PDA

View Full Version : Alchemy, archemy,spagyrics where do you think the difference lies?



teofrast40
02-06-2010, 06:49 PM
hallo everybody,
I'm asking you this sincerely and without polemical intention.
What do you think is the proprium of alchemy, the peculiarity that distinguish it from archemy , chemistry and spagyrics?

I'll start the discussion sharing my opinion:
to me alchemy is a traditional science, and, as with every traditional knowledge, the closer you get to the source, the clearer the message you get. as every tradition (and also every traduction) is a betrial. each and every traditional system claims to have been revealed by mythological ancestors/superhumans/gods, and to have been preserved by a continous mouth to ear lineage.
all the ancient civilizations had traditional knowledge, and their writing method (ideograms) was mainly used as a mnemonic aid, as knowing was firstly keeping in memory the revealed truth. it was only with the advent of alphabetical writing, the first writing to allow transliteration from other languages, that accumulation of knowledge was made possible. Cumulative knowledge fired a square progression process that started around Socrate and bursted during illuminism. This may have its big advantages, but it is also the cause that makes alchemy so difficult to understand to us modern people.
in this forum I read about many people declaring that reading ancient books is a waste of time, someone also declared wanting to experiment only already tested, clearly written recipes. and I must sadly consider that the most ancient texts mainly used here for lab work reference don't go beyond Lemery or Glauber. Surely these texts are useful to get closer to ancient chemistry, but let me tell you that by that time the dark age of alchemy had already started: after illuminism alchemical literature, so vast in the past centuries, almost disappeared, the only two adepts past that point having been Cyliani and Fulcanelli.
Alchemy is a secret knowledge, same as the secret knowledge of the ancient misteries, where you had an experience that revealed the secret from an "a-logical" point of view, giving you a whole new perspective. I am against secrets as means of power, but in this case we are dealing with secret as an epistemological premise.
if alchemy was just about manipulation of matter, science would have found it long ago, as it is happening for archemy now.
To me alchemy is about captation of Universal Spirit. the process and the matter by which this is accomplished is the object of a revelation, an intuitive process that operate a radical shift in our perspective. to me this is the ultimate goal of the Great Work, and we cannot get there simply by logical means. we have a lot of modern autors that give us plenty of detailed recipes, but sadly none of them accomplished the great work. all of the self declaired adepts instead than recipes give us an upsetting symbolic labirinth, very hard to read and decipher. it could be that they were bluffers, and the whole thing is a mere illusion, or it could be that wandering (for a loooong time) in this inextricable symbolic labirinth is a valid mean to make this "bouleversement" of perpective happen.
have you ever wandered how it happened that a thing as the Great Work, that is said by all the autors to be so easy, pertaining to simplicity and revealed only to the simple minded, managed to cause one of the most vast, articulated and complicated inkflood of human literature? and how is it that every single alchemical treatise begins and ends with an invocation to god(s)? I don't think it's just manierism or religious mind..
and before you come up with the "leave those books and get to the lab" argument, let me point out that if it weren't for ancient books we would not have even had notice of alchemy in the first place. and that all the adepts reccomend getting to work only after having understood the metaphysical principles by studying the good books and watching Nature, otherwise it would be just a waste of time and energy.
The only sentence of the Mutus Liber, in the end of it, says:
"Ora, lege, lege, lege, relege, invenies et labora", wich from a quantitative point of view, would be: one time for prayer (another big question mark), four for reading, one to find answers, and one to work.
Reading ancient books is a hard work, maybe as hard as lab work. and it is not appealing to our modern mind. we feel unconfortable reading something so hard to decipher, tedious, you get asleep on it, you have no idea of what it's talking about. so we move to the much more confortable modern explaination, where we get an easy to understand interpretation of those mess of symbols and clearly written procedures, so that we can move to the lab. but could it be that we lost alchemy in the meantime?

with sincere benevolence (sorry for having been so long)
t

Hephælios
02-07-2010, 12:12 AM
There are other adepts (in my opinion) that made it beyond the nascent period of the Age of Enlightenment... Bacstrom comes to mind as do a few others. Sorry for the digression. That was an great post though, and I couldn't agree with you more.

I think an obvious difference is the tacit guidance from God and Nature that reveals an alchemical understanding. There are many interesting experiments going on within this forum; however I am hesitant to believe that they follow nature. Chemistry, Archemy, and Spagyrics (though not all spagyrics) as they are understood utilize complicated, sophistical, and crude methods in comparison to the simplicity we are told that- "turns the wheel" of alchemy.

I know it irks some on this board...but I really do not care...a quote. Be it Fulcanelli, Lully, or Bacon- they quoted freely from within their fraternal luminaries- why would I differ?


The Glory of the World [An Account of the True Art] 1620
I make known to all ingenuous students of this Art that the Sages are in the habit of using words which may convey either a true or a false impression; the former to their own disciples and children, the latter to the ignorant, the foolish, and the unworthy. Bear in mind that the philosophers themselves never make a false assertion. The mistake (if any) lies not with them, but with those whose dullness makes them slow to apprehend the meaning. Hence it comes that, instead of the waters of the Sages, these inexperienced persons take pyrites salts, metals, and divers other substances which, though very expensive, are of no use whatever for our purpose. For no one would dream of buying the true Matter at the apothecary's; nay, that tradesman daily casts it into the street as worthless refutes. Yet the matter of our Stone is found in all those things which are used by ignorant charlatans: for it is our Stone, our Salt, our Mercury, our verdigris, halonitre, salmiac, Mars, sulphur, etc. It is not dug out with pick-axes from ordinary mountains, seeing that our Stone is found in our mountains and springs; our Salt is found in our salt-spring, our metal in our earth, and from the same place we dig up our mercury and sulphur. But what we mean by our mines and springs these charlatans cannot understand. For God has blinded their minds and made gross their senses, and left them to carry on their experiments with all manner of false substances. Nor do they seem able to perceive their error, or to be roused from their idle imaginations by persistent failure. Where they should have distilled with gentle heat they sublime over a fierce fire, and reduce their substance to ashes, instead of developing its inherent principles by vitalizing warmth. Again, when they should have dissolved, they coagulated instead, and so on. By these false methods they could, of course, obtain no good result; but instead of blaming their own ignorance they lay the fault on their teacher, and even deny the genuineness of our Art. As a matter of fact, all their mistakes arise from their misinterpreting the meaning of words which should have put them on the right scent. For instance, when the Sages speak of calcining, these persons understand that word to mean "burning," and consequently render their substance useless by burning it to ashes. When the Sages "dissolve," or transmute into "water," these shallow persons corrode with aqua fortis. They do not understand that the dissolution must be effected with something that is contained within our substance, and not by means of any foreign appliance. These foolish devices bear the same relation to our Art that a dark hole bears to a transparent crystal. It is their own ignorance that prevents them from attaining to a true knowledge; but they put the blame on our writings, and call us charlatans and impostors. They argue that if the Stone could be found at all, they must have discovered it long ago, their eyes being as keen and their minds as acute as they are. "Behold," say they, "how we have toiled day and night, how many books we have read, how many years we have spent in our laboratories: surely if there were anything in this Art, it could not have escaped us." By speaking thus, they only exhibit their own presumption and folly. They themselves have no eyes, and they make that an argument for blaspheming our high and holy Art. Therefore, you should first strive to make yourself acquainted with the secrets of Nature's working, and with the elementary principles of the world, before you set your hand to this task. After acquiring this knowledge, carefully peruse this book from beginning to end; you will then be in a position to judge whether our Art is true or false. You will also know what substance you must take, how you must prepare it, and how your eager search may be brought to a successful issue. Let me enjoin you, therefore, to preserve strict silence, to let nobody know what you are doing, and to keep a good heart: then God will grant you the fulfillment of all your wishes.

solomon levi
02-07-2010, 01:10 PM
(my post is not intended to anyone... it's just how I feel. there are several
threads going around this topic in one way or another throughout the forum, and
this post is my response to all of them. it's just where I stand right now. I'm not saying
others should view it this way, or stop discussing the differences...)

