PDA

View Full Version : Kabbalah and Alchemy Comparisons



Ilos
10-13-2012, 07:15 PM
Hello everyone,
Being suggested from the alchemy authors, I have been reading a bit about Kabbalah lately, to be honest not as much as to understand it well tho I understood the connections of two areas, tho still id have a doubt about the two areas having anything in common. I mean if you really look it from a kabbalistic perspective, being an alchemist is being an egoist and kabbalah is what tries to teach you that you should correct that and be an altruist and in that way find ways to reach all over to the creator. Maybe the philosophical psychology of the two areas are the same and they connect almost somewhere to the middle but after that they both take different paths. If you'd ask me about long time ago, did Alchemy took info from Kabbalah id say that its the other way around Id say that its the kabbalists that should learn Alchemy and in a way i believe that the Kabbalah was inspired from the Art of Alchemy. Im not trying to accuse anything, Kabbalah is interesting and it has its own values tho I just think that comparing it with Alchemy you have to maybe see it differently.
Thanks.

Ghislain
10-14-2012, 01:43 AM
being an alchemist is being an egoist

On the contrary Alchemy is about learning and in that learning the realisation of connectedness.

There are egoists in all walks of life and I am sure you will find them in Alchemy, but they will not find success until they find true altruism.

IMO

Ghislain

zoas23
10-14-2012, 08:09 AM
Qabalah and Alchemy are truly like two brothers and knowing one of them helps a lot to understand the other one.

I don't think there is a moral difference between Qabalah and Alchemy. Both of them inherited a lot of the Greek philosophy.
And the Greek ideal of "moderation", the Greek refusal of the Hubris, is something that mostly became one of the core principles of Qabalah. So it's not exactly true that Qabalah is for extreme Altruists, but its moral teachings are more related to balance... even balance between egoism and altruism... even if the aim is the Greater Good (but I think Alchemy has the same aim -I don't think their aims are different, nor I think their aim is exactly very original, I mean it's not that it's possible to applaud the originality of the aim).
...

Ghislain
10-14-2012, 08:49 AM
Can anyone state that the answer doesn't lie in pure true altruism?

Who can claim to be truly altruistic?

To have the balance between egoism and altruism is a get out clause to allow some selfishness.

I am more egoist than altruist, but I am aware of this so I will stick with your balance idea Zoas
then at least I can say I'm trying ;)

Ghislain

Bel Matina
10-14-2012, 11:52 AM
The main difference between Alchemy and Qabballah lies in the coded language. They have different vocabularies for the same things. It's also important to remember that there have been, historically, several different schools of Qabballah, not all necessarily compatible, but then Alchemy has not been such a simple tradition either.

In my experience, through the process of making the stone the individual ego is lost, merging with the universal ego.

The problem becomes less one of consideration for others as one of remembering that others are neither so rooted in the universal nor so willing to endure trauma for the sake of transformation. I think that phenomenon of absorbing others into one's idea of the self and then performing acts of self-sacrifice on their behalf has been the root of a lot of travesty.

Certainly, though, Alchemy tends to treat ethics as more of a natural phenomenon than Qabballah - that is, if you're performing the work right, you will become altruistic anyway, and so we feel no need to caution you to manifest one of the passive signs of attainment.

Quite a bit of Qabballistic writing, though, couches thought about the notion of choice in moralistic terms. The Sefer Yetsirah lays out five dimensions - time, elevation, north-south, east-west, and choice: "a depth of beginning and a depth of ending, a depth of good and a depth of bad, a depth of above and a depth of below, a depth of east and a depth of west, a depth of north and a depth of south"

Andro
10-14-2012, 12:09 PM
the individual ego is lost, merging with the universal ego.

Does the 'universal' even have an 'ego'? How would you define 'universal ego'?


I think that phenomenon of absorbing others into one's idea of the self and then performing acts of self-sacrifice on their behalf has been the root of a lot of travesty.

Brilliant ! ! !

I would strongly advise everyone reading this to look at ourselves and see if we are or aren't doing this kind of 'sacrifice projection' (no better term comes to me right now).

I've once seen a movie (or read a book, I don't remember), where a mother (either deliberately but more likely unconsciously) induces suffering in her offspring, just so she can 'sacrifice' herself to 'care' for them.

Maybe it's not a rare occurrence at all...

What if some types of 'self-sacrifice' are among the most egocentric/narcissistic/self-gratifying traits?

Ghislain
10-14-2012, 02:57 PM
There is a syndrome called Munchausen’s where a person feigns a health problem to encounter
care, for attention or sympathy. There is another syndrome called Munchausen by Proxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome_by_proxy) where
one induces a health problem in another so as to be involved with their care.

Neither of these I would tag as being self sacrificing as in both cases someone else has to suffer. In
the first case it is only those who care for the patient , in the second it is both the patient and those
who have to care for them.

In altruism nothing can be done for self gratification for, if it is, then it ceases to be truely altruistic.

This is what makes understanding altruism very difficult as one has to ask, "am I getting something out of this?"

I have to ask myself if true altruism can actually exist at all.

Perhaps in the case of Mohandas Gandhi? I'm not sure.

Ghislain

Edit: this may seem as though it is going off topic, but it is in answer to Ilos' doubt about the
two areas having anything in common.

