View Full Version : Reply to ***

01-03-2009, 10:00 PM
This is a Phoenix-thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7) from the old site (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/forum.htm) created by carabric.

I do not know who you are carabric, but your list of modern alchemists who you have happily assumed do *not* posses any alchemy knowledge of worth is quite disgusting if I do say so myself. How ugly a person you must be to judge so many others so harshly, when you yourself are the only liar here.

And who am I? *** -- Nicholas D. ********

And what do I teach? 100% TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Please understand I am hesitant to reply to you, however I stand by my words and shirk from no one regarding matters I know intimately. Undoubtedly this will turn into a volley of words which neither side will relent and agree upon. I can understand your readiness to accept what I say about you and your ilk and easily be offended. I've seen your name on one forum or another for as long as you have been interested in alchemy. And can say with certainty that you have the perseverance of Tantalus regarding your quest. But beyond this, I can never consider what you and the more noteworthy contemporary "alchemist" work on as true to the art. I can and will readily back my ideals and theory with more then enough insight from the historic record. However, I know this would be futile and will refrain from overburdening my hands. I doubt you have read any of my posts in depth...but I have read and seen much of your work. Though you may transmute on some small scale, this does not an alchemist make. And this is my point of contention with you. But please, before you accuse me of being a "spiritual" or "inner" alchemist understand that my theory is effected within our most immediate and tangible realm. Also understand I am neither novice nor master and make no grand claims other then this. I know what precipice I stand at...do you?

Archemy is the name for what, in my opinion, you do- the reason it is termed thus is because it is the true lead in to chemistry...not alchemy. I hate to repeat, and know you will not benefit, so let this be for those who would. This from Dwellings of the Philosophers (pg82) is a definition of, and results to be expected by archemical means: As for archemist, they formed a special category, more restricted, more obscure also, among the ancient chemists. The aim which they pursued presented some analogy with that of the alchemists, but the materials and means which they had at their disposal were uniquely chemical materials and means. To transmute metals into one another, to produce gold and silver from coarse minerals, or from saline metallic compounds, to force the gold potentially contained in silver and the silver potentially contained in tin to become real and extractable, was what the archemist had in mind......They cultivated the science of the little particulars, according to the somewhat disdainful expression of the alchemist for these side activities unworthy of the philosopher. Without scorning these useful researchers, let us recognize that very often the most fortunate among them only obtained mediocre benefits, and that the same process, at first successful, later led to nil or uncertain results. Oh but you might not like Fulcanelli, well how about Hollandus: It is indeed so, but ignorant men cannot understand what the old sages said and they think they can make a medicine from all things. That is why they take eggs, blood, urine and the like, believing that they can thereby bring into perfection, imperfect bodies. And when they have done, they are still at the start and remain immersed in their stupidity. Maybe you don't like Hollandus, how about Ripley: I know many pittifull Sophisters do dote on many Stones, vigitable, animal, and mineral, and some to those add the firey Angelical, Paradaical Stone, which they call a wonder working essence, and because the mark they aim at, is so great, the Waies also, by which they would attain their Scope How about this treatise from the Only True Way:Nevertheless, we may almost every day see foolish persons spend their whole substance on those absurd experiments, being induced to do so by the aforesaid pseudo-alchemists, who impose on them with a false process, and fanciful perversions of Nature.With these useless and unnecessary experiments the true Alchemists will have nothing to do. They follow the method pursued by Nature in the veins of the earth, which is very simple, and includes no solutions, putrefactions, coagulations, or anything of the kind Can Nature, in the heart of the earth, where the metals do grow and receive increase, have anything corresponding to all those pseudo-alchemistical instruments alembics, retorts, circulatory and sublimatory phials, fires, and other materials, such as cobbler's wax, salt, arsenic mercury, sulphur, and so forth? Maybe Basil Valentine would suffice: Neither do we want many kinds of furnaces. Only our threefold furnace affords facilities for properly regulating the heat of the fire. Therefore do not let any babbling sophist induce you to set up a great variety of expensive furnaces. Our furnace is cheap, our fire is cheap, and our material is cheap No? Well how about Thomas Vaughn then:There are many Platonics -- and this last century hath afforded them some apish disciples -- who discourse very boldly of the similitudes of inferiors and superiors; but if we thoroughly search their trash it is a pack of small conspiracies -- namely, of the heliotrope and the sun, iron and the lodestone, the wound and the weapon. It is excellent sport to hear how they crow, being roosted on these pitiful particulars, as if they knew the universal magnet which binds this great frame and moves all the members of it to a mutual compassion. This is an humour much like that of Don Quixote, who knew Dulcinea but never saw her. Or maybe Fleischer: Beware of all Particulars, for Nothing Particular is Universal