It's very possible that I am ignorant - but I think I can be pretty simple/direct.
And my simple/direct mind says that labratory alchemy is for producing
medicines for metals and men (all three kingdoms). And if that means one
discovers the truly pure path of one vessel, etc... and following nature,
and praising god.... or if it means some archemical lil' particular or even
plain science/chemistry performed by a heathen... what's the big deal? Both
produce the medicines. Do those who follow nature get extra credit or something?
If I make a transmuting stone with acids and someone else makes it with dew or
whatever... is their gold worth more than mine? I don't think so.

Hopefully people aren't trying to do something a particularly pure way just to
have the ego "title": true alchemist vs. archemist

If god reveals the nature path to one - great! But if god doesn't/hasn't, will you
wait for it? Or maybe say "f*** god" and start practicing particulars and archemy?!
:cool:


As I said, I may be ignorant. Perhaps further down the path I'll understand and
change my tune. But right now, I'm not interested in limiting my options. And i
certainly don't subscribe to any ideas that those who don't follow god or nature
are necessarily going to be greedy jackasses who will blow up the earth or something.
And again, I think I'm just being simple - if something works for you
(ormus, m-state for example) do you really care if it's alchemy or archemy? I don't.

Andro
02-07-2010, 01:41 PM
Couldn't agree more :)

The bottom line for me is : Whatever works.

Some may mistakenly assume that my own work with the 'One Matter/Vessel/Fire' method comes from a dogmatic/condescending place claiming that it's the only 'One and True Way' - but this is completely not so.

I myself am working on various paths, this being only one of them. But like I stated elsewhere, the fact that I'm not the most technically and chemically inclined person created a need for discovering ways that don't involve operations which are too complex for my limitations :)

horticult
02-07-2010, 01:45 PM
Farmer does not bother with "agriculture" definition.

teofrast40
02-07-2010, 03:38 PM
hallo
I grow the food I eat, and some of the persons I admire most are farmers. Simplicity is a quality that I value most, despite its overgrowing rarity. An excellent way to achieve it is being in touch with Motherearth. but farmers grow cabbages, not the stone! :)
I came across alchemy along my struggle to pursue my evolutionary path. I cannot have a reasonable hope to become Adept, if it's true that adepts can be counted on one hand's fingers in centuries.. simplicity is linked with humility (the garden of the philosophers), so I have to keep my omnipotence delirium under control.
so what are we looking for? medicines? transmutation technology? a hobby? a consolation? a spiritual path?
I'm a very curious person, and I always read with interest the wonderful things you write on this forum. I am very grateful to you for having make me discover a wealth of interesting things, and maybe something wonderful is happening to science, and maybe here we have some of the cutting edge. this is beautiful, and there is nothing wrong with archemy or spagyrics. if it works and all you wanted is a technology, then there is no problem.
questioning about the difference between archemy and alchemy is not for doctrinary classification purposes. to me is a living and burning question. a big preliminar step in approaching the labirinth of alchemy. somewhere else on the net a guy said that alchemy is about making questions in the way we did in our childhood. why the sky is blue? why trees are green?
I think that if we would explain alchemy to child, one of the first questions to come up would be: what's alchemy for?

in a true collaborative spirit

t

horticult
02-07-2010, 04:02 PM
Celestial agriculture.
e.g. when Paracelsus and Fulcanelli mention spagyry, both think something fairly different. What is alchemy know only Adept, so IMHO these definitions are only waste of time.

teofrast40
02-07-2010, 04:29 PM
hallo horticult,
sorry, maybe I've misunderstood..
but aren't you giving me a definition of alchemy as celestial agricolture in the same post where you are telling me definitions are a waste of time?
as I told you I'm not interested in classification, but one's idea of what pertains to alchemy has a big influence on what he actually does.
I'm not asking this from a "don't do that, thats not alchemy" point of view. instead I'm sincerely asking "what am I supposed to do if I want to practice real alchemy without lying to myself?".
of course paracelsus had a different idea of spayric than fulcanelli. but to me today's spagyrics are much closer to fulcanelli's idea.

solomon levi
02-07-2010, 04:40 PM
Greetings Teofrast40,
I really admire people who have a garden as well. It's very wise not to rely on
grocery stores alone, and wonderful to stay in touch with the earth - how simple
to plant a seed and watch it grow.

I'm a bit envious that for you the diff between alchemy and archemy is a burning
question. That's good. That will lead to a good place.

In the broadest sense, what isn't alchemy? Alchemy can be the religion of life,
applicable to anything.
Lab alchemy I usually distill down to the making of medicines for man and metals.
But who knows the range that it really spans? Isn't it interesting that Violle, Newton,
Aor and Roger Bacon also discourse on optics and light? We wouldn't
normally think of chromotherapy as alchemy, but I suppose it could be. Frater
Albertus said alchemy is the raising of vibrations. Well, every atom vibrates, so
alchemy encompasses everything by that definition.

What's alchemy for? The improvement/healing/evolution of man and nature.
That would be my answer.

Best wishes,
sol

solomon levi
02-07-2010, 04:49 PM
"what am I supposed to do if I want to practice real alchemy without lying to myself?".


I guess my best suggestion would be to get Manfred Junius' book and begin with
plant alchemy/spagyrics - learn to separate, purify and reunite the three essentials.

In real alchemy, you would make your own alcohol from grapes or from the plant
you are working on and you would derive your salts from calcination of that plant, etc.

In spagyrics, you could simply buy 180 proof alcohol, buy essential oils, buy
potassium carbonate or sea salt for the salt and add them together in the right
proportions.

Ghislain
02-07-2010, 04:52 PM
I thought this question might be best answered by dictionary interpretation
Dictionary.com says of Alchemy:

”a form of chemistry and speculative philosophy practiced in the Middle Ages and
the Renaissance and concerned principally with discovering methods for
transmuting baser metals into gold and with finding a universal solvent and an
elixir of life.”
Collins says of Alchemy:

“a medieval form of chemistry concerned with trying to change base metals into
gold and to find an elixir to prolong life indefinitely.”
At present I am reading,”From Caveman to Chemist”, by W. Salzberg. In chapter
3 – The Hellenistic and Roman Eras –it says.