Ilos
10-14-2012, 04:02 PM
Its true people should correct their ego, in order to bestow and not be selfish, tho even when bestowing, theres still a bit of egoistic pleasure that they receive so to reach all over to the top, you have to become a true altruist so you can bestow all that pleasure to the other parts of the worlds and so on and on..
Basically when you look at the Alchemy it does talk about correction to and breaking the shells and receiving only the essence of the natures spirit.
Yes I agree to, the two areas are like brothers but with different paths even tho they have the same goal.
Like for example Surgeons with Psychotherapists.

solomon levi
10-14-2012, 08:06 PM
If we get into ego and alchemy, I think this will go off topic, or split topics, but without
ego, there would be no alchemy. Ego is saturn/black matter/shadow, etc,... the other
alcheny without ego would be to create/manifest from nothing. Of course it all depends
on how we define ego also. Ego means "I", and in really old schools (I hear) was synonymous
with God. Now what we call ego is actually altered ego, the lowest three chakras excluding
the higher four, if you go with a 7 system. Altering ego is to alter reality with your will -
that is, altering reality with your will is to not accept "what is". Altered ego is other
than what is.

Also, true connectedness doesn't see any true/false in statements because it is all perspectives.
So there can be no "contrary" in connectedness unless your simply speaking as if connectedness
is separate.

Anyway, back to topic, comparisons of alchemy and kabbalah. this is hard to speak of because
there are several types of kabbalah and maybe several types of alchemy unless you intentionally
unify them. It's hard to talk about without knowing how much you know. But I haven't found
any alchemy or any kabbalah that isn't related somehow. And sometimes those alchemies and
kabbalahs are MORE alchemy and kabbalah than what I started out believing alchemy and kabbalah
were. ;) But it makes sense that that would happen - the "higher"/faster you go, the less separation
is apparent, like the speeds of an electric fan. Everything will be con-fused into One in the "highest".

Ilos said, "being an alchemist is being an egoist and kabbalah is what tries to teach you that you should correct that and be an altruist and in that way find ways to reach all over to the creator."

The thing about altruism, it isn't "all over". Otherwise, I might agree with altruism. As far as altruism
excludes something, that far I cannot follow. But otherwise, I may be a pretend altruist most of the time. :)
Altruism isn't a bad mask/default I suppose.

This specifically defines types of alchemy. There is an alchemy for destruction, an alchemy for creation
and an alchemy for preservation. Lately, I align more with the preserver/Vishnu/fish/christos/vesica pisces/
mercury/John/Ioannes the Baptist, etc...
Preservation is the playground between creation and destruction.
Let me try to say it this way - if one is totally awake or One, then there is no play because no separation.
If one is totally asleep, there is no play either. Play is the area between wakefulness and sleep - they
need eachother. A mercury-type will mediate between sleep and awake by dreaming consciously/lucidly.
Or what Castaneda called controlled folly. This alchemy is one alchemy; or one phase of a larger alchemy.
For me, I like the preserver area/arena of alchemy. In it, there is some creation and destruction as well in
order to maintain/preserve equilibrium. But there are all kinds of equilibrium. Some equilibrium is perfectly
balanced; but as long as the scale doesn't tip over, or the top stop spinning, I must still say equilibrium
exists. These wobbles in equilibrium cause the slower/"lower" speeds and planes of experience.
It is a fixation that starts a wobble/imbalance. But with no fixation, what is solve? To solve what you
will and to fix what you will and still maintain equilibrium/rotation of elements is magic/play.
But there is play within play, dream within dream, magic within magic....

I better pause. Love this conversation. Thanks for starting it Ilos.

solomon levi
10-14-2012, 08:53 PM
The problem becomes less one of consideration for others as one of remembering that others are neither so rooted in the universal nor so willing to endure trauma for the sake of transformation. I think that phenomenon of absorbing others into one's idea of the self and then performing acts of self-sacrifice on their behalf has been the root of a lot of travesty.

Certainly, though, Alchemy tends to treat ethics as more of a natural phenomenon than Qabballah - that is, if you're performing the work right, you will become altruistic anyway, and so we feel no need to caution you to manifest one of the passive signs of attainment.

Quite a bit of Qabballistic writing, though, couches thought about the notion of choice in moralistic terms. The Sefer Yetsirah lays out five dimensions - time, elevation, north-south, east-west, and choice: "a depth of beginning and a depth of ending, a depth of good and a depth of bad, a depth of above and a depth of below, a depth of east and a depth of west, a depth of north and a depth of south"

In Carlos Castaneda's "alchemy", there are directions with go with the four moods of a warrior, which are alchemical four elements:
ruthlessness, cunning, patience and sweetness. Perhaps one can see in ruthlessness fire, and in cunning air and in
patience earth and in sweetness water. Anyway, these are also faculties that operate on different times/speeds. A proper
"rotation" of these elements creates the warriors' way. Or one could say a warrior uses these four to achieve whatever
s/he dreams, or whatever spirit/intent declares. But spirit/intent/quintessence is the unconditioned "facet" of a warrior which
directs ruthlessness, cunning, patience and sweetness.

I'm still not comfortable calling it altruism, but I basically agree with the statement "you will become altruistic anyway" -
probably the same as my saying I am mostly pretending altruism. But I recall Ayn Rand speaking on altruism and really
agreed with her - she basically recognised that altruism is thinking of others before yourself, and for an alchemist,
the alchemist is the most important ingredient IMO. People can't transmute in others what isn't transmuted in oneself.
So in that vein, oneself comes first, not others. I think that's natural. I think it is a societal dream that says otherwise -
put others first. Besides, this just isn't possible in a harmonious way. I mean there is a necessary maturity required
to put others first - it shouldn't be forced dogmatically too early. Well, that goes without saying. So what I'm saying
is it isn't a significant item like the unconditioned is. Altruism is just one more conditioned item among billions.

solomon levi
10-14-2012, 09:17 PM
Brilliant ! ! !

I would strongly advise everyone reading this to look at ourselves and see if we are or aren't doing this kind of 'sacrifice projection' (no better term comes to me right now).

I've once seen a movie (or read a book, I don't remember), where a mother (either deliberately but more likely unconsciously) induces suffering in her offspring, just so she can 'sacrifice' herself to 'care' for them.

Maybe it's not a rare occurrence at all...