It seems I lied, here I am giving quotes when I know it does no good. Ah well, c'est la vie, you will see only what God permits you to see. I cannot continue to argue these points anymore, it is futile and beyond this I already know your counterpoint. You will say what they all say "I know/learn/verify from experimentation" or "I have verified the Flamel way or the _____ way" or "I have effected a transmutation of metals by way of the acetone, urine, blood, marcasite, ammonium bicarbonate, pitchblende path". I and many others have done these things too, they are nothing new and they are not, in my opinion, true to the art. The art I follow is Catholic, that is Universal, it encompasses the whole not the Sophistical particulars. I follow the one and only true way, if you doubt the one true way then ask yourself this...why is it all historically true alchemist quote each other?

By a lover of Philalethes:
From hence I infer, That as much has been communicated to the World as can be expected, or that God will yet suffer to be discover'd by Writing. For this Art is declared, by those that have knowingly written of it, to be under his immediate Protection. Likewise that those that come to the Knowledge of it, shall admiringly wonder at its Preservation; and that which will augment their wonder, will be, that so slender a Vail secures it; and which God makes a sufficient Guard against all the Attacks made by the unworthy.
"It's the insistence that everyone use one's own understanding of terms that frustrates communication. "

Ah yes indeed Rasputin. That statement says it all. It's the very reason so many would-be alchemists never accomplish anything, and then get mad at anyone who has accomplished a whole lot, but uses terms like Philosophical Mercury and Alkahest, and even Stone in ways that do no agree with the other person's perspective. So many fools choose to deny themselves the treasures another is offering simply because they are can't get passed their own obsessed view of what they truly believe is the ONE AND ONLY stone, alkahest, mercury, secret fire, so on...etc.... .lol

It's almost as if God took those people aside, and said "here you go -- play with this puzzle while the others are talking about real alchemy mmmkkk." I don't think it's any surprise that every person who remains stubborn and fixed in their own views will also happen to be quite nasty with you if you claim to have success in alchemy, and god forbid you mention success in transmutation! lol

And yet those people claim they are not self-absorbed or egotistical and surely it is *you* who is the wack job, not them. lol...And they will believe that view until the day they die, and probably still into the next life. They will always think they were right about alchemy, and people like me were just "puffers". I'm gald they never attend any workshops or ever show themselves in public meeting places when we alchemists get together, 'cause I would have to slap 'em! lol


This is a post from another forum, I believe answering my reply. *** quotes from another on the forum (Rasputin Paracelsus) and then states the above. In fairness I believe the whole quote should be used since in some ways it remedies the issue at hand. Here below the fullness of the quote is expressed...it's subject matter is a discourse over the difference of Spagyrics and Alchemy. And essentially, the question asked is- is Plant Alchemy- Alchemy or whether the three realms should in fact be divided into separate fields. I haven't given the post on the other forum an extensive read, so forgive me if I missed the subject of the post in detail.

There's no real problem, it seems to me, as long as in any given
discussion the participants agree on the terms. It's the insistence
that everyone use one's own understanding of terms that frustrates
communication. People have very legitimate reasons for having their
own take on it.


They will always think they were right about alchemy, and people like me were just "puffers". I'm gald they never attend any workshops or ever show themselves in public meeting places when we alchemists get together, 'cause I would have to slap 'em!
The above quote is a perfect example why I created THIS (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=102) post!

