PDA

View Full Version : Mineral From The Mine Or Otherwise?



Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 02:57 PM
It could be argued that calcium carbonate is present in all three kingdoms.
While there is an abundance in the mineral kingdom, it is also prolific in animals,
especially sea creatures - the sea shell on St. James de Compostella's hat.


You missed my point. There are at least two conditions:

1. It must be mineral.
2. It must come from the mines.

Conclusion:

The minerals can't directly come from animals or plants.

Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 03:00 PM
Isn’t Ice just composed of the elements hydrogen and oxygen.

Yes, that's why I gave it as an example to exclude.

3+O(
12-28-2011, 04:15 PM
Plants are ultimately composed of minerals therefore is it not probable that both could be true?

Ghislain

While plants absolutely contain minerals, form minerals, and need minerals for growth, they are not mostly composed of minerals; almost all the mass of a plant is carbon from the air in non-mineral form.

solomon levi
12-28-2011, 06:45 PM
Surely he must be joking! All the respectable ancient philosophers repeat over and over and over again that the PS can ONLY be made from the MINERAL kingdom.


This is not true at all. If it were, there would be no such thing as the Universal path,
an undetermined SM. There is also a path with human blood. I'm pretty sure there's a
path with fecal matter too. The human being is microcosmos. Who would imagine
s/he does not contain all that is needed? You can make an alkahest from urine, and
from the alkahest one should be able to make the stone. There's also a path with sea salt
that doesn't come from the mine. Recall that Androgynus said that if he were not focussed
on his methods which involve nothing, he would use prepared lime or sea salt - and
Green Lion replied that he thought Androgynus was saying too much, or something
like that? And many philosophers speak of the rainwater path as we've seen recently
in the Bismuth thread - it's the same as that mentioned by Russenstein and his friends,
and the Golden Chain of Homer, and more.

The mine doesn't always mean a mine. A mountain doesn't always mean a mountain.
The Philosophers' sky is not what we call the sky. They tell you you can't always
take them literally.

Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 06:53 PM
This is not true at all. If it were, there would be no such thing as the Universal path,
an undetermined SM.

Then please provide some evidence from some respectable authors. I don't recall a single one ever mentioning a "Universal path". That is something that must have been invented in more recent times.

Andro
12-28-2011, 06:56 PM
The Mine of the Philosophers is NOT the mine of the vulgar.

The stone is not made 'from' a specific kingdom, but ALL specific kingdoms are derived from the ONE Kingdom, which is neither mineral nor vegetable/etc...

Similarly, matter(s) from all Kingdoms can be prepared to assist in Our Work.

Andro
12-28-2011, 07:08 PM
Then please provide some evidence from some respectable authors.

'Respectable' is a relative term.


I don't recall a single one ever mentioning a "Universal path".

I remember encountering the term 'Universal' in many Alchemical treatises. See 'Chemical Moonshine', for example.

Also, Alchemical Paths using support/assistance from different (specific) Kingdoms, can eventually lead to an outcome that is 'Universal'.


That is something that must have been invented in more recent times.

Even IF the above statement were true, would it invalidate such paths in your opinion?

solomon levi
12-28-2011, 07:14 PM
Hi Hellen. I'm not sure if you noticed but i was editing my other post
and included some options. I don't know if i can quote the works for all.
The blood one was a rosicrucian manuscript. In the Turba Philosophorum,
what's his name tells King Kalid "it is within you". The alkahest is everywhere -
one just has to understand how to evolve the gold after it has been reincrudated,
I suspect.

Hellin Hermetist
12-28-2011, 07:45 PM
Hi Sol,

To what posts are you referring to? We had a dialogue in the other topic (most clear and modern books), but you haven't made any changes to your posts there. At least to your last posts.

Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 07:48 PM
The Mine of the Philosophers is NOT the mine of the vulgar.

The stone is not made 'from' a specific kingdom, but ALL specific kingdoms are derived from the ONE Kingdom, which is neither mineral nor vegetable/etc...

Similarly, matter(s) from all Kingdoms can be prepared to assist in Our Work.

Well, if this is just an opinion, then fine, but please - just say so.

Andro
12-28-2011, 07:57 PM
Well, if this is just an opinion, then fine, but please - just say so.

Illen, what I wrote above above matters and kingdoms is based on a certain degree of operational experience.

The question regarding 'opinion' was addressed to you.

I asked you if, in your opinion, the 'universal' paths are a more recent invention - would it invalidate them? (again, in your opinion)

solomon levi
12-28-2011, 07:58 PM
my post, # 104

Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 08:15 PM
'Respectable' is a relative term.

What isn't relative?


I remember encountering the term 'Universal' in many Alchemical treatises. See 'Chemical Moonshine', for example.

But that was witten in 1739 by an author who is not well known. That was what I meant by "modern". I was hoping to see a reference to a document written before 1600


Even IF the above statement were true, would it invalidate such paths in your opinion?

Not at all. I'm sure that there are hundreds of different paths that someone could pursue over several lifetimes. It would only tend to invalidate the traditional approaches, upon which alchemy is based.

Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 08:16 PM
Illen, what I wrote above above matters and kingdoms is based on a certain degree of operational experience.

The question regarding 'opinion' was addressed to you.

I asked you if, in your opinion, the 'universal' paths are a more recent invention - would it invalidate them? (again, in your opinion)

I already responded to that.

Andro
12-28-2011, 08:42 PM
What isn't relative?

Nothing.


But that was written in 1739 by an author who is not well known. That was what I meant by "modern".
I was hoping to see a reference to a document written before 1600.

That sounds a bit dogmatic.

Cyliani is reported to have published 'Hermes Unveiled' in 1831.

Federico Gualdi was reportedly active after 1600, although there are claims he was already a few hundred years old by that time.

His correspondence with Reussenstein is also very interesting and enlightening.

Illen A. Cluf
12-28-2011, 09:06 PM
That sounds a bit dogmatic.

What is "dogmatic" about tradition?


Cyliani is reported to have published 'Hermes Unveiled' in 1831.

Federico Gualdi was reportedly active after 1600, although there are claims he was already a few hundred years old by that time.


I don't understand your point. I'm referring to traditional alchemy, and you are mentioning relatively modern alchemists? As for Gualdi and other alchemists reputedly living for more than 120 years, I have always found that almost impossible to believe.

Hellin Hermetist
12-28-2011, 09:31 PM
This is not true at all. If it were, there would be no such thing as the Universal path, an undetermined SM. There is also a path with human blood. I'm pretty sure there's a path with fecal matter too.


If you search the alchemical literature from the earlier to the late medieval period, you may find more than a thousand different treatises, speaking about a big number of possible paths and matters. The main question is the following. Do we know how many of these treatises, books, manuscripts, etc., were written by genuine alchemists, who understood what the stone is and had reached their final scope? I am sure that, as you have already mentioned, we can find among the so-called alchemical literature, a treatise speaking about a path with blood, another with semen, another speaking about urine (maybe Brandt thought that he had accomplished the stone when he extracted phosphorus from urine), another about dew or about rainwater. Now, how can we know if all these are valid protocols or nonsense? Maybe all of them are valid and maybe all of them are nonsense. Anyone chooses for himself what suits him better. I have studied more than a hundred books about alchemy, but most of them not for more times than one. I have only about 10-15 treatises saved at my hard disk, and these are the one I read and re-read.



The human being is microcosmos. Who would imagine she does not contain all that is needed?


Some people, following the advice of many famous authors, believe that the only true way begins with matters which belong to the mineral/metallic kingdom. Some others, arguing with the first group, say the following. As blood contains iron and other metallic elements, even if we have to work with metals, we can use blood as our ingredient and have a happy end in our labours. I don't know if you are also of that opinion or you have wholly different one. My main objection to this argument is the following. If we believe the doctrine of some good authors, the radical humidity, which is the purest part of a metal, occupies also the smallest par of a metallic body. According to Fulcanelli:

"Thus, for instance, a kilogram of excellent iron of Sweden, or electrolytic iron, provides a proportion of radical metal, of a perfect homogeneity and purity, that varies between 7.24 and 7.32 grams. This very bright body is endowed with a magnificent purple coloration --- which is the color of pure iron --- analogous to the iodine vapors in terms of its brightness and intensity. It should be noticed that the sulfur of iron, once isolated, being incarnate red, and is mercury being of a light blue color, the purple resulting from their combination, reveals the totality of the metal."

Now, if from one kg of iron we can receive only such a small quantity of the metallic radical humidity, I don't think that it's very clever to extract one kilogram of iron from an enormous quantity of blood, and after that work upon that iron.



You can make an alkahest from urine, and from the alkahest one should be able to make the stone.


Another really obscure point of the alchemical literature. The strange dissolvent of Paracelsus or the great alkahest. I shall post here what I have posted also in another thread.

"Though Paracelsus glory much of his Renovantia & Restaurantia, (which we have known, as being master of his secret Alcahest, of which, if I live, I will write a particular Treatise) yet it is not his Haematina, nor yet his Arcana, nor his Elixiria, nor his Essentiae, nor any of his secrets, which are surely noble Medicines, that can reach the root of Life, which this can and will;"

"but for Philosophy, jump with that noble Bruxellian, whose promised Treatises when the World shall enjoy, I suppose they will be the profoundest piece of Philosophy that ever was revealed to the World: which I admire not so much for his Experiments, of none of which I am ignorant, nor Paracelsus to boot, many, yea most of which are far harder (though sooner wrought) than the Elixir, and the Alcahest is a hundred times more difficult; but what I most honour in that noble Naturalist is, that he did search out the Occulta Naturae, more accurately then ever any did I the World."

From Ripley Revived, by Philalethes

I have found only one other author who spoke about the difference between the mercury of the philosophers (destructive agent with vivifying properties) and the secret liquor alcahest (destructive agent without vivifying properties), the one who wrote under the pseudonym Κλειδοφόρος Μυσταγωγός.




There's also a path with sea salt
that doesn't come from the mine. Recall that Androgynus said that if he were not focussed
on his methods which involve nothing, he would use prepared lime or sea salt - and
Green Lion replied that he thought Androgynus was saying too much, or something
like that? And many philosophers speak of the rainwater path as we've seen recently
in the Bismuth thread - it's the same as that mentioned by Russenstein and his friends,
and the Golden Chain of Homer, and more.


Yes, but at least in the path of the Golden Chain, we don't use the rain water to create a crystalline matter that can tinge molten metals with a power that exceeds its weight by 100 or 1000 times. We use rain water and the settled earth, to produce sand like forms, small plants, and even animal forms. I don't know if that experiments work, but I believe that if they work, we can explain them with many more details by using the electronic microscopes and the other inventions of modern science.

PS: If Roger believe that we are out of topic, we can create a new topic to continue the conversation or move the messages in another topic (the topic about most clear books looks like a more convenient place for me).

Andro
12-28-2011, 09:41 PM
What is "dogmatic" about tradition?

Tradition is about doing things in a CERTAIN WAY (and no other), regardless of where we are on the timeline. Sounds pretty dogmatic to me.


I don't understand your point. I'm referring to traditional alchemy, and you are mentioning relatively modern alchemists?

I personally find the Cyliani lineage to be quite 'respectable'.

Our friend and fellow seeker LeogerC has expounded a great deal around and about this lineage, especially on this thread here and on the 'Limestone' thread.

See the bottom phrase of his signature line, it's from Cyliani.
__________________________________________________ ____________________________________

Applications change and evolve with time, even if the Principles are the same. Alchemy is not an exception.

My friendly advice is not to judge a book by the date on its cover, or by how much PR the Author had.


As for Gualdi and other alchemists reputedly living for more than 120 years, I have always found that almost impossible to believe.

There are records of even non-alchemists crossing the 120 line. Still, I can't personally prove any of that - that's why I wrote "reportedly".
-----------------------------------------------------

rogerc
12-28-2011, 10:54 PM
Could this discussion please move to the universal vs. particular thread......it seems to have vered off topic here.

solomon levi
12-29-2011, 04:56 AM
I don't wish to prove anything. (As if anything can be proven conclusively, especially alchemy).
I don't have access to internet at home and I must use my time wisely.
If you argue for "X", then "X" is yours.
I don't want to take "X" from you.
It is enough that you are unaware of a universal path. Well, now you are aware.
I thought you were familiar with Fulcanelli. He describes more than one path in those books.
I'm just surprised... were you unaware that so much of the threads on SM have been speaking
about the universal path? What did you think it meant when GL said there was nothing in his flask???

Even naming authors or specific works doesn't mean anything. One will see what one can see.
The symbols are the same for the above and the below, the universal and particular. We can
only read/interpret what we know. So it is nothing to say "the authors say this..." That means
nothing. Or it means many things to many people, which means subjective relativity, which means nothing -
no proof.

That doesn't mean I believe. Belief is against my nature. I can see that everything comes from nothing.
And it has been written all over, in alchemy, in the Kabbalistic AIN, AIN SVP, AIN SVP AVR.
Are you familiar with that? AIN means "nothing" or negative existence. SVP means limit or boundary.
AVR means light. Many alchemists were kabbalists.

Well, I really don't care to change your mind about anything.
I'll leave you with some corny sounding wisdom I was seeing yesterday:
Life is the answer to the questions we ask.
If you ask for minerals, you'll find minerals.
Ask and you receive.
So often scientists and geniuses ask questions that most don't.
Politics is so often about asking the wrong questions so that nothing changes.
We don't need more answers. We need better questions, bigger questions.
Without any prejudice, I can say the universal is a bigger question than the metallic.
This is all about separating the subtle from the gross.
GL, Salazius, Androgynus encouraged me to look past subjects towards principles and
archetypes. They were right. RogerC has said the same - it is beyond the electromagnetic spectrum.
All philosophers say it is not earth, water, air or fire. And they say these are not what we think of as common
earth, water, air and fire. How could a mineral be made of an idea? It is. Read Plato. The alchemists include
him and Pythagoras among themselves. It is the philosophers' stone.
The philosophers tell us how existence came into being, as does alchemy if we read it that way.
How we read it depends on the questions we are asking. So they say it is everywhere but men do not
see it. I will say, they don't see it because they are asking the wrong questions.

Blessings on your work, whatever path you choose. :)

Hellin Hermetist
12-29-2011, 02:38 PM
I don't wish to prove anything. (As if anything can be proven conclusively, especially alchemy).
I don't have access to internet at home and I must use my time wisely.


It's ok with me. If you believe that you haven't enough time to participate in that conversation we can put an end here. Just say it clearly.



If you argue for "X", then "X" is yours.
I don't want to take "X" from you.


I have an opinion, you have an opinion. We have read, we have worked, and we have mediated a lot to reach to the one or the other conclusion. My point is not to make you change your opinions and your point isn't to make me change my opinions. The main point of a dialogue is to exchange opinions to help one another. The logical analysis that helped me to create the opinions I have is the following (in a nutshell).
According to the good authors, the final product of the Opus is a mercurial matter fixed to a sulphuric state. So we can see that the active agent, or the agent with the morphogenetic properties, is the metallic sulphur. A watery matter, on the other hand, even a molten metal, has the role of the passive subject, which shall absorb the male energy of the metallic sulphur. So the auriferous power doesn't reside in the body of gold, but only in it's sulfuric principle, which is the smallest part of its body. That's why we have to a ferment the stone with metallic gold at the final stage, to converse the whole body of the metal to a metallic sulfur or a tincture. If we use silver as the ferment, we shall acquire a Lunar tincture, or converse the whole body of that metal to a tincture. So, the essential point for a beginner like myself, the one which shall let me test and even verify the possibility of the Art, is to find some methods which shall make me able to extract metallic sulfurs and test their power. If we can extract of one or more metals a salt or an oil that can induce noteworthy modifications to a much bigger quantity of a metallic body (modify parameters like it's colour, lustre, density, weight, etc.) then we can see that there is at least a possibility for greater things.
That's my opinion and that's the way I am trying to follow at this certain period. That's also the reason which makes me to believe that we have to work in the metallic kingdom. Now, are you kind enough to present to me the logical analysis that made you to believe that you can create a stone with auriferous power from urine, blood, or human semen? Not to make me change my opinions, but to help me understand your mode of thinking and maybe make me find some great insight in your ideas.



It is enough that you are unaware of a universal path. Well, now you are aware.


I am still accepting the classification made by Fulcanelli. In Universal we use the secret solvent of the alchemists, in the particulars common chemical solvents.



I thought you were familiar with Fulcanelli. He describes more than one path in those books.


Fulcanelli describes only one path, where we use a metal and a mineral to acquire the first solvent. From that point you can follow many different ways, as you have acquired your solvent and you have reached at the center. The same Fulcanelli says that this is the path described by Limojon at the Hermetic Triumph.



I'm just surprised... were you unaware that so much of the threads on SM have been speaking
about the universal path? What did you think it meant when GL said there was nothing in his flask???


I don't know what GL mean with that. Even in the ultra high vacuum chambers of modern laboratories, we can create vacuums where we have around 100 particles/cubic centimeter. If GL was able to create a more perfect vacuum in a flask, he is far ahead modern science in the domain of pneumatics.



That doesn't mean I believe. Belief is against my nature.


Sorry my friend, but in one of the previous posts you said that you are sure that there is a way using semen. And that's a statement of faith rather than experience.



And it has been written all over, in alchemy, in the Kabbalistic AIN, AIN SVP, AIN SVP AVR.
Are you familiar with that? AIN means "nothing" or negative existence. SVP means limit or boundary.
AVR means light. Many alchemists were kabbalists.


No I am not familiar with these things. I don't study Jewish cabala at all. Maybe it's not for me. I prefer the tradition of my ancestors.



Well, I really don't care to change your mind about anything.
I'll leave you with some corny sounding wisdom I was seeing yesterday:


I don't have any wisdom. Even a corny one.



How could a mineral be made of an idea? It is. Read Plato. The alchemists include
him and Pythagoras among themselves. It is the philosophers' stone.


Again we disagree. And as I am a Greek one, so I can study Plato and Hesiod from the ancient prototype, let me inform you that it's not the philosophers stone. That mythological and physical agent that is responsible for the manifestation/condensation of the ideas to the physical/material plane is Hermes, which was the Greek prototype of the Latin Mercury. Hermes is the messengers of the Gods, which descends to earth and again ascends to the summits of mt Olympus. The Eastern occultism speaks about the same agent under the name of Fo-Hat. And as I understand it, you believe that the manipulation of that physical power is the real scope of the alchemist. Am I correct?



Blessings on your work, whatever path you choose. :)


Blessings on your works too.

Illen A. Cluf
12-29-2011, 10:05 PM
Could this discussion please move to the universal vs. particular thread......it seems to have vered off topic here.

Not necessary. The discussion has ended at a matter of opinion and semantics, and I see no point to discuss opinion/semantics any further.

alfr
12-30-2011, 06:00 AM
'

Then please provide some evidence from some respectable authors. I don't recall a single one ever mentioning a "Universal path". That is something that must have been invented in more recent times.

Even IF the above statement were true, would it invalidate such paths in your opinion?

IMHO ALWAYS IS BETTER WE MUST MADE ABSOLUTELY REFERENCE ALWAYS AND ONLY AT THE TRUE AND ORIGINAL AND OLD TRADITION and at the original traditional instruction operative of the ancient alchimist RC etc of the real and true affliliation and true lignage traditional of alchemy or a original manuscript of the true affiliation RC et

But i think also that IN VERY VERY RARE CASE ABSOLUTELY EXCEPTIONAL the new experiment or new intuition in meditation AXAMPLE AS LION GREEN say that have recived him extraordinary method for capturing the spiritus mundi ( of globe with vacumm ? and "obelisk? "staf of moses" ? )
-also interesting about this different but also similar is the apparatus for attract and collect the spiritu mundi of orthelius the description of it Ortetelius give ( in latin) in the commentay of the Nonum Lumen Chimicun of Sendivogius. (and who are interestig i can send it for study etc it)-.

-NB meditation of lion green about this and him special result that he have obtain with this meditation non dual and so thanks to it have the intuition-revelatin of him extraodinary method for capturing the spiritus mundi indeterminate see him post N. 27 of the 05-26-2011 page 3 in the thread Alchemists sure are pale! -.