”People have been performing what is known as alchemy.
However, most of those working with chemicals were neither alchemists nor
chemists but artisans and craftsmen.”

“Although it is clearly related to alchemy, early chemistry is not
descended from it. The ideas of alchemy were alien to those of chemistry, and
the one did not evolve into the other. Their relationship is like that between
humans and chimpanzees, two entirely different species that are related and
somewhat similar in appearance.”

On Archemy - D.Com, Collins and the Oxford English dictionary had no
entry for it.

I did however find a Blog by “hermetic order of the golden-dawn” (http://hermetic-golden-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/07/farc-deception-vs-true-alchemical.html ) which said:


“Let there be no doubt about it. Hudson - and others like him - are
"Puffers. " Hudson speaks not of ""aLchemy" but rather of "aRchemy" - from
which arises modern chemistry. Alchemy is something else.”
:) Controversial, but quite a good article. AND perhaps pertaining to what
Androgynus is saying in his thread...

“One Matter - One Vessel - One Fire” (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=1310)

On Chemistry there is general agreement.

D.Com

“the science that deals with the composition and properties of substances and
various elementary forms of matter”
Collins

“the branch of science concerned with the composition, properties, and reactions of substances”
OED

“the branch of science concerned with the properties and interactions of the
substances of which matter is composed.”

Very clinical. No heart and soul in there.

On Spagyrics The dics were vague. ;)

D.Com

”pertaining to or resembling alchemy; alchemic.
Collins

NO RESULT!
OED

NO RESULT!

If you didn’t laugh you would have to cry.


let me point out that if it weren't for ancient books we would not have
even had notice of alchemy in the first place. and that all the adepts reccomend
getting to work only after having understood the metaphysical principles by
studying the good books and watching Nature, otherwise it would be just a
waste of time and energy.
I don’t agree with you there Teofrast40’. Do you never get a feeling inside
when you know you are following the right path...If you follow your questions
with feeling I think this may still lead you to the same answers.


Reading ancient books is a hard work, maybe as hard as lab work.
and it is not appealing to our modern mind.

I whole heartedly agree with that. I am a slow reader at the best of times and
have no mind for cryptic puzzle. The combination of reading cryptic ancient
text, written in a language that looks familiar but is not...that is torture to me.

However if you say it is necessary to reach my goal...I will try anything. The
thought of hard work for no result is even more tortuous than very hard work if
you can be sure there will be results at the end of it.

but could it be that we lost alchemy in the meantime?
Wouldn’t that be a bummer :D

Hephælios, I feel your quote almost repeats what Teo’ has already said.

For me I have to go with what Sol has said. Whatever you do, if you are doing
it from the heart you can’t be far wrong.

One last question...Sol’ what is “fndc god”? ;)

This brings me back to the original question of the “proprium”...I looked it up :)...
I think all I could say is that the answer lays hidden in the ambiguity.


somewhere else on the net a guy said that alchemy
is about making questions in the way we did in our childhood. why the sky is
blue? why trees are green?

I’ll drink to that!

Ghislain

P.S. When you say:


“A slight inclination of the cranium is of equal effectiveness as
the spasmodic contraction of one optic to a quadruped devoid
of its visionary capacity.”
I say:


“A nod’s as good as a wink to a blind horse”
;)

solomon levi
02-07-2010, 05:03 PM
fndc!
lmao. :D

Ab Roek
02-07-2010, 05:16 PM
The sine qua non of Alchemy is the discovery of the First Matter. This Hypostasis is truly One, yet it appears to be broken into Many-ness through the process of physical manifestation.

The seeker must trace this mystery back to its root.

The sciences of the little particulars can be a powerful distraction from this, the true Entrance to the Palace of Philosophy. However, I think that when pursued with the proper zeal and the right intention, the repeated application of the little particulars may lead to enough of an opening that the seeker can pass on to the Great Work. This opening will be the revelation concerning the First Matter, the sacred vision of the Star of the Magi. From this moment of crisis onward, the seeker will no longer be hoodwinked by the little particulars, although he or she may continue to use them for their qualified applications.

Take note, this distinction is not a mere quibbling over dictionary entries. There are rewards to be had that only the pursuit of the Great Work can provide. This is why I bless Fulcanelli for his service in clarifying, for those wandering in these latter days, the scope of Archemy in contrast to Alchemy.

Fidelity,
AB RK

teofrast40
02-07-2010, 05:23 PM
Greetings Teofrast40,
I really admire people who have a garden as well. It's very wise not to rely on
grocery stores alone, and wonderful to stay in touch with the earth - how simple
to plant a seed and watch it grow.

I'm a bit envious that for you the diff between alchemy and archemy is a burning
question. That's good. That will lead to a good place.

In the broadest sense, what isn't alchemy? Alchemy can be the religion of life,
applicable to anything.
Lab alchemy I usually distill down to the making of medicines for man and metals.
But who knows the range that it really spans? Isn't it interesting that Violle, Newton,
Aor and Roger Bacon also discourse on optics and light? We wouldn't
normally think of chromotherapy as alchemy, but I suppose it could be. Frater
Albertus said alchemy is the raising of vibrations. Well, every atom vibrates, so
alchemy encompasses everything by that definition.

What's alchemy for? The improvement/healing/evolution of man and nature.
That would be my answer.

Best wishes,
sol

hallo sol,
maybe we could precipitate the question to "can we consider alchemy as a path?". many little considerations not pertaining strictly to procedural work made "en passant" by the adepts in their books, sentences that can stand comparison with humanity masterpieces like tao te ching, baghavad gita or yogasutra, make me say yes. if answer is yes than to me this has to do much more with Great Work than with anything else. so that would be my main area of investigation. wasting time is not really a problem as if we look to adept's biography 99 % of their time had been wasted on unfruitful research and labwork. could it be that this unfruitful wandering (and wondering) is a methodology of this path? can we compare an alchemical treatise and a koan zen?

regarding optycs and light, it's a bit OT but I can't resist:
to me optycs has much to do with alchemy. let me quickly suggest a look at the frontespice of Athanasius Kircher's Ars magna lucis et umbrae, an optycs treatise, and find alchemical references in it. there are many others images regarding this practise, but now I cannot remember.
Cyrano de Bergerac's Histoire comique is another interesting reading about that matter. very interesting argument, maybe we could open a thread about it.

Andro
02-07-2010, 05:42 PM
Or maybe say "f*** god"

Ironically (or not ;)), this would make for an excellent place to start the Great Work.
And I don't necessarily mean the vulgar or 'common' sense of the expression... And then again, maybe I do - depending who or what you percieve as 'god'.

And fuck (http://www.maniacworld.com/f-81.htm) 'common' sense as well, by the way.

'Common' is vulgar, boring, conflicted, unrefined, imprisoning, uninspired, conforming, looped, limited, dogmatic/indoctrinated, narrow minded and close hearted, tyranically 'majoritarian', brainwashed, and at best tempted at seeking but too damn scared of finding.