Let's not put fuel to the fire though... I don't want a flame war to begin, so let's just agree that we all disagree (you, me and ***) - and get on with the Great Work!
I agree wholeheartedly, and am fully capable of being civil while disagreeing with someone. I'm not here to inflame, and that is why I felt R.P.s quote in fullness expressed the matter very well. It's obvious I do not agree with ***'s dogma of alchemy and would very much enjoy a civil debate on the matter. Unfortunately I do not think this is possible though.

Green Lion
01-03-2009, 10:03 PM
Bonjour à tous.

J’ai un peu suivi cette discussion et je dois dire que cela confirme certains de mes points de vue.
On remarque que très peu d’alchimistes contemporains vont plus loin que la pratique du laboratoire. Ils ne travaillent pas sur eux-mêmes et donc n’ont pas un niveau spirituel élevé. Il leur manque donc le pendant « théurgique » du Trivium Hermeticum.

J’apprécie le travail de *** car il a le mérite de donner en clair ses protocoles, ce qui est très rare. Pour cela il mérite le respect. De plus, je pense que juger sa vision de l’alchimie sans avoir appliqué ses protocoles est faire preuve d’un manque de maturité. Par contre, je suis déçu de son comportement arrogant.

Carabric, vous avez une bonne culture livresque de l’alchimie. Vous avez bien analysé les textes. Mais vous avez l’un des grands défauts qu’on retrouve chez les alchimistes français : un orgueil trop grand pour accepter que votre vision de l’alchimie n’est pas forcément la bonne, seule et unique valable.
Je pense que l’une des qualités les plus importantes de l’alchimiste doit être l’humilité. Surtout si l’on pense que seul Dieu donne la grâce permettant de réussir le Grand Œuvre. Et pour commencer, cette humilité doit se manifester dans l’acceptation du fait que nous n’avons pas la Vérité concernant l’alchimie tant que nous ne possédons pas la Pierre Philosophale.

Vous tenez Fulcanelli en grande estime. Mais savez vous vraiment qui se cache derrière ce pseudonyme ? Savez vous quel rôle Canseliet a eu dans l’écriture des ouvrages de Fulcanelli ? Votre vision de l’alchimie est très empreinte de la patte de Fulcanelli. Sans vous en rendre compte vous avez pris la vision de l’alchimie présentée dans les ouvrages de Fulcanelli comme parole d’évangile.
Vous citez des auteurs selon leur correspondance avec votre vision de l’alchimie. Mais soyez plus objectif. Vous citez Hollandus. Mais avez vous lu l’ensemble de ses ouvrages, dont l’un parle de la voie de l’urine ? Vous parlez de Philalèthe, mais avez vous pratiqué sa voie qui nécessite un ajout de mercure à l’antimoine, donnant ainsi une voie des amalgames, bien loin de la simplicité que vous prônez ?
Avez vous mis en parallèle la lecture du Liber Secretissimus de Ripley avec la pratique ? Si c’était le cas, vous verrez que seule la voie de l’urine colle entièrement à ce texte.
Je pense qu’une lecture entièrement objective est nécessaire en alchimie. Et pour cela, il faut utiliser le rasoir d’Occham. Il faut garder à l’esprit que tous les auteurs n’ont pas obligatoirement travaillé sur la même matière au départ. Ils peuvent aussi s’être cités les uns les autres en ne voyant leurs lectures que par le biais du filtre de leur manière de voir l’alchimie.
Regardez Roger Caro qui est l’auteur ayant le plus cité de sources. En effet, extraits de la bonne manière, chaque auteur peut être utilisé comme argument pour notre voie personnelle. Mais attention au langage, surtout celui des alchimistes qui est imagé…
C’est pour cela, qu’après avoir beaucoup lu et avoir pratiqué sur plusieurs matières, je garde à l’esprit que ma vision de l’alchimie n’est pas la seule valable, que ma matière d’élection n’est pas la seule bonne. Je ne sais pas si vous lisez le français, mais si c’est le cas, je vous conseille la lecture du livre « Alchimie, antique science de demain » de Loïc Tréhédel. Sa vision du feu secret est très intéressante car elle n’est pas fermée à une seule matière mais ouvre des perspectives de travail sur plusieurs matières.
Sachant que l’alchimie est une voie qui se veut globale, elle doit pouvoir s’appliquer aussi bien à l’Homme qu’à toutes les matières contenues dans l’Univers. Sinon, le fait de n’accepter qu’une seule matière de travail et une seule manière de travailler, c’est là qu’on risque de rester dans le domaine du particulier…

__________________________________________________ _________________________________

Hello with all.

