PDA

View Full Version : Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)



Dwellings
08-17-2016, 05:08 PM
The Ars Brevis as Fulcanelli calls it is a variation of the Dry Path.

The biggest advantage here is the minimum time taken to achieve the stone. Some adepts have said that this path may be finished in 3-5 hours. Hence very advantageous to the alchemist.

I will start with relevant quotes from Fulcanelli before moving onto an Allegory which I have added here as an additional data point.


The human forearm, which the Greeks simply called the arm (brachion), is the hieroglyph for the short, abridged way (ars brevis). As a matter of fact, our Adept, toying with words as the learned cabalist he is, hides under the substantive brachion, arm, a comparative of (brachus), written and pronounced in the same fashion. The latter means short, brief, of short duration, and forms several compounds, including (brachutes), brevity. Thus the comparative brachion, meaning brief, the homonym of brachion, arm, takes on the specific meaning of brief technique, ars brevis.

But the Greeks used yet another expression to qualify the arm. When they evoked the hand, (cheir), they applied by extension the idea to the entire upper limb and gave it the figurative value of a skilled artistic production of a special process, of a personal style of work, in short, a tour de main, a flick of the wrist, whether acquired or revealed. All these acceptations of the word exactly characterize the fine points of the Great Work in its swift, simple and direct realization, for it only requires the application of a very energetic fire to which the flick of the wrist boils down. Now this fire on our bas-relief is represented not only by the flames, it is also represented by the limb itself which the hand indicates as being the right arm; and it is well known from the proverbial expression that "to be the right arm" always applies to the agent responsible for the executing of the will of a superior --- the fire in the present case.

Apart from these reasons --- which are necessarily abstract because they are veiled in the form of a stone with a concise image --- there is another one, practical, which comes to uphold and conform in the practical domain the esoteric affiliation of the first ones. We shall state it by saying that whosoever being ignorant of the flick of the wrist of the operation yet takes the risk to undertake it, must fear everything from the fire; that person is in real danger and can hardly escape the consequences of a thoughtless and reckless action. Why then, one could say to us, not to provide this means? We will answer this by saying that to reveal an experiment of this sort would be to give the secret of the short way and that we have not received from God nor from our brothers the authorization to uncover such a mystery. It is already much that, prompted by our solicitude and charity, we warned the beginner whose lucky star leads to the threshold of the cave, that he should be on his guard and redouble his prudence. A similar warning is rarely encountered in the books, and quite succinct as to what concerns the Ars Brevis, but which the Adept of Dampierre knew as perfectly as Ripley, Basil Valentine, Philalethes, Albertus Magnus, Huginus a Barma, Cyliani, or Naxagoras.

Nevertheless, contrary to the humid way, whose glass utensils allow for easy control and accurate observation, the dry way cannot enlighten the operator at any time in the process of the Work. So, although the time factor reduced to a minimum constitutes a serious advantage in the practice of the ars brevis, the necessity of high temperatures, on the other hand, presents the serious inconvenience of an absolute uncertainty as to the progress of the operation. Everything happens in the deepest mystery inside the crucible which is carefully sealed, buried at the core of the incandescent coals. It is therefore important to be very experienced and to know the fire’s behavior and power well as one could not find in it, from the beginning to the end the least of indication. All the characteristic reactions of the humid way having been indicated among the classical authors, it is possible for the studious artist to acquire indications precise enough to allow him to undertake his long and difficult work. Here on the contrary, it is without any guide that the traveler, brave to the point of rashness, enters this arid and burnt desert. No road laid out, no clue, no landmark; nothing save the apparent inertia of the earth, of the rock, of the sand. The shiny kaleidoscope if the colored stages does not brighten up his uncertain walk; it is as a blind man that he continues his path, without any other certainty save that of his faith, without any other hope but his confidence in divine mercy.

Yet at the end of his path, the investigator will notice a sign, the only one whose appearance indicates success and confirms the perfection of the sulphur by the total fixation of mercury; this sign consists in the spontaneous bursting of the vessel. Once the time has elapsed, by laterally uncovering a part of its side, we notice, when the experiment has succeeded, one or more lines of a dazzling clarity, clearly visible on the less brilliant background o the envelope. These are the cracks revealing the happy birth of the young king. Just like at the end of incubation the hen’s egg breaks under the effort of the chick, similarly the shell of our egg breaks as soon as the sulphur is produced. There is, among these results, an evident analogy in spite of the different causes, for in the mineral Work, the breaking of the crucible can logically be attributed only to a chemical action, unfortunately impossible to conceive or explain. Let us note however that the rather well known fact often occurs under the influence of certain combination of lesser interest. Thus, for example, while leaving aside, after having cleansed them well, new crucibles which have only been used once, for the fusion of metallic glass, the production of hepar sulphuris, or diaphoretic antimony, they are found cracked after a few days without one being able to explain the obscure reason of this late phenomenon. The considerable spacing of their bulges shows that the fracture seems to occur by the push of an expansive force acting from the center towards the periphery at room temperature and long after the actual use of these vessels.