What if some types of 'self-sacrifice' are among the most egocentric/narcissistic/self-gratifying traits?

So many good conversations. I'll let someone else decide what is on or off topic or if the topic needs to divide.
But I would really like to hear Bel Matina expound on this so I can see if the two of you see/say the same. :)

Originally Posted by Bel Matina
I think that phenomenon of absorbing others into one's idea of the self and then performing acts of self-sacrifice on their behalf has been the root of a lot of travesty.


For me, there are a few perspectives I can see to take this. Every comment is a conditioning or re-conditioning of the original subject.
Bel Matina, as creator/author/initiator of this subject is the dominant guna unless you want to wrestle dominance from her.
For me, I can't agree without assuming that I know Bel Matina's intention. I would rather she tell me her intention so I can drink from the source. :)

Andro
10-14-2012, 09:35 PM
So many good conversations. I'll let someone else decide what is on or off topic or if the topic needs to divide.

Well, the topic is comparing Kabbalah and Alchemy, and the original post emphasizes egoism & altruism as points of comparison - so I guess these concepts should be discussed and better understood (or rectified by re-conditioning :)).

These are indeed good conversations and I think they keep in line with the OP and the general idea of the thread.

This doesn't mean we can not compare Kabbalah and Alchemy by other factors as well.

But I think that discussing 'egoism/altruism' in an Alchemical/Kabbalistical context is very interesting, so I don't think the thread needs splitting right now.

If the topic of 'egoism and altruism' takes a life of its own, we can always split/copy it later...

Personally, I think that a form of 'Enlightened Egoism' can lead to genuine altruism (as opposed to 'pretend' altruism), without any sense of sacrifice, especially in an Hermetical/Kabbalistical/Alchemical context.

Black is the new White, and Dark is the New Light :) :) :)

After all, we DO need Dark to make Light from... Making Light from Light without the Dark precursor may be 'faking' it a bit... (IMO)

zoas23
10-15-2012, 01:03 AM
Can anyone state that the answer doesn't lie in pure true altruism?

Who can claim to be truly altruistic?

To have the balance between egoism and altruism is a get out clause to allow some selfishness.

I am more egoist than altruist, but I am aware of this so I will stick with your balance idea Zoas
then at least I can say I'm trying ;)

Ghislain

Boaz, the black pillar, has a white Beth.
Jachim, the white pillar, has a black Yod.

It's identical to the idea of the ying-yang (and I'm not bringing amazing revelations here! :p ). It's probably OK to call the pillars "egoism" and "altruism".

The path of Qabalah is the path between these two pillars.... a "third option" that brings balance.

Bel Matina
10-15-2012, 03:47 AM
I do feel that Androgynus understood me quite well, and so I felt insufficient need to elaborate at risk of going off topic. At the moderator's request, though, I don't see how I can refrain :)

First, let us observe that if the ego is capable of transmutation (that is, it is not our gold) then its scope is as arbitrary as any other element. In fact, I have found, and I think were it necessary I could find quotations to support my experience, that the only elements whose scope is not so arbitrary are those universally penetrating androgynous elements which participate in the nature of the ouroboros (this includes our gold, which by virtue of its manifestation excludes the feminine). The beginning of our work proceeds from that venemous state, and so our first step seems invariably to be an attempt to transmute the ego to the breadth of the retort and thus bring out the color of gold. The specific nature of the retort determines the precise nature of this universality.

I have only theoretical understanding of projection, where the perfected stone transmits its nature virally to another matter, though of course I have some practical knowledge, and so it's difficult for me to explore 'sacrifice projection' with any confidence. When it comes to multiplication, however, my meaning is sure to be understood. For those weak on the term (and I apologize if my understanding diverges from those others hold; mine may be the flawed one), multiplication is where the retort containing the finished stone is broken and sealed into a larger container with chaotic matter, and the latter is allowed to impregnate the stone. The result is a stone less perfect than the mother, but much easier to work with than the prior chaos. When the prior retort falls within the conventional boundaries of the self, and the latter includes the domain of others (or potentially, in the case of very large projects, many thousands of others), it still becomes necessary in order to create chaos in the new retort to expand ourselves to the size of it, and then the same singlemindedness that brought us through the torment of the metals is perfectly willing to set that same torment to all those who we've placed unconsenting over the fires of our laboratory. In fact, if we've come this far, that sort of torment is our habit, and we're unlikely to even remember that it might cause distress to others or a prior self.

By the same token any care we might take for the self is extended to others once we've arrogated them within our own egos. For this reason among others I caution anyone I see drifting toward the art to be mindful of their own needs; the type that stick with the art certainly don't seem to need to be encouraged to endure suffering.

It's extremely difficult to split hairs between Qabballah and Alchemy. For any given period, it's nearly impossible to say with certainty that the only difference between the traditions wasn't religion. Consider: Josephus says that the Essenes (presumably the Qumran community, which was institutionally descended from a priestly society that returned from Babylon, where modern Hellenic astrology had just been invented, and used methods of astrological analysis outdated by Ptolmey's time but which seem to have been the mainstay of classical Babylonian astrology) had mysteries very similar to those of the Pythagoreans, and certainly the Sefer Yetsirah is mostly concerned with a numeric genesis very similar to Plato's but in much more detail (the rest is an astrological primer). In my estimation this tradition has to go back at least to the point that counting numbers were still a thing only used by specialists (from linguistic evidence, less than ten thousand years ago but more than four), and the most developed part of this numeric genesis is through the alef bet, meaning that even though there was clearly free interaction with a compatible tradition in Babylon, we're looking at a distinctive canaanite tradition that has to go back long before that interaction.