I have a little followed this discussion and I must say that it confirms some from my points of view.
It is noticed that very few contemporary alchemists further go than the practice from the laboratory. They do not work on themselves and thus do not have a raised spiritual level. It thus miss them during “theurgic” of Trivium Hermeticum.

I appreciate the work of *** because it has the merit to give in light its protocols, which is very rare. For that it deserves the respect. Moreover, I think that to judge its vision of alchemy without to have applied its protocols is to show a lack of maturity. On the other hand, I am disappointed of his arrogant behaviour.

Carabric, you have a good book culture of alchemy. You analyzed the texts well. But you have one of the great defects which one finds in the French alchemists: a too large pride to accept that your vision of alchemy is not inevitably the good, only and single valid.
I think that one of the most important qualities of the alchemist must be humility. Especially if it is thought that only God gives the grace allowing to make a success of the Philosopher's Stone. And to start, this humility must appear in acceptance owing to the fact that we do not have the Truth concerning alchemy as long as we do not have the Philosopher's Stone.

You hold Fulcanelli in great regard. But do you know really which hides behind this pseudonym ? Do you know which role Canseliet had itself in the writing of the works of Fulcanelli ? Your vision of alchemy is very impressed leg of Fulcanelli. Without you to give an account of it you took the vision of the alchemy presented in the works of Fulcanelli like word of Gospel.
You quote authors according to their correspondence with your vision of alchemy. But you should be more objective. You quote Hollandus. But did you read the whole of its works, of which one speaks about the way of the urine? You speak about Philalèthe, but did you practise its way which requires an addition of mercury to antimony, thus giving a way of the amalgams, well far from the simplicity which you preach?
Did you put in parallel the reading of the Liber Secretissimus of Ripley with the practice? If it were the case, you will see that only the way of the urine sticks entirely to this text.
I think that an entirely objective reading is necessary in alchemy. And for this reason, it is necessary to use the razor of Occham. It is necessary to keep in mind that all the authors obligatorily did not work on the same matter at the beginning. They can also have quoted the ones the others by seeing their readings only by the means of the filter in their manner of seeing alchemy.

Look at Roger Caro who is the author having quoted of sources, the most. Indeed, extracted the good manners, each author can be used like argument for our personal way. But be careful with the language, especially that of the alchemists who is picturesque…

It is for that, that after having read much and having practised on several matters, I keep in mind which my vision of alchemy is not the only valid one, which my matter of election is not the only good. I do not know if you read French, but if it is the case, I advise you the reading of the book “Alchimie, antique science de demain” of Loïc Tréhédel. Its vision of secret fire is very interesting because it is not closed with only one matter but opens prospects for work on several matters.

Knowing as alchemy is a way which wants to be total, it must be able to apply as well to the Man as with all the matters contained in the Universe. If not, the fact of accepting only one matter of work and only one manner of working, it is there that one is likely to remain in the field of the “Particular”…
Perhaps you're right...maybe my pride overcomes me. I asked myself that same question before I replied to ***- and it was a large reason of my hesitation. However my concepts come from practice, what I've read, and who I feel follows the art in the truest since. There are certain written signs I look for in any alchemical work, if I don't see these signs I am unable to consider them true to the art. Unfortunately I am not like ***, I cannot divulge in plain speak my theories openly...I know this puts me at odds with a great many people who would do otherwise. But what I've learned with alchemy I've gathered from over twenty years of hard work, the walls are narrowing and I now have tunnel vision. By that I mean, I have gained an understanding which I have verified through practice but not completion. What *** and many other people do, I have done- ORMEs -did that, bicarbonate smelting- did that, "plant" stones- did that, star regulus of antimony- did that a long time ago...and I've done many more things. I could tell you a way to increase a transmutation yield from certain methods you're already doing. But to me this is not the point of alchemy, sharing this only redirects people from the true goal.