But before we leave this masterful ensemble, we will allow ourselves to connect its teaching to that of a curious stone picture that can be seen in Jacques Couer’s palace in Bourges and which apparently can serve as a conclusion to, and summary of, our collection. This sculpted panel forms the tympanum of a door opening on the main courtyard, and represents three exotic trees --- a palm tree, a fig tree, and a date tree --- growing in the midst of herbaceous plants; a frame of flowers, leaves, and twigs surround the bas-relief.

The palm and date trees, of the same family, were known to the Greeks under the name of (phoenix, and Phoenix in Latin) which is our hermetic phoenix; they represent the two magisteries and their results, the two white and red stones, which partake of one and the same nature included in the cabalistic denomination of Phoenix. As for the fig tree occupying the center of the composition, it indicates the mineral substance out of which the philosophers draw the elements of the miraculous rebirth of the Phoenix, and it is this work of rebirth as a whole which constitutes what is commonly referred to as the Great Work.

According to the apocryphal Gospels it was a fig or sycamore fig tree (a.k.a. the fig tree of the Pharoah) which had the honor of sheltering the Holy Family during their flight to Egypt, of nourishing them with its fruit and of quenching their thirst, thanks to the clear and fresh water that the child Jesus had drawn out from between its roots. Fig tree in Greek is (suke), from (sukon), fig, a word frequently used for (kusthos), with the root (kuo), to carry in the womb, to contain: it is the Virgin Mother who bears the child, and the alchemical emblem of the passive, chaotic, aquatic, and cold substance, the matrix and vehicle of the spirit incarnate. Sozomeme, a 4th century author, asserts that the tree of Hermopolis which bowed before the infant Jesus was called Persea (Hist. Eccl. Lib. V, ch. 21). It is the name of the balanus (Balanites Aegyptiaca), a shrub from Egypt and Arabia, a kind of oak, called by the Greeks (balanos), acorn, a word by which they also called the myrobalan, fruit of the myrobalan tree. These diverse elements are perfectly related to the subject of the sages and the technique of the ars brevis that Jacques Coeur seems to have practiced.

Indeed, when the artist, a witness to the fight waged by the Remora and the Salamander, steals from the vanquished igneous monster its two eyes, he must then strive to reunite them into one. This mysterious operation, easy nevertheless for whoever knows how to use the salamander’s dead body, yields a little lump, quite similar to the acorn of an oak tree, sometimes to a chestnut, depending upon how much of it is covered with the rough matrix from which it can never totally free itself. This provides us with the explanation of the acorn and of the oak tree, which we almost always encounter in hermetic iconography; of the chestnuts, specific to Jacques Lallemant’s style; of the heart, the fig, of Jacques Coeur’s fig tree; of the little bell, accessory of the jester’s rattle; of the pomegranates, pears, and apples frequent in the symbolic works of Dampierre, and Coulonges, etc. On the other hand, if we take into account the magical, quasi-supernatural characteristic of this production, we can understand why certain authors have indicated the hermetic fruit by the name of myrobalan, and also why this term has remained in the French common language a synonym for marvelous, surprising or extremely rare things. The priests of Egypt, the principals of the initiatory schools, used to ask the layman soliciting access to the sublime knowledge, this apparently preposterous question: "In your country is the seed of Halalidge and the Myrobalan ever sown?". A question that did not fail to embarrass the ignorant neophyte, but which the skilled investigator could answer. The seed of Halalidge and the Myrobalan are identical with the fig, the fruit of the date tree, with the egg of the Phoenix which is our philosophical egg. It is the one reproducing the legendary eagle of Hermes, whose feathers were dyed with all the colors of the Work, but among which red dominates, as its Greek name (phoinis) purple red indicates. De Cyrano Bergerac does not omit to speak about it, in the course of an allegorical tale where is interspersed some of this language of the birds which the great philosopher admirably commanded. "I began to fall asleep in the Shade, I perceived in the Air a strange Bird, that hovered over my Head; it supported itself by so slight and imperceptible a motion, that I was many times un doubt, whether it might not be also a little Universe, balanced by its own Creator. However by little and little it descended, and at length came so near, that it filled my Eyes with a delightful Prospect. The Tail of it seemed to be green, its Breast Azure-enameled, its Wings Incarnate, and its Head Purple, which tossed a glittering Crown of Gold, the Rays whereof sparkled from its Eyes. It kept a long time upon the Wing, and I was so attentive to observe what became on it, that my Soul being contracted, and in a manner wrapt up in the sole action of Seeing, it hardly reached my Ear, to let me hear that the Bird spoke as it sung. However, being little by little unbent from my Extasie, I distinctly remarked the Syllables, Words and Discourse which it uttered. To the best of my Memory, then it spun out its Songs into these terms,