SO in VERY RARE CASE ABSOLUTELY EXCEPTIONAL similar if result are real and true and similar as have arrived Lion Green with the him attraction and collection of spiritus mundi also the new experimentaion and new method is good e the and all this if have a traditonl result go always of course also good if we truly are the real results

SO welcome ALWAYS if these new experimentation and these new method if arrived with this experiment of "new alchemical and scientific frontier" to the same principe and at the same result traditional that have obtain lion green with the him attraction of the spiritus mundi, ovvious all these must always tested with the feedback severe and strictly traditional of these.
-test and result that must are similar at the result extraordinary that have obtain Lion Green with the him capturing of the spiritus mundi -

My best regards alfr

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 11:05 AM
Green Lion's method isn't new. People who focus on minerals just don't recognize it.

alfr
12-30-2011, 11:20 AM
Green Lion's method isn't new. People who focus on minerals just don't recognize it.

Hi solomon and every one

Sure you have reason and i am totally agree with you about it .
so i want only say this : him is arrived to rediscovery (maybe? Perhaps?) the ancien complete traditional way, with one meditation not dual ( see him post N. 27 of the 05-26-2011 page 3 in the thread Alchemists sure are pale!) and so not with one trasmission by traditional lignage and traditional affiliation BUT that sorry in absolutley i always i prefer !

But about this I REPET AGANE ALWAYS WELCOME at all the meditation and intuition-revelation if give this similar expraordinary result as the method for attract the spiritus mundi by Lion Green

My best regards alfr

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 11:29 AM
Hi solomon and every one

Sure you have reason and i and totally agree with you about it so i want only say this him is arrived to descovery it with meditation ( see him post N. 27 of the 05-26-2011 page 3 in the thread Alchemists sure are pale!) and not with trasmission by traditional lignage or affilation that sorry i always prefer!
But I REPET AGANE ALWAYS welcome at the meditatin and intuition if give as method of lion gren this similar expraordinary result

my best regards alfr

Yes, meditation. But all the good authors tell you to do that.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/antimony.htm

Basil Valentine says:
First, invoke god.
Second, contemplation
third, theory... etc.

It is the beginners error to start with theory.

I try talking about god and people think I'm talking about spiritual practice of alchemy,
even though I tell them it's practical.

Invoke god into your flask, like a genie. :)

But I dont want to mislead with oversimplifying.
It's a little more complicated than that.

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 11:54 AM
Not necessary. The discussion has ended at a matter of opinion and semantics, and I see no point to discuss opinion/semantics any further.

This is why you can't hear me.
It may be doxa/opinion for you.
Opinon is but one level of knowledge, the lowest of four according to Plato.
I agree, I wouldn't waste your time telling you my opinions.
And i haven't.
But your mind is transmuting what I have to say into opinion for you.
This is what I meant by arguing for "X" - you get "X", even if I am giving you "Y".
Even if i gave alpha and omega, you'd see "X".
This is why the alchemist is so important to the work.
You are already capable of transmuting - we are all doing it all the time.
We are transmuting the stone of the wise into despised and worthless crap.
The kingdom of heaven is in front of our eyes, and we see it not.
The first matter is everywhere - we only have to rid it of the superfluous.
This includes the alchemist's mind/knowledge as part of the superfluous.
Our personal knowledge/past through which we see everything and make it fixed
doesn't allow the volatile mercury to be what it is naturally.
Knowledge is the known, the past, the fixed.
This is why the Egyptians called the stone "what then is it?"
This is why god is ineffable, mysterious one, agnostos theon (unknown god).
This is why Aristotle says "The beginning of philosophy (and alchemy) is wonder."
The beginning isn't knowledge.
This isn't the tree of knowledge; it's the tree of life.
Mercury-vive. Living, not dead like the past, not dead like knowledge.
Not super-dead like opinions. Opinions aren't even knowledge; opinions are second-hand knowledge.
It doesn't belong to you. It is superfluous, not homogenous. It is polluting your mercury.

So to invoke god is to invoke the unknown.
This is why the first matter is spoken of so enigmatically.
This is why no one will ever brake the law of not naming it.
No one will ever tell you what it is. How can they? It's ineffable.

I can tell you these things because I am saying it as if it were spiritual.
But do not mistake - there are physical and practical laboratory applications
of what I am saying. This is not my opinion. It is my gnosis.
And one shouldn't translate gnosis as knowledge as is the common error to do.
Gnosis is direct perception through oneness, through our connection with god/source.
It is epiphany, as in the way the pneumatics of the Mystery schools were called epoptes - "eyes opened".

I am not saying i am an epoptes. I just have my moments. :)
It's not a permanent state or identity. I am nothing. And I like to share and communicate with other nothings. :)

Andro
12-30-2011, 12:06 PM
"If all you have is a hammer, everything else looks like a nail."

Also, quoth 'The Matrix' movie:


Neo: Why do my eyes hurt?
Morpheus: You've never used them before.

Open to interpretation...

:cool:

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 03:14 PM
Illen, you know Fulcanelli used green language and phonetic cabala.
Personally, I wouldn't put all my eggs in a Fulcanelli basket, but I have tried
to communicate with you through his system.
Fulcanelli said this is a double science - diplomat.
You know they like to use myth and allegory.
It is even called the Philosophers' stone. Why?
Why is it "our" mercury?

I have said elsewhere that philosophy has a lot to do with this.
The alchemists rank Pythagoras and Plato and Aristotle amonst themselves.
Many alchemists were monks (contemplation).

Is it beyond them that the mine could be an allegory?
You must be open enough to at least entertain this idea.
How do you know their mine isn't Plato's cave?

From wikipedia:
"The Allegory is related to Plato's Theory of Forms, according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world of change known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the Forms constitutes real knowledge."

How is that any different than the alchemist-philosophers' description of the prima materia?
Sensation = senses = four elements, and the alchemists clearly tell us it is none of the four elements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_Cave


Alchemy cave:

What kind of mining is this?
http://www.princeton.edu/~his291/Jpegs/Alchemy_3.JPG


Why are there 7 mountains? mining?
http://nachtkabaret.com/ihvh/img/nk_sp_hermes_winged_alchemist.jpg

Someone praying; no mining.
https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcStv_7MXENKLVPYZ5K2nzZFYS52dQuYa nj3-Q_Okzv0ZUeaccxVCA

Not 7 mounts but 7 in one. Do you know any mines like that?
Has there ever been in history such a mine?
A mine that produces all seven metals? Perhaps we shouldn't take this literally.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llgjt5EXGP1qf3yi9o1_500.jpg

"In the cavern of metals, there is hidden the Stone that is venerable, splendid in color, a mind sublime and an open ocean." - The golden treatise of Hermes.


The mountain is the same as the tree:
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRgJPikxoi12YxQ4SJv_JUZo4kKdrMOS QuYbnqwZMtDEfsoFbwPlg

I could post a bunch of tree pics, but surely you're familiar with this.
Both the tree and the mountain represent the axis of the world.
Fulcanelli talks about the echineis, a fish that follows the pole star.
The pole star is an extension of the axis.

http://blurredhabitation.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/soul.jpg?w=460 (http://www.archive.org/details/worksofjacobbehm01beohuoft)

another version:
http://www.newthoughtkabbalah.com/tolwords.jpg

Dante expressed it this way:
https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQQyjGcUpKjZ4NZ3kcyw6ac90WhU6_Pv e-tVLX7eztHHs7veumR

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5Udtz-dVx88kJGpPxnF9BO309BXuEWtcVhkdZzJEQLnGPaDBg


http://onlyway.com/christianlibrary/wp-content/files/2010/04/14-threefold-tb.gif

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 04:00 PM
Having said all that, you can use a mineral.
One path that Fulcanelli describes is obviously the martial regulus of antimony.
Several alchemists mention antimony: Basil Valentine, Alexander von Sutchen,
Newton and George Starkey...
But beware that sometimes alchemists say "antimony" and mean something else:

Roger Bacon:
"Stibium, as the Philosophers say, is composed from the noble mineral Sulphur, and they have
praised it as the black lead of the Wise. The Arabs in their language, have called it Asinat vel Azinat,
the alchemists retain the name Antimonium."
and further on:
"AND NOW WE PROCEED TO THE MANUAL LABOUR, AND THUS THE PRACTICA FOLLOWS.
Take in the Name of God and the Holy Trinity, fine and well cleansed Antimonii ore, which looks nice,
white, pure and internally full of yellow rivulets or veins. It may also be full of red and blue colors and
veins, which will be the best."

White antimony ore with yellow, red and blue veins??
He's most likely referring to marble, which is calcium carbonate. See RogerC's posts on limestone.

http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk/~oesis/field/medium/marble1.jpg

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 04:20 PM
This is why you can't hear me.
It may be doxa/opinion for you.
Opinon is but one level of knowledge, the lowest of four according to Plato.
I agree, I wouldn't waste your time telling you my opinions.
And i haven't.
But your mind is transmuting what I have to say into opinion for you.

Hi solomon. My mind is doing nothing of the sort, and I do hear you loud and clear. But I think that you didn't hear me correctly. I was posting about the discussion that I was having with androgynus, not at all about what you were writing.

I actually agree with much of what you wrote, except perhaps that some of what is gnosis for you, is still opinion from my perspective. Gnosis can only be experienced individually. When one expresses that gnosis to another, it is still opinion from the perspective of the other person, if that person has not experienced the same gnosis.

Illen

rogerc
12-30-2011, 04:23 PM
In the discussion on this forum where was first given the letter from Perard to Gerbant, outlining the method involving the gypsum/ limestone of the celestial agriculture to aquire the water that nothing in this art can be accomplished without which all philsophers/ adepts agreed upon.....including Fulcanelli....which should be enough to convince you that the work is not begun with metal....only finished with it(did you ignore Fulcanelli's distinction of archemy from alchemy?).....now take this into account......
And to put a little more water to your mouth:
The author of Compass of the Wise was the Master of Cyliani.
Cyliani was the Master of Dr. G. Perard.
G. Perard was the Master of A.L. Gerber.
And A.L. Gerber was one of the Masters of ... Fulcanelli. :)

Then wouldn't it be logical to say if we take the above citied lineage that Fulcanelli practiced the same path.....at least up to acquiring our solvent. Which was the part of the work no one spoke of including Fulcanelli and even Cyliani omits it aside from calling it the astral spirit....droppings of the north star...gift of the celestial nymph.....btw as I have cited example for Fulcanelli gives two methods for making the stone but both begin with acquiring the water that wets not the hands.

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 05:43 PM
Again we disagree. And as I am a Greek one, so I can study Plato and Hesiod from the ancient prototype, let me inform you that it's not the philosophers stone. That mythological and physical agent that is responsible for the manifestation/condensation of the ideas to the physical/material plane is Hermes, which was the Greek prototype of the Latin Mercury. Hermes is the messengers of the Gods, which descends to earth and again ascends to the summits of mt Olympus. The Eastern occultism speaks about the same agent under the name of Fo-Hat. And as I understand it, you believe that the manipulation of that physical power is the real scope of the alchemist. Am I correct?
Blessings on your works too.

Hi Illen.
I don't understand how anyone can read Plato and not get that everything comes
from the world/realm of ideas/forms. If you've read Plato then you know that intelligibles
(things, everything, including minerals, even the Philosophers' stone) come from
intelligence/divine intellect or nous.

I'm sorry but you are not allowed to disagree with that, no matter how greek you are. :)
You must not have understood me.


"And as I understand it, you believe that the manipulation of that physical power is the real scope of the alchemist. Am I correct?"

I don't know. If i say 'yes', then you will understand that by your images, knowledge, opinions, etc and not mine.
I doubt that we have the same understanding of it. I don't understand "Fohat" through the theosophical lens so it's
hard to say. But if you can comprehend Plato's world soul... allow me to jump to Plotinus. I'm more familiar with him:

"The first emanation is Nous (Divine Mind, logos or order, Thought, Reason), identified metaphorically with the Demiurge in Plato's Timaeus. It is the first Will toward Good. From Nous proceeds the World Soul, which Plotinus subdivides into upper and lower, identifying the lower aspect of Soul with nature. From the world soul proceeds individual human souls, and finally, matter, at the lowest level of being and thus the least perfected level of the cosmos. Despite this relatively pedestrian assessment of the material world, Plotinus asserted the ultimately divine nature of material creation since it ultimately derives from the One, through the mediums of nous and the world soul."

This clearly describes an unbroken chain of emanation from the one into matter.
So let's say I don't believe, but that I have seen this to be true. I know without doubt
that everything is made of "one-stuff". If you call "one-stuff" Fohat, then okay.
An alchemist manifests "one-stuff". Because "one-stuff" is everywhere and everything, there are lots
of ways to go about this. There is mineral alchemy, air alchemy, water alchemy, starlight alchemy,
geometric alchemy, musical alchemy -
each dealing with this "one-stuff" at different stages of density and determination.
It all depends on the "prudence" or skill or ingenuity of the artist.
There are old books written on sigil magic and they call it alchemy, and it is - they're still
manipulating "one-stuff", but while it is at the level of "intelligences" or angels or archetypes,
cherubim, etc..

To me, alchemy is just another word for the perennial philosophy. They're all talking about the
same thing. But as people generally understand alchemy, it is different from other sciences in
that it emphasizes materialising the "one-stuff" into a red powder or crystalline mass.

One can do this through lots of labor which involves cause and effect, a proper manipulation of
the elements. But in a very mysterious way it manifests as the Gift of God, spontaneously, without
a prior cause - a true miracle. And this too is within man's power to work wonders (thaumaturgy means ...
well hell, you're greek!) because we are the One. (for the non-greek readers, it means "wonder work",
and wonder is the beginning of philosophy.)

True Initiate
12-30-2011, 05:46 PM
And to put a little more water to your mouth:
The author of Compass of the Wise was the Master of Cyliani.
Cyliani was the Master of Dr. G. Perard.
G. Perard was the Master of A.L. Gerber.
And A.L. Gerber was one of the Masters of ... Fulcanelli.

RogerC do you know to which secret society Ketmia Vere (The author of Compass of the Wise) actually belonged?

Hellin Hermetist
12-30-2011, 06:36 PM
Hi Illen.
I'm sorry but you are not allowed to disagree with that, no matter how greek you are. :)
You must not have understood me.


Seems to be so. I thought that you meant that the philosophers stone is the physical agent which is responsible for the manifestation of things from the realms of the archetypes/ideas to the physical realms.



This clearly describes an unbroken chain of emanation from the one into matter.
So let's say I don't believe, but that I have seen this to be true. I know without doubt
that everything is made of "one-stuff". If you call "one-stuff" Fohat, then okay.


No, not the "one-stuff". I believe the "one-stuff" you mentioned is what is called in Eastern occultism Akasha. The one field from which all the things proceed and to which shall return, to proceed from it anew again at a later time. Fohat is only an emanation, or an active agent proceeding from that field, and has its own role in nature's work wheel.

And now comes the critical question for me. As the human soul is a manifestation of what you call the "one-stuff", and you say that you are able to manipulate this "one-stuff", does that mean that you are able to manifest it under the form of a human soul? (legends of living statues, etc.)

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 07:25 PM
Illen, you know Fulcanelli used green language and phonetic cabala.


Hi Solomon,

Was this post meant for me or "Hellin"? (Our names "Illen" and "Hellin" are quite similar and I noticed you used my name in a different post to address Hellin).

Thanks,
Illen

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 08:03 PM
And now comes the critical question for me. As the human soul is a manifestation of what you call the "one-stuff", and you say that you are able to manipulate this "one-stuff", does that mean that you are able to manifest it under the form of a human soul? (legends of living statues, etc.)

Everyone manipulates "one stuff". There's nothing else to do. "The mediation of the one ..."
I'm not sure the question is clear. That sounds like two different things - human soul and living statue.
The statue can have a soul that isn't human and be living. I guess it depends on how we define human.
Sometimes I myself don't identify with the human construct/determination/mold. Is the soul that occupies a
human being human before birth and after death in your definition?

Without calling it human, I say that soul manifests itself at every aspect of the chain/emanation.
Part of the alchemy I practice is to "manifest" or emphasize soul at various levels of the chain.
When I commune with my muse, the Holy Guardian Angel, Plato's daimon, or when I have
a vision or an experience of connectedness, etc, you could say I am manifesting soul in another
location/time/frequency and that I have "highlighted" the portion of the chain between "there" and
"here". It would be accurate to call that connection "mercury" and the higher frequency pole "sulphur"
and the lower frequency pole "salt". But one can see they are all the same thing only differing in frequency
and density.
Through the one soul, which I suppose it is fair to call it the akashic record, one can emphasize soul in
any of its manifestations. By returning or following the path we emanated from back to the source, we can
explore any and all emanations to their manifested salts, one at a time or all (every path) simultaneously at
once as the world soul does. Many things are possible. If one had the desire, a living statue is possible.

The Bible is a record of various manifestations of the one. And you are the one. So when God made Adam
from clay and breathed life into him it means you emphasizing an area/frequency/collection of vibrating strings
of light, "uttering a specific word" or tone/chord, etc, of the one at/as the level of demiurge/binarius
simultaneously being aware/emphasizing a group of emanation of a slower, relatively more dense frequency
as archetypal man/Adam... etc, etc. And Adam isn't what we call a physical organic human at this stage. He
hasn't even eaten from the tree of knowledge. He hasn't yet fallen as Lucifer. Every character is the one emanating
as some aspect, some skimming of the whole. The gnostic story of Sophia and the archons is more revealing.

So it's awkward to talk about as if there is separation; it's easy to see if we remember the oneness.

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 08:11 PM
Hi Solomon,

Was this post meant for me or "Hellin"? (Our names "Illen" and "Hellin" are quite similar and I noticed you used my name in a different post to address Hellin).

Thanks,
Illen

Crap! Now I know where the confusion is coming from. :)
Sorry. I'll be sure to distinguish the two in the future.
Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
I'm sorry.

Okay, everyone start over. Where's the reset button? :)

Lost in the labyrinth.

III
12-30-2011, 08:49 PM
Hi solomon. My mind is doing nothing of the sort, and I do hear you loud and clear. But I think that you didn't hear me correctly. I was posting about the discussion that I was having with androgynus, not at all about what you were writing.

I actually agree with much of what you wrote, except perhaps that some of what is gnosis for you, is still opinion from my perspective. Gnosis can only be experienced individually. When one expresses that gnosis to another, it is still opinion from the perspective of the other person, if that person has not experienced the same gnosis.

Illen

Hi Illen,

Speaking from gnosis can convey only a light surface skimming of the information available. If the experience were exactly repeatable, what comes out of a persons mouth will be different every time. Two folks sharing the experience will say differnt things about it. The interpretation (opinion) of these things depends upon the archetypes a person uses to interpret the things seen. It's like trying to describe what a Rorschach blot while tripping acid. One can grab at one image in passing but it is gone before one can even start talking and has changed to hundreds of different things before one has fuinished speaking.

Andro
12-30-2011, 08:55 PM
Speaking from gnosis can convey only a light surface skimming of the information available.

Isn't 'speaking from gnosis' bordering on oxymoron? (now that I think of it :))
__________________________________________________ _______________

By the way, III - - - Any particular reason for the super-sized fonts? Just curious...
----------------------------------------------------------

Hellin Hermetist
12-30-2011, 09:03 PM
Many things are possible. If one had the desire, a living statue is possible.


Ok. Forget the human soul-living statue connection, as that was the main point of my question. Are you able to demonstrate that possibility at a practical level?

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 09:11 PM
Wow. oxymoron means "sharp dull".
Oxy-gen must generate sharpness. Another sword/lance.

I also know that gnosis for me doesn't convey it to anyone else.
That'd be funny if I didn't know that.
A gnostic who doesn't know himself - another oxymoron!
Or is it?
I could be so immersed in oneness... surely you know what i know. How couldn't you?
That is actually a part of magic or wonder-working: the ability to transmit gnosis.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-uaLgvlHN-6tVi053VMcSYJpZmADCzHF60mDlujodfCouT-E-pQ

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 09:20 PM
Ok. Forget the human soul-living statue connection, as that was the main point of my question. Are you able to demonstrate that possibility at a practical level?