Yes I am well versed in alchemical manuscripts, and yes I've read all of Hollandus , Ripley and Philalethes (copied by my own hand no less). To read any of the works you mentioned at face value, or as you would common books, is in my mind the incorrect approach. I don't believe Philalethes meant common mercury and antimony- reading the words literally will result in nothing beneficial in my mind. A Lover of Philalethes (http://www.alchemywebsite.com/shortenq.html) says it much more eloquently:Take this from one that knows best the Sense of what he has written, where we speak most plainly, there be most circumspect, (for we do not go about to betray the Secrets of Nature) especially in those places which seem to give Receipts so plain as you would desire, suspect either a Metaphor, or else be sure that something is suppressed which thou wilt hardly find (without Inspiration) of thyself; yet to a Son of Art, we have written that which never heretofore was by any reveal'd In my opinion-Metaphor, Allegory, and Cabala are things you should understand if you want to move beyond trial and error. Will no one read these texts as they would a poem? Must the way to God be a recipe?

From the Hermetic Triumph (http://www.alchemywebsite.com/triumph4.html)
Can you be perswaded that the ancient Philosophers did write as they have done, in a Sense which should be understood in a common Way? And do you believe that one ought plainly to interpret their Words according to the Letter?

Turba Philosophorum (http://www.alchemywebsite.com/turba2.html)
How, then, should ye desire to attain this offering when ye have read but a single book, or have adventured only the first regimen? But the Philosophers have plainly stated that the truth is not to be discerned except after error, and nothing creates greater pain at heart than error in this Art, while each imagines that he has almost the whole world, and yet finds nothing in his hands. Woe unto you! Understand the dictum of the Philosopher, and how he divided the work when he said- pound, cook, reiterate, and be thou not weary. But when thus he divided the work, he signified commingling, cooking, assimilating, roasting, heating, whitening, pounding, cooking Ethelia, making rust or redness, and tingeing. Here, therefore, are there many names, and yet there is one regimen.

I use to believe the same way many do- that there are many ways, many stones, many methodologies...and I was wrong. If only one person realizes this then I will be content. Again, I base this on it's repeated mention throughout the historic text. From the Hermetic Triumph: (http://www.alchemywebsite.com/triumph5.html)You may plainly see, by what I have said, that the Philosophers do not contradict themselves, when they say it is one only self Substance, and when they speak of it as a compound of many Substances of one only, and the self same Species. I could post many more quotes from the source material that speak wholly in agreement. But I'm beginning to feel I do this in vain.

As far as Fulcanelli is concerned, I do hold him in high regard. I don't believe Canseliet had anything to do with the text written in those books (other then the preface). Not that it matters but I think Jules Violle (http://books.google.com/books?id=l2q-Xt1cgLsC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=fulcanelli+violle&source=web&ots=3iuuOj2OAS&sig=xj2GjXUGVyh7-5_hV6w4r96thRI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result) was Fulcanelli...Patrick Riviere was Canseliet's only student, and if anyone could figure it out he could. What makes me believe it's him, comes from a section of Dwellings of the Philosophers. Jules Violle is a physicist noted for determining the solar constant at Mt.Blanc, and Fulcanelli mentions at length the difference between the suns heat at a beach (or lower altitudes) versus the solar radiation at the peak of a mountain. Basically his question was, why is measurable solar radiation less at the peak of a mountain then at lower altitudes- especially considering that the sun is closer to the mountain. This for me was a dead giveaway, again not that it matters. The reason why I hold Fulcanelli in high regard is because he enlightened me to the phonetic cabala. Since you're French, you can benefit more readily since a man by the name of Grasset d'Orcet (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Sosth%C3%A8ne_Grasset_d%27Orcet) has laid down the rules of the phonetic cabala more succinctly for your language (I read it better then I type it, but oui je parle français.) I don't know if you're a fan of Rabelais but Gargantua and Pantagruel follows this style of cipher. It's content is very interesting once you become more adept at seeing the la langue des oiseaux as d'Orcet calls it. There are many other reasons I like Fulcanelli, it's not that I hold his word as Gospel, I quote from many sources other then him, but denying that he was knowledgeable beyond most is in error. If I have tainted his name somehow for you I would hope you could still find a way to see the brilliance of his words, and for that matter all true alchemists words.