Making things more complicated, post-temple Jewish mystical traditions all trace their roots to Alexandria (prior practices required the ashes from a particular sacrifice which could only be performed at the temple as part of their requisite purification), the same time and place as the various traditions which merged to become Alchemy were, well, merging. Gnosticism in fact owes as much to Jewish astral magic as Qabballah does. My only access to this text is the quotation in wikipedia, but it seems Zosimos of Panoplis wrote that there are "two sciences and two wisdoms, that of the Egyptians and that of the Hebrews, which latter is confirmed by divine justice." This division probably has a lot to do with the peculiar political circumstances vis a vis the Jews in Alexandria.

Also consider that until the reconquista and the expulsion of the Spanish Jews, Qabballah was not practiced outside the Arab world - European Jewish leaders had forbidden it in the tenth century. Even then, it was looked on by the Jewish community at large as somewhat heterodox. There is every possibility that they were freely in discourse with contemporary Alchemists and Sufis the entire time. Past that time interactions between the two traditions are frequent and well-documented.

Particularly if you bring to mind Della Mirandola, Dee, Paracelsus, and Kircher, to name a few, it gets very hard to draw a line just based on religion.

I suppose another thing to consider is that Hasidic Qabballah, and to some extent the Lurian system it draws from, is an attempt to reduce the mysteries to a form accessible to all the people, and I find the Talmudic legality of any such endeavor questionable at best. As for the reasons for such a law, I will say that to our ears such a thing should speak for itself.

I feel as if I may have been obtuse in some places here, but I'll leave that for specific requests for clarification.

III
10-15-2012, 07:10 AM
Lay on McDuff, though personally I would rather lay on Mrs McDuff.

As a preface let me say I have never studied Kabbalah in this life that I remember. In third grade I "woke up" a whole lot of memories. I told me mother that I had to find my Kabbalah group and let them know I had made it through. She went ballistic on that. However what I remembered of practice was Tantric Alchemy. My last memories from that previous life were in a Nazi death camp.


To start off, what does "altruism" mean?. What does "ego" or maybe better for the comparison, "egoism or perhaps egotism". So we also have altruistic vs egoistic and egotistic. When looking for the opposite of altruism I find "selfishness" in Wikepedia. Selfishness appears to be a major aspect of egoism and egotism. Some possibly relevant definitions etc are quoted below.

A non-dualist finds their highest identity in the Absolute. An old meditation is to follow the "I AM" all the way back to it's earliest occurance. It can be very effective but results will vary.

Egoism/egotism causes endless problems for Alchemists. So many self destruct in many ways via egotistic/egoistic motivations.

There is no way to "game" the system. There is no way to fool the system or to fake out the system. For lack of a better way to put it the system has a sense of "humor" or maybe "irony" or something and things tend to go wrong or backfire or blow up in one's face or whatever in response to egotism or egoism depending upon how warped things get. Insanity can result through poorly conducted Alchemy. One get's one's reflection back with distortions or maybe compensating corrections. If one put's out LOVE, one receives that back in a suitable form. However, it isn't red paper heart and paper doily love or anything romantic. However in Alchemical games played with those playing as a competition and they are playing for an assist in locating their "stuff", it will be exposed. It can be rough. Only when they have just put their egotistical mask out there and said basically "this is IT" , snarling or shouting or otherwise completely losing it, is then the time to unmask them and hold up the mirror. This is played out in all sorts of ways.

Be careful. One can get hurt playing with egotists and egoists. Many want to learn but the inner attitude is one that fights the process all the way so there is a lot of spray-by. In fact that is pretty typical for most who want to learn. Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

So when one is playing a competitive egotist in an alchemical game, the egotist will not be playing a cooperative game though they may pretend to start out so. In reflecting the egotist and each time playing the blocking/rebounding countermove and building the energy structure that will be released and burn the dross so to speak, it can look like it to the egotist that you are playing from egotism

Have fun. BE IN LOVE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism)
Judaism
Judaism defines altruism as the desired goal of creation. The famous Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Isaac_Kook) stated that love is the most important attribute in humanity.[46] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#cite_note-45) This is defined as bestowal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare), or giving, which is the intention of altruism. This can be altruism towards humanity that leads to altruism towards the creator or God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). Kabbalah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah) defines God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) as the force of giving in existence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence). Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moshe_Chaim_Luzzatto) in particular focused on the 'purpose of creation' and how the will of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God) was to bring creation into perfection and adhesion with this upper force.[47] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#cite_note-46)
Modern Kabbalah developed by Rabbi Yehuda Ashlag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yehuda_Ashlag), in his writings about the future generation, focuses on how society could achieve an altruistic social framework.[48] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#cite_note-47) Ashlag proposed that such a framework is the purpose of creation, and everything that happens is to raise humanity to the level of altruism, love for one another. Ashlag focused on society and its relation to divinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity).[49] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#cite_note-48)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism)
Egotism is the drive to maintain and enhance favorable views of oneself, and generally features an inflated opinion of one's personal features and importance — intellectual, physical, social and other.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-0)
The egotist has an overwhelming sense of the centrality of the 'Me': of their personal qualities.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-1) Egotism means placing oneself at the core of one's world with no concern for others, including those loved or considered as "close," in any other terms except those set by the egotist.