We are all able to.
I have done some things, yes.
But technically, I would have to agree with Jesus:
It is not I (the salt which is speaking to you) who do these things but the Father
(source, world soul) which is within me, and within you, who does them.

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 09:23 PM
Hi Illen,

Speaking from gnosis can convey only a light surface skimming of the information available. If the experience were exactly repeatable, what comes out of a persons mouth will be different every time. Two folks sharing the experience will say differnt things about it. The interpretation (opinion) of these things depends upon the archetypes a person uses to interpret the things seen. It's like trying to describe what a Rorschach blot while tripping acid. One can grab at one image in passing but it is gone before one can even start talking and has changed to hundreds of different things before one has fuinished speaking.


According to Webster's Dictionary, "Gnosis" means "positive knowledge in spiritual matters". Thus, it is like a conviction to the person who posseses it. Since it involves spiritual matters, you are right - no two people would express it in the same way. Just like in Science, it can never be "proven". But in Science, the observation is very clearly articulated, and the means to "test" it are readily available to anyone who wishes to confirm it or improve on it.

In alchemy, there appears to be two distinct components, at least initially: a "spiritual matter" and a physical process. I assume that the physical process can be described very precisely, although no Alchemist ever does for whatever reason. However, the "spiritual matter" or Spiritus Mundi can likely not be consistently described, since it cannot be seen or measured directly. It would be like trying to describe the essence of what motivates your body, or what is it that makes a live body different than a dead one.

"Gnosis" is different than "belief" in the sense that it involves a much stronger sense of conviction, often based on direct experience, and is based on a type of knowledge, rather than trust. "Belief" is also considered to be an opinion.

Illen

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 09:57 PM
In Plato's terms, for anyone interested (it's nice to have a common lingo so we understand each other):
doxa/opinion and alternatively he used the word eikasia - the perception of images.
Krishnamurti explained images very well. It's when our past/knowledge/experience forms an image
and associates or overlays it on the present, so that we see through the dirty filter of our knowledge
instead of experiencing what actually is in front of us.
The next level up Plato called pistis/faith. We equate it with psychic gropings and beliefs.
The nest two types are true knowledge instead of illusory:
dianoia/philosophic reasoning. This is like mathematical deduction, pure reason.
and finally noesis/direct cognition.

These are Plato's four levels of knowledge.
Buddhism has something similar, but they include the writings of sages.
I wouldn't have a problem with that except anyone can claim to be a sage.
And so the violence and ignorance in the Bible become justified under the name of
the "word of god". This is actually pistis/faith/belief. If use dianoia, one can discern
the truth for oneself.

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 10:13 PM
Krishnamurti explained images very well.

Krishnamurti!! I have never read or heard no other spiritual master who communicates as clearly and simply as Krishnamurti. He is also the most humble philosopher I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I have in excess of 30 of his books.

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 10:19 PM
I’m not totally convinced that what Fulcanelli wrote in his books is totally correct. However, his books do provide a reasonable summary of some of what the earlier Alchemists wrote and possibly meant. He also seems to be often referenced and quoted.

There has been some discussion on this and other threads in terms of whether or not some of the starting matters used in the process for creating the Philosophers Stone actually came from the “mineral world” as opposed to the animal world (e.g. urine) or the plant world (e.g. wine).

The purpose of this message is not to quote what many of the authors said about this issue, but to focus only on what Fucanelli wrote.

I have read Fucanelli’s two books numerous times. I’m almost totally convinced that (from his perspective) two starting matters are used – one mineral and one metal, and that these indeed did come from a mine in a literal sense of the word. In addition, it seems that two different salts, or a double salt are/is used as helpers.

When he said that the two matters came from the mineral world, I do not for a second believe that he meant anything but the literal sense of the “mineral world” – such as from caves in mountains, hills or the ground. I think he literally meant a metal and a mineral that was actually mined from a mountain or underground.

One of the most convincing quotes that the first mineral substance comes from the mines and not from animals or plants, is as follows:


This devil, an image of material coarseness as opposed to spirituality, is the hieroglyph for the first mineral substance such as it is found in metal-bearing deposits where miners go in order to tear it therefrom.

This could not be more clear, and does not sound at all like a metaphor. He is actually explaining the meaning of a symbol/hieroglyph here. There are many other supporting quotes which I have included below.

There is also ample support that one of the matters is mineral and the other metal. I have also included them below in the quotes that come from his book “Dwellings”. Here is a convincing example:


The author of Le Triomphe Hermetique, rectifying the erroneous assertion of his predecessor, Pierre-Jean Fabre, asserts without ambiguity that "our stone is born from the destruction of two bodies". We will specify that, of these bodies, one is metallic, the other mineral, and that they both grew in the same earth..


Fulcanelli Quotes Regarding the Mineral Origin of the Philosophers Stone


Its traditional name, the stone of the philosophers, is descriptive enough of the body to serve as a useful basis for its identification. It is, indeed, genuinely a stone, for, out of the mine, it shows the external characteristics common to all ores.


Our globe, reflection and mirror of the microcosm, is therefore nothing but a small part of the primordial Chaos, destined by divine will for elementary renewal in the three kingdoms, but which sets of mysterious circumstances have oriented and directed toward the mineral kingdom.


The philosopher’s matter is therefore of mineral and metallic origin. Hence, one must only seek it in the mineral and metallic root, which, says, Basil Valentine in the book, The Twelve Keys, was reserved by the Creator and intended only for the generation of metals. Consequently, anyone who seeks the sacred stone of the philosophers with the hope of encountering this little world in substances alien to the mineral and metallic kingdoms, will never reach his goals.


Finally, if we ferment the solid, universal Medicine with very pure gold or silver, through direct fusion, we obtain the Powder of Projection, third form of the Stone. It is a translucent mass, red or white according to the chosen metal, pulverizable, and appropriate only to metallic transmutation. Oriented, determined, and specific to the mineral realm, it is useless and without action in the other two kingdoms.
Thus the obscure, latent, and potential life of the two primitive mineral substances is developed through the contact, the fight, and the union of their opposite natures, one igneous, the other aqueous. Those are our elements, and there are no others.


As for the second body --- passive and feminine --- Louis d’Estissac had it represented under the shape of a harelipped gnome, equipped with breasts, head covered with a scaly helmet. We already knew from the descriptions left by classical authors that this mineral substance as it is extracted from its mine is scaly, black, hard, and dry.


The Book of Abraham is consequently the Book of the Principle, and since this book is devoted, according to Flamel, to alchemy, that part of science which studies the evolution of mineral bodies, we learn that it deals with the original metallic matter, basis and foundation of the sacred art.


Two men, of similar appearance and costume, express, one, the mineral body, and two, the other the metallic body.


If he remembers that the old masters recommended to begin the work at the very point where nature completes here; if he knows how to kill the living in order to revive the dead, he will no doubt discover which metal he must take and what mineral he should choose in order to begin his first labor.


Danae represents our crude mineral, such as it is extracted from the mine.



The author of Le Triomphe Hermetique, rectifying the erroneous assertion of his predecessor, Pierre-Jean Fabre, asserts without ambiguity that "our stone is born from the destruction of two bodies". We will specify that, of these bodies, one is metallic, the other mineral, and that they both grew in the same earth.


Such is the origin of our stone, equipped ever since its birth with a dual metallic predisposition, which is dry and igneous, and with the dual mineral virtue, whose essence is to be cold and humid.


This difficult point, which Philalethes calls the pivot of the art, consists in knowing how to extract, from metals or from minerals, this first seed. It is the reason why the artists, at the beginning of his work, must completely decompose that which has been assembled by nature because whosoever ignores the means of destroying metals also ignores the means of perfecting them.


The alchemist also has need of a proper soil appropriate to the species and the nature of the seed; once more he has to ask the mineral kingdom for it.


This devil, an image of material coarseness as opposed to spirituality, is the hieroglyph for the first mineral substance such as it is found in metal-bearing deposits where miners go in order to tear it therefrom.



J.H. Pott, who applied himself to noting the many formulas of menstrual, and who strove to provide their rationale, brings us, more than anything, the proof that none of the formulas’ inventors understood what the Adepts meant by their solvent. Although they certified that our mercury is metallic and homogeneous to metals, most of the seekers persisted in extracting it from matters more or less removed from the mineral kingdom. Some thought they were preparing it when they saturated the ruinous volatile spirit (ammonia) with any acid, and then circulated this mixture; others exposed thickened urine to air with the purpose of introducing the airy spirit into it, etc. Becher (Physica Subterranea, Frankfurt 1669) and Bohn (De Alcali et Acidi Insufficienta --- Letter on the Insufficiency of Acid and Alkali) think that "the alkahest is the purest mercurial principle which can be removed either from mercury or from sea salt by specific processes". Zobel (Margarita Medicinalis) and the author of Lullius Redivivus prepare their solvent by saturating the Spirit of Sal Ammoniac (hydrochloric acid) with the Spirit of Tartar (potassium tartrate) and some crude tartar (impure potassium carbonate). Hoffman (5) and Poterius volatilized the salt of tartar by first dissolving it in water, exposing the liquor to putrefaction in an oak-wood vessel, and then submitting the precipitated earth to sublimation. "A solvent which leaves all the other ones far behind, assures Pott, is the precipitate resulting from the mixture of the corrosive sublimate and the sal ammoniac. Whosoever knows how to us it properly, will be able to consider it a true alkahest". Le Fecre, Agricola, Robert Fludd, de Nuysement, Le Breton, Etmuller, and others still prefer the spirit of dew as well as analogous extracts that have been prepared "with stormy rains or with the fatty film which floats on mineral waters". Finally, according to Lenglet-Dufresnoy, Olaus Borrichius (De Origine Chemiae et in conspectus Chemicorum Celebriorum, num. XIV) "notes that Capt. Thomas Parry, an Englishman, saw this same science (alchemy) practiced in 1662 at Fez in Barbary, and that the great alkahest, the first matter of all the philosophers has been known for a long time in Africa by the most skilled Mohammedan artists".
To sum it up, all alkahest recipes proposed by authors who above all aim at the liquid form attributed to the universal solvent are useless, if not false, and only good for spagyrics. Our first matter is solid; the mercury which it provides always presents itself as saline in appearance and with a hard consistency.


It suffices to point out that the dragon is chosen as the hieroglyphic representative of the crude mineral matter with which we must begin the Work. That is to indicate its significance, the care that we must bring to the study of the outer signs and of the qualities likely to make its identification possible, to help us recognize and distinguish the hermetic subject among the many minerals which nature places at our disposal.
Those who are learned in the qualities of the subject know that the universal solvent is a true mineral of dry and fibrous appearance, of solid and hard consistency and of crystalline texture.



This legend contains, behind the veil of allegory, the description of the work which the alchemist must perform in order to extract from the coarse mineral, the living and luminous spirit, the secret fire it encloses as a translucent, green crystal, fusible like wax, and which the sages named their Vitriol.

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 10:52 PM
Krishnamurti!! I have never read or heard no other spiritual master who communicates as clearly and simply as Krishnamurti. He is also the most humble philosopher I have ever had the pleasure of reading. I have in excess of 30 of his books.

Illen

I completely agree!! How wonderful to talk with someone who isn't going to give you answers,
but rather explores with you from square 1 to the threshhold of wisdom, as if he was walking that path
for the first time. Of course, truth is a pathless land. But he was asked the same questions over and over. :)
He was/is a true hierophant. An artist of dianoia.
I probably have a dozen books of his. Reading him was a turning point in my life.
The question left unanswered is the most lovely radiance.

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 11:11 PM
I completely agree!! How wonderful to talk with someone who isn't going to give you answers,
but rather explores with you from square 1 to the threshhold of wisdom, as if he was walking that path
for the first time. Of course, truth is a pathless land. But he was asked the same questions over and over. :)
He was/is a true hierophant. An artist of dianoia.
I probably have a dozen books of his. Reading him was a turning point in my life.
The question left unanswered is the most lovely radiance.

I have gone so far as to tell others that, in my opinion, nobody in the last century comes comes closer to living and breathing the ideals taught by Joshua than Krishnamurti.

Remarkably, the Theophosists, who snatched him when he was but a young boy, indoctrinated him, and tried to mold him as a vehicle for their own agenda, but he rebelled during the late 1920's and left them, to continue on his own. His philosophy was not well defined until later. He never wanted praise and refused to be referred to as a Master - he lived as humbly as he taught, and refused to be made into a media personality. His philosophy was profound simplicity. My favorite teaching of his is to become what you observe.

Now we're really off topic :-)

solomon levi
12-30-2011, 11:22 PM
Hi Illen!
Having studied him so thoroughly, I have to ask, not as a challenge at all - just curious -
how far have you progressed? Does it work for you? Did you perceive the star and the net?
Does any part of the work elude you still?

Illen A. Cluf
12-30-2011, 11:47 PM
Hi Illen!
Having studied him so thoroughly, I have to ask, not as a challenge at all - just curious -
how far have you progressed? Does it work for you? Did you perceive the star and the net?
Does any part of the work elude you still?

Spiritually, I think I have progressed to the point where I merged with the spiritual world for some time, experiencing profound insights. This happened spontaneously, and I have not been able to return. Actually, I don't feel the necessity to return while in the physical world, as I have had a taste for what it will be like. I have studied spirituality quite deeply since I was ten years of age.

As for the Stone, I have many ideas that I'm still testing out. Most of these ideas do not necessarily come from insight but from the fascinating conversations that I have had with like-minded individuals. Although I often play the role of a Devil's Advocate on forums, I'm actually quite open-minded to new ideas and am not fixated on any one approach. Almost everyone in my own and my wife's family are engineers or scientists (I also started out in Engineering), but for some reason, I kept getting mystical experiences that made no scientific sense. I think I am now one of those strange individuals who feel as comfortable with the left brain as with the right brain. That was a huge conflict that I had to deal with for most of my life, but I think I've finally learned to come to terms with it.

So, yes, there is still much of the alchemical work that eludes me, although I keep seeming to sense glimpses of it at the horizon.

How about yourself?

Illen

solomon levi
12-31-2011, 12:20 AM
Well, I was thinking it was fairly obvious and well documented that the mineral is stibnite
and the metal is mars/iron. From reading the works on Newton and Starkey, so much has been
deciphered. I wouldn't be surprised if bismuth could be used in place of antimony, but it has
been verified that the martial regulus with the two salts can produce a star, and with the addition
of venus a purple net. I've made some martial regulus myself but nothing further. For a long time
I didn't have any mercury and wasn't anxious to work with it, so this path was not an option.
But I have mercury now. It just seems so tedious.
One of the first things i came across when I first searched the internet was the Philosophers of
Nature work on martial regulus. Later I came across a hard copy Bacstrom's notes on the same
which was a very convincing read. Then I got the RAMS materials and was able to read Alexander
von Sutchen. And then i found Betty jo Dobbs, and Mr. William Newman... I guess it was in my second
reading of Fulcanelli that I could recognise the signs. But there are still things that don't fit. But how
could there be such a coincidence that stibnite could not be it?
So I figured you knew this and wondered if you'd progressed. Or do you not accept the
martial regulus as the solution?

For me, a lot of my lab work has come to a halt, but I am very active internally and spiritually
in anamnesis or recollecting the chain I described. While I say internal and spiritual, and it is true,
my being is the egg, I do see applications for projecting this same into a flask. I just haven't had
a reason to yet and my time is scarce - there's quite a bit of purposeful turmoil in my life which is
pressing me to calcine the last of the dregs, I feel. It's odd to say, but I sense the death of my
separate self if I am willing to cut a few more threads on my end.

ps - so do you recognise in Fulcanelli this pure path of true alchemy that has to do with unconditioned SM?
I know the regulus can be used as the magnet for astral spirit, but there seems another path described as well.

Illen A. Cluf
12-31-2011, 12:51 AM
Well, I was thinking it was fairly obvious and well documented that the mineral is stibnite
and the metal is mars/iron.

Fulcanelli spends at least two pages insisting that the mineral/metal is NOT stibnite/antimony. He insists that it is only used as a name for the philosophical substance because of some similarities. I could easily provide numerous quotes.

Also, having read the book numerous times, it is almost certain that the metal is iron - there are numerous clues. As for the mineral, that is not as clear, although if you look carefully, he provides several hints that it is most likely galena. Of course not a single atom of either of these ends up in the PS.


I wouldn't be surprised if bismuth could be used in place of antimony, but it has
been verified that the martial regulus with the two salts can produce a star, and with the addition
of venus a purple net.

Although the regulus of antimony definitely produces a star, based on my careful reading, this is not the star of which Fulcanelli speaks. His star is derived from the sulphur and/or mecury of the metals, and floats on the surface of the liquid during the making of the griffin.


Fulcanelli: You will obtain confirmation of it by discovering, in the midst of the igneous water, or of this earthly heaven, according to the typical expression of Wenceslaus Lavinus of Moravia, the hermetic sun, centric and radiant, made manifest, visible, and obvious.


So I figured you knew this and wondered if you'd progressed. Or do you not accept the
martial regulus as the solution?

Absolutely not. I'm almost totally convinced that the martial regulus star is not the star of which Fulcanelli speaks. If you wish, I can provide quotes. I seem to understand more of what the Stone is not, then what it is :-)


For me, a lot of my lab work has come to a halt, but I am very active internally and spiritually
in anamnesis or recollecting the chain I described. While I say internal and spiritual, and it is true,
my being is the egg, I do see applications for projecting this same into a flask. I just haven't had
a reason to yet and my time is scarce - there's quite a bit of purposeful turmoil in my life which is
pressing me to calcine the last of the dregs, I feel. It's odd to say, but I sense the death of my
separate self if I am willing to cut a few more threads on my end.

I think the answer lies in not following what most people report as being the possible solution. I firmly believe that it is full of traps, and has been tested and restested umpteen times, all without any success. The most common trap seems to be in using stibnite/antimony as the beginning substance. The next big trap seems to be that some alkahest is used to melt a metal, which is then used to make the Stone.

Based on what Fulcanelli (my name Illlen A. Cluf spelled backwards) says (and again, I don't know if he was actually right) there are four substances used:

1) a mineral
2) a metal
3) a salt
4) another salt.

None of these actually becomes part of the Stone - they are only used in a secret way to extract a mercury and sulphur from the mineral. The sulphur is a tiny little part, in the shape of an oval, which he calls echeneis. All this is clearly explained in his book. I can elaborate if interested.


ps - so do you recognise in Fulcanelli this pure path of true alchemy that has to do with unconditioned SM?
I know the regulus can be used as the magnet for astral spirit, but there seems another path described as well.

IMO he seems to refer rather obliquely to this SM, but not as much as other authors. I think he takes it for granted that it is already found in the mineral from a mine (not the metal) so that there is no need to attract it in a separate process. He's not clear as to the purpose of the metal (iron), although it assists in some way just as it does in making a regulus of antimony. As for the mineral, the SM seems to be hidden in the non-metallic part of the mineral. I think that is one of the great secrets. Most people seem to focus on the metal (and even throw away the most important part) rather than focus on the raw matter surrounding the metal, the real "gold" that is thrown like garbage on the streets.

Illen

Hellin Hermetist
12-31-2011, 01:06 AM
We don't even need to mention Fulcanelli to reject antimony under a mineral or metallic form. Basil Valentine says openly that antimony (mineral or regulus) doesn't posses the required qualities for the production of the philosophers stone. And if we speak about antimony, who is in the position to disagree with that master?

Illen A. Cluf
12-31-2011, 01:12 AM
We don't even need to mention Fulcanelli to reject antimony under a mineral or metallic form. Basil Valentine says openly that antimony (mineral or regulus) doesn't posses the required qualities for the production of the philosophers stone. And if we speak about antimony, who is in the position to disagree with that master?

Thanks, Hellin. I know several serious alchemists who are totally convinced that antimony/stibium is not in any way used in the process.

solomon levi
12-31-2011, 02:09 AM
Okay.
Yeah, it seems that the first scoria from the mars will contain the seed of gold.
I've heard about galena. It seems enough people thought about this that someone should
be able to report if it can make a star, but I see the star you describe is not on the metal.