If we'd be common we wouldn't be Alchemists. We'd be of the vulgar. And Artists rarely speak 'common'.

Great Artists (of all kinds) are dreamers and storytellers, and their stories and initiations are nothing but concentrated life, just like our Work.
They speak the language of Archetypes, and their language is the precursor of telepathy, open to multi-level interpretation according to the advancement level of the receiving party.

So if one is desperately clinging to his preciousssss 'common' sense, yet wonder why he's not 'getting' the whole picture (or even worse, believing he does):
Let one not point his finger at the Artist.

Let one point the finger at himself. Preferably in the mirror, and preferably naked.

And I haven't wandered off topic at all, not even one bit :)

Salazius
02-07-2010, 06:41 PM
The difference lies in the goals, and thus, in the process used.

Quickly here is my point of view.
Alchemy is for Enlightenment, which is the cure of the ego, and the cure of any leprosity.

Archemy is to create particular matter, making gold or silver, making them vegetate an grow, making several matter in order to help enlightement also.

Spagery is generaly for the cure of humans and animals.

teofrast40
02-07-2010, 08:27 PM
hallo,
to solomon
I've read junius, as well as dubuis, albertus and many others but i don't think that they have a clue about the Great Work.
when external conditions will allow me to put up a lab, if I will not have a valid ipothesis to test about the Work, I'll begin with spayrics or lemery's experiments, at least to achieve some hand-knowledge, but being aware that to achieve alchemical results I will have to move somewhere else.

to ghislain

quote:
"However if you say it is necessary to reach my goal...I will try anything."

please, don'take my assertions from an authorative point of view, it is only my humble opinion. to me, if someone is seeking truth, he doesn't have to be afraid to change his mind.

to androgynus
you seem to speak from a very accomplished point of view. :) I'm with you regarding what you say about Artists.
but let me tell you that to me here it is much more common sense sticking to recipes and not wanting to confront with the sources, which by the way seem to be handcrafted to deconstruct exactly common sense. i don't see any dogmatism in them. instead we are all full of rationalistics dogmas, that we must get rid of, if we want to attain the lamp the will enlight the nature's steps we wish to follow.
what is minoritarian today is to consider alchemy from the point of view of a sacred mistery (that incidentally seems to be philologically coherent), instead than to consider it a concealed technology or a parascience.

best wishes
t

Andro
02-07-2010, 09:28 PM
It is much more common sense sticking to recipes [...] I don't see any dogmatism in them.

What's more dogmatic than a recipe? Can't think of anything right now... Democracy, fascism, communism, various cults (religious, scientific or otherwise) - they're all recipes for something, and they all feed on the masses' need for 'common sense', even if this 'common sense' has to be enforced onto the masses by fearmongering and propaganda.

What is the recipe for making Art?

What is the recipe for the Philosopher's Stone?

A Great Artist's natural tendency will be to deconstruct the 'common sense' of recipes and spiritually transform them into his own personal and reality-shifting creative experience.

The higher you move up the Artistic scale, the lesser value your pertaining recipes will have in your practical applications.

'Common sense' recipes (followed to the letter) will make 'common sense' MacDonald's meals and a million other dead end space & time fillers.
'Common sense' is one of the most efficient weapons of mass distraction.

'Common sense' has always been the enemy of real progress, and a perfect tool for maintaing the Status Quo in the guise of 'change'.

Every great leap/innovation MUST deconstruct the paradigm of any currently prevailing 'common sense'.

'Common sense' binds us to recipes and to looking outside ourselves for answers to the Big Questions. For the smaller and safer ones there's Wikipedia :)

Deconstructing 'common sense' rearranges our minds to be more synchronized with the open-ended and ever-expanding nature of Creation.

What genuine shamanic training does, for example, is first and foremost getting the apprentice to un-learn everything he formerly regarded as 'common sense'.
Only then can the magical journey truly begin :)

No argument here, by the way - just the way I see things :)

teofrast40
02-07-2010, 09:46 PM
maybe I did not explain correctly. i was saying that I don't see dogmatism in the sources (those terrible ancient books), not in recipes.
for the rest, I totally agree with you. :)

Andro
02-07-2010, 09:55 PM
maybe I did not explain correctly. i was saying that I don't see dogmatism in the sources (those terrible ancient books), not in recipes.
for the rest, I totally agree with you. :)

Or maybe it's me who misunderstood you :)

But if this misunderstanding created a conductive time/space bubble to speak our hearts and minds, then it was worth it :)

So thank you !

Seth-Ra
02-07-2010, 11:31 PM
To me, most everything is alchemy. Day to day life is alchemy, from breathing, to eating, to helping others and self. Most of that is "subconscious" alchemy, i.e. people dont think about it. Alchemy to me is understanding the energies that make up something, breaking it down, and recreating it as something else, but doing so on all 3 levels of being: Spiritual, Mental, and Physical. "Raising the vibration", i like that definition, "Celestial agriculture" i like that one also. Alchemy is everything, it is Truth, and working with it, in its Truth.

If spagyrics and "archemy" manifest these same concepts, i consider them the same, and the definition to just be a splicing of hairs for the sake of "clubs"/"social groups".

My problems with "sciences" such as chemistry, is that it leaves out the Mental and Spiritual side, seeing only the physical, and thus is incomplete, false, and overall annoying to me. (same goes with other "sciences" that leave out anything.) :)

So to me, Alchemy is all, and anything that isnt all, isnt alchemy. If one were to combine chemistry, with mental sciences like quantum mechanics, and understanding the energies of the soul, which empowers the mind, effecting the physical... then it becomes Alchemy.

Truth is Alchemy, if it is only part of it, then it isnt it. knowledge isnt key, understanding is. One doesnt need to "know" chemistry, or astrology, or chakras etc... one only needs to understand the energies of the Above manifest in the below, and within, all is connected, all is one, one is key to the all, and a united understanding brings wisdom to all, thus being Truth = Alchemy. :cool:

IMO. ;)

~Seth-Ra

LeoRetilus
02-08-2010, 09:11 AM
All the "little particulars", although I don't view them that way comprise the greater body of practical lab alchemy that will ultimately bring you to the Grand realization of one thing, it is this, ....everything you think you know is wrong.

Here let me save you some time, although even what I am about to discourse will be illustrated here you will still need to eventually do the work yourself to come to
full circle in your mind then you will see in fact that it is not the universe that bends but yourself, after which the universe will follow.

Lets start by revealing all the paths I know:

1.)The Path of Tartarus: Go here :http://translate.google.at/translate?u=http://alchimie-pratique.org/distartre.html&sl=fr&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8

Why tartar because that is where the phenols of the red oak meet with those of the red grape. David Hudson's team analyzed both to contain a high degree of phenols(monatomic gold/rhodium), these phenols are literally the purple gold, that you can make by finely disaggregating pure gold metal and also by roasting ores such as sulphide and arsenic gold bearing ores. In fact you can obtain these phenols from these purple foods as well and turn them back to gold. The plants take them out of the air and the soil and the water from which they grow.