Characteristics
Egotism is closely related to "loving one's self" or narcissism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism) - indeed some would say “by egotism we may envisage a kind of socialized narcissism”.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-2) Egotists have a strong tendency to talk about themselves in a self-promoting fashion, and they may well be arrogant and boastful with a grandiose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiosity) sense of their own importance.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-3) Their inability to recognise the accomplishments of others[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-4) leaves them profoundly self-promoting; while sensitivity to criticism may lead on the egotist's part to narcissistic rage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_rage_and_narcissistic_injury) at a sense of insult.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-5)
Looked at differently, the conceit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceit) of egotism describes a person who acts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(philosophy)) to gain values (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values) in an amount excessively greater than that which he or she gives to others. Egotism may be fulfilled by exploiting the sympathy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy), irrationality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality) or ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance) of others, as well as utilizing coercive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion) force and/or fraud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Egotism differs from both altruism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism) - or acting to gain fewer values than are being given– and from egoism (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/egoism), the unremitting pursuit of one's own self-interest. Various forms of "empirical egoism" can be consistent with egotism, but do not necessitate having an inflated sense of self.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egotism#cite_note-6)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/altruism)
Origin of ALTRUISM
French altruisme, from autrui other people, from Old French, oblique case form of autre other, from Latin alterFirst Known Use: 1853


CCC

solomon levi
10-15-2012, 07:58 AM
Okay. :)
First, for Androgynus, I feel my "pretend" altruism is more akin to "enlightened egoism" than to sacrifice.
I call it "pretend" because I don't believe: I believe without believing, or agree without believing...
which means simply, I know that all conditioned things are equal relative to the unconditioned, therefore
I don't believe in altruism, even though I associate with it more than what some may call selfishness.
But the argument of whether there is an objective or all is really subjective... this argument applies as well
to altruism IMO... even the golden rule says, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." So one
obviously has to think of oneself first; or if your beyond thinking as the cause of your acts, there is still
some sort of measuring/weighing going on. Personally, I'm not a thinker, but a seer. I would say I see,
therefore I act respectfully to others. I'm pretty sure you relate to that Androgynus. :)
But as my signature says, seeing IS acting. For me, it is not a cause and effect thing or a choice. Of course,
I can still choose, but I like not to. :)
Which leads us to sacrifice. :)
Is it a sacrifice to give up choice/will/ego for choicelessness?
Seems like a pleasure to me/in my experience.

The way I related to Bel Matina's statement is that I have been doing a lot of shamanism and healing lately
and I often pick up things from others that I transmute. Notice I didn't say "that I transmute for them."
When "I" heal, I get rid of the I - it doesn't do the healing. St. Paul said "I die daily."
The healing is an agreement between spirit. If I absorb something, that is up to spirit.
Personally, I know there are at least two schools of thought, and generally one of them isn't even
recognised as a school of thought, but as ignorance. These two ways are those who heal and practice
some type of grounding so that the energy goes into the earth or to spirit/universal or something.
But I say, I'm here to live life - that includes living it through connectedness and Oneness with "others".
So why should I differentiate with what is theirs and what is mine when I want the All-Nothing, which is
to say the All and the Nothing and the in between. Why should I differentiate or distinguish what spirit provides?
Sometimes I even take on illnesses and pain. I don't mind. I'm going to get ill someday and die. Why should I fear it now?
Someday may be two days or two thousand years. Why should it matter? I am not living some pseudo-life now that
would change if I found out I was going to die. I'm already living fully.

Anyway, I hope i communicated my concern about:
"I think that phenomenon of absorbing others into one's idea of the self and then performing acts of self-sacrifice on their behalf has been the root of a lot of travesty."

People may take what I do as what you said, but I don't. I never absorb others into myself or my idea of the self;
nor do I perform acts of self-sacrifice on others behalf, at least not by conscious choice.
But spirit does what it does too. One is a travesty and the other isn't. But they may appear the same externally/to an on-looker.


"First, let us observe that if the ego is capable of transmutation (that is, it is not our gold) then its scope is as arbitrary as any other element.
In fact, I have found, and I think were it necessary I could find quotations to support my experience, that the only elements whose scope is
not so arbitrary are those universally penetrating androgynous elements which participate in the nature of the ouroboros (this includes our
gold, which by virtue of its manifestation excludes the feminine)."

Well, from what I said, it was that ego (altered ego) is the initial subject. The initial subject doesn't transmute; not until the rough
ashlar is carved into a cubic stone - or as you say "universally penetrating androgynous elements".
Consider this: http://www.cheniere.org/books/excalibur/negtime.htm

In that context (in the link): "Most persons never seek the Unlimited Godness; instead, they seek a good facet of Godness that
itself moves forward only positively in time. Thus they find a partial image which is limited in and by the flow of time. By such an
assumption the biblical phrase "I am Alpha and Omega" is unconsciously translated into "I was Alpha and I will be Omega."

...that is what altruism is for most people: being good, positive time. In order for me to be all that I am, I cannot exclude
neg time and/or things that may not appear altruistic to an "I was Alpha and I will be Omega" frame of mind.
If altruism is good, then putting yourself before others is bad and then there's a lot of bad infants/babies out there. ;)
And people who follow the golden rule are bad... and those religions that taught the golden rule are bad, etc...
I don't choose to pretend that belief right now, but I've entertained it before - selfishness being bad, that is.
Selfishness is a necessary phase of the Great Work. In the Jesus myth, he even asks that this cup be taken from him if possible.
But then follows with "not my will, but Thine." Thus having selfishness and unselfishness only seconds apart.

It always depends on definitions, but to me, having altruism without selfishness is like having solve without coagula.
I.e. "not alchemy".
But if you want to talk about spontaneous altruism, well, spontaneous anything is a different story than premeditated anything.
It can be the difference between ego and not-ego; thinking and being, etc.
This is my concern. :)

solomon levi
10-15-2012, 09:23 AM
Egoism/egotism causes endless problems for Alchemists. So many self destruct in many ways via egotistic/egoistic motivations.


Hi III. :)
I've been really resonating with your recent posts.
Before I was into alchemy forums I was into Castaneda forums, and the same problem was there.
Castaneda refers to it as "self-importance". So many on the forum were so obsessed with whether someone
was being self-important or not that we hardly got to do any magic and communicating. And most overlook
the fact that self-importance sees self-importance whether it is there or not (just as non-duality sees oneness
whether it is there or not). What else can self-importance see?! The conditioned mind can only see its projections -
it cannot see "what is" until it becomes unconditioned. But you and i know "becoming" is a way of talking that
falls short of what I mean. Becoming is usually thought of as a linear process, so i don't mean that. I mean a quantum
or dimensional leap or pop.