In the future I will try to avoid having to much pride, but understand that I am not bending anyone's words to my will.
Hello Carabric

I see that you are true seeking.
But as long as work was not finished, how to be sure that we are on the good way ? Which are the signs which make you believe to be in the good step ? It is possible that other signs which you regard as less important are in fact very important.
The method of the ORMEs is not that which I regard as valid in alchemy, even if the concept of pH balance is interesting.
I understand your doubt with respect to a reading with the first degree of the texts. Some authors inform us owing to the fact that they do not give anything in light. But attention also with the personal interpretation which one can have of the second or the third degree. We go more in the subjective one and thus the errors are even more present.
In fact I see the alchemical texts like double texts. A practical part and a spiritual part. The spiritual part is that given by the metaphors, the allegories. Some allegories can be understood by the means of the practice. But are we sure on our interpretation ? Is not this step a subjective vision of the comprehension of these allegories by the filter of our own vision of alchemy ?

The majority of the alchemical texts are not to take literally or in the direction of reading first.
Some authors warn us owing to the fact that only the third work is really described. They also say that the texts are in the disorder, that the first work was never described.
If we base ourself on these texts, we realize whereas when the authors speak about only one substance, only one fire and only one vase, they speak in fact about the third work. And that this single matter is in fact the result of the marriage of the three principles, or rather of the two protagonists of the royal couple, the Moon and the Sun, white flowers and red flowers, the salamander and the remora…
But still is necessary it to prepare these two matters. And there, we realize that several options are offered to us and which the authors could speak about completely different matters but which once have about equivalent reactions they are in the shape of the King and the Queen.

The history of Fulcanelli is much more complex than one can believe it. It should be known that Canseliet started from notes of Fulcanelli and that it is Canseliet which very formatted. He thus completely could modify the direction of the remarks of his Master without realizing it. Concerning Jules Violle, it was not Fulcanelli. It is the assumption of Patrick Rivière, but it is not valid. I advise you to read the blog of Walter Fulgrosse Junior on Fulcanelli which is very well made: http://fulgrosse.over-blog.com/
You can also read the book of Jean Artero “Présence de Fulcanelli”.
Patrick Rivière was not the only disciple of Canseliet. Moreover Rivière was not even the disciple of Canseliet. It just met him five times, of which only once at the head with head.
The real and known disciples of Canseliet are Atorène, Severin Batfroi, André Savoret, Rene Alleau, Guy Béatrice and Jean Laplace.
Moreover, if you did not read it, the book “Le laboratoire alchimique” of Atorène is very interesting for those which work on the antimony path like Canseliet.

Yes, I know Grasset d' Orcet and his work “Matériaux cryptographiques”. It there very good, but also at least good, very influenced by its political convictions. Blow, some of its interpretations are very subjective. In the same kind there is Raymond Roussel.
But there is also Philéas Lebesgue which speaks very well about the philosophical and spiritual aspect of the languages in its work “Au delà des grammaires”. Philéas Lebesgue was a person who could learn any foreign language in a few hours thanks to his comprehension from the universal language, which does not stick exactly to that of Grasset D' Orcet.
It was moreover one poet of talent, a true Master of the languages and thus of The Language.
There is thus necessary to remain vigilant and to pay attention because the vision of the languages and a universal language is finally of doubtful validity.
In the kind of Pantagruel, Gargantua, there is also Cyrano of Bergerac or the Gulliver's Travels. But I remain persuaded that this language of the birds is a tool of spiritual opening, a manner of changing our point of view of the world and to be more sensitive to the poetry which surrounds us. That does not play my direction on the practical aspect of the laboratory.
In fact I see the work of the laboratory in alchemy like a support of meditation. And what counts with the final one and which makes us an alchemist, it is the manner of being and of meditating that one has when we work at the laboratory. Knowing that the matter reacts to our spirit, our manner of being will act on the matter during work.