Now if you look at the work it is essentially the same as most paths, roast the material in a retort/alembic. The first to fly over is a smoke, the spirit this is the philsophic mercury: (Seen at the top of the condensing flask)

http://alchimie-pratique.org/MESZIMAGES/tartaris07.gif

The second to fly over is a red oil: The Philosophic sulfur (seen in the same picture pooling at bottom of flask )and here:

http://alchimie-pratique.org/MESZIMAGES/tartaris19.gif

Now to obtain the salt you open the retort and calcine to whiteness and either collect with water and crystallize or add back the mercury and or sulfur to volatilize the fixed salts by distillation, which you must do anyways if you collect with water.
Philosophic Salt:

http://alchimie-pratique.org/MESZIMAGES/tartaris20.gif

The three principals of tartar:

http://alchimie-pratique.org/MESZIMAGES/tartaris18.gif

2.) The Lead Acetate Path: http://www.heredom.org/images/acetate-steps.jpg

http://www.heredom.org/images/acetate-steps.jpg

With work flow charts here: Flowchart1 (http://www.heredom.org/images/acetate-flowchart-01.gif)
Flowchart2 (http://www.heredom.org/images/acetate-flowchart-02.gif)

What we can see with this path is that first the lead or galena needs to be roasted to obtain its oxide and which point it unites with powers born upon the air cheifly oxygen. This oxide is then calcined with vinegar to produce a red lead oxide, minimum. Which is then redissolved in acetum to obtain a green tinctured liquid and then is distilled to remove the acetic acid after which it is dissolved in distilled pure water and put through a series of crytallizations and re-crystallazations that not only purifies the substance more but allows it to capture or absorb more and more philosophic mercury from the air, eventually it becomes the green lion at which point it is roasted/distilled to once again obtain the three principals, which if you look at the steps produces the same three in the same order, first the smoke/eagle philosophic mercury flies over, the red philosophic oil follows and once again the distilation train is opened to roast the remained mass(the black dragon) to obtain the philosophic salt that is once again put through a special process(sublimation) to obtain the volatile salts with the philosophic mercury. Then if you follow the secondwork flowchart these three principals require further multiple distillations to obtain the purified virtues, what we are doing with all this distillation is essentially stripping Gods will from these matters (lead/galena) which made them what they were to begin with. And just think about this if you put them back together again you will not have lead/galena/tartar again you will have a stone with no traces of lead.

What is my point with all of this? Its to illustrate this, that the three principals can in fact by obtained from anything, that includes plants, minerals and yes even your urine. Because when treated alchemically (alchemical processes: roasting, dissolution, calcination,coagulation, crystallization etc.,etc.) they are all essentially the same maters. And they will all form the philosophers stone when the right intention is cast on them, when they are united in the right proportions and when they are fermented with gold or silver to raise thier vibrations or further compress its light.

Now do we have to go through all this work, the answer is no. We can find in nature matters which already contain the three principals in great degree, still un-specified and yet potentiated, they need is only to be purified. Nature is using the same processes to create matter all the time, all the alchemists did by creating all this lab work was mimicking mother nature and they did it by studing her not by reading obscure/deceitful/double meaning books. Those people were trying to distract those trying to take the easy paths, those who would rather follow a recipe than follow nature, a person like those on this forum who waste a lifetime just trying to decipher these books and coded messages they contain. If you are looking for the prima materia from these books before you even get started you are miss understanding what the words mean, there is no one starting matter, not as a virtue that you will begin you lab work with(urine,plants,mineral). What they meant by prima matera(first matter) was what all matter originated as, and that is light. Materially it(matter) is light from stars and black holes, compressed and united in waves and troughs of space. And this one thing gives rise to the other three. Phonetic cabala give me a break, Fulcaneli was no fool, he knew there'd be lazy people just like us trying to take the easy way so he created this allure and these traps to make alchemy into some kind of puzzle solving scheme. I wouldn't waste my time, you are no fools either, just look at it this way did Geber have all those books to try and decipher? The answer was no, he had it simple, he knew it could be done so he figured it out. And he tried to make it simple for us too by designing all that glassware (alembics,pelicans) and all the alchemical processes all that all in part mimick mother nature and to bring those natural processes into the laboratory. Now can some us those books be useful to us? Well sure some of them do confim what we find in nature and through our lab work/ alchemy, but if what these books contain sounds too complicated and puzzling and counter to what we see in nature then we should ignore them and not allow it to consume too much of our time, it is there to lead us astray.

Now where is mans place in all this, this mind and motion universe as Walter Russel called it? Well this universe is one of thought of which comprises 99% of all matter. How do we know this, because scientists especially physicists can use a particle accelerator to smash atoms to their individual consistuients and end up with less mass than they started with. And this is where the fields of Newtonian physics and General Relativity part with quantum mechanics, and thats mostly because alot of these particles acts as both particles and waves and because the sums of there masses (subatomic particles-protons,hadrons,lepton) do not add up to what the atom weighed before it was dismantled, so the biggest question in physics today is: Where did its mass go? Well right now underground between the borders of France and Switzerland, there is a multi-billion dollar experiement trying to find exactly that, the Large Hadron Collider. Enter the Higgs or what physcists call the God particle, aptly so because it is this particle that imparts the missing mass. But what they don't understand is that they will never find it because it does not exist in this dimension, not as a physical particle, it is thought, God's thought, and it is that which alchemists remove from matter to create new matter/life from the existing seed. Which is consquently just different forms of comprised light, which was spoken into existence when God spoke the words, let there be light. And the darkness comprehended it not.
And so now I say the same thing upon this forum ...let there be light

So the grand realization that we come to eventually, through all this "little particular work", is that matter is mostly comprised of thought. And the universe bends itself to conform to our will. And it was designed so because God loves you and he wants for you to be happy and love as well. So when you have obtained the three principals either undifferentiated from nature or from already made/specfied completed matter the question remains will you believe that it can become the philosphers stone,..... only if exists in your mind first, that is your thoughts/will must be imparted to it. Now as well we have sufficient evidence to believe through the work of Dr. Emoto and others that there is something in water that responds to our thoughts but only if that water is purified or originates within the earth. The power that makes this possible is the philosophic mercury born upon the air, which combines with hydrogen and oxygen to create water, which then(philosophic mercury) becomes the placeholder or register of those thoughts of both God and man, it is only fitting that it is through water the universal solvent that mans drinks and the air that he breathes that this light is imparted from God to man. He built the body of man as a bio-mechanical thinking machine and gave him the gift of free will, and engineered his body to receive these gifts of mental, spiritual and bodily nourishments to utilize these forms of light in this material realm. And we have these sensors of sight, sound, taste and touch to experience his creation with. And a beautiful universe it is because you can choose to live it in any way you will. If you are comfortable with it as you see it and how it is presented to you, then fine, you can choose to look no further than what your physical eyes can show you. Another thing you should realize is that nothing man utilizes today does he actually create, we do not create electricity it is here all around us, nature creates it, we only harness it, tap into it, it is just another form of light, electro-magnetic light , there is also magnetic-electro light (radiant energy) that is compressed even further. This universe is both electric and magnetic one does not exist without the other.

