Stone and also Particulars in Minerals:
The sophists propose to themselves very many ways of fixing Mercury, but to no purpose, for therein nothing perfect or constant can be had. It is therefore in vain to add minerals thereto by sophistical processes, since by all of them he is stirred up to greater malice, is rendered more lively, and rather brought to greater impurity than to any kind of perfection. So, then, the philosophers' matter is not to be sought from thence. Mercury is somewhat imperfect; and to bring it to perfection will be very difficult, nay, impossible for any sophist. There is nothing therein that can be stirred up or compelled to perfection.

Paracelsus- The Aurora of the Philosophers:
Hereto are added the many ignorant men who suppose the stone to be three-fold, and to be hidden in a triple genus, namely, vegetable, animal, and mineral. Hence it is that they have sought for it in minerals. Now, this is far from the opinion of the philosophers. They affirm that their stone is uniformly vegetable, animal, and mineral. Now, here note that Nature has distributed its mineral sperm into various kinds, as, for instance, into sulphurs, salts, boraxes, nitres, ammoniacs, alums, arsenics, atraments, vitriols, tutias, haematites, orpiments, realgars, magnesias, cinnabar, antimony, talc, cachymia, marcasites, etc. In all these Nature has not yet attained to our matter; although in some of the species named it displays itself in a wonderful aspect for the transmutation of imperfect metals that are to be brought to perfection. Truly, long experience and practice with fire shew many and various permutations in the matter of minerals, not only from one colour to another, but from one essence to another, and from imperfection to perfection. And, although Nature has, by means of prepared minerals, reached some perfection, yet philosophers will not have it that the matter of the philosophic stone proceeds out of any of the minerals, although they say that their stone is universal. Hence, then, the sophists take occasion to persecute Mercury himself with various torments, as with sublimations, coagulations, mercurial waters, aquafortis, and the like. All these erroneous ways should be avoided, together with other sophistical preparations of minerals, and the purgations and fixations of spirits and metals.

The difference between heaven and earth is as great as the difference between the truly wise and the sophist.-Consideratio Brevis of Philip à Gabella

Ab Roek
01-27-2010, 05:36 AM

Some good points here. Let's also remember that quoting texts (no matter their source) does not make one an alchemist, any more than hovering over a piece of glassware does.

Some people are addicted to their books, other to their workshops. In the end, words, and exchanges of words, will do little to change each one's natural bent. Let everything reach its predestined terminus. Let acorns grow into mighty oaks, and let them then wither and die in due time, offering up their best essence to the holy work which is to come.

Except you find the Prima Materia, you do not labor in the vineyard of the royal chemists.

Or perhaps I ought to let an author say the same thing for me? (Since some will only believe the evidences of reason when it appears glued in between a cardboard spine)

Thomas Vaughn, Coelum Terrae - "Let not your thoughts feed now on the phlegmatic, indigested vomits of Aristotle; look on the green, youthful and flowery bosom of the earth."

01-27-2010, 07:51 AM
Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

01-27-2010, 09:18 AM
Not to beat a dead horse... but there is a cabalistic pun within your quote. Books tend to help in that matter.

01-27-2010, 10:13 AM
Mr. Hephælios,

My main practical Alchemical Work is of such ridiculously mindblowing simplicity that it would be bordering on criminal to plainly reveal it here :eek:.

Most things you assume about me are incorrect.

Nothing of what I do in my life and practical Work is complex or sophisticated. I use One Matter, One Vessel and One Fire, with barely any physical intervention on my part.
In my Main Work you will find no metals, corrosives, external solvents or complicated devices/distillations/concentrators (magnetic or geometric)/etc.
My matter performs all the diverse operations by itself, because it contains within itself all that is needed to perform such operations.

Let me remind you of what I've already said in another thread:

It all comes down to the simple and undisputable fact that Properly Rectified Universal Nature (Micro-Mercury of Adam/Man or Macro-Mercury of Adama/Earth) has opening, dissolving and quickening power over the elements.

I've studied nature just as carefully as I'v studied the writings, old and modern alike. More than anything else, I've learned (and I'm still learning) to know myself.
If you follow the wyrding threads/posts, you'll better understand what I mean.

I personally find your logic/reasoning to be flawed in many ways. I mean your logic, not that of your quotes, which I find rich in essence.
You're also absolutely entitled to find my own logic/reasoning flawed. You may call it a different perspective, which in my opinion makes no case for debate.
To each their own.

I have no quarrel with you :)

When I have a little more time, I'll write and post an essay containing my view on the Universal Principles.

01-27-2010, 09:39 PM
Excellent, thank you and I look forward to it.