There is no way to "game" the system. There is no way to fool the system or to fake out the system.


I disagree. What system are you speaking of? Perhaps I'm missing the context.
For example (I think you said you haven't read Castaneda...) the "system" will accept a proper recapitulation
from a seer in place of/instead of one's memories, thus sneaking past the river Lethe/forgetfulness. Just as the brain
doesn't know how to distinguish between real and imagined. Of course, it's relative whether that is faking out the system -
the system put the clause in there - most people are unaware of it. But it is reflected IMO alchemically with the unicorn in the mirror.




For lack of a better way to put it the system has a sense of "humor" or maybe "irony" or something and things tend to go wrong or backfire or blow up in one's face or whatever in response to egotism or egoism depending upon how warped things get.

Yeah. This, for me, ties in with the idea of becoming and how it never quite becomes what it is becoming because
of the box/closed system. This is also the difference between torturing mercury and being a magnet for mercury.
Or, I think you're familiar with Gurdjieff - no straight lines in nature because of the interval/needed shock between mi and fa.
I also make a connection between the views "opposites attract" and "like attracts like"... the first is for puffers, the second for magnets...
so when a "sleeping" person desires abundance, they often get lack, for example - because desiring (dualistically) is (unitively) intending
that you are not it, so what precipitates comes through unitive into duality. Many people try to go from duality to other duality.
If that didn't translate well, Jesus said, "Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them,
and ye shall have them." - Mark 11:24
Or he said we know a tree by its fruit... etc.


III said, "Insanity can result through poorly conducted Alchemy."

Absolutely. That would be a great thread (which may already exist).



So when one is playing a competitive egotist in an alchemical game, the egotist will not be playing a cooperative game though they may pretend to start out so. In reflecting the egotist and each time playing the blocking/rebounding countermove and building the energy structure that will be released and burn the dross so to speak, it can look like it to the egotist that you are playing from egotism.


I have a feeling this is similar to what Nibiru is speaking about through the terms "war" and "dance", that is, strife and love. (the 2012 thread)
I've been working as a bouncer lately at a club - I've seen dance turn into war, literally. When has war turned into dance, literally?
Society is imbalanced, thus the hourglass must flip soon - perhaps a global pole shift or a microcosmic/human pole shift/hanged man.

with love,
solomon

Bel Matina
10-15-2012, 01:53 PM
Solomon, I think that the danger of this sort of unmindful harmfulness we've been talking about is actually greater when transmuting the wet way than the dry, since there is the illusion of the disappearance of the ego. Remember that all the elements are present on the first day of creation. Your attainment of a transcendental state within an extended retort is no guarantee of a similar experience in others included, and so positive time becomes relevant *precisely because that is the frame in which they are rooted.* You have to rely for a judgement of the benefit of your work on the outcomes. If you are communicating harm, it is through a flaw in the mother stone which you've tolerated on account of your willingness (eagerness, even) to abandon the self.



Is it a sacrifice to give up choice/will/ego for choicelessness?
Seems like a pleasure to me/in my experience.

This excellently illustrates my point that we have forgotten what it is like to be rooted in 'positive time'. This is even worse, I find, when the artist has been raised with the art, and has no notion of the terror of being passive to circumstances. The pleasure we take in the infinite is a predilection or a mark of attainment; we do not share it with most people. For most people the prospect of staring into the abyss has all the terror that phrase connotes, where for me (and I imagine you as well) that prospect has some lingering terror drowned out by the narcotic elation I feel diving into the root. Through years of daily practice (or, as I alluded, perverse inclination) this becomes our normal, and it is human nature to project our own notion of normality onto others; it's much more efficient to do so and remember the outliers than to see others as they actually are.



So why should I differentiate with what is theirs and what is mine when I want the All-Nothing, which is
to say the All and the Nothing and the in between. Why should I differentiate or distinguish what spirit provides?

You should do so when considering the transmutation of what is theirs because they do not want the All-Nothing. I'm sure you've seen individuals who labor for years at the work only to abandon it, saying there was never anything in it they couldn't find at home. I've found that those who persist with the work share an unquenchable fire for the root, and are never satisfied with the penetration of their sight. I think those quitters I mentioned have not failed, but simply found the answers they wanted and left. This is to point out that this unquenchable fire is abnormal, and others should not be judged as if they possess it. While your labor must be rooted in the universal, your judgement of the fruits of your labor must be rooted in the particular. It is true that from an infinite height you can see the whole cosmos in all its glory, but it is at zero resolution. You will not know if your actions harm people if you don't come down from that height.

solomon levi
10-15-2012, 04:21 PM
Hi Bel Matina!

There are safeguards for not communicating harm. I don't communicate anything particular.
I provide unconditioned energy and spirit decides what to do with it. I don't heal. I don't think
or determine the energy in any way unless I am specifically asked to do so by the person.