teofrast40
02-08-2010, 11:31 AM
hallo leo,
thanks for your post.
I am (at the moment only theorically) aware of the procedures that you point at, but, sorry, to me this is spagyry. Obviously spagyry owes its methodology (separation and reunion of the priniciples) to alchemy. solomon levi said before that the difference between a spagyric and an alchemic compound is between buying alchool and salts versus preparing them by your own. to me there is something more. some of this is thouched by your scientific explanation, to which from a logical point of view I agree wholeheartedly. but the grand realisation that you say has to come after the work on little particulars, as you beautifully demonstrate, is perfectly understandable from a logical point of view. the books of the adepts are not. they need a shift, otherwise, they say, reading them is pointless. they make very upsetting declarations. the earth is hollow, the sun is cold, minerals are closer to god than humans. what is this relation between metals, planets, and gods? is it just a metaphor? what is the relation between celestial earth and earthly sky? usually we consider microcosm as being man, but in the majority of alchemical treatises it's the mineral kingdom to be considered speculum naturae.
"if you don't understand me" they say "read me once more, if then again more and more, otherwise let be and do something else"
you see, I am not a man of science, and my interest in science is only a function of my alchemical research, that, as I said before, compels me as an evolutionary path, with the same dignity of yoga, zen, dzog chen etc.
In approaching sincerely alchemy I cannot elude a confrontation with the sources. if modern understandable adaptation of alchemy does not bring me anywhere as a path (as to say, it gives me nothing more than intellectual knowledge), I will stick to those upsetting ancient book, and if I don't understand them, I will re-read them, many times, following their warning. maybe after some (much) time of imbibing my unconscious with those symbols, with the help of god/ess, something will happen..
after many helpful suggestions from your side, let me warmly reccomend you the reading of Renè Alleau "Aspects de l'Alchimie traditionelle", to me the best modern perspective on alchemy. (sorry I don't know if there's an english translation, but if one is serious about alchemy learning french is a priority).

cheerfully
t

LeoRetilus
02-09-2010, 03:18 AM
Not at all, Spagyrics is plant alchemy , and while you could classify the tartar path maybe as spagyrics because the materials from tartar themselves originate from plants. The lead acetate and GW paths are not at all spagyrics, but what you must realize is that even minerals owe their birth to plants, through the waters that they decompose into and trickle down through the earth, you can take the three principals from plants and indeed make a stone, is it the philosophers stone? No not until it is fermented with gold for the red and silver for the white.

teofrast40
02-09-2010, 07:54 AM
hallo leo
I have to disagree. Spagyrics as plant alchemy is a modern invention. Spagyric is an incomplete application of alchemical methodology to therapeutics means. it was first used by paracelsus to point out this specific alchemical methodology (separation and reunion). we could consider it as an exoteric therapeutic application, same as archemy. and it makes a wide use of minerals as well as plants. but, to get to alchemy, as I said, we miss a big chunk.
in effect, we could argue regarding the acetate path, that, in the plans you pointed misses the final step - cohobation of the purified principles (by the way, as always from you, grat links!). I shall consider it more in depth, but I must say that, as regarding caro cinnabar's path and GW, I am a bit skeptic in considering it pertaing to the Royal Art. those things came out from nowhere in recent past, while the great work must be very ancient to me..
best wishes

Andro
02-09-2010, 08:28 AM
Those things came out from nowhere in recent past, while the great work must be very ancient to me...

The fact that those things resurfaced and popped into public attention in the recent past does not make them 'not ancient'.
The ancients have worked with both Cinnabar and GW. There are ample Vedic traditions concerning both GW and Cinnabar.

teofrast40
02-09-2010, 11:39 AM
The ancients have worked with both Cinnabar and GW. There are ample Vedic traditions concerning both GW and Cinnabar.

that is absolutely true. anyway in classical western alchemical literature there is no mention of them (well to be honest, "urine of young choleric boy" sometimes appear, but I consider it a symbol). to me l'Art Royale pertains to different subjects.
The operation that Caro did reminds me of what happened with some gesuites that imported zen meditation to overcome the lack of efficient prayer practice in catholic church. there's nothing wrong with it, contamination to me is a good thing, just call things with their names!
Alchemical literature, past and present, has a very hig bullshit density. many charlatans wrote about it. and if we are intellectually honest we cannot even reject the hypothesis that it's all a big bluff, as many people desume from the post-lavoisier decadence of alchemy.. so discrimination to me is important, that's not snobism.
beware, I'm not saying that Caro or Dubuis were charlatans!! they must have been sincere researcher, but, did anyone here managed to make and ingest the planetary elixirs of PON and get the expected results? I don't think so. even Dubuis left the whole lab research and moved over to the Portae Lucis thing..
or did anyone managed to accomplish Caro's way and got anything more than empoisonment?
gold transmutations and even "rejuvenation" are supposed to be only side effects (and a way to test it) of the Stone, as its first and foremost aim, as Salazius pointed out, is enlightment.
I would not gamble myself to the point of working on phytotherapeutic compounds and telling myself that by doing this I am gettin enlighted.

Andro
02-09-2010, 11:59 AM
I don't care much for different people calling different things by one name or giving different names to one thing.

The Source Principles never change - but their applications do, as do the names that people give them. Don't get sidetracked by names (I'd say :))

By all means, use your discernment - but don't stop there.
Put what you've discerned to the fire, have it stand its trials, and then convert it to Earth (physical/practical application).

After hundreds (if not thousands) of pages I've read on The Work, my personal advice would be to deeply contemplate the Emerald Tablet and keep a keen, observing and open eye on Nature. If you're ready, I think that should suffice to get you started.

Any further texts you'll sudy will be most likely attracted and discerned not by randomness or theorizing, but by the wisdom aquired from personal applied experience.

:cool:

Ghislain
02-09-2010, 01:46 PM
Hi Leo

That is an amazing piece of work above (post 22). How long would a process like that take and to
document it also must add a great deal to this time?

For me in my position I have to think of room, fumes, equipment etc... Every time I see a post like
that I want to try it :(.

Excuse my ignorance but I am an extreme novice in the field of lab alchemy and have not ventured
to the end of any path as such; yet. So my questions are:


What is the purpose of the green vitrified stone at the end of this process?
When you say you can do this with any starting material...I have no lead but plenty of aluminium,
could I use this and follow the same procedure as above?
This question could go in any thread I guess, but as it has been niggling me I must ask it... I have
never possessed any proper lab equipment, as you may have noticed from my jam jars and wine
bottles :). How hard are they to clean when a process is over, or does one have to break the vessel
sometimes to reclaim the material inside?
I ask this as a lot of these pieces are very expensive and I hate to waste he says, warming his
hands over a candle. However if this expense is absolutely necessary I will have to take that path.