Oh - don't worry about quotes so far. I'm familiar with what you've said.
I know he dismisses stibium, but that means nothing from the mouth of an alchemist. :)

The two salts would be, nitre and tartar.
The antimony "swallows" the other metals. It doesn't make amalgams.
Antimony is a metalloid - lead is not. If you agree with the rationale that it should be a metalloid.
I'm not convinced, but it's a theory some alchemists have mentioned.

I'm curious also if you discern the path with clay.

The echeneis is a fish that guides to the north, the pole star. I would bet that that is connected
with the iron and not the mineral, unless we find out that iron is the mineral.
Anyway, iron is sideros = star and iron can be magnetised and point north just like the fishy.
The black mineral could be magnetic magnetite. One of the things that doesn't fit with antimony
is that it is not found in the mine black. It only appears black after powdering.
Echeneis = 878 which also = phlogeos (flaming, blazing - like the blazing star/pentagram)
also = egchos (sword, lance, spear); also skhptos (thunderbolt); also Ermanoubis (Hermanoubis).

I have to go. I'll be away from the internet til after New Years. Everyone have a great one.
Nice talking to everyone today! nice getting to know you better Illen. :)
I look forward to resuming this discussion.

I have some other ideas about Fulcanelli's matter.
Obviously we should consider limestone and clays in relation to the oak.
I've kind of been discussing that in other areas.

Seth-Ra
12-31-2011, 02:13 AM
Solomon Levi,

I just wanted to mention that your relation to Plato's Cave and that of interpreting shadows and the connections to the Stone, reminds me of the Amber Chronicles, where the princes and the princesses of "Amber" - the "True World", are able to walk the "Pattern", which lets them "walk through shadows" - other worlds. The premise being, that all worlds you can think up, exist. So as you take a stroll, using the gift that was engrained into you from walking the Pattern, you can subtly start changing things, like "around this corner, the grass with be red, a little further, the leaves on the trees will be of flexible glass..." etc...
Im sure plenty of meaning can be gathered from that then, in connection with our world and perception/living within it.
As for the Stone - in the story there is a red glowing gem held by the King of Amber, its called the "Jewel of Judgement", it possesses the Pattern inside of it, and allows the wearer to manipulate the weather, as well as become removed from time - to much use of it is a bad thing though. Come to find out, the King's daddy is the one that created Amber, and came from the exact opposite: Amber represents Order, structure, truth. The king's dad comes from the "original place" - the Courts of Chaos. To get there, you walk through shadows, unto the edge of madness, where the laws are not only bent, but damn-near removed, subjective - right when you are at the brink of insanity - walk further, and you'll reach the Courts. The king's dad is also the one who stole the "Jewel of Judgement" (that lovely red gem...), which originates from the Court's deity; the One-eyed Serpent... the gem being its eye (though it can see without it). The Amberites can walk the Pattern, and the Choasites negotiate a similar thing called the "Logrus" - all of which has a common, chaotic, serpentine, great eye, source. ;)

So its all a structured shadow, among infinite structured shadows, of the single All-structured-unstructured-Chaos. :D

Food for thought (or chaos for contemplating). :cool:




~Seth-Ra

vega33
12-31-2011, 05:37 AM
Hi Sol, Illen and others,

You mentioned the so called "realm of ideas", and the idea that all things spring forth from an idea. People tend to see the word "idea" as being very abstract and suggesting human thought, or else some nebulous realm not connected to reality. But the key to understanding Plato and others who suggested this concept is to recognize that these philosophers, not disconnected from the source of life, recognized that everything is connected and flows together through way of intermediaries or means, that consciousness is a universal, and moreover that we can use this gift of Mind given to us by the Creator to unite with other forms and thus gain wisdom from direct experience of them - somewhat like reading the magnetic patterns on a computer hard disk. An "idea" is a living, organized form necessarily actuated by consciousness - that is to say everything is initially created by a movement of spirit, the so called spiritus Mundi. Spiritus Mundi is not spoken of by alchemists as some specific substance or material, but more as a kind of sealed vibration or life, a life force which the philosophers, unlike the sleepers, do not deny the existence of. They do not deny the existence of it because it is as close as their own thoughts and physical sensations which run through the body. It is clear that this force exists in everything, that a lack of apparent movement signals death, in which external spirit then seiZes hold of the previously ensured matter and remoulds it into new forms.

The philosophers are trying to point out to us that we live in a universe full of spirit and consciousness of differing kinds, and that it is this knowledge that enables magic to work.

Such is at least my understanding, which I thought I would share with y'all.

happy new year!
-M

Illen A. Cluf
12-31-2011, 05:23 PM
Hi Sol and others,



Yeah, it seems that the first scoria from the mars will contain the seed of gold.

Actually, I think it's from the mineral (Galena). The iron seems to be used in the metal form.


I've heard about galena. It seems enough people thought about this that someone should
be able to report if it can make a star, but I see the star you describe is not on the metal.

Yes, the star is not formed like the regulus of antimony, but formed on the surface of the mercury extracted from the mineral using a "trick of the wrist" as Fulcanelli describes it. I don't think that the lead has much to do with the mercury or sulphur. It's the mineral parts that seem to matter the most. Everyone seems to be focusing on the metals, but nothing seems to be extracted from them. If anything, it is the metals which are the feces, not so much the rest, although it also contains impurities. I think that's one of the traps where many go astray (at least according to Fulcanelli - remember, I'm only focusing here on Fulcanelli's approach, which may not be correct).


Oh - don't worry about quotes so far. I'm familiar with what you've said.

Great! Yet another person who knows his works well!


I know he dismisses stibium, but that means nothing from the mouth of an alchemist. :)

I think that in this case, he was being generous. I would suggest re-reading those two or three pages.


The two salts would be, nitre and tartar.

I would agree with niter being one of the salts, as he provides many hints. As for the other, it is much more hidden. However, tartar is generally from the plant kingdom, so that is likely not it.
So now we have as a likely possibility:

metal = iron (igneous agent, valiant knight armed with sword and shield, three nails)
mineral = galena (virgin earth, scaly dragon, Aries)
one salt = niter (second salt, extracted from the dew that fertilizes the earth in the month of May)
other salt = ? ("pure white admirable salt")


The antimony "swallows" the other metals. It doesn't make amalgams.
Antimony is a metalloid - lead is not. If you agree with the rationale that it should be a metalloid.
I'm not convinced, but it's a theory some alchemists have mentioned.


Iron is the metal. The other (Galena) is a mineral, so it's not important whether or not it contains a metalloid. It only has to be a mineral - but remember, that is likely how Fulcanelli sees it. Other alchemists may have different explanations.


I'm curious also if you discern the path with clay.


Yes, I'm open to that path. Clay was my first conclusion when I first started investigating alchemy a decade ago. It certainly fits the description of a foul smelling, black, scaly dragon, and often contains a metal - aluminum - which is never once mentioned by alchemists. See the following for an interesting overview of aluminum:

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/alumin.htm

I saw a picture of a clay-aluminum area in Germany once, and it certainly looked like Hades and the perfect home for a dragon.


The echeneis is a fish that guides to the north, the pole star. I would bet that that is connected
with the iron and not the mineral, unless we find out that iron is the mineral.

I think that it is connected with the "sulfur" extracted from the mineral surrounding the metal, but which is actually part of the "mercury".


I have to go. I'll be away from the internet til after New Years. Everyone have a great one.
Nice talking to everyone today! nice getting to know you better Illen. :)
I look forward to resuming this discussion.

Happy New Year! I'm also looking forward to resuming this discussion, and hope that others join in. The more minds joined in trying to solve this puzzle, the better.


I have some other ideas about Fulcanelli's matter.

I'm looking forward to those ideas.


Obviously we should consider limestone and clays in relation to the oak.
I've kind of been discussing that in other areas.

That will be an interesting discussion. Fulcanelli has a lot of interesting comments about trees, and especially the oak. In general (in Fulcanelli's interpretation) the symbol of a tree represents a metal. It's important whether or not the tree is alive or dead - there is a significant distinction. The part above the ground is also important as compared with the roots. Also, it's important whether or not the tree is old or young. Then there's the stream of flowing water at the base between the roots and the rest of the tree.

Here is one tree-related excerpt.:


According to the alchemical doctrine, ordinary metals, torn out of their ore bearing earth to satisfy the demands of industry, forced to yield to man’s whims, seem in fact to be the victims of a glaring evil spell. As an ore, they lived deep within the rock and slowly evolved toward the perfection of native gold, they are now condemned to die as soon as they are extracted, and perish under the ill-fated action of a reducing fire. The smelting process, while separating them from the nutritive elements associated with the mineralizing elements responsible for maintaining their activity, kills them by fixing the temporary and transitory form which they had acquired. Such is the meaning of the two symbolic trees, one expressing mineral vitality, the other metallic inertia.

This quote also supports my contention mentioned above and earlier that it is the non-metallic parts of the mineral that are vital for providing the "nutritive elements" responsible for "maintaining their activity".

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
12-31-2011, 05:46 PM
Hi -M and others,


Hi Sol, Illen and others,
But the key to understanding Plato and others who suggested this concept is to recognize that these philosophers, not disconnected from the source of life, recognized that everything is connected and flows together through way of intermediaries or means, that consciousness is a universal, and moreover that we can use this gift of Mind given to us by the Creator to unite with other forms and thus gain wisdom from direct experience of them - somewhat like reading the magnetic patterns on a computer hard disk.

I read an interesting book on the evolution of ideas not long ago, that mentioned how we can no longer properly read or understand what the ancient philosophers wrote, since their mind-set was so different than what it is today. Back then, there was no great distinction between any area of thought, whether it was politics, religion, science or philosophy. Everything was intricately connected. Today we continue to separate more and more and put everything in little compartments that are not connected to each other. Politics is completely separated from religion or philosophy, religion is completed separated from science and philosophy, etc. As a result, the initial concept of "quality" as taught and understood by the ancient philosophers has all but disappeared and may even be part of the problem behind why there is such a disproportionate amount of corruption in religion and politics (and even science). We have lost the meaning of "quality".

For an excellent discussion of the philosophical concept of this loss of "quality", I would highly recommend the entertaining and thought-provoking philosophical novel, and cult classic, "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", and the sequel, "Lila" written by Robert M. Pirsig.

Illen

Albion
12-31-2011, 07:08 PM
Miscellanea:

- As those foods & herbs which are high in Ormus are also noteworthy for their health-promoting
qualities, so clay also is widely regarded as a health adjunct in both internal and external use.

Ormalite pyrophyllite clay:

http://www.vitalityherbsandclay.com/clay-and-minerals-for-health/ormalite-and-the-health-building-benefits-of-angstrom-elements.html

http://www.vitalityherbsandclay.com/detoxification/pyrophyllite-clay-sacred-clay-for-detoxification.html

Here is an excellent book on the subject available free from this page:

http://www.eytonsearth.org/clay-tablet.php

or from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Tablet-Definitive-Guide-Healing-Homeostatic/dp/0615329373 .

A PDF on Clay (chemistry, structure, etc.):

http://epsc511.wustl.edu/Clay_formation.pdf


- Vega33: Yes, important factors to consider in your fine post (#58).
Thanks for keeping certain considerations/factors in play.


- Illen A Cluf: I hold Pirsig's work in high esteem. It may not be "the last word"
but I feel there's something of genuine grandeur (and value) to it.

http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1963-Metaphysics-of-Quality&highlight=pirsig

Nibiru
12-31-2011, 09:18 PM
While I was reading this thread I looked up and noticed that the series "Planet Earth" was on the Planet Green channel and was showing the episode called "Caves". I couldn't find the entire episode online, but if you're able you should watch it.

Here's a clip of some caves that I thought was cool, if this has been linked before I apologize in advance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViuWH7LgoNo

rogerc
01-02-2012, 05:02 AM
RogerC do you know to which secret society Ketmia Vere (The author of Compass of the Wise) actually belonged?

Did you read the preface to Compass of The Wise...he makes it sound like he really despised masonic societies of his day so he refrained from them for the most part...because it seems that in his opinion they had lost the reason for their existence and they had mostly become drinking clubs

True Initiate
01-02-2012, 11:31 AM
Did you read the preface to Compass of The Wise...he makes it sound like he really despised masonic societies of his day so he refrained from them for the most part...because it seems that in his opinion they had lost the reason for their existence and they had mostly become drinking clubs

It's not only about masonry! His Order selected their members from masonic institutions, to be more precise from the Scotish Rite rite brothers into their Alchemical Order. That's why he held speeches to the French masons in the preface but he was not only teaching but also recruiting!

The custom of those times was to openly publish enigmatical books so that people become intrigued and frustrated trying to understand them and the only way to receive more light is by joining the same Order the Author belonged (which of course meant paying high fees to join). The Alchemical Order had degrees and in each degree they were given one or two enigmatical books accompanied with the instructions (they called them supplements) that contained the keys to open the said enigmatical books.

The Compass of the Wise was studied in the sixth grade of the said society and the supplements were written by Ketmia Vere himself. So the book was only half the story and it's impossible to decode it without those keys because they are all interconnected!
It's a wholle System of teachings, layers upon layers!

For example this is the Hand of the Philosophers that Ketmia Vere (and his Order) has used (nothing to do with that of Hollandus!) and this is one of the many Key's for Compass of the Wise. The illustrations are coming from two different manuscripts that belonged to two different lodges of the same Order but they are containing the same teachings:

http://img164.imagevenue.com/loc456/th_503616399_1_new_122_456lo.jpg (http://img164.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=503616399_1_new_122_456lo.jpg)

http://img243.imagevenue.com/loc60/th_503434228_2_new_122_60lo.jpg (http://img243.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=503434228_2_new_122_60lo.jpg)

I am warning you as a Friend that you don't waste your time in mere speculation and pretended wisdom because those books were not meant to be understood without their proper keys!

vega33
01-02-2012, 07:00 PM
True Puffer,

I find it sad that you think so. Of course each is entitled to his or her own opinion, but it becomes abundantly clear upon reading Compass der Weisen that this is no mere text of recruitment, but a proper instructional and expositional text. Author's personal life aside, the philosophy expressed within the book is sound, certainly no more convoluted than say the Cosmopolite. And in the ultimate analysis, it presents the salient points without ostentation, providing the student valuable hints to prevent them from becoming a mere puffer, for instance by explaining the correct usage of the "fire against Nature", and explaining other points in relation to the spiritus Mundi and quintessence.

Initiatory orders such as the Masons and the Rosicrucians (here I speak not of the orders as they exist today in all places) would rely on a grade system because it was important that the student *do* the work, physical and internal, before going on to the next step. Similarly, in confronting an alchemical text such as this, you cannot expect to fully understand it without putting yourself in right alignment with the Order that wrote it. I would say more... But I'm not going to :p. there are exercises you need to do in order to connect with the group, just as in alchemy headway is made by connection with tgaotu, prayer etc., as well as the lab work.

True Initiate
01-02-2012, 07:20 PM
Ah Vega33 i didn't said the Author of the book was a liar just that he was intitiated in this Order.
As it so happens i posses their secret manuscripts and many interpretations that Rogerc makes are just wrong and very often pure superstition...

The other important point he doesn't recognizes that various Authors were belonging to different Orders and their teachings were different. Yes, they have used the same language, the same symbols but for different starting materials, different Paths. Leo has certainly talent but he relies too much on his own inteligence to intepret their puzzles and he doesn't know that they are not part of the same puzzle!

I am sorry but i am telling you the truth...

alfr
01-03-2012, 07:08 AM
Ah Vega33 i didn't said the Author of the book was a liar just that he was intitiated in this Order.
As it so happens i posses their secret manuscripts and many interpretations that Rogerc makes are just wrong and very often pure superstition...

The other important point he doesn't recognizes that various Authors were belonging to different Orders and their teachings were different. Yes, they have used the same language, the same symbols but for different starting materials, different Paths. Leo has certainly talent but he relies too much on his own inteligence to intepret their puzzles and he doesn't know that they are not part of the same puzzle!

I am sorry but i am telling you the truth...

Hi True Puffer

SURE i agree unfortunately you are quite right what you say is true and is also called the internal documents TRADITIONA ORIGINAL of the golden RC but it is also true that there are versions of the original manuscripts are traditional full operational examples thesaurus tesaurorum arcane divine silentiun etc all of the texts that deal with operating very openly cone obtained the spiritus mundi and without magnet in the indeterminate (on spiritus mundi about what his capture, etc.-very interesting and we'll talk about what is the soon-Ortelius in the commentary that describes the lumen novum chimicum Sendivogius of its apparatus the Quick Collection spiritus mundi: apparatus to him called marmor(marble) spongia marble) and how to develop materials with a variety of different stones and different types of philosofali the elixir etc. and these would be best to study and experiment with what I publish, etc. for example, the thesaurus thesaurorum we are trying to do

However as regards with regard to the superstitions of the many ancient alchemists on spiritus mundi etc. superstitions as you call them (in many sometimes you have sometimes many reason) I think that the only rebuttal of the alchemical process RC etc and see if there will be developed or not actual results and think about Green Lion with his method to attract the spirits mundi arrived to him through- meditation and intuition and it seems that funcion well as he asserts his spiritus mundi to him collect dissolving direct the gold and this is a fact and not just a pure experimental hypothesis!!!

my best regards alfr

very interesting photographs of the hand alchemical titled arcana arcanorun that you have put in your post

one is equal to 266 pg color figure with instructions found in the thesaurus thesaurom pg 266 of the library and Ms. Stugart .- ven to that of darstad

and is identical to our translated by our thesaurus sall'italiano anise in the French (as well as identical to our Italian translation and integralmete it is translated by the new translation of the editions will be released soon vetriolum) and pk is the same and this and it eseendo n the same page is obviously taken from them and it is the manuscript of the library Stugart-darstad

thesaurum thesaurorum frarenitatis rosae et aurea crucis ms 3262 darmstad universititis und landesbibliothek Hs 3262
thesaurum thesaurorum frarenitatis rosae et aurea crucis ms qt 514 stuttgard wurrtembergishe landesbibliothek cod theolet phil qt 514

but the other figure one that faded more exact reference librarian has colocation?

solomon levi
01-03-2012, 10:41 AM
We don't even need to mention Fulcanelli to reject antimony under a mineral or metallic form. Basil Valentine says openly that antimony (mineral or regulus) doesn't posses the required qualities for the production of the philosophers stone. And if we speak about antimony, who is in the position to disagree with that master?

And who is in the position to interpret him?
If we're not in position to disagree, how can we be in position to agree?
There's all kinds of ways to say something and not say something.
Did Basil Valentine tell you to always interpret him literally?
Or don't you decide when and when not to do that? By what authority do you decide?

Nothing can be proven; everything can be argued.
How do we know the sentence that says "antimony is not appropriate for
the stone" isn't also a cipher that when translated appropriately reads,
"I'm lying. Antimony really is it."?

So what can we know directly instead of believing someone else?
If I discover for myself why antimony when prepared reveals a stellar
signature and also a purple net signature... if I understand why nature has
created this so, would it matter if a thousand adepts told me what to believe
about antimony if I can see?

The books are there for guides. They are full of contradictions which the "masters"
tell us are not contradictions. The first matter isn't earth, water, air or fire... now go look
for it in the mineral kingdom. How do you rationalise that one? The first matter is
everywhere... now go look in the minerals... no, not that one! ???

Do they not say "burn your books"?

solomon levi
01-03-2012, 10:58 AM
By what authority do you decide?


This is where one's own spiritual authority must come in, which the
authors also teach under the same metaphors and symbols.
Without this gold, the rational soul-mind, one cannot hope to succeed.
We are the microcosmic magnet to the macrocosmic sulphur/light.
Every man and every woman is a star.

I should clarify, I am not saying antimony is THE something. There are
other minerals and non minerals that show interesting signatures. I'm just
saying we should read the signatures and the book of nature over Valentine
or anyone else. Be able to read both.

Hellin Hermetist
01-03-2012, 11:54 AM
And who is in the position to interpret him?


Everyone, if we speak about Chariot of Antimony and not his Twelve Keys. Have you really studied the work I am referring to? It is read more like a manual of the early days of chemistry rather than a dark and obscure alchemical treatise. Even the older chemists of the early 19th century, in an era when alchemy was almost forgotten, praise B.V. as their great forefather, cause, they say, in his treatise named Triumphal Chariot of Antimony, they found mentioned for the first time such useful chemical processes, as the distillation of brandy and ardent spirits from the lees of wine, the production of nitric acid by distillation of sulfuric acid with sal niter, the production of the red oil of vitriol by dry distillation of copper sulfate salts, and the production of a great number of antimonial salts and glasses.