But yes, healing/wholing will "harm" parts and separateness to degrees.
I generally don't worry about that. I'm not trying to blast anybody.
And people don't expect to be blasted. Most people are surprised to feel as much as they do.
I've had only positive feedback. No one has ever told me they experienced something harmful or
something they didn't want to or couldn't handle.
On the other hand, Nibiru and I, for example, have very conscious agreements to initiate eachother.
For the most part, people know how far down the rabbit hole they are willing to go and turn around
when things get too much. It's not like a drug or a trip you can't return from.
Agreement makes the vortex/magic. If there's disagreement, there's no vortex.
I still see alchemy is fairly self-regulating; the alchemist is the most important ingredient, and the regulator.
When the pupil is ready, the eye sees. ;)
I don't like that whole student-master relationship unless it spins/rotates... so I changed the saying which is usually:
When the pupil is ready, the teacher appears. Play on words - pupil. Anyway...
so far I am the only one getting the "harm" end of the stick, and I don't mind.
I want to heal/transmute these energies. I'm capable. If it kills me, I'm ready for that too.
(I've had a dog beg me to take the cancer it took from its owners because it couldn't transmute it - maybe i can.
Why else did it ask me and how did I hear it? Accident? Mistake? Imagination?)
But like you say, I've grown accustomed to a level of intensity that may be uncomfortable to/for others.
This is alchemy though: spiritualise matter; materialise spirit. the raising of vibrations...

I don't have any illusions of the disappearance of the ego. I've not said I am egoless.
I simply don't believe my ego is all I am, and I demonstrate that as well.
I've seen what the ego is, and it has lost its fascination. That's all we need to make energy available.
No need to kill the ego or lose it or control it or.... just don't believe in it. But don't believe as a result of seeing,
not a result of choice. How can one believe after seeing directly, first hand?

Anyway, I'm not sure why you think or see this applies to me. If you have evidence, bring it forward.
I didn't accidentally stumble on all this. I've applied myself for over twenty years.
I know about tempering the sword, and I know the sword is double-edged.
If I didn't know not to take anything personally, I might be insulted. :)

Re-reading your post again....
Oh, I do not treat people's positive time frame. It actually isn't relevant.
How would you go about healing/transmuting in positive time? Where's the magic in that?
Don't you recognise all of my posts are about time? "They" don't need to know neg time - I do.
And my neg time energy body knows their neg time energy body. It doesn't matter if they're
conscious of it. Spirit recognises spirit. The conscious mind doesn't do the healing. ???

I'm not sending anyone to look into the abyss. I don't heal through the abyss.
Probably my fault if you hear that because I say "unconditioned energy", but it is relatively so.
I can't go into details here. It would be helpful if people understood that there is the polarity
of crest and trough in every wave from the source, and this is one polarity that isn't the problem.
There is an additional polarity which occurs at visible light in the electro-magnetic spectrum
and continues into infrared and hertzian. Gurdjieff's work reflects this, though i learned it before
reading Gurdjieff:
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRRfgPvw4DC_ryaq4tFpd3HTLN0eSOdi VIVXasEu3J5XXa_v0zulQ

Very briefly, relate Do, Re, Mi to the lower three chakras and to hertzian, infrared and visible light.
It is enough that I work on the fourth level to heal the "lower" three. The fourth, while quite conditioned
relative to the absolute, is unconditioned and androgynous relative to the three "below". I can't tell you why,
but consider Gurdjieff and consider the greatest distance between adjacent chakras is between the third and
fourth. This is one abyss of sorts, an additional shock is needed to span the chasm. But you see there is a second
shock needed between Si and final Do... that is the abyss between nothing and something. I don't heal other people
from there - it's not necessary. But I, myself, have "travelled" there.
In traditional kabbalah, consider healing from Tiphareth - a "high" place, but nothing like Kether. Tiphareth heals
through balance and equilibrium, #6, etc... that's my healing.


But there are other factors one must consider IMO. For example, I started a thread on time speeding up... it isn't true for
everyone, but it's my experience and the experience of some others. Those who are in synch with that relate differently,
have different agreements. I don't sell healing or advertise it. I just share it with those I come to know. There are synchronicities
here. Is it any wonder that no one I have offered it to has refused? Anyway, Christ, don't worry about me! If I look like a fool,
my disguise is working. :)

If you want to warn egos, I doubt it will be heard. But why worry about egos? They've been terrorising the planet for aeons.
It hasn't stopped people from waking up when they really want to. Egos only hurt egos. Big deal. What is an ego without pain?
You can't change the laws of magnetism for egos; you can only stop identifying. Egos aren't healed by eliminating pain but by
illuminating it.

Kahlil Gibran said, "Your joy is your sorrow unmasked. And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears. And how else can it be? The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain. Is not the cup that hold your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven? And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives? When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy. When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight. Some of you say, "Joy is greater than sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater." But I say unto you, they are inseparable. Together they come, and when one sits alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed. Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy. Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced. When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall."

Each individual decides how far down the rabbit hole they will go, or the well of sorrow-joy.
If i can dig a deeper well through healing, it doesn't make them fall down it. That's up to them.
Healing isn't pushing. I don't torture mercury. ???

Do you actually believe ego can show the abyss to someone? Or heal?
This confusion is not mine. I don't know you well enough, Bel Matina, but these issues seem contrived to me.
Alchemy protects itself. That's my experience. Perhaps that's why I haven't injured anyone with healing.
Have you? Where does this come from?

with love,
solomon

Bel Matina
10-15-2012, 06:36 PM
I do appreciate this conversation Solomon, I find it quite rewarding :)

There's plenty of room between words for ambiguity and miscommunication. It wasn't clear to me from what you'd written previously that you were taking care and watching the end to judge your work, but I will admit just as freely that it was no more clear that you weren't. It's good to hear the former is in fact the case, not that I'm surprised in any way. I myself prefer the dry way, particularly when it comes to the red work, but this is really more from an undigested defect in myself, a lack of trust and fear of hurting others. For as long as I've been working I've used the wet and dry in alternation, and this definitely seems to give me better results than when I try to focus on one or the other, and so I have every respect for the wet work.