I read and read again Fulcanelli of many times. I met some alchemists having known Canseliet and working on his path. But none succeeded. The majority of the people jam with the second work and does not make a success of the eagles. Some rare people are with the third work, but do not make a success of the great coction.
Even Patrick Rivière who says to have finished this antimony path to the manner of Canseliet/Fulcanelli does not obtain large thing with the final one : a philosopher stone being able to transmute only three times its weight into gold, even after multiplications.
I know that it is more difficult for one no-French-speaking person to have access to certain French texts, but if you have the occasion to read the “Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architecture française du XIe au XVIe siècle ” of Viollet Le Duc (http://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_raisonn%C3%A9_de_l%27architecture_fra n%C3%A7aise_du_XIe_au_XVIe_si%C3%A8cle), you will realize that Fulcanelli does nothing but take again passages of this work in all that relates to the interpretation of the visible allegories on the cathedrals.
It as should be known as Canseliet was lost after the end of his relation with Fulcanelli and that he sent letters to Jean Julien Champagne to have explanations. Is not this strange step for the only disciple of Fulcanelli ? Then, you could know that Canseliet started by working on galena before being put at antimony. Are you never put the question : why galena ? Then why antimony ?
And well for the knowledge, read the writings of Pierre Dujols… The book « Propos sur la Chrysopée, suivi de "Manuscrit de Pierre Dujols-Fulcanelli traitant de la pratique alchimique" » of Jean-François Gibert contains at the end a manuscript of Pierre Dujols extremely interesting.

I do not know how you work nor on which matter. As you quote Fulcanelli, Canseliet and Rivière I think that you follow the antimony path.
Which are then the successes which you had ? The star martial antimony regulus, you said that you had obtained it. But the green vitriol which one does have to see after three or four purifications ? Then, for the eagles of the second work, did you use caput mortuum, the antimony regulus and green vitriol in the form stratum/super stratum ? If so, did you obtained the remora in the shape of a cube (isotope of iron) ? And from there, which secret fire did you use with this remora for the coction ? The salt extracted from the caput mortuum or a niter enriched by the dew ? Did you observed a phosphorescence of the matter at one time of work ? Have you considered a sphere of light in the balloon at the time of the final coction ? Did you heard the range of the seven notes ? I think that when you speak about signs assure you that you are on the good way, you speak about this kind of observations. But noticed that in the kind of practice that I have just quoted, none gives a fulgurating combat between the salamander and the remora ? Why is this step also dangerous only Fulcanelli implies it ?
At one time of work as suggested by Pierre Dujols, there is this explosive and violent demonstration well. Then which has reason, Canseliet and Patrick Rivière or Dujols ? Or nobody perhaps…

I must say that I am charmed to discuss with a person having your scholarship.

Well cordially.
Since this post is no longer about the subject I've decided to move my reply here (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=157).

01-03-2009, 10:11 PM
Link: http://www.alchemy-illuminated.com/
Excuse my lateness in replying to this trite thread. I had forgotten all about this. From time to time, I look up my name on Google to see who's decided to mention my name in threads so I can defend myself from the person who chooses to reference my name in a derogatory fashion. And what do you know? This friggin thread comes popping up again....lol. Why couldn't this just be a closed forum like Yahoo so none of this would even be on the search engines? Ah, but then you wouldn't care to talk trash about me because you wouldn't have an audience.

And I hadn't replied, so what did Carabric do? He cross-posted my words from another forum that is NOT open to the public. Not only did he violate this forums rules by cross-posting, but also violated the yahoo forum rules by copying and pasting emails from a non-public forum to an open public based forum. And for what? Just so he could go LOL and be immature? Congratulations! Is your ego satisfied now Carabric?

Anyway, what I would love to know is just what Carabric and the other kings of negativity here believe I have done wrong in alchemy? Do you assume I only do lab alchemy because I write processes in a simplified form that is easy to follow like a workbook? I guess you never cared to read my website, and you would see just how into spiritual 'evolution' I was long before I even knew about alchemy.