If we're not in position to disagree, how can we be in position to agree?


He has proved himself much more experienced than me in the preparation of this substance, so I am not in position yet to disagree with him about this matter.



Did Basil Valentine tell you to always interpret him literally?
Or don't you decide when and when not to do that? By what authority do you decide?


Again I believe that you haven't studied the book to which I am referring to. Of course the many experiments he describes in open language in that book must be interpreted literally, as many later chemists performed many times these same experiences under the instructions of Basilius, always with good results. That's the authority that allows me to say that what he says at this book must be interpreted literally.



Nothing can be proven; everything can be argued.
How do we know the sentence that says "antimony is not appropriate for
the stone" isn't also a cipher that when translated appropriately reads,
"I'm lying. Antimony really is it."?


Everyone can read in a book what he wants to read in it. But I shall give you one more hint. In his Triumphal Chariot of Antimony, B.V. doesn't reject antimony completely, but says that it's not the appropriate matter of the philosophers stone, but the fire antimonial stone can be prepared with it, which tinges particularly and not universally. About the preparation of this fire stone he gives long and precise instructions in open language, but the process is tedious and expensive.



Do they not say "burn your books"?


Yes, but only after the whitening of your Laton. If you have reached that certain stage of the work you don't need their instructions anymore, as you are a master of your own self.

solomon levi
01-03-2012, 04:48 PM
Hi Hellen.
Yes, I'm familiar with it and it's commentary by Kirkringius.
That doesn't make the whole to be taken literally.
Have you even pondered why the title?
What is a triumphal chariot? What's it got to do with antimony?
Much learned from mythology and astronomy.

I'm familiar with the teaching on the fire stone. That still doesn't mean that
BV didn't want to share more than that. Antimony when prepared with vinegar
is one way of producing Weidenfeld's mercurius philosophorim, spiritus vini lulli, etc.
BV and many others worked this method towards the stone, if you are familiar with
Weidenfeld and acetate path. Holland shows the path with lead acetate. Ripley, Lully, etc.
Can we not consider these good alchemists?

Like I said, I'm sure we can both argue this to death without proving anything.

solomon levi
01-03-2012, 11:12 PM
Hi Sol and others,

Yes, the star is not formed like the regulus of antimony, but formed on the surface of the mercury extracted from the mineral using a "trick of the wrist" as Fulcanelli describes it. I don't think that the lead has much to do with the mercury or sulphur. It's the mineral parts that seem to matter the most. Everyone seems to be focusing on the metals, but nothing seems to be extracted from them. If anything, it is the metals which are the feces, not so much the rest, although it also contains impurities. I think that's one of the traps where many go astray (at least according to Fulcanelli - remember, I'm only focusing here on Fulcanelli's approach, which may not be correct).

I would agree with niter being one of the salts, as he provides many hints. As for the other, it is much more hidden. However, tartar is generally from the plant kingdom, so that is likely not it.
So now we have as a likely possibility:

metal = iron (igneous agent, valiant knight armed with sword and shield, three nails)
mineral = galena (virgin earth, scaly dragon, Aries)
one salt = niter (second salt, extracted from the dew that fertilizes the earth in the month of May)
other salt = ? ("pure white admirable salt")


The admirable salt is sal mirabile - sodium or potassium sulfate.
It is aka sal de duobus, sal polychrestus, arcanum duplicatum, vitriolated tartar, arcanite mineral.
Glauber gives a few hints at this work.
There are several ways to make it using the dry powders of sulfur and tartar,
or the liver of sulfur, or adding sulfuric acid to a solution of tartar.
It can be made from common salt and vitriolic acid as well.
And from tartar and vinegar. We may also consider Ripley's toad gorged on grapes.
There are also ways with iron vitriol, copper, vitriol, zinc vitriol.
I'd leave out antimony and galena. Nitre is virgin earth and dragon.
It is also aphrodite (sea foam) as its seeds crystallise on the surface of
the cooling solution - they're hexagonal, little stars floating on the mercury, like snowflakes.




Yes, I'm open to that path. Clay was my first conclusion when I first started investigating alchemy a decade ago. It certainly fits the description of a foul smelling, black, scaly dragon, and often contains a metal - aluminum - which is never once mentioned by alchemists. See the following for an interesting overview of aluminum:

http://www.du.edu/~jcalvert/phys/alumin.htm

I saw a picture of a clay-aluminum area in Germany once, and it certainly looked like Hades and the perfect home for a dragon.

That will be an interesting discussion. Fulcanelli has a lot of interesting comments about trees, and especially the oak. In general (in Fulcanelli's interpretation) the symbol of a tree represents a metal. It's important whether or not the tree is alive or dead - there is a significant distinction. The part above the ground is also important as compared with the roots. Also, it's important whether or not the tree is old or young. Then there's the stream of flowing water at the base between the roots and the rest of the tree.


Yeah, the clays contain that same urinous salt.
There's a number of ways that clays, boles, marls, limestone can be involved.
Depending on the path limestone and clay may or may not assume the same role.
Sometimes clays are used to distill salts. Sometimes a clay vessel is used to generate
salts with urine. Limestone may be the primary subject or it may be used to fix nitre
which product may be used for arcanum duplicatum.

Fulcanelli may be describing one or more of these paths, confused and jumbled together.
It's hard to follow if you haven't done the work because the salt manifests in different ways
at different times, sometimes the needles, sometimes leaves/foliated, sometimes six-sided
prisms and sometimes our cubic salt.

Also sometimes the tree is potassium carbonate and sometimes "bole" ("trunk of tree" and clay),
and sometimes calcium carbonate.


Alum can fit in there too as it is a "double salt" of potash aluminum and sulfuric acid.

Illen A. Cluf
01-04-2012, 12:13 AM
The admirable salt is sal mirabile - sodium or potassium sulfate.

Correct! I wondered if anyone would spot the reference to "admirable". It is also known as Glauber's Salt. I was able to obtain just under a cup of this salt.


I'd leave out antimony and galena. Nitre is virgin earth and dragon.

I agree, but I was specifically focusing on Fulcanelli's approach. Even his student, Canseliet worked on Galena for a long time.


Yeah, the clays contain that same urinous salt.
There's a number of ways that clays, boles, marls, limestone can be involved.
Depending on the path limestone and clay may or may not assume the same role.


These are often used as "magnets" in numerous different ways in order to draw the celestial dew, containing the SM.


Fulcanelli may be describing one or more of these paths, confused and jumbled together.


He does tend to address different paths, although he largely focuses on the dry path involving minerals.


Alum can fit in there too as it is a "double salt" of potash aluminum and sulfuric acid.

Leaves everything wide open, doesn't it? :-)

Illen

solomon levi
01-04-2012, 12:33 AM
Hi.
I worked a bit with sodium sulfate as Glauber describes with the carbuncle,
but not too successfully. I will purify things better if I approach this again.
A really pure salt after vinegar is distilled off several times and then SV,
should melt like wax and be a good arcanum.

vega33
01-05-2012, 06:20 AM
Ah Vega33 i didn't said the Author of the book was a liar just that he was intitiated in this Order.
As it so happens i posses their secret manuscripts and many interpretations that Rogerc makes are just wrong and very often pure superstition...

The other important point he doesn't recognizes that various Authors were belonging to different Orders and their teachings were different. Yes, they have used the same language, the same symbols but for different starting materials, different Paths. Leo has certainly talent but he relies too much on his own inteligence to intepret their puzzles and he doesn't know that they are not part of the same puzzle!

I am sorry but i am telling you the truth...

Hi again TP,

I'm not arguing points of what rogerc/Leo or whatever he wants to be called has been saying. My point was regarding your assertion that other documents were necessary to decode the Compass of the Wise. While such codes may be useful in an intellectual sense, they do not teach the fundamental points regarding the art, and in fact one might say that these fundamental points, despite being explained very well by adepts who have written on the subject, cannot be fully appreciated except by someone who groks the fundamental revelations, for instance the nature of light discussed in Genesis, and elucidated upon in Giovanni's "Revelation of the Secret Spirit", or the concept of the so called Golden Chain which deals with interconnnectedness and resolves for the discerning reader the nature of the vessel, or even the Masonic "royal secret" which not only teaches us the truth of brotherhood, but also the nature of this Universal Spirit and how this relates to religious movements of the past. Of course, there are techniques of passing information that involve more sublime techniques involving buildings or natural structures in the environment, but I'm not intending to make a full account here, just to point out that the truths that underpin books such as the Compass are not rocket science, and can be understood without the need for diagrams, etc. It is always the practical implementation of these concepts in a technical manner that requires a certain degree of skill, not the understand itself... At least not in my understanding.

Hellin Hermetist
01-05-2012, 04:38 PM
I agree, but I was specifically focusing on Fulcanelli's approach. Even his student, Canseliet worked on Galena for a long time.
Illen


Hi Illen,

My thoughts about the path of Fulcanelli are the following. His dragon isn't niter, as he describes numeral times the dragon as a certain black ore. Of course its true that some other authors are referring to niter when they speak about the dragon who crawls in the cave of the earth. The dragon at the twelves keys of Basil Valentine is niter without any doubt.

Now back to Fulcanelli. In many points it seems that he really speaks about galena. See what he say about kohl (one of the uses of galena at ancient Egypt), about the cat and its whiskers (make a little search to find what connection existed between galena crystals and cat's whiskers at the time of Fulcanelli), or about the initial letter G. The only piece that doesn't fit to the puzzle is that nature has stamped it with the letter 6, when we know that galena occurs most often under cube and octahedra crystal form. Now, there is also another natural ore which initial letter is G, which crystallize under the hexagonal system, and which the ancients and medieval chemists thought that is another form of galena. Not sure if that's his first matter, but its a possibility.
The metal seems to be iron.

As for the role of niter, its the Aries or the salt Ammoniac of the philosophers, which brings in its belly the secret sulfur. The connections are to obvious to be neglected. According to the ancient alchemists, sal niter corresponds to the condensation of the rays of sun and stars under a salty form. Ammon Ra was a sunny deity and in the theology of the Egyptians had a deep connection with Aries. Also Aries corresponds to the months of spring, when the air is full of a subtile niter in order to impregnate the earth, according to Limojon de St Didier and other philosophers. Niter seems also to be the philosophical salamander and the really philosophical gold which is necessary for the purification/exaltation of the first mercury. But in other points it seems that Fulcanelli hints that niter is used also during the extraction of the first mercury form his mineral. His teachings of this point are really confused.

True Initiate
01-05-2012, 05:29 PM
The only piece that doesn't fit to the puzzle is that nature has stamped it with the number 6, when we know that galena occurs most often under cube and octahedra crystal form. Now, there is also another natural ore which initial letter is G, which crystallize under the hexagonal system, and which the ancients and medieval chemists thought that is another form of galena. Not sure if that's his first matter, but its a possibility.


http://www.johnbetts-fineminerals.com/jhbnyc/mineralmuseum/gallery.php?st=1&init=G

Illen A. Cluf
01-06-2012, 03:32 AM
Hi Illen,

My thoughts about the path of Fulcanelli are the following. His dragon isn't niter, as he describes numeral times the dragon as a certain black ore. Of course its true that some other authors are referring to niter when they speak about the dragon who crawls in the cave of the earth. The dragon at the twelves keys of Basil Valentine is niter without any doubt.

I agree - I said that the mineral was the scaly dragon (possibly galena) and that niter is "from the dew that fertilizes the earth in the month of May".


Now back to Fulcanelli. In many points it seems that he really speaks about galena. See what he say about kohl (one of the uses of galena at ancient Egypt), about the cat and its whiskers (make a little search to find what connection existed between galena crystals and cat's whiskers at the time of Fulcanelli), or about the initial letter G. The only piece that doesn't fit to the puzzle is that nature has stamped it with the letter 6, when we know that galena occurs most often under cube and octahedra crystal form. Now, there is also another natural ore which initial letter is G, which crystallize under the hexagonal system, and which the ancients and medieval chemists thought that is another form of galena. Not sure if that's his first matter, but its a possibility.

Yes, it's interesting that you picked up on the biggest clue - the cat's whiskers, which was very popular during Fulcanelli's time. As for the number "6", did you not consider that the word "galena" ("galène" in French) has 6 letters? Thus galena would fit all of his clues. I'm still not sure if Fulcanelli was correct, but at least it seems reasonable that Fulcanelli likely used Galena. He would have indicated such to his pupil Canseliet, who admitted spending many years experimenting with it until he finally gave up because of lack of results. Fulcanelli also mentioned a "trick" or "flick of the wrist" that was used which would then activate the internal heat. It is possible that this "trick" involved a controlled explosion caused by the niter. The explosion might have been controlled by the salt.


The metal seems to be iron.

Fulcanelli is far more generous about the identity of the metal than of the other components. There are numerous clues throughout the book that the metal is almost certainly iron.


As for the role of niter, its the Aries or the salt Ammoniac of the philosophers, which brings in its belly the secret sulfur. The connections are to obvious to be neglected. According to the ancient alchemists, sal niter corresponds to the condensation of the rays of sun and stars under a salty form. Ammon Ra was a sunny deity and in the theology of the Egyptians had a deep connection with Aries. Also Aries corresponds to the months of spring, when the air is full of a subtile niter in order to impregnate the earth, according to Limojon de St Didier and other philosophers. Niter seems also to be the philosophical salamander and the really philosophical gold which is necessary for the purification/exaltation of the first mercury. But in other points it seems that Fulcanelli hints that niter is used also during the extraction of the first mercury form his mineral. His teachings of this point are really confused.


As mentioned before, I agree that niter was one of the two salts Fulcanelli mentioned. It was indeed almost certainly used in the preparation of the first mercury, and as mentioned above, it may have been used to ignite the mixture in order to activate the internal secret fire. Again, I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this line of thinking, but I'm quite sure that is how Fulcanelli saw it. During the first few readings of his books, it does indeed seem quite confusing. But after numerous readings, it all seems to gel somewhat. The only thing he's never to clear about is how he activates the echeneis, ramora, or sulfur to appear in the solution.

I don't think that any of the four matters ends up being part of the Stone. They are only used in some way to extract the mercury contained in the mineral, which in turn contains the sulfur.

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
01-06-2012, 03:36 AM
http://www.johnbetts-fineminerals.com/jhbnyc/mineralmuseum/gallery.php?st=1&init=G


Goethite looks promising. Black and scaly.

Hellin Hermetist
01-06-2012, 01:35 PM
Goethite looks promising. Black and scaly.

Yes, I have also mentioned goethite at an earlier conversation with you. The clues are the description which Fulcanelli gives of the mineral, the initial letter G, the acceptance of Goethe as an initiate by Fulcanelli, and in the passage where he speaks about the open and closed book, where he says that as the metal comes from the mineral, so the sulfur comes from the mercury. So, if the metal is iron, then we have to look for a Martian mineral. But we have to admit that the indications about galena are far more numerous. Don't forget also that galena in ancient Greek was called γαληνιτης and the name of the cat at ancient Greek was γαλη, composed of the first two syllabes of the word galena.


As for the number "6", did you not consider that the word "galena" ("galène" in French) has 6 letters? Thus galena would fit all of his clues.

I believe that number 6 has to do with the crystallization system of the mineral. The word galene has 6 letters in the French language, but I don't think that this allows us to say that natura has stamped the substance with the number 6. As I said above, graphite also comes to mind, as it has hexagonal crystallic structure, and the ancients thought that it was another form of galena, named it black lead and plumbago.

At least now we have some protocols to work with. Lets hope that it's shall not finish in a big explosion.

True Initiate
01-06-2012, 05:29 PM
I believe that number 6 has to do with the crystallization system of the mineral. The word galene has 6 letters in the French language, but I don't think that this allows us to say that natura has stamped the substance with the number 6. As I said above, graphite also comes to mind, as it has hexagonal crystallic structure, and the ancients thought that it was another form of galena, named it black lead and plumbago.


http://img214.imagevenue.com/loc968/th_882024749_hexagon_36136_md_new_122_968lo.jpg (http://img214.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=882024749_hexagon_36136_md_new_122_9 68lo.jpg)


Revealing the hidden atom in graphite with AFM showing all atoms within the hexagonal graphite unit cells. Image size 2×2 nm2.

http://img196.imagevenue.com/loc434/th_881768871_th_afm_image_graphite_122_434lo.jpg (http://img196.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=th_881768871_th_afm_image_graphite_1 22_434lo.jpg)


I agree with your interpretation of number 6 but besides this the chemical element Carbon which is the Prima Materia of Graphite has Atomic number 6. Graphite is also a semimetal just like Antimony!

From the Wikipedia:

Historically, graphite was called blacklead and plumbago.

Plumbago was commonly used for its massive mineral form. Both of these names arise from confusion with the similar-appearing lead ores, particularly galena. The Latin word for lead is plumbum, which gave its name to both the English term for this grey metallic-sheened mineral and even the leadworts or plumbagos, plants with flowers that resemble this colour.

The term blacklead has usually been applied to a powdered or processed form, where this fine powder then appears as a matte non-metallic black.

Uses of natural graphite

Natural graphite is mostly consumed for refractories, steelmaking, expanded graphite, brake linings, foundry facings and lubricants.

Of all the clues i think that this is the crucial one. I really don't see how Galena can help the Iron in anyway (alchemically speaking)? Galena as Lead Ore is a very impure Ore just like Iron and i never heard that anybody will use Lead Ore to fix Iron's faults and to purifie it but the Graphite together with Iron gives birth to Steel out of which the best swords were made.

I will add that steel was regarded as purified form of Iron similar to martial regulus of Antimony but it's not so brittle!

Steel making at school with a pin and pencil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s0bSwWVt0I

True Initiate
01-06-2012, 06:03 PM
Yes, it's interesting that you picked up on the biggest clue - the cat's whiskers, which was very popular during Fulcanelli's time.

From http://www.electronicstheory.com/COURSES/projnkits/projDiode.htm

Over the years, many different kind of materials were used in the Point Contact or Cat's Whisker diodes, to includ pyrite (fool's gold), galena (lead sulfide), graphite, which leads me to my next adventure:

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat%27s-whisker_detector

Historically, many other minerals and compounds besides galena were used for crystal, the most important being iron pyrite ("fool's gold", iron disulfide), silicon, molybdenite (MoS2), and silicon carbide (carborundum, SiC). Some were used with gold or graphite "cat's whiskers".

Illen A. Cluf
01-06-2012, 09:48 PM
Yes, I have also mentioned goethite at an earlier conversation with you.

Yes, I recall that.


The clues are the description which Fulcanelli gives of the mineral, the initial letter G, the acceptance of Goethe as an initiate by Fulcanelli, and in the passage where he speaks about the open and closed book, where he says that as the metal comes from the mineral, so the sulfur comes from the mercury. So, if the metal is iron, then we have to look for a Martian mineral.

Not necessarily. He says that both a mineral and a metal are used, but I don't recall him saying anywhere that the metal necessarily comes from the same mineral.


But we have to admit that the indications about galena are far more numerous. Don't forget also that galena in ancient Greek was called γαληνιτης and the name of the cat at ancient Greek was γαλη, composed of the first two syllabes of the word galena.

I agree. I'm almost convinced that Fulcanelli was pointing to Galena.


I believe that number 6 has to do with the crystallization system of the mineral. The word galene has 6 letters in the French language, but I don't think that this allows us to say that natura has stamped the substance with the number 6.

That is possible, but I do not recall Fulcanelli specifically stating that the crystal structure of the matter is related to the number 6. He does often use "six" to refer to the star that appears on the surface of the mercury. Elsewhere, he mentions that the cubic crystal structure has six faces rather than a reference to a hexagonal crystalline structure, although this is not necessarily associated with the matter drawn from the mine.
.

As I said above, graphite also comes to mind, as it has hexagonal crystallic structure, and the ancients thought that it was another form of galena, named it black lead and plumbago.

That is another possibility, although it's not technically a metallic mineral.


At least now we have some protocols to work with. Lets hope that it's shall not finish in a big explosion.