"You are a Stranger, whistled the Bird, and have had your birth in a World, of which originally I am. Now that secret propensity to mutual Love, that those of the same Country have one for another, is the instinct, which Inclines me to inform you of my Life...

"I well perceive, you are big with the expectation to learn what I am, it is I who amongst you am called the Phoenix; in every world there is but one at a time which lives there for the space of an Hundred years; for at the end of an Age, when upon some Mountain of Arabia, it has laid a great Egg amidst the Coals of its Funeral Pile, which it has made of the Branches of Aloes, Cinnamon, and Frankincense, it takes its flight, and diverts its course towards the Sun, as the Country to which its heart has long aspired. It has indeed made many attempts before, for accomplishing that Voyage; but the weight of its Egg, which has so thick a shell, that it requires an Age to be hatched in, still retarded the Enterprise.

"I am sensible, that you can hardly comprehend that miraculous Production; and therefore I’ll explain it you. The Phoenix is an Hermaphrodite; but amongst Hermaphrodites it is likewise another Phoenix altogether extraordinary, for...

"It continued half an hour without speaking, and then added: I perceive you suspect what I have told you to be false, but if what I say be not true, the first time I come into your Globe, may an Eagle devour me".

Another author dwells further on the mythical-hermetical bird and points out a few of its particularities which it would be difficult to find elsewhere. "The Caesar of Birds", he says, "is the miracle of nature, who wanted to show through it the extent of her power, showing herself as a Phoenix by forming the Phoenix. She has done wonders in improving it, by giving it a head embellished with royal feathers and imperial aigrettes, a tuft of feathers, and a crest so bright that it seems to bear either a silver crescent of a golden star on its head. The robe and the down are of a shimmering double-gilt which shows all the colors of the world; the big feathers are rosy red, azure, gold, silver, and of flame color; the neck is a choker made of the stones, and not a rainbow, but a Phoenix bow. The tail is of celestial color with a gold luster, which represents the stars. Its tail feathers and its whole robe are like a first spring, rich of all colors; it has two eyes in its head, shining and flaming, which seem to be two stars; gold legs and scarlet nails; its whole chest and its bearing show that it has some feeling of glory, that it knows how to hold its rank and bring our its imperial majesty. Even its flesh has something royal about it because it only eats drops of incense and chrism of balm. When it was in its crib, says Lactantius, the heaven distilled nectar and ambrosia for it. It alone is witness to all the ages of the world, and it has seen the golden souls of the golden age turn into silver, from silver into brass, and from brass into iron. It alone has never given the sky and the world the slip; it alone scoffs at death, making it its nurse and mother, making it give birth to life. It alone has the privilege of time, of life and of death together. For when it feels laden with years, weighted down by old age and cast down by such a long sequence of years, that it saw to follow on after the other, it lets itself be carried by its desire and proper longing to renew itself by a miraculous death. Then it makes a pile which alone in the world bears no name, for it is not a nest, or a crib, or the place of its birth since it dies there; but it is not a tomb, a coffin, or a funereal urn because in it, it recovers its life; so that I do not know what another inanimate Phoenix is, being nest and tomb, matrix and sepulcher, at once a house for life and for death, which for the sake of the phoenix, work together for this occasion. And, whatever it may be, it is there in the trembling arm a palm tree, that it makes a collection of small sprigs of cinnamon and incense, and on the incense, cassia, and on cassia spikenard; then with a pitiful look, commending its soul to the Sun, its murderer and its father, it alights or lies down on this balmy stake to get rid of its trying years. The Sun, favoring the just desires of this Bird, lights the pyre and reducing everything to ashes with a musky blast, makes it breath its last. Then poor Nature finds herself in a trance and with horrible spasms, fearing to lose the honor of this great world, then orders everything in the world to be quiet; the clouds would not dare pour the slightest drop of water on the ashes nor on the earth; the winds no matter how enraged would not dare run through the countryside; alone the Zephyr is the master, and springtime has the upper hand while the ash is inanimate, and nature holds everything so that the return of her Phoenix is favored. O great miracle of divine providence! Almost at the same time, this cold ash, not wanting to leave poor nature mourning for long or to frighten her, warmed up, I know not how, by the fecundity of the golden rays of the Sun, then turns itself into a little worm, then an egg, then into a Bird, ten times more beautiful than the other. You could say that all of nature was resurrected, for indeed, according to what Pliny writes. The sky again starts its revolutions and its sweet music; and you could properly say that the four elements, without saying anything, sing the motet for four with their flourishing gaiety, as a chant of glory to nature and to mark the return of the miracle of the Birds and of the World.