What exactly is it you think I have failed at in Alchemy? I have made stones from the plant, animal, and mineral kingdom that all pass the test of transmutation, both on man metals, despite the fact most people believe the stone can only be made from the mineral realm. I have discovered processes not written in any book which have made the Philosopher's Stone in brand new ways that are faster and more efficient, just from pure experimentation and guided meditation.

My elixirs have cured people of AIDS, cancer, and diseases that would leave you paralyzed from the neck down for life permanently. And as for the astonishing effects on the mind; these elixirs have enhanced my thinking process to a point of extreme beauty and creativity that no words can do justice. Crystal clear visions for hours on end and the most incredible music to accompany them.

I have time and time again be visited by a blinding white light that claimed to be God, and when I denied or tried to test that claim, a thunder roared through my entire soul that felt like the universe was being blown apart. I have materialized my spirit guide so solid she couldn't be distinguished from an ordinary flesh and bone person and was able to walk with me in public without anyone knowing she was a spirit.

So just what in the world do think I have missed? And it is most certainly NOT I who is the arrogant one here folks. You are staring at an inkblot test, pretending you know my character, but you are reading words and adding your own emotion as if this is a live conversation and you can here my tone of voice. If I sent you an audio recording of myself reading my own emails to you, then you would see just how completely wrong you read my words.

I'm as humble as they come. I wake up everyday in total euphoria and complete gratitude and appreciation for this world God has granted me access to. I am constantly lead along a blessed path when it comes to alchemy and every door opens for me, every path I take leads to fruition.

And because of all this divine 'coincidence', I feel like this is most certainly not a gift to be squandered on selfishly, so I share most of what I've learned with those people who actually are good hearted earnest people who do indeed deserve the chance to have what I have *earned* by all this damn hard work.

I don't claim to be enlightened or a master. I'm just a guy who's cup overrunneth, so I want to share the wealth. What the hell is so wrong with that?

Having such sick contempt towards me is akin to hating a charity, because ALL of my work is charitable. I don't make any money, and hardly receive so much as a thank you from the people I take the time to help with alchemy.

Oh and don't get your ego inflated Carabric by pretending you've angered me with your posts about me .....lol
I'm only posting this here so when people look up my other websites and works on the web and they come across his thread, they will see that I did indeed stand up and defend myself.

I'm not here to argue with you and debate who's correct about alchemy. I have plenty to back up my claims and hundreds of people who I've helped with alchemy, and you don't have so much as a single photo of any alchemy work you claimed to have already done, and of course not even a photo of yourself. Why am I not surprised that everyone who's got nothing but negative things to say about me also chooses to hide behind a keyboard and never show themselves (with the exception of Antoine of course who's now removed himself from the web completely after he got busted for making that site about me and posting my home address on it).

And my transmutations are not small scale. I'll even have a video of my new house my website soon. Come take a tour of what a real alchemists life is like...

It could all be yours, but you'd much rather pretend I'm not the accomplished alchemist I proclaim to be. Suite yourself. Everyone gets what they deserve in the end.

The final point is this: I am 100% innocent and not guilty of a damn thing, and yet people keep pretending I deserve to be hated. They try and justify there cruel attacks against me by saying I'm arrogant, or I'm the one with a big ego, or I'm simply a fake who is telling elaborate lies. It's all a load of crap. If you met me and didn't know I was ***, and had never seen my photo, you would very much want to be my best friend. I'm a happy laid back friendly guy who doesn't deserve one bit of this trash talk.


εγο τηινκ τυ λικε Κιελι Μινογ ορ Ηυεϝερ ιτ ωας τηατ ωροτε τηατ εκα τοις εκατόν τραγούδι
Why don't you attack your attackers in PM or in Email... this public display of Ego this and Ego that is boring... I have no opinion - all I am saying is that these forums ain't anti-***, but they ain't pro-*** either...

Modesty is a forgotten virtue!

Fuck humans!

[thread locked]