But I digress


Fulcaneli was no fool, he knew there'd be lazy people just like us trying to
take the easy way

I knew I was being watched :D


so the biggest question in physics today is: Where did its mass go?

Was this question not answered when uranium was split by accident into two parts of barium but
when weighed there was missing mass. The answer came from Einstein’s formula E=MC^2. The
missing mass was turned into pure energy; or does this not apply in this instance?


He built the body of man as a bio-mechanical thinking machine and gave
him the gift of free will

He may have supplied the materials (elements seen or unseen) and intervened in the direction of
the building but I think evolution still played a large part. When free will is talked of I believe it may
refer more to the free will of form than that of a property of mind. If it were not for our gravity we
would be very different creatures. Our surroundings have a considerable effect on what we are.


I am not a man of science, and my interest in science is only a function of my alchemical research
, that, as I said before, compels me as an evolutionary path, with the same dignity of yoga, zen, dzog
chen etc.

Could the original question be better served if it included science?
Is alchemy a science?
If it is a path then could it be considered more a religion albeit with or without a deity?


You demonstrate that you have not fully understood alchemy in that you are separating the
ONE - and the first law of alchemy is that "Everything is ONE. Thus each operation referring to an
external metal may also be referred to a metal literally - INSIDE MAN. Thus you are only considering
one aspect of alchemy and not ALL OF ALCHEMY - WHICH IS GLOBAL AND BASED ON
UNITY. Source: (http://hermetic-golden-dawn.blogspot.com/2009/07/farc-deception-vs-true-alchemical.html )

I just have a feeling about that when I read it.


but what you must realize is that even minerals owe
their birth to plants

Would that not be the other way around? The building blocks for plants
– amino acids.


deeply contemplate the Emerald Tablet

Is this (http://old-mage.com/Meanings/E/emrldtab.htm) a satisfactory translation of the
Emerald Tablet to go by?


keep a keen, observing and open eye on Nature.

I feel that when that is said, Man is being excluded as part of nature. Is
not our just ‘being’...whatever that may be at the time...nature?


Any further texts you'll study will be most likely
attracted and discerned not by randomness

:( This is how I got to this point.

And what if I never acquire wisdom :eek:

Ghislain

Andro
02-09-2010, 02:10 PM
Is alchemy a science? If it is a path then could it be considered more a religion albeit with or without a deity?

This holding on to categorizing things is starting to make me dizzy :D

Is Architecture a science?

Is science a religion?

Is religion a fish?

Is a fish a primordial geometrical archetype?

Does it need a bicycle?

Yes it does :D

(See illustration below)

http://www.medwaycropcircle.co.uk/Vesica%20Pisces.jpg

And now that we've FINALLY clarified that you can't have a fish without a bicycle...


Is this (http://old-mage.com/Meanings/E/emrldtab.htm) a satisfactory translation of the Emerald Tablet to go by?

This is definitely not the first translation I'd start with...


I feel that when that is said, Man is being excluded as part of nature.

No, Man is not excluded. By all means, include Man. Starting with youself :eek:


And what if I never acquire wisdom?

Than you won't have any :confused:

LeoRetilus
02-10-2010, 12:49 AM
Hi Leo

That is an amazing piece of work above (post 22). How long would a process like that take and to
document it also must add a great deal to this time?


I don't know the answer to that question none of that was my work, those paths are very old, I just followed them to completion.

Ghislain you should know that you cannot rush these matters(alchemy), for a very great reason. This reason is the best kept secret in all of alchemy and it has to do with time and until you uncover this invisible factor you will not be able to speed these processes up.



For me in my position I have to think of room, fumes, equipment etc... Every time I see a post like
that I want to try it :(.


Do it, get started ...there's no time like the present




Excuse my ignorance but I am an extreme novice in the field of lab alchemy and have not ventured
to the end of any path as such; yet. So my questions are:


What is the purpose of the green vitrified stone at the end of this process?


None that I know of , it is not the completed stone.... it is the Emerald Tablet.


When you say you can do this with any starting material...I have no lead but plenty of aluminium,
could I use this and follow the same procedure as above?

Yes I was contemplating aluminum the other day, because I notice that in the seafood processing plant I work at, while most everything is stainless steel, all of my level probes have an aluminum enclosure, which is a pain cause they corrode where I can't get the covers off, because of all the seawater present. But a very interseting phenomenon happens with these probes, (as they utilize a radio frequency to sense when a hopper has filled, the media touches the probe and sends the signal back to ground on the electronics head,) when these enclosures fill with sea/salt water of course they begin to malfunction and when I finally do get them open, what I find is this fatty looking, jelly like water, my senses tell me its aluminum hydroxide, but if it is let alone for quite a while longer this white jelly turns red and resembles iron oxide although there is no iron present, so I think the radio frequency has something to do with it. There was this doctor I beleive that was looking for a cure to cancer and was playing with radio frequecies and managed to get seawater to actually burn by applying radio frequecies to it, his aim was to find the frequency of the cancer and burn it out selectively, but died before his work was finished. Also I have heard about experienmentation with this aluminum jelly on the subtleenergies website.

So to answer your question, yes I believe if you can get aluminum electrolysis going with seawater and then take this jelly and treat it the same way it should work, otherwise aluminum is hard to oxidise, but interesting that when it does it forms a white powder, so maybe by just setting aluminum outside exposed to the rays of the moon/stars/dew tell it oxidises and scrape off this white oxide and procede with the acetate path from there I am confident you will reach the same end, albeit slower than lead.


This question could go in any thread I guess, but as it has been niggling me I must ask it... I have
never possessed any proper lab equipment, as you may have noticed from my jam jars and wine
bottles :). How hard are they to clean when a process is over, or does one have to break the vessel
sometimes to reclaim the material inside?
I ask this as a lot of these pieces are very expensive and I hate to waste he says, warming his
hands over a candle. However if this expense is absolutely necessary I will have to take that path.


There is no other way I know of than to break open the flask to get the black dragon out. Pellet lab has some really cheap glassware.



Was this question not answered when uranium was split by accident into two parts of barium but
when weighed there was missing mass. The answer came from Einstein’s formula E=MC^2. The
missing mass was turned into pure energy; or does this not apply in this instance?


Partially , conservation of energy/mass is always observed except in quantum mechanics, however I was refering to subatomic physics, as in the particles that make up hadrons(proton and neutrons), up quarks and down quarks.


As for the rest I will not push belief of God on anyone, and whoever your higher power is that you look to for guidance, if you are a God fearing person and if you really seek wisdom you should pray for it,...... he will grant it.

Cause I have found something out recently even if you tell someone and the secret is right there in front of there eyes,.... until they are ready or God allows it they will not comprehend.

Ghislain
02-10-2010, 12:21 PM
http://www.pelletlab.com/v5Files/pellet/146262/custom/b_g_retort_05.jpg

This 250ml flask is $37.50 :( . I could kill that in one day :eek:
It looks like jam jars for the near future. ;)

Ghislain

LeoRetilus
02-11-2010, 06:26 AM
I was refering to their boiling flasks, which one could turn on its side at approx. a 30-45 degree angle, and then purchase all your ground glass joints and condensers and receiving flasks.