Dwellings
08-17-2016, 05:15 PM
In India Sati(widow burning) was a common practice especially among elite circles.

It was said that those women who chose to become Sati, the Lord pardons all the sins of Husband and Wife and they will remain in the paradise for a long time.

Post the death of husband in some parts of India the woman was paraded on the streets. Sitting on a horse, on her one hand was a mirror and other hand a lemon. Post that, on the day of funeral, the widow dressed in a wedding attire will enter the pyre will keep the dead husband in her lap and the pyre is set ablaze thus they both perish.

Though the practice was horrible, nonetheless it has special significance with relation to this thread.

Here an example of the practice is given from begining to end, it is full of important details. I would recommend everyone to read the same http://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson9/chapter02.html



“If, on her husband’s death, she become not a Suttee, that is burn herself with the deceased, she is then to reside with his relations, devoting herself to rigid abstinence and the worship of the Almighty. They say that when a woman becomes a Suttee, the Almighty pardons all the sins committed by the wife and husband, and that they remain a long time in paradise: nay, if the husband were in the infernal regions, the wife by this means draws him from thence and takes him to paradise, just as the serpent-catcher charms the serpent out of his hole. Moreover the Suttee, in a future birth, returns not to the female sex; but should she reassume the human nature, she appears as a man; but she who becomes not a Suttee, and passes her life in widowhood, is never emancipated from the female state. It is therefore the duty of every woman, excepting one that is pregnant, to enter into the blazing fire. A Brahman’s wife in particular is to devote herself in the same fire with her husband; but others are allowed to perform the rite in a separate place. It is, however, criminal to force the woman into the fire, and equally so to prevent her who voluntarily devotes herself.”

‘As we returned home at night we met a Woman in the City of Ikkeri, who, her husband being dead, was resolv’d to burn herself, as ‘tis the custom with many Indian Women. She rode on Horse-back about the City with face uncovered, holding a Looking-glass in one hand and a Lemon in the other, I know not for what purpose; and beholding herself in the Glass, with a lamentable tone sufficiently pittiful to hear, went along I know not whither, speaking, or singing, certain words, which I understood not; but they told me they were a kind of Farewell to the World and herself; and indeed, being uttered with that passionateness which the Case requir’d and might produce, they mov’d pity in all that heard them, even in us who understood not the Language. She was followed by many other Women and Men on foot, who, perhaps, were her Relations; they carry’d a great Umbrella over her, as all Persons of quality are wont to have, thereby to keep off the Sun, whose heat is hurtful and troublesome. Before her certain Drums were sounded, whose noise she never ceas’d to accompany with her sad Ditties, or Songs; yet with a calm and constant Countenance, without tears, evidencing more grief for her Husband’s death than her own, and more desire to go to him in the other world than regret for her own departure out of this: a Custom, indeed, cruel and barbarous, but, withall, of great generosity in such Women and therefore worthy of no small praise. They said she was to pass in this manner about the City, I know not how many dayes, at the end of which she was to go out of the City and be burnt, with more company and solemnity. If I can know when it will be I will not fail to go to see her and by my presence honour her Funeral with that compassionate affection which so great Conjugal Fidelity and Love seem to me to deserve.’

‘November the sixteenth. I was told that the aforemention’d Woman, who had resolv’d to burn her self for her Husband’s death, was to dye this Evening. But upon further enquiry at the Woman’s House I understood that it would not be till after a few dayes more, and there I saw her sitting in a Court, or Yard, and other persons beating Drums about her. She was cloth’d all in White and deck’d with many Neck-laces, Bracelets and other ornaments of Gold; on her Head she had a Garland of Flowers, spreading forth like the rayes of the Sun; in brief she was wholly in a Nuptial Dress and held a Lemon in her Hand, which is the usual Ceremony. She seem’d to be pleasant enough, talking and laughing in conversation, as a Bride would do in our Countries. She and those with her took notice of my standing there to behold her, and, conjecturing by my foreign Habit who I was, some of them came toward me. I told them by an Interpreter that I was a Person of a very remote Country, where we had heard by Fame that some Women in India love their Husbands so vehemently as when they dye to resolve to dye with them; and that how, having intelligence that this Woman was such a one, I was come to see her, that so I might relate in my own Country that I had seen such a thing with my own Eyes. These people were well pleas’d with my coming, and she herself, having heard what I said, rose up from her seat and came to speak to me.