Hopefullly others can provide some generous insights on these protocols so that we can all move forward in our investigation, and avoid this great explosion :-)

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
01-06-2012, 09:56 PM
I will add that steel was regarded as purified form of Iron similar to martial regulus of Antimony but it's not so brittle!


What is most interesting is that many assume that manufactured iron is pure, but in fact, it contains a small amount of carbon which changes its structure significantly. A more pure form of iron is wrought iron, although it still is not pure iron. Thus, many descriptions of "pure" iron, is not really pure iron. Pure iron is very soft, softer than aluminum, and is purplish in color. It's difficult to find any useful descriptions of the properties of this pure iron. If anyone has done so, I would be very interested, as I sense that there is a real alchemical significance in the distinction.

Illen A. Cluf
01-06-2012, 10:00 PM
Historically, many other minerals and compounds besides galena were used for crystal, the most important being iron pyrite ("fool's gold", iron disulfide), silicon, molybdenite (MoS2), and silicon carbide (carborundum, SiC). Some were used with gold or graphite "cat's whiskers".

Hi True Puffer,

But the real key is when these alternatives were used, since it relates to when Fulcanelli wrote his books. Were these other alternatives used before or during the 1920's or later?

True Initiate
01-07-2012, 12:15 AM
Hi True Puffer,

But the real key is when these alternatives were used, since it relates to when Fulcanelli wrote his books. Were these other alternatives used before or during the 1920's or later?

I have no idea, i have just Googled it but the fact is that Graphite was also used instead of Galena! The real key will be when someone finally succeeds by following Fulcanelli!


What is most interesting is that many assume that manufactured iron is pure, but in fact, it contains a small amount of carbon which changes its structure significantly. A more pure form of iron is wrought iron, although it still is not pure iron. Thus, many descriptions of "pure" iron, is not really pure iron. Pure iron is very soft, softer than aluminum, and is purplish in color. It's difficult to find any useful descriptions of the properties of this pure iron. If anyone has done so, I would be very interested, as I sense that there is a real alchemical significance in the distinction.

I must remind you that it was the medieval metallurgists who believed that, not me!
Alchemy, especially if we are talking about the Dry Path, was invented by metallurgists who worked with metals like freemasons for example.

http://img263.imagevenue.com/loc83/th_898006716_03300_122_83lo.jpg (http://img263.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=898006716_03300_122_83lo.jpg)

In the third section of the lecture on the first degree of freemasonry (Entered Apprentice) we learn of the 3 matters that operative freemasons had used in old times:

Ans. "Chalk, charcoal, and earth."

"Why so?"

p. 47

Ans. "There is nothing freer than chalk, the slightest touch of which leaves a trace behind; nothing more fervent than heated charcoal, it will melt the most obdurate metals; nothing more zealous than the earth to bring forth."

We have proof in the above example that charcoal was used as chemical in melting and purifying metal Ores. They mention chalk which also plays a role and is often associated with charcoal and Iron.
For more detail see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ea_7Rnd8BTM

Anthracite charcoal is composed of 95% of Carbon much like Graphite and can be used instead.

Here is an example how 16th Century metalurgist has viewed the purification of Iron:

http://img227.imagevenue.com/loc90/th_895044642_1_new_122_90lo.jpg (http://img227.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=895044642_1_new_122_90lo.jpg)

http://img266.imagevenue.com/loc247/th_895084777_2_new_122_247lo.jpg (http://img266.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=895084777_2_new_122_247lo.jpg)

He states that steel is nothing but purified Iron! Can you show me one example in metallurgy were Galena was used in conjuction with Iron?



That is another possibility, although it's not technically a metallic mineral.


From the Wikipedia:

The classic semimetallic elements are arsenic, antimony, bismuth, α-tin (gray tin) and graphite, an allotrope of carbon.

Antimony, Bismuth and Graphite all three were held to be form of Lead in the past!

True Initiate
01-07-2012, 03:45 AM
Correct! I wondered if anyone would spot the reference to "admirable". It is also known as Glauber's Salt. I was able to obtain just under a cup of this salt.

I want to challenge you and Solomon Levi on this one. What proof can you show me beside this Admirable = Sal Mirabile similarity?

The Glauber was first Chemist ever who created this Salt in 17th Century!

Fulcanelli described Glauber as Archemist and Fulcanelli in his books is teaching the True Alchemy that was carved in Stone in Gothic Cathedrals.
The Gothic Cathedrals were built during the high and late medieval period so there is 5 Century gap between this Glauber's Salt and Cathedrals.
I don't understand how the builders of the Gothic Cathedral's can carve in Stone the secrets they didn't posses at that time?


Can you explain please?

horticult
01-07-2012, 03:57 PM
graphite crucible

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 04:07 PM
Hi True Puffer,

I was very sad to read this. Communication is such a delicate art, and I constantly seem to fail with it. I was very excited to read your fascinating information and ideas and was beginning to have some new insights which i hoped to add to this discussion. I was not at all trying to contradict you , but only to try to add some additional considerations.


I have no idea, i have just Googled it but the fact is that Graphite was also used instead of Galena! The real key will be when someone finally succeeds by following Fulcanelli!

All along in my posts I have tried to repeatedly stress that these are my views ONLY as they relate to Fulcanelli's approach. I DO NOT necessarily agree with Fulcanelli. In fact, I find that many times he seems to misinterpret what the ancients have said in order to fit his own concepts. I have no difficulty at all with the possibility that other alchemists used graphite. In fact, in all my reading, Fulcanelli seems to be the ONLY alchemist that hints at using Galena. Whether or not it worked for him is a different issue. But I understand that his student Canseliet himself admitted that Fulcaneli suggested that the matter was Galena. But Canseliet had no luck with it and eventually turned to a different substance. I think that at the very least, Fulcanelli would have confided in his student as to what was the initial raw matter from the mine to use. This, and all the clues provided by Fulcanelli, such as the cat's whiskers, has led me to believe that Fulcanelli used Galena. This in no way implies that it is the matter used by the ancients - only what Fulcanelli believed it to be.


I must remind you that it was the medieval metallurgists who believed that, not me!

I was not at all accusing you of anything. Here I was trying to add to the discussion. Many of the ancients hint strongly at the use of iron. In this instance, I think that Fulcanelli was right, since he also strongly hinted at its use. I personally have deducted that iron plays a significant role in the process, although it may only be as a "helper". Then again there is the possibility that the mercury is extracted from it or from the mineral which surrounds it. Many have used iron with no success. Thus, with my recent insights, I was wondering whether it may be possible that the reason may be because what we consider to be "pure" iron is not really "pure" iron. I bet that none of us have ever seen iron in its pure state - a state which makes it significantly softer, softer than aluminum, and with a purplish color. This made me wonder whether the other substances used in the process might have been used in order to purify the iron in such a way that its mercury might be extracted more readily. Perhaps it NEEDS to be in this pure state for that to happen. That was the entire nature of my comment. I thought it would be an interesting concept to consider and discuss, but I guess I was wrong.


Alchemy, especially if we are talking about the Dry Path, was invented by metallurgists who worked with metals like freemasons for example.

http://img263.imagevenue.com/loc83/th_898006716_03300_122_83lo.jpg (http://img263.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=898006716_03300_122_83lo.jpg)

In the third section of the lecture on the first degree of freemasonry (Entered Apprentice) we learn of the 3 matters that operative freemasons had used in old times:

[I]Ans. "Chalk, charcoal, and earth."

I have no issue with this concept at all, I very much appreciate this valuable information, and I greatly welcome and support exploring it further. My only comment is (and I hope it is not taken in the wrong way) that my opinion is that this is not what Fulcanelli had in mind. But remember that I don't necessarily agree with Fulcanelli's approach.

My apologies if my words came out in a way that I did not at all intend.

I think it would be extremely worthwhile to start a new thread to discuss the possibility of using chalk, charcoal and earth.

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 04:19 PM
I want to challenge you and Solomon Levi on this one. What proof can you show me beside this Admirable = Sal Mirabile similarity?

The Glauber was first Chemist ever who created this Salt in 17th Century!

Fulcanelli described Glauber as Archemist and Fulcanelli in his books is teaching the True Alchemy that was carved in Stone in Gothic Cathedrals.
The Gothic Cathedrals were built during the high and late medieval period so there is 5 Century gap between this Glauber's Salt and Cathedrals.
I don't understand how the builders of the Gothic Cathedral's can carve in Stone the secrets they didn't posses at that time?


Can you explain please?

OK I don't think that Glauber's Salt was necessarily used by the ancients, especially in the wet way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the dry way seems to be a somewhat newer approach. Throughout the centuries, the basic process of making the Stone is likely fixed, but over time modifications were made in order to speed up the time necessary to make it, improve the yield, reduce danger, etc. My opinion is that I think Fulcanelli used Glauber's salt in such a way, as to reduce the risk caused by the reaction. In other words, it was only used as a helper.

Illen

True Initiate
01-07-2012, 07:03 PM
No need to be sad i think that discussion was productive.
I wanted to challenge your views and you to defend them on all points just like it's done in a modern University. If somebody wants to graduate one must defend his work with all his might and for somebody to suceed in this one must have good foundation otherwise everything collapses.

So sorry if my role as devil's advocate was so sad.

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 07:34 PM
No need to be sad i think that discussion was productive.
I wanted to challenge your views and you to defend them on all points just like it's done in a modern University. If somebody wants to graduate one must defend his work with all his might and for somebody to suceed in this one must have good foundation otherwise everything collapses.

So sorry if my role as devil's advocate was so sad.

Hi TP,

You make a great Devil''s Advocate :-) I'm so used to playing that role myself, that it surprises me when someone else also does it. I'm glad that was what you were attempting rather than being upset by something I inadvertently said.

As you know, nothing is so certain in Alchemy that it can be as strongly defended as it is in Science. The problem is that there are so many sources, and no confidence on who was or was not lying. Many of the past (and modern) alchemists were so displeased with their results after spending a lifetime in research, that they feared leaving this Earth without some kind of mark on the field. So they wrote a great book of pretense, filled with quotes from ancients and expounding on their own theory which never worked. Because they could use riddles, allegory, etc., they could write what they pleased and still come out looking like an adept.

Thus if I defend a statement that one author used, then a dozen people could refute that defense with any number of statements from the hundreds of available treatises. Since a great majority of them are nothing but lies, then a possibly true statement could easily be refuted by a false statement just because it appears somewhere in the literature.

So how do you defend anything in Alchemy without a practical example that everyone can duplicate? So far, in my decade of research, I have not seen any practical example that someone can duplicate that is in any way alchemical (except possibly for a few experiments I'm currently contemplating). The only such experiments are completely chemical in nature. I'm not criticizing anyone, just stating the facts as I see them.

So how do we - together - struggle through this enigma without really revealing at least some minor truths that can be duplicated? How many of the hundreds of members here are willing to reveal some simple truths that we can all duplicate? So far, the answer seems to be - "zero".

So how can we move forward?

Any practical suggestions from anyone who is truly serious about progressing is more than welcome.

Illen

True Initiate
01-07-2012, 07:51 PM
I have never worked in Dry Path myself so there is not much what i can offer besides different theories but neverheles i found this document to be usefull in decoding.
http://depositfiles.com/files/au0nrjh6g

The strangest Theory that i ever heard comes from the owner of Cista.net and he is a quite an Fulcanellist!

http://cista.net/Oak/

http://cista.net/praxis/

Hellin Hermetist
01-07-2012, 08:34 PM
In fact, in all my reading, Fulcanelli seems to be the ONLY alchemist that hints at using Galena.


Look for the treatise named "Greater and Lesser Edifyer" in the compilation Aperta Arca arcani artificiosissimi.



Many have used iron with no success.


What do you mean with that? They have tried to extract the mercury and sulfur of iron working under the instructions which Fulcanelli give at the last chapter of his first book? Are you referring to sth different than that?



Thus, with my recent insights, I was wondering whether it may be possible that the reason may be because what we consider to be "pure" iron is not really "pure" iron. I bet that none of us have ever seen iron in its pure state - a state which makes it significantly softer, softer than aluminum, and with a purplish color.
Illen

From where did you get these infos? Is this a modern technique to purify iron in a very high degree? Can you give some more infos about that point.

III
01-07-2012, 09:25 PM
Hi TP,

You make a great Devil''s Advocate :-) I'm so used to playing that role myself, that it surprises me when someone else also does it. I'm glad that was what you were attempting rather than being upset by something I inadvertently said.

As you know, nothing is so certain in Alchemy that it can be as strongly defended as it is in Science. The problem is that there are so many sources, and no confidence on who was or was not lying. Many of the past (and modern) alchemists were so displeased with their results after spending a lifetime in research, that they feared leaving this Earth without some kind of mark on the field. So they wrote a great book of pretense, filled with quotes from ancients and expounding on their own theory which never worked. Because they could use riddles, allegory, etc., they could write what they pleased and still come out looking like an adept.

Thus if I defend a statement that one author used, then a dozen people could refute that defense with any number of statements from the hundreds of available treatises. Since a great majority of them are nothing but lies, then a possibly true statement could easily be refuted by a false statement just because it appears somewhere in the literature.

So how do you defend anything in Alchemy without a practical example that everyone can duplicate? So far, in my decade of research, I have not seen any practical example that someone can duplicate that is in any way alchemical (except possibly for a few experiments I'm currently contemplating). The only such experiments are completely chemical in nature. I'm not criticizing anyone, just stating the facts as I see them.

So how do we - together - struggle through this enigma without really revealing at least some minor truths that can be duplicated? How many of the hundreds of members here are willing to reveal some simple truths that we can all duplicate? So far, the answer seems to be - "zero".

So how can we move forward?

Any practical suggestions from anyone who is truly serious about progressing is more than welcome.

Illen

Hi Illen,

So how do you defend anything in Alchemy without a practical example that everyone can duplicate? So far, in my decade of research, I have not seen any practical example that someone can duplicate that is in any way alchemical

That is a major advantage of Tanttric Alchemy, quite a few people can be taught in a practical way to have the experiences. My partner started out a student 15 years ago, learned the basics, advanced to apprentice and then to full partner. The basics can be learned and the person catalized in a year or so typically. Some can make a good start in a few sessions if they are able to accept shaktipat. As far as I know every suitable person can learn Tantric Alchemy.

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 10:03 PM
Look for the treatise named "Greater and Lesser Edifyer" in the compilation Aperta Arca arcani artificiosissimi.

Thank you - I'll try to find it.


What do you mean with that? They have tried to extract the mercury and sulfur of iron working under the instructions which Fulcanelli give at the last chapter of his first book? Are you referring to sth different than that?

I mean that I have never seen any reliable documentation that indicates success with extracting mercury from iron.


From where did you get these infos? Is this a modern technique to purify iron in a very high degree? Can you give some more infos about that point.

Thank you. That helps establish my claim that this aspect is not well known.

I made two points:

1. Pure iron is significantly softer than iron that has even a very tiny percentage of carbon in it. It is softer than aluminum.
2. Pure iron is purple in color.

The first point is more commonly known than the second point. You can find this discussed in several sources. Here are just a few:

http://chemistry.about.com/od/iron/a/Iron.htm
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_pure_iron_and_steel
http://pureironbar.webs.com/
http://pureironwire.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/pure-iron/
http://deford28.sixent.com/bookmarks/electric-pure-iron

The second point is incredibly obscure, and I have only found it mentioned by one alchemist. Guess who? Fulcanelli:


This very bright body is endowed with a magnificent purple coloration --- which is the color of pure iron --- analogous to the iodine vapors in terms of its brightness and intensity. It should be noticed that the sulfur of iron, once isolated, being incarnate red, and is mercury being of a light blue color, the purple resulting from their combination, reveals the totality of the metal.

This quote is what started the insights that I mentioned earlier. Why would Fulcanellli have gone to the extent of purifying iron to such a degree that he identified properties not commonly known, unless it was a necessary part of the process, missed by many others. He also clearly states that he extracted the sulfur from this iron. If you have extracted the sulfur of a metal, then you are very close to making the Stone. It's also interesting that the sulfur that he was able to extract did not come from any metal other than iron. Thus I thought that this huge clue was incredibly important. I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to think so. Perhaps I have been more open with this insight than I should have been.

Now, is pure iron really purple? I have found no other documentation that suggests this. In fact most documentation suggests that it is silvery, rather than purple. But the point is that at least Fulcanelli thought so. But if he was wrong in the fact that it was not pure iron, then at least it indicates what he might have been using. Whatever his explanations, it is clear that what he used was something that was at least close to being pure iron, and that it actually gave him the long sought for sulfur of metals (at least based on his claims). So if pure iron is not purple, what did Fucanelli actually use? And here is another important insight. I think it's possible that he might have actually used an iron with some chlorine left in it - thus a mild ferric chloride. Thus he must have mixed some substance with his iron that contains chlorine. Sea salt, perhaps?

Any further insights to this information?

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 10:13 PM
I have never worked in Dry Path myself so there is not much what i can offer besides different theories but neverheles i found this document to be usefull in decoding.
http://depositfiles.com/files/au0nrjh6g

The strangest Theory that i ever heard comes from the owner of Cista.net and he is a quite an Fulcanellist!

http://cista.net/Oak/

http://cista.net/praxis/


Thank PF. Iook forward to reading the Fulcanelli document.

As for the strange theory - I agree that it is just another strange theory :-)

Illen

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 10:18 PM
That is a major advantage of Tanttric Alchemy, quite a few people can be taught in a practical way to have the experiences. My partner started out a student 15 years ago, learned the basics, advanced to apprentice and then to full partner. The basics can be learned and the person catalized in a year or so typically. Some can make a good start in a few sessions if they are able to accept shaktipat. As far as I know every suitable person can learn Tantric Alchemy.

Hi III,

Thanks! I don't at all dispute spiritual and allegorical alchemy related to spiritual practice, and would like to learn more about your process. However, I believe that there is also a material form of alchemy, for lack of a better expression, that involves real minerals. It is this perspective which I was discussing at this time.

Illen

Hellin Hermetist
01-07-2012, 10:39 PM
This quote is what started the insights that I mentioned earlier. Why would Fulcanellli have gone to the extent of purifying iron to such a degree that he identified properties not commonly known, unless it was a necessary part of the process, missed by many others. He also clearly states that he extracted the sulfur from this iron. If you have extracted the sulfur of a metal, then you are very close to making the Stone. It's also interesting that the sulfur that he was able to extract did not come from any metal other than iron. Thus I thought that this huge clue was incredibly important. I'm very surprised that nobody else seems to think so. Perhaps I have been more open with this insight than I should have been.

Now, is pure iron really purple? I have found no other documentation that suggests this. In fact most documentation suggests that it is silvery, rather than purple. But the point is that at least Fulcanelli thought so. But if he was wrong in the fact that it was not pure iron, then at least it indicates what he might have been using. Whatever his explanations, it is clear that what he used was something that was at least close to being pure iron, and that it actually gave him the long sought for sulfur of metals (at least based on his claims). So if pure iron is not purple, what did Fucanelli actually use? And here is another important insight. I think it's possible that he might have actually used an iron with some chlorine left in it - thus a mild ferric chloride. Thus he must have mixed some substance with his iron that contains chlorine. Sea salt, perhaps?

Any further insights to this information?

Illen

I don't agree with the connection you are trying to make here. Fulcanelli says that what he designates as pure iron is the Martian metallic spore, composed of the Martian sulfur and mercury. To receive that purest part of the iron you have to destroy the metal in the philosophical way, by the help of the true alchemical solvent. The crucial point is that, according to Fulcanelli, from 1 kilogram of commercial iron we can extract only 6 to 7 grams of that pure substance. Now, I don't believe that from 1 kilogram of commercial iron we can receive only 6 to 7 grams of the pure iron you are referring to, but a much much bigger quantity.