It may help to understand my emphasis to recognize that in such a public forum I try to make my words accessible to my whole audience. It isn't that I felt you personally needed such strict reprimand, but rather that the meaning I found in your words let me construct a lesson for those who might need to hear. I felt like I knew you well enough to know you wouldn't feel singled out at providing the object lesson, and I'm glad to see that feeling justified. It's easy to forget the signposts that helped us on our way, and as the old language becomes stale I think it's on us to repeat the cautions we've heard in fresh ways. Many people passing through here have not even a glimmer of the true nature of the art, and even for those of us with years or decades under our belts, it's always a good time to refresh on basic laboratory safety. So even if it's so that if my audience were you alone I'd be preaching to the choir, I don't feel like my words were wasted.

To answer your question of where this all comes from, there's another side to the warnings I've written, which come into play farther down the road if these basic principles of safety haven't been properly observed. I've been spending a lot of time lately on my multiplications and purifications, and as I consider working with a larger retort I've been thinking a lot about history, in particular the works of our forebears of the last few centuries. I'm a little afraid that going into specifics would be easily misunderstood by the uninitiated, and as I don't want to spread combustible vapors, suffice it to say that if an artist is able to obtain sufficient quantities of natural fire it is possible to perform works in a large basin without particular skill or wisdom; indeed, those who hear should see this everywhere they look in the past few centuries (and everywhere they look around them, for that matter!). The horrible monstrosities that can result have been explored through more works of art than I can possibly name; I suppose the most recent one I've seen was Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (the original was released before the comic was finished). I suppose I should dig out some more; it's hard to sell works that explore this in more than a veiled way, because it requires making the perpetrators of atrocity relatable.

I'll add Ender's Game and its sequels and various songs by VNV Nation, but I've lost the will to be comprehensive.

I'll end with that if you're using the art to heal people, you're doing it through the serpent's kiss. The degree to which you can do it without them noticing is the measure of your skill :)

solomon levi
10-16-2012, 12:50 AM
Was it the Skrillex video? :D

I am happy we've talked this through and come to know eachother better too.
I'm trying to put my finger on what wet and dry work mean to you in this context -
Is it to do with "baptism" by water or fire?

For me, healing begins with pranayama and raising my own energy up the "spine" and out
of the head into an expansive feeling of Capacity where I am not my body but still around it.
Since I've been doing that breathing for so long, it only takes a couple breaths for me to do this.
Then I scan the energy bodies of the subject without any interpretation - I just feel winds, temperatures,
fine/subtle tinglings, black holes and white holes... and i let their energy and mine interact however they do
while I'm in receive mode. Often I see details/specifics - physical, emotional - but I don't normally emphasize
them or even talk about them afterwards. I just let energy do its thing. Then I take a more "active" role by
emphasizing my 4th level body and theirs. This level can influence those "below" it in frequency - the main
point is to be beyond the light template/3rd body so work precipitates down through. On the 4th I will say that 'bodies'
are made of ultraviolet webs, in case you've been there or have reference. All these realms can be witnessed IME
while going through "the tunnel" if you can manage the time. The tunnel is perhaps an extension of the interior
sushumna tunnel/channel, not linearly or locally of course.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSTtJbMPFs1NQAVe-u5hX5t8W20bLACbMOYURL_44v-WQJryocBig

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQP7CLsgT_Uc0w4gkAu-VJ8tG5x6ArS11hsXI-woLcRpAhlcGiTcg


Anyway, this is why I mention, on occasion, that the popular teaching of 'go to the light' is misinformed.
Everyone can investigate this when they're ready - don't believe me. But the Philosophers' Heaven is
beyond the light, even to the 5th/golden plane. The light is simply the most obvious landmark - and like
moths, souls are drawn to it, like a magnet, due to their charged energy. But like a magnetic tape, the
recordings/charge/soul is stripped of all knowledge that was not made wisdom. 'The light' is a
recycling program... reincarnation. And this snare is set by our own, and a collective, ego bodies.
This is Gnostic archon/Demiurgos stuff that I hope someday people will be more aware of so they
can avoid the snares. I've said way more than I need to, but who else will say it?

:) I am happy/fine if my words assist in you constructing lessons for others to hear. I understand that very much.

"Easy to forget the signposts on the way."
Yes. I've been compelled to record what is happening to me, "my awakening" or whatever, here and in blogs, just for
posterity. I am, or rather was, very surprised this is happening to me, that I have come this far. I've dreamt of awakening
since I was a child, but it is more than I expected, more than I dreamed. And now the unusual is the usual, and it's
actually hard to remember when it was otherwise, but I do remember. And I do feel that gives me compassion or some
form of altruism, which I prefer to just call it not judging others for what I myself have done at some time. What value
has judgement when everything can change in a moment? :) Why judge when you can be the change and transmute time?
There is, indeed, a lot of ego stuff to keep in check. In my history, I've already tried to change people and know that it
doesn't work - knowledge doesn't change people. People change when they want to; when life leads one to wisdom.
I'm glad that life is already taking care of everything. But in that seeing, I can't help but feel/relate to:
"My yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
It's not an ego thing; it's a Oneness thing.


No, your words are not wasted. I love the vortex energy created by a respectful exchange and rotation of preacher and choir. :)
That's what it's about, for me, for now. That's what I've been being shown lately.

If you ever want to speak privately, we could exchange e-mail or skype or something.
Love to connect with like minds. I've seen some unspeakable things that would make me sound
crazy perhaps if shared; and sometimes I write them anyway. I have an ironic impulse for the
Harpocrates thread. :D

"I'll end with that if you're using the art to heal people, you're doing it through the serpent's kiss. The degree to which you can do it without them noticing is the measure of your skill http://forum.alchemyforums.com/images/smilies/smile.gif "

From wikipedia: "Stelae depicting Heru-pa-Khered (Harpocrates) standing on the back of a crocodile, holding snakes in his outstretched hands were erected in Egyptian temple courtyards,
where they would be immersed or lustrated in water; the water was then used for blessing and healing purposes as the name of Heru-pa-Khered was itself attributed with many protective
and healing powers."