I don't own a traditional alembic like that one.

solomon levi
02-13-2010, 04:11 PM
What is the source that defines spagyrics as plant alchemy?
I'm not aware of this. There is nothing in the etymology of the word
that suggests it is only applied to plants and not metals. Our forums also
have spagyrics and plant alchemy related. Where does this come from?

It simply means to separate and (re)combine, solve et coagula.
This would apply to the purest forms of alchemy as well as archemy.

I notice wikipedia claims that this term applies mainly to plant alchemy,
but they give no source for that.

teofrast40
02-13-2010, 07:55 PM
hi solomon,
your definition of spagyry to me is correct. I think the term was first used by paracelsus. and we have mineral spagyry as well.
It could be that the identification spagyry/plant work comes from Albertus, as it appears to be used by him, Junius and Dubuis as well. with the same meaning it is also used by Pancaldi, Junius' master, who studied with Albertus.

regards

LeoRetilus
02-13-2010, 09:29 PM
I don't think it matters much what you call it... but separating it from alchemy in any way would be a grave mistake, while these paths are an "particular" approach and not a universal way does not make them something separate or different from alchemy. Remember the more particular you take our matter the more prolific, prolonged and expensive your art will be, while the more universal you take our matter the easier, quicker and cheaper your pain will be. Although the more particular paths are also ridden with more dangers, poisons and mistakes can end your success at many points along the process.

teofrast40
02-14-2010, 03:05 AM
hi leo,
it seems that I always get the same answer here:
"I don't care about names/definitions"
of course it's what you do that matters, but what you actually do depends very much on the idea that you have about it.
being a man who is not afraid of changing his mind, and after that you said: "I have found something out recently even if you tell someone and the secret is right there in front of there eyes,.... until they are ready or God allows it they will not comprehend" (wow, you must have a great opinion of yourself :) ), I went back to your post and studied it more deeply. But, sorry, I must say I'm not convinced. Are you really sure that you can obtain philosophical mercury, the most sacred secret of alchemists, the vessel where the two opposite natures dwell reconciliated, the one wondrous substance, whose discovery opens the gate of true alchemy , that many researchers failed to obtain in a life of efforts, simply by distillation of tartar? those spagyrics recipes are clearly written, you just have to follow the detailed procedure, and you get the same results as everyone else, but I don't see all these enlighted people between modern wannabee alchemists.

with respect
t

LeoRetilus
02-14-2010, 03:38 AM
Are you really sure that you can obtain philosophical mercury, the most sacred secret of alchemists, the vessel where the two opposite natures dwell reconciliated, the one wondrous substance, whose discovery opens the gate of true alchemy , that many researchers failed to obtain in a life of efforts, simply by distillation of tartar?



First of all, nothing about these paths of particulars is simple, but yes by definition......
the first matter, it is contained in all things,.... by adaptation read Emerald Tablet and therefore all things are comprised of it, but in being particular there is much work in not only extracting it but also in purifying it to return it to universality. That is stripping the information from it that gave rise to its particular form. An alchemist should be able to take matter both ways in order to achieve true mastery over nature, this is why these operations you deem to be spagyrics cannot be classified as separate.... if you cannot comprehend or fathom all of this then I cannot help you.


If you cannot see that the cycle of nature uses these alchemical principals in her recipes of creation then you fail to see the beauty in life, how hard is it to look at tartar as not just another piece of wood, maybe before you write it off you should thoroughly investigate its virtues both from a modern scientific perspective and a historical alchemical perspective...... the Fulcaneli Oak Thread has some of these insights. Tartar is then used to extract the philosophical mercury its contains that is reflected from within and as well to act as a magnet for more from the air thus it becomes a double mercury of sorts.


Also a deaf, dumb, mute and ignorant (of the written word) person has little use for names but he could learn the Great Work just as well, in as well mother nature is ignorant of the names humans attach to her work, for she can neither speak, read or hear or less care for his words as do I.

Also with respect

L.R.

solomon levi
02-14-2010, 05:06 AM
hi leo,
you said: "I have found something out recently even if you tell someone and the secret is right there in front of there eyes,.... until they are ready or God allows it they will not comprehend" (wow, you must have a great opinion of yourself :) ), I went back to your post and studied it more deeply. But, sorry, I must say I'm not convinced.
with respect
t

It's true. Leo gave me several links that spoke of the mercury of the philosophers,
and I didn't recognise it for what it was until today.

sol

Salazius
02-14-2010, 08:21 AM
What is the source that defines spagyrics as plant alchemy?
I'm not aware of this. There is nothing in the etymology of the word
that suggests it is only applied to plants and not metals. Our forums also
have spagyrics and plant alchemy related. Where does this come from?

It simply means to separate and (re)combine, solve et coagula.
This would apply to the purest forms of alchemy as well as archemy.

I notice wikipedia claims that this term applies mainly to plant alchemy,
but they give no source for that.

Sol', your wright when stressing out this point. In my opinion, Spagyria is the science of potable tinctures, from all realms.
Archimia deals more with salts, metals, mineral things in order to make gold or specific particulars (for money of for healing, even enlightement).
Both Sciences are important and of value for Alchemy, they are it's dedicated servant.

horticult
02-14-2010, 12:04 PM
"I have found something out recently even if you tell someone and the secret is right there in front of there eyes,.... until they are ready or God allows it they will not comprehend"

Its true cuz books say the same.

btw its explanation why is IT so difficult

& IMHO in this will be same "selfvalidating" quality

teofrast40
02-14-2010, 04:56 PM
hallo leo,
you are very confident in considering alchemy from a scientific standpoint. as a man of science you should know very well that without a proper terminology science wouldn't even exist. why do you think that alchemy is different? in alchemy, as in any other science, a proper use of terms is very important. the fact that these terms are obscure does not mean that you can use them in a poetical or metaphorical way.
for exemple here:

quote:
"First of all, nothing about these paths of particulars is simple, but yes by definition......
the first matter, it is contained in all things,.... by adaptation read Emerald Tablet and therefore all things are comprised of it, but in being particular there is much work in not only extracting it but also in purifying it to return it to universality. That is stripping the information from it that gave rise to its particular form." end of quote

from what you say I desume that you consider first matter and philosophical mercury as to be the same thing. well, not at all.
prima materia (to be distinguished from materia prima) is the underlying substance to all the universe, as stated in Plato's Thymeus. it is unattainable by the Art, as it pertains to a metaphysical domain. Philosophical mercury is another thing. it is called philosophical because it can be found only in philosophers' labs, as it is the only matter that cannot exist by itself in Nature, and it needs the help of Art to come to life. it is a matter so purified and evoluted to behave as a living recectaple to universal spirit allowing it to dwell in a physical form. you can tell it's presence in the matter by considering its weight. it is only after its attainment that the alchemist can draw the living universal principles from the bodies of the mixts without killing/burning them. you cannot obtain it by spagyric methodology, and it is its use that distinguishes alchemy from archemy and spagyry.
IMHO
t