She told me also, upon my asking her, that she did this of her own accord, was at her own liberty and not forc’d nor perswaded by any one. Whereupon, I inquiring whether force were at any time us’d in this matter, they told me that ordinarily it was not, but onely sometimes amongst Persons of quality, when some Widow was left young, handsome, and so in danger of marrying again (which amongst them is very ignominious) or committing a worse fault; in such Cases the Friends of the deceas’d Husband were very strict, and would constrain her to burn her self even against her own will, for preventing the disorders possible to happen in case she should live (a barbarous, indeed, and too cruel Law); but that neither force nor persuasion was used to Giaccama, and that she did it of her own free will; in which, as a magnanimous action (as indeed it was), and amongst them of great honour, both her Relations and herself much glory’d. I ask’d concerning the Ornaments and Flowers she wore, and they told me that such was the Custom, in token of the Masti’s joy (they call the Woman, who intends to burn her self for the death of her Husband, Masti) in that she was very shortly to go to him and therefore had reason to rejoyce; whereas such Widows as will not dye remain in continual sadness and lamentations, shave their Heads and live in perpetual mourning for the death of their Husbands.

The Settrea and the Soudra sometimes hold it for their custom to give the women somewhat with their betel whereby they be half-robbed of their senses, so that they may not become afflicted in spirit at their approaching pain and anguish, and seek to recall their word. But the Bramin Padmanaba said that the Bramines do not so to their women, since they may not bring the women to die as with force, against their will.

When the wife goeth forth of her house, she biddeth her friends farewell; and if she be of the Settrea or Soudra caste, she hath a lemon in one hand and a mirror in the other; and continually she uttereth the name of God. Some repeat Naraina (Narayana) and some Ramma (Rama), or any other name wherewith, in their language, they name the god they serve. But if the wife be of the caste of the Bramines or of the Weinsjaes, she holdeth not the aforesaid things in her hand, but sometimes flowers, red in colour, such as are common in their temples, to strew on and before her idol; although the flowers may be those which have already been offered to the idol. Around her neck they hang the figure of her idol, and thus the wife fareth forth of the city to where her husband is burnt, going either on foot, or, if she be the wife of a Bramin, in a palanquin. She is accompanied by her friends, who encourage her with their words, if she be of the Settrea or Soudra caste; and thus, at length, she neareth the place where her husband is burnt. But



In Indian culture betel leaves and betel nuts have their own significance which will be obvious to any who look at the photos of the same.


One of the most important puja items in Hindu rituals is the betel leaves, especially in South Indian pujas. In regional languages in India it is known as Pan, Nag Ve, Vetta or Vettila. The popular belief is that all the important deities are present in the betel leaf. It is also an important component in the Ashtamangalya items.

In South India, Dakshina to priests and elders are given by keeping a betel nut and a coin in the betel leaf. All-most all puja talis contain betel leaves and betel nuts. In some places people also use betel leaves to adorn the mouth of the Kalash pot.


Source: http://www.hindu-blog.com/2010/09/betel-leaves-in-hindu-rituals.html

The word Masti can mean fun, pleasure etc.

Dwellings
08-17-2016, 06:53 PM
Terms like "Flick of the Wrist" are highly obscure and cannot be interpreted easily.

So, in such a situation one must go back to basics.

The key problem in Alchemy IMO stems from a lack of understanding of Nature. Adepts were well aware of this shortcoming. To solve this problem, they always demonstrated the long path where you work with common gold at some point. Contrary to popular opinion where the writing of the long path was attributed to the malicious intentions of the adepts, their intention was to show the possibilities of the nature, her workings so that once understood their discpiles or readers will have no problem in Alchemy. The trouble arose when adepts started writing in extremely perverted ways. Should you encounter such treatises, set them aside and move on to some other treatise.

If you are able to understand the path properly and is able to explain away everything related to the same without issue, you will have no problem deciphering other paths or terms that the adepts are using. In fact, the entire Alchemy lays open the moment you are able to understand the long path.

alfr
08-18-2016, 12:47 AM
sorry but with alchemy of dry way that have to do ? this very very discutible "archaic" caste ritual of the sacrifice woman maired ?

Dwellings
08-18-2016, 03:27 AM
sorry but with alchemy of dry way that have to do ? this very very discutible "archaic" caste ritual of the sacrifice woman maired ?

The aim was to offer another data point in