Fulcanelli doesn't give any hint that the philosophical destruction of iron is an essential part of the process. He was simply trying to describe the results of the alchemical solvent at different metals. He speaks also about the philosophical destruction of silver, and in other points about the extraction of the sulphur of tin and other metals. The whole point he was trying to make was that the acquisition of the first solvent opens the door to many strange and admirable phenomena, and the confection of the stone was only the end of a certain path. He was also trying to show that when you have acquired a metallic sulfur, you are not in any way near the acquisition of the stone. In his first book he gives certain chemical/alchemical protocols to extract the sulfurs of silver, lead and iron, and he insists that all these things have nothing to do with real alchemy. To make the stone you don't need only a metallic sulfur, but also a metallic mercury in conjunction with that sulfur. Fulcanelli gives to this substance the name of metallic spore. Don't forget that in his first book he says that even if its easy to extract the sulfur and mercury of iron in only one procedure (which he describes on great detail), its almost impossible to recombine these two substance to create the metallic spore.

Illen A. Cluf
01-07-2012, 10:44 PM
I don't agree with the connection you are trying to make here. Fulcanelli says that what he designates as pure iron is the Martian metallic spore, composed of the Martian sulfur and mercury. To receive that purest part of the iron you have to destroy the metal in the philosophical way, by the help of the true alchemical solvent. The crucial point is that, according to Fulcanelli, from 1 kilogram of commercial iron we can extract only 6 to 7 grams of that pure substance. Now, I don't believe that from 1 kilogram of commercial iron we can receive only 6 to 7 grams of the pure iron you are referring to, but a much much bigger quantity.

Fulcanelli doesn't give any hint that the philosophical destruction of iron is an essential part of the process. He was simply trying to describe the results of the alchemical solvent at different metals. He speaks also about the philosophical destruction of silver, and in other points about the extraction of the sulphur of tin and other metals. The whole point he was trying to make was that the acquisition of the first solvent opens the door to many strange and admirable phenomena, and the confection of the stone was only the end of a certain path. He was also trying to show that when you have acquired a metallic sulfur, you are not in any way near the acquisition of the stone. In his first book he gives certain chemical/alchemical protocols to extract the sulfurs of silver, lead and iron, and he insists that all these things have nothing to do with real alchemy. To make the stone you don't need only a metallic sulfur, but also a metallic mercury in conjunction with that sulfur. Fulcanelli gives to this substance the name of metallic spore. Don't forget that in his first book he says that even if its easy to extract the sulfur and mercury of iron in only one procedure (which he describes on great detail), its almost impossible to recombine these two substance to create the metallic spore.

What can I say? You ask me to document my claims, but you do not do so yourself. It's a one-sided argument.

Illen

Hellin Hermetist
01-07-2012, 10:51 PM
I don't understand what you mean. What did I ask you to document? What certain documents do you ask from me? English isn't my native language. Sorry, I can't understand what you are trying to say.

Illen A. Cluf
01-08-2012, 04:30 AM
I don't understand what you mean. What did I ask you to document? What certain documents do you ask from me? English isn't my native language. Sorry, I can't understand what you are trying to say.

In your own words:

"From where did you get these infos? Is this a modern technique to purify iron in a very high degree? Can you give some more infos about that point. "

Illen

Hellin Hermetist
01-08-2012, 12:14 PM
In your own words:

"From where did you get these infos? Is this a modern technique to purify iron in a very high degree? Can you give some more infos about that point. "

Illen

Now I am really confused. That softer than aluminum pure iron is a product of the modern metallurgical industry or an alchemical product about which only Fulcanelli has spoken? As I understood it, its a real product of the modern industry, so I didn't ask from you to provide us with some documents to prove your thesis, but to describe to us the process which the workers in the industry use to perform that purification or to give us a link that shall help us understand that process better.

If now you ask me to provide some documents who describes the alchemical products about which Fulcanelli spoke, of course I am not in position to do that, as I have read about them only in the books of Fulcanelli; and these substances, if they exist at all, aren't commercial products of the modern industry.

Illen A. Cluf
01-08-2012, 01:52 PM
Now I am really confused. That softer than aluminum pure iron is a product of the modern metallurgical industry or an alchemical product about which only Fulcanelli has spoken? As I understood it, its a real product of the modern industry, so I didn't ask from you to provide us with some documents to prove your thesis, but to describe to us the process which the workers in the industry use to perform that purification or to give us a link that shall help us understand that process better.

If now you ask me to provide some documents who describes the alchemical products about which Fulcanelli spoke, of course I am not in position to do that, as I have read about them only in the books of Fulcanelli; and these substances, if they exist at all, aren't commercial products of the modern industry.

OK, it looks like it was just a communication issue. I noted two separate properties of pure iron that have been reported - 1) that it was softer than aluminum, and 2) that it was colored purple. The first is noted by modern industry, where they remove as much carbon as possible. I have not seen it specifically mentioned in alchemical texts. The second property, from my research, has ONLY been found in Fulcanelli's book. In fact industry reports that the color is different - i.e. a silvery color.

My entire point was this - why was Fulcanelli so keen on purifying iron so that he even reported a property that nobody else seems to have reported, and why did he describe it as purple, when modern industry reports it as being silvery. I came up with the possibility that what Fulcanelli assumed was pure iron was in fact not pure, but perhaps contained a small amount of chlorine, which modern industry DOES report as being purplish in color. Proceeding further in this line of thinking, if Fulcanellli's "pure" iron actually contained some chlorine, then his purification process must have involved some substance that contains chlorine. From this I deduced that he may have used sea salt. All of this was to try to identify one of the two salts that Fulcanelli used to make the Stone, and also which of the metals he may have extracted his mercury/sulfur from.

I hope I have been able to clarify my point. I welcome feedback, but with supporting documentation (e.g. quotes, sources, etc.).

Illen

solomon levi
01-08-2012, 09:32 PM
I believe that number 6 has to do with the crystallization system of the mineral. The word galene has 6 letters in the French language, but I don't think that this allows us to say that natura has stamped the substance with the number 6. As I said above, graphite also comes to mind, as it has hexagonal crystallic structure, and the ancients thought that it was another form of galena, named it black lead and plumbago.


cubes have six sides. Is that not sufficient? Cubic crystals are marked with a six by nature.

Graphite could be used as carbon in the path of nitre fixed by charcoal/carbon.

When considering "marked with a six/stigma, one should also look at the mark of shame.

solomon levi
01-08-2012, 09:37 PM
That is possible, but I do not recall Fulcanelli specifically stating that the crystal structure of the matter is related to the number 6. He does often use "six" to refer to the star that appears on the surface of the mercury. Elsewhere, he mentions that the cubic crystal structure has six faces rather than a reference to a hexagonal crystalline structure, although this is not necessarily associated with the matter drawn from the mine.


The greek galhniths = 610
asthr (star) = 609

in case anyone uses gematria for clues

Hellin Hermetist
01-08-2012, 10:06 PM
cubes have six sides. Is that not sufficient? Cubic crystals are marked with a six by nature.


Yes. I believe that this is also a valid possibility.

Illen A. Cluf
01-08-2012, 10:12 PM
I didn't ask from you to provide us with some documents to prove your thesis, but to describe to us the process which the workers in the industry use to perform that purification or to give us a link that shall help us understand that process better.

Hi Hellin. I have now found a detailed explanation of how carbon is removed from steel using modern methods. It is called "decarburisation". Here is the PDF file:

http://www.forging.org/FIERF/pdf/Modern_Look_at_Decarburization_Rensselaer_Phase1_2 010.pdf

Illen

Hellin Hermetist
01-08-2012, 10:30 PM
OK, it looks like it was just a communication issue. I noted two separate properties of pure iron that have been reported - 1) that it was softer than aluminum, and 2) that it was colored purple. The first is noted by modern industry, where they remove as much carbon as possible. I have not seen it specifically mentioned in alchemical texts. The second property, from my research, has ONLY been found in Fulcanelli's book. In fact industry reports that the color is different - i.e. a silvery color.

My entire point was this - why was Fulcanelli so keen on purifying iron so that he even reported a property that nobody else seems to have reported, and why did he describe it as purple, when modern industry reports it as being silvery. I came up with the possibility that what Fulcanelli assumed was pure iron was in fact not pure, but perhaps contained a small amount of chlorine, which modern industry DOES report as being purplish in color. Proceeding further in this line of thinking, if Fulcanellli's "pure" iron actually contained some chlorine, then his purification process must have involved some substance that contains chlorine. From this I deduced that he may have used sea salt. All of this was to try to identify one of the two salts that Fulcanelli used to make the Stone, and also which of the metals he may have extracted his mercury/sulfur from.

I hope I have been able to clarify my point. I welcome feedback, but with supporting documentation (e.g. quotes, sources, etc.).

Illen

Ok, I shall try make myself clearer. If I understand it right, you believe that the pure iron about which speaks Fulcanelli and the pure iron of the modern industry is the same thing. Now let's see what Fulcanelli has to say about the substance which he calls pure iron.

"We have said, and we repeat, that the purpose of the philosophical dissolution is to obtain the sulphur which, in the Magistery, plays the role of a forming agent by coagulating mercury which is in turn added to it, a property which it owes to its ardent, igneous, and dessicating nature. "Every dry thing avidly drinks its own humidity", says an old alchemical axiom. But this sulfur, during its first extraction, is never stripped of the metallic mercury with which it constitutes the central core of the metal, called essence or seed. Hence the sulphur, preserving the specific qualities f the dissolved body, is in reality by the purest and most subtle part of this very body. Consequently, we are entitled to consider, with the greatest number of masters, that the philosophical dissolution achieves the absolute purification of imperfect metals. There are no examples, whether spagyric or chemical, of an operation likely to give such a result. All the purifications of metals treated by modern methods are only used to rid the metals of the superficial, less tenacious impurities And these, brought from the mine or coming along during the contrary, the alchemical process, dissociating and destroying the mass of heterogeneous matters fixed on the core, composed of very pure sulfur and mercury, ruins the greatest part of the body and makes it resist any ulterior reduction. Thus, for instance, a kilogram of excellent iron of Sweden, or electrolytic iron, provides a proportion of radical metal, of a perfect homogeneity and purity, that varies between 7.24 and 7.32 grams. This very bright body is endowed with a magnificent purple coloration --- which is the color of pure iron --- analogous to the iodine vapors in terms of its brightness and intensity. It should be noticed that the sulfur of iron, once isolated, being incarnate red, and is mercury being of a light blue color, the purple resulting from their combination, reveals the totality of the metal."

So the clues which he gives are the following.

a) In order to receive the substance which he calls pure iron, we have to perform a philosophical dissolution of iron with the help of the alchemical solvent.
b) One whole kilogram of iron gives only 7,24 to 7,32 grams of pure iron.
c) Pure iron is a very bright body, endowed with a magnificent purple coloration. It is composed only of the mercury and sulfur of iron and is the purest part of the metallic body. Moreover, it can be further decomposed to a blue mercurial salt and to a red sulfuric oil, as Fulcanelli teaches at his first chapters.

So what are the common points of this substance with the substance which is called pure iron by the modern industry?

Illen A. Cluf
01-09-2012, 03:00 AM
Ok, I shall try make myself clearer. If I understand it right, you believe that the pure iron about which speaks Fulcanelli and the pure iron of the modern industry is the same thing. Now let's see what Fulcanelli has to say about the substance which he calls pure iron.
So the clues which he gives are the following.

a) In order to receive the substance which he calls pure iron, we have to perform a philosophical dissolution of iron with the help of the alchemical solvent.
b) One whole kilogram of iron gives only 7,24 to 7,32 grams of pure iron.
c) Pure iron is a very bright body, endowed with a magnificent purple coloration. It is composed only of the mercury and sulfur of iron and is the purest part of the metallic body. Moreover, it can be further decomposed to a blue mercurial salt and to a red sulfuric oil, as Fulcanelli teaches at his first chapters.

So what are the common points of this substance with the substance which is called pure iron by the modern industry?

Thanks for the clarification, Hellin.

I think I see the difference in our understanding of what Fulcanelli wrote. You are assuming that the dissolution applies directly to the metal, in this case iron. In contrast, I am assuming that the philosophical dissolution does not apply to the metal, but to the prepared matter or griffin as Fulcanelli calls it.

I see a great deal of subtlety in what Fulcanelli says, and in my opinion, these subtleties make a significant difference in understanding Fulcanelli’s process, so bear with me, and I’ll try to explain.

I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but I think this is vitally important, so I have taken some time to explain this as best as I can (to my knowledge this has never before been so openly interpreted, and I hesitated to provide it). It’s based on many years of carefully re-reading Fulcanelli’s book numerous times, and focusing on the important subtleties.

Just before the excerpt that you quoted, Fulcanelli makes a very important statement. I’ll provide the whole paragraph so that you can see the context.


As a summary, whoever possesses an extended knowledge of the practice will notice that the main secret of the Work resides in the artifice of the dissolution. And as it is necessary to perform several of these operations --- different as to their goals ,similar as to their technique --- there are many secondary secrets which, properly speaking, truly only constitute one. All the art is then reduced to dissolution, everything depends on it and the manner in which it is performed. This is the secretum secretorum (secret of secrets), the key of the Magistery, hidden under the enigmatic axiom solve et coagula: dissolve the body) and coagulate (the spirit). This can be done in one operation including two dissolutions, one violent, dangerous, and unknown, the other easy, comfortable, and often performed in a laboratory.

He says that the main secret of the Work lies in the “artifice of the dissolution”. Then he says that dissolution is not just done once, but “several” times, each similar in technique, but different in terms of their “goals”. He then states that everything in the art depends on dissolution. But he adds that it also "depends on the manner in which it is performed”. This is a critical statement, and so important that he terms it the “secret of secrets” and the very “key of the Magistery”. Then he ends the paragraph by saying that the solve et coagula is done in one operation which includes two dissolutions one of which is “violent, dangerous and unknown”, and the other which is “easy, comfortable and often performed in a laboratory”.

In the very next paragraph, he says:


Having described the first of these dissolutions elsewhere and having given, in an allegorical, albeit slightly veiled style, the essential details, we shall not dwell on the subject any longer.

Indeed, he did describe the first of these dissolutions, which involved the four matters (mineral, metal and two salts) and a secret operation which he describes as a “flick of the wrist”. This is the section where he describes how to make the “griffin”. To confirm that this is the right section, in the above excerpt, he says that one of the two dissolutions is “violent, dangerous, and unknown”. In the section on how the griffin is made, he says:


“For want of a necessary mediator --- for which we have never found a symbolic interpretation --- the ignorant experimenter would be exposed to grave dangers. Anxious spectator of the drama which he would have imprudently unleashed, he could neither control its phases nor regulate its fury. Fiery projections, sometimes even brutal explosion of the furnace, would be the sad consequences of his temerity.”


This is an extremely important statement that I have rarely seen anyone else mention. There is even more to this statement for the discerning reader, but that is a digression from our current discussion. Notice that he says it is unknown (he has never found a symbolic interpretation) and it is violent and dangerous, the exact description he provided in the earlier excerpt.

Further on in his description of how to make the griffin, he sates that this part of the process is the “difficult and critical preparation of our stone”. Thus, clearly, the first dissolution involves the initial preparation of the stone. At this point he already has the mercury. He states that the griffin is the “combination of the two initial matters “ and “marks the first stage of the stone of the philosophers”. Fulcanelli then states that it is in the griffin that we find the philosophical mercury. He calls this griffin the “prepared matter, which contains all the elements needed for our great work”. This is often where most treatises begin. Fulcanelli then describes what remains to be done at this point: “We must mortify and decompose this earth, which amounts to killing the griffin and fishing the fish, or separating the fire from the earth, the subtle from the gross, "gently, with great skill and prudence", as Hermes teaches in his Emerald Tablet.”

Having described the first dissolution, we can then go back to the excerpt you quoted. Remember that just before the excerpt, Fulcanelli said that there are two dissolutions, one which is dangerous and unknown (which I have just described), and a second, which is “easy, comfortable, and often performed in a laboratory”. As Fulcanelli stated, this second dissolution involves “killing the griffin and fishing the fish, or separating the fire from the earth, the subtle from the gross”. Throughout his book, Fulcanelli says very little else about this operation, except in the excerpt that you quoted.

So, now, with this very important background, we can now finally look a little more closely at the subtleties contained in that excerpt (there is much more background, but I’m trying to keep it as simple as possible since it can be quite confusing).

Note that he talks about a philosophical dissolution. This means that the operation does not involve the normal type of understanding of what a dissolution is. In other words, it is not like a regular solvent acting on a metal, such as an acid (e.g. aqua regia).

Further, he tells us the purpose of the philosophical dissolution:


“to obtain the sulphur which, in the Magistery, plays the role of a forming agent by coagulating mercury which is in turn added to it, a property which it owes to its ardent, igneous, and dessicating nature”.

Remember that the first dissolution was to prepare the griffin, which in turn contains the mercury and sulfur hidden within it. This griffin has already been prepared with the help of the metal (iron) and the other 3 matters. Now, this second dissolution is an operation that works directly on the griffin, and as mentioned above, the key purpose of this operation is to obtain the sulfur which can then coagulate the mercury.

Continuing on with the excerpt that you provided, he then says:


But this sulfur, during its first extraction, is never stripped of the metallic mercury with which it constitutes the central core of the metal, called essence or seed. Hence the sulphur, preserving the specific qualities of the dissolved body, is in reality but the purest and most subtle part of this very body.


Thus the sulfur, contained in the griffin resulting from the first extraction, is still wrapped in a metallic mercury shell, preserving the qualities of the dissolved body, and is called a seed. The sulfur is the purest part of this “body” or “seed”. The mercurial part is still not pure. Thus a philosophical dissolution must be done to purify it.

Thus he next says:


the philosophical dissolution achieves the absolute purification of imperfect metals.


He says that “there are no examples, whether spagyric or chemical, of an operation likely to give such a result” Thus this clearly is NOT a simple dissolution as commonly understood (e.g. a dissolution of a metal using a solvent). It is a philosophical dissolution, not a common or chemical one. This distinction is very important.

Now recall that in the excerpt you quoted, he was attempting to illustrate the difference between a chemical dissoluton and a philosophical one:


But so as to specify its characteristics, we will draw the worker’s attention to that which distinguishes it from chemical operations falling into the same denomination.

Thus he then goes on to show that the industrial chemical purification process is quite different:


All the purifications of metals treated by modern methods are only used to rid the metals of the superficial, less tenacious impurities.

In the next part of the excerpt, you have missed half a line, so I’ll provide the corrected version:


And these, brought from the mine or coming along during the reduction of the ore, are not generally of any consequence.

It is clear that Fulcanelli is saying that the common chemical type of dissolution is of no use to alchemy.

Next he says how the alchemical process of philosophical dissolution differs from the chemical one:


On the contrary, the alchemical process, dissociating and destroying the mass of heterogeneous matters fixed on the core, composed of very pure sulfur and mercury, ruins the greatest part of the body and makes it resist any ulterior reduction.

He says that the alchemical process destroys most of the body attached to the core (radical metal), and that the core is composed of mercury and very pure sulfur. The destroyed matter can no longer be reduced, since it no longer contains any mercury/sulfur. He then provides an indication of how small this amount of sulfur/mercury is in relation to the entire mass of metal (in this case pure electrolytic iron from Sweden):


Thus, for instance, a kilogram of excellent iron of Sweden, or electrolytic iron, provides a proportion of radical metal, of a perfect homogeneity and purity, that varies between 7.24 and 7.32 grams.

So, from a kilogram of fairly pure iron, through philosophical dissolution, Fulcanelli was only able to obtain just over 7 grams of philosophical mercury/sulfur. This seed is indeed tiny!

He then makes his curious statement about the color of pure iron, as well as the colors of the isolated mercury and sulfur from the iron (blue and red), which, combined, also make the same color as pure iron (purple):


This very bright body is endowed with a magnificent purple coloration --- which is the color of pure iron --- analogous to the iodine vapors in terms of its brightness and intensity. It should be noticed that the sulfur of iron, once isolated, being incarnate red, and is mercury being of a light blue color, the purple resulting from their combination, reveals the totality of the metal.

Again I apologize for the length of this interpretation, but I wanted you to be very clear about my perspective. In conclusion, I do not at all believe that Fulcanelli in this excerpt was talking about the chemical dissolution of iron, but of the second philosophical dissolution. Without writing a ten page dissertation with many additional supporting quotes, I don’t know how I can make this more clear.

Illen

Ghislain
01-09-2012, 11:52 AM
As a summary, whoever possesses an extended knowledge of the practice will notice that the
main secret of the Work resides in the artifice of the dissolution. And as it is necessary to perform
several of these operations --- different as to their goals ,similar as to their technique --- there are
many secondary secrets which, properly speaking, truly only constitute one. All the art is then
reduced to dissolution, everything depends on it and the manner in which it is performed. This is the
secretum secretorum (secret of secrets), the key of the Magistery, hidden under the enigmatic
axiom solve et coagula: dissolve the body) and coagulate (the spirit). This can be done in one
operation including two dissolutions, one violent, dangerous, and unknown, the other easy,
comfortable, and often performed in a laboratory.

Could the two forms of dissolution of metal be electrolysis and then acid? The reason I suggest this
is because I did an experiment a while back and got some strange results.

Both of these dissolutions could be categorised as violent, dangerous, and, at that time, unknown.

The electrolysis emits dangerous gasses as does the addition of sulphuric acid to the precipitate and if added
too quickly it bubbles and spits everywhere.



While attempting to make some NaClO3 from a saturated solution of
common salt by electrolysis using a carbon electrode and a stainless steel electrode, I inadvertently
(I forgot which was the anode and which the cathode :confused:) put the electrodes around the
wrong way and dissolved the stainless steel. I was using a knife as the steel electrode.

Knife (http://genius.toucansurf.com/knife.jpg)

I ended up with a flask full of black sludge which I assumed to be the remnants of the knife. I dried a
little of the sludge out on a plate in the oven.

Dried Sludge (http://genius.toucansurf.com/dried sludge.jpg)

I tried drying out the rest of the sludge but it was taking too long.

Bowl of Sludge (http://genius.toucansurf.com/knife sludge.jpg)

I put into this sludge some H2SO4 and got a very violent reaction. Very quickly sediment fell out of
the sludge which I assumed was salt. I decanted the rest of the solution from this and threw away
the sediment. I was hoping to create iron sulphate. What I now have is some very dark green liquid
and I have some crystals which formed in this solution.

Dark Green Liquid (http://genius.toucansurf.com/green liquid.jpg)

I washed the green liquid out of the crystal, some of which dissolved. I then took some of the
crystals on a spoon and melted them. I trickled the hot liquid off the spoon onto a cold plate and it
set solid like glass.

Melting Crystals (http://genius.toucansurf.com/crystal melt.wmv)

Any suggestions as to what I actually have would be much appreciated.

Ghislain.

Electricity was probably available in ancient times as can be seen below:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ih6zGIdPTs

Another video here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjsVjmdhuD0) Reproducing the Egyptian lightbulb.


While constructing a railway in 1936 near Baghdad, workers uncovered what appeared to be
a prehistoric battery, also known as the Parthian Battery.
The object dates back to the Parthian period and is believed to be 2,000 years old. The battery
consisted of a clay jar that was filled with a vinegar solution
into which an iron rod surrounded by a copper cylinder was inserted. This device produced 1.1 to 2.0
volts of electricity.

http://batteryuniversity.com/_img/content/part1.jpghttp://batteryuniversity.com/_img/content/part2.jpg

Both processes could be termed philosophical in ancient times, firstly because electricity would
seem magical and Sulphuric acid would probably have been produced by burning sulphur and
capturing the fumes in water...both the processes were most likely held secret by adepts.

I can't fit the two processes appearing as one though, or "different as to their goals ,similar as to their technique" :(

Anyhow it is just a guess!

Ghislain

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 12:29 AM
Here is some amazing (perhaps game-changing) information on graphine - Carbon 7:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFVaH82y8gM

Illen A. Cluf
01-10-2012, 12:35 AM
Could the two forms of dissolution of metal be electrolysis and then acid?

Hi Ghislain,

A fascinating experiment. The only time I remember Fulcanelli mentioning electrolysis is in connection with the electrolytic iron, which is an almost pure iron. However, he hints often at a secret process which he never explains, but describes as a "flick of the wrist", or similar words. Thus anything is possible. However, acid would be a chemical dissolution process and not a philosophical process. Using this secret process, Fulcanellli is able to somehow extract the mercury/sulfur from the iron without dissolving the metal with a solvent.

Illen

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 01:02 AM
This one's related to Ghislain's post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXmEAZ5oGlE

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 03:23 AM
Here is the PON flow-chart for the martial regulus work.
I don't know if it works or not, but it certainly seems to be
delineated by some.

http://api.ning.com/files/fU451vI3mbROR8JNEeSXjgkg3VIv991LN0EJCxiH7aDhw4eRl1 a7MAgVGixERiWI/flamel.JPG?width=452&height=600 (http://mountzion144.ning.com/photo/flamel-work-flow-chart/next?context=latest)

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 06:33 AM
And Rubellus Petrinus' interpretation of Fulcanelli dry way
for your consideration:

http://tpissarro.com/alquimia/fulcanelli-e.htm

Illen A. Cluf
01-10-2012, 12:17 PM
Here is the PON flow-chart for the martial regulus work.
I don't know if it works or not, but it certainly seems to be
delineated by some.


Thanks, Solomon - this is very helpful!

Do you happen to have a larger version?

Thanks,
Illen

Ghislain
01-10-2012, 12:35 PM
Sol

Hope you don't mind but I cleaned up the pic you posted.

Click on pic for cleaned up vers.

http://api.ning.com/files/fU451vI3mbROR8JNEeSXjgkg3VIv991LN0EJCxiH7aDhw4eRl1 a7MAgVGixERiWI/flamel.JPG?width=452&height=600 (http://genius.toucansurf.com/sol%20pic%20clean%20up.jpg)

The only bit I am not sure of is on the L/H/S of Crow where I read this as 'Seoria' is this correct?

Ghislain

Ghislain
01-10-2012, 02:10 PM
Sol

I found another upload of the same video in your Carbon-7 link

An extract of a YouTube video blog, “Secrets of Secrets” uploaded by “harismind”
the Author, talking as the first person, states:


I have received a few emails questioning the stability of Carbon-7 and thus
the impossibility of it existing. Although I do mention that Carbon-7 (C7) "quickly
decays to other stabler forms of matter" implying of its extreme instability, I realize I
should have gone further to say a few more words on its instability. Although I was
aware of its extreme instability and radioactive nature, I did not want to go into it in
any detail, since I feared it would be a digression.

When it is mentioned that Carbon-7 “quickly decays”, how quick is this?

Below is extract from an article on Carbon from Wikipedia


There are 15 known isotopes of carbon and the shortest-lived of these is C8 which decays
through proton emission and alpha decay and has a half-life of 1.98739x10−21 s.

NB: There is no mention of Carbon-7

So Carbon-8 has a half life of 0.000000000000000198739 seconds
Or "1 / 5,031,725,026,000,000,000,000,000th" of a second...correct me if I’m wrong :)

Carbon-7 would have an even shorter half life than this, and considering that the human response
has difficulty in perceiving things that happen in less than 1/10th of a second you can begin to
imagine how quick that is; it is just a little longer than your interest in this post :)

In another blog someone put into words how I feel about it:


“ Lovely video but it's filled with speculation. There is no hard scientific data concerning
carbon 12's transmutation into carbon 7 or the effect that carbon 7 has on the human brain. The
writer does not postulate how this transmutation of carbon 12 into carbon 7 in the human body
after 2012 will take place or the exact catalyst that brings this change. The video starts telling some
science facts then quickly mixes fact with fiction in an attempt to gain favor for the writers theories.

I wish there was something real to all this - sounds very cool - but sadly I just cannot see it.”

I have to admit we are here dealing with the incomprehensible so I shall keep an open mind.

Ghislain

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 02:13 PM
Scoria - it is the black sulfurous mass which separates from the mercuric regulus.
It contains the seed of gold.

The other word I have a hard time reading os "incubation"
in the third work under seeding gold, and "incubate" at the very bottom left.

I didn't find a larger version.
Oh. Wow, yes that's very clear if you click on it. Ghislain. Thanks.

Ghislain
01-10-2012, 03:03 PM
Sol

The link in post #114 referring to the great pyramids as electric generators I find fascinating.

If the information in the video is factual and the relation to Tesla's tower is accurate then
it all seems highly probable.

I went to the pyramids at Giza after going to the Valley of the Kings and was surprised at the
absence of hieroglyphics inside the pyramids when the tombs in the VOTK's are intensely decorated.

If the Ark of the Covenant was stolen by Moses you can see why the Pharaoh (possibly Amenhotep II) was pissed. :)

Ghislain

Ghislain
01-10-2012, 03:45 PM
Illen

What is the meaning of "Philosophical" in Alchemy?

I can't really get my head around something being Philosophical or not.

phil·o·soph·i·cal / fɪləˈsɒfɪkəl / [fil-uh-sof-i-kuhl]

adjective

1. of or pertaining to philosophy: philosophical studies.

2. versed in or occupied with philosophy.

3. proper to or befitting a philosopher.

4. rationally or sensibly calm, patient, or composed.

5. Rare . of or pertaining to natural philosophy or physical science.


phi·los·o·phy / fɪˈlɒsəfi / [fi-los-uh-fee]

noun, plural -phies.

1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or
conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and
metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of
knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the
philosophy of science.

5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Philosophy)

Did Philosophical mean something different in the days of Fulcanelli perhaps?

Do you think that when we read 'philosophical' we should actually read 'allegorical'?

Ghislain

Ghislain
01-10-2012, 03:51 PM
Scoria - it is the black sulfurous mass which separates from the mercuric regulus.
It contains the seed of gold.

Thanks Sol'...corrected the pic.

It's obvious once someone tells you :)

Ghislain

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 04:00 PM
Sol

I found another upload of the same video in your Carbon-7 link

An extract of a YouTube video blog, “Secrets of Secrets” uploaded by “harismind”
the Author, talking as the first person, states:



When it is mentioned that Carbon-7 “quickly decays”, how quick is this?

Below is extract from an article on Carbon from Wikipedia



NB: There is no mention of Carbon-7

So Carbon-8 has a half life of 0.000000000000000198739 seconds
Or "1 / 5,031,725,026,000,000,000,000,000th" of a second...correct me if I’m wrong :)

Carbon-7 would have an even shorter half life than this, and considering that the human response
has difficulty in perceiving things that happen in less than 1/10th of a second you can begin to
imagine how quick that is; it is just a little longer than your interest in this post :)

In another blog someone put into words how I feel about it:



I have to admit we are here dealing with the incomprehensible so I shall keep an open mind.

Ghislain

Yeah, I don't know about the details, but I like the pointing to
the manipulation of carbon, which was discussed a little in this thread.
That the stone would be a fixed version of an extremely volatile fugitive is familiar to us.
Why not an unstable carbon isotope? :) Just something to consider. All my posts are just information
until someone finds a way to apply them - thus I am free from the burden of truth. :)
There are really so many matters we can start with because in the preparation and alchematization
they all must die and be reborn as a pure earth with no qualities.
If we follow Fulcanelli and allow only a black ore to be our starting material, we lose limestone,
for example, which is a fairly clean matter to start with, or Fuller's earth, or sea salt, or many others.
Understanding the principles allows one to select a proper material. Trying to understand/decipher the
material first is putting the cart before the horse.

solomon levi
01-10-2012, 04:35 PM
The pyramid is one stone structure among many. These devices may be used in a more universal path.
You'll notice they are always set on power centers or vortexes. These utilise the magnetic flux of the earth as mercury
and the solar rays of the sun as sulfur. These power vortexes are connected by ley lines, or what the chinese called
"dragon lines". So again we see the variety of paths: dragon as mineral, dragon as kundalini, dragon as energy grid...

https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQfJLext-qM4QszrczNsTgAj2qVEpE7YfS8WTDbmvQEXzZtLSiC

http://esotericonline.tripod.com/what_a1.gif

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTJCBodpMu65cpzxZyKb2ziTe9o0daE R1rr4NbsBrWqorSTrp9NA

We have the limestone pyramids of Egypt and the Americas and Asia, but we also have
limestone cathedrals across Europe, the stupas of the east, the medicine wheels of the American Indians,
Stonehenge, etc...


https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_kVzMx3pzI0MSdOQTWsTqREXOBHSj2 pX4LHiMIk9EQLOIa7MmmA
Ayer's rock in Australia near the Alice springs vortex


https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnp6iDXbLio-Epu04vD-HMrx4b8sZpwZe0vf2s3CsDPsOkEPwUhw
Coral Castle

etc, etc.

This relates to another post where Plato is mentioned as an alchemist.
Where is the alchemy of Plato and Pythagoras? In geometry.

https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRzC1a_Jvyzqq-fuIDa-c0lQyMeFJ8ztA7PT7fyPjc0-ydsc7y7ng


This is also in Fulcanelli, for those who read him. We get so caught up in interpreting
the carvings that we miss the cathedrals they are carved upon. "Dwellings of the Philosophers".
This again leads to masonry, geometric temples, the House of God, the New Jerusalem, etc.

Illen A. Cluf
01-10-2012, 09:40 PM
Sol

Hope you don't mind but I cleaned up the pic you posted.

Click on pic for cleaned up vers.


Thanks for cleaning up and enlargening the diagram, Ghislain.

Illen

solomon levi
01-12-2012, 08:02 PM
botryoidal goethite looks like a bunch of grapes.

https://encrypted-tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRH1YLHM75ForSLxurr3fDXoDr3Q1w8c JHFJU7q7jmGkmO-ORHZ

solomon levi
02-17-2012, 03:27 PM
Some Fulcanelli:

"Danae represents our crude mineral, such as it is extracted from the mine. It is the earth of the
sages which contains within it the active and hidden spirit, alone capable, says Hermes. Of
realizing "by these things the miracle of only one thing". As a matter of fact, the word Danae
comes from the Dorian Greek (Dan), earth, and (ae), breath, spirit.
Philosophers teach that their raw material is a fragment of the original chaos and it is indeed
what is meant by the name Acrisius, king of Argos and Danae’s father: (Akrisia), is
confusion, disorder; (Argos), means coarse, uncultivated, incomplete. As for Zeus, it
denotes the sky, the air, and the water; to such extent that the Greeks, to express the action of
raining, said: (Gei o Zeus), Jupiter sends rain, or, more simply, it rains. Therefore
this god appears as the personification of water, of a water capable of penetrating bodies, of a
metallic water, for it is of gold or at least golden. It is precisely the case of the hermetic
solvent, which, after undergoing fermentation in an oak barrel, assumes, upon decantation, the
appearance of liquid gold. The anonymous author of an unpublished 18th century manuscript
writes on the subject: "If you let this water run, you will see with your very eyes the gold
shining in its first being with all the colors of the rainbow". The very union of Zeus and
Danae indicates the manner in which the solvent must be applied; the body, reduced to a fine
powder, put to digestion with a small quantity of water, is then dampened, watered little by
little, gradually as it becomes absorbed --- a technique the sages called imbibation. Thus a
softer and softer paste is obtained which becomes syrupy, oily, and eventually fluid and clear.
Then subjected, under certain conditions, to the action of fire, a part of this liquor coagulates
into a mass which falls to the bottom and is to be collected with care. This is our precious
sulphur, the newborn child, the little king, and our Dauphin (or dolphin), symbolic fish
otherwise called echeneis, remora or pilot fish, Perseus or fish of the Red Sea (in Greek ---
Perseus), etc."


"The prison also serves as an emblem of the imperfect body, initial subject of the Work, in
which the aqueous and metallic soul is firmly attached and held. "It is this imprisoned water",
says Nicolas Valois, "that unceasingly cries out: Help me, and I shall help you, that is,
release me from my prison, and if one day you can liberate me, I shall make you master of the
fortress where I am. And so the water locked up in this body is of the same water-nature as
that which we gave it to drink, which is called Mercury Trismegistus, and that Parmenides
understands when he says: Nature contains Nature. For this imprisoned water revels in its
companion who comes to deliver it from its iron shackles, blends with it and finally,
converting the same prison into themselves, rejecting that which is contrary to them --- and
that is the preparation --- are both converted into mercurial and permanent water. It is
therefore right that our divine Water is called the Key, Light, Diana who shines in the thick of
night. For it is the entrance to the entire Work and that which illuminates mankind."

In the lower quote we have an association with iron. In the upper, if we read the myth of Perseus
and Danae, Danae's father Akrisis keeps her in a bronze or copper chest or tower or cave, prison.

Personally, I've seen more associations with venus, copper, bronze, brass, brazen.

solomon levi
02-17-2012, 04:35 PM
Kallo and the goblins

A fat woman had an ugly beast older daughter, Marbo, and a beautiful younger daughter, Kallo. People admired Kallo and pitied Marbo; Marbo resented it and made Kallo do all the work. One day, the mother asked for one of them to go to the mill to grind flour; Marbo insisted on sending Kallo. Kallo got there, many people were grinding, and her grain was poured in just before the miller went to bed; she had to wait. At midnight, goblins came out and threatened to eat her. Kallo said they could not eat her in her old dress; she needed a new dress. When they stole a fine dress for her, she said she needed other things, a coat, an umbrella, a comb, face powder, and anything she could think of. Then dawn came, and the goblins had to leave. The miller ground her grain, and Kallo went back with what the goblins had given her and the flour.

Marbo envied her and wasted the flour. On New Year's Day, more was needed, and Marbo went for it. When the goblins came, they scratched her face, and she screamed for help; the miller saved her, but she gained nothing. Kallo used the goblins' face powder on her and healed her face.

The goblins of the title, the kallikantzari, live beneath the ground, trying to chop up the tree that holds up the earth. When it is nearly down, they know it is Christmas and come up to make mischief; they are driven back down at Epiphany, when the Greek Orthodox priests bless the waters."


Here we may associate Kallo (beautiful) with Venus/Aphrodite, as in the previous post.

related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karakoncolos
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kallikantzaros

solomon levi
02-17-2012, 05:05 PM
Fulcanelli:

"Now the cubic stone, which the industrious nature engenders out of water alone --- the
universal matter of the Peripatics --- and of which the art must sculpt the six facets according
to the rules of occult geometry, appears in a formative stage in a curious bas-relief of the 17th
century decorating the fountain of Vertbois in Paris (Plate XXVI).
As the two subjects are closely related, we will study here the more detailed Parisian emblem,
thus hoping to cast some light on the symbolic expression of the image in Saintonge, which is
too concise.
Built in 1633 by the Benedictine monks of St Martin-des-Champs, this fountain was
originally erected inside the priory leaning against the surrounding wall. In 1712 the monks
offered it to the city of Paris, for public use, along with the grounds needed to rebuild it,
provided "that the site would be established in one of their convent’s ancient towers and that
an outer door would be placed there" (6). The fountain was thus placed against the so-called
Tower of Vertbois, located on rue St Martin and took the name of St Martin’s fountain which
it kept for more than a century.
The small structure, restored at the expense of the government in 1832, is made up of "a
shallow, rectangular niche flanked by two Doric pilasters, with vermiculated embossments,
which support an architraved cornice. On the cornice is built a kind of small helmet crowned
by a winged cartouche. A sea conch tops the cartouche. The upper part of the niche is
occupied by a frame in the center of which a vessel is sculpted" (7). The stone bas-relief
measures 80 cm in height by 105 cm in width; the author is unknown."


http://books.google.com/books?id=P9mpcTW4GpcC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=vermiculated+verdigris&source=bl&ots=dp1at8TXgb&sig=yOxcMR7560jg5xSoHNYKU2GOsjs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X4I-T6uEMuiSiALh9djCAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vermiculated%20verdigris&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IEoMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=minerals+santerna&source=bl&ots=wld7htWJnp&sig=GacEZuoQy05vMmxHhYtaMYjYPPo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1n0-T_eLN8iMiAKns6CoAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=minerals%20santerna&f=false


Consider also that alchemists called our subject copper, brass, laton, Aphrodite...

If you read carefully in Pliny you will find that this comes from Cyprus but also
Armenia, recalling our Armenian dogge/bitch. You will also read that it is found in
mines of lead, silver, gold and copper as a liquid! Chrysocolla means "green gold".

Consider also taurus, the bull, ruled by venus. It's symbol is the solar circle and the lunar crescent -
the child of the sun and the moon....

Also possibly Fulcanelli's Monsieur LeGris could be verdigris, ver/vir meaning man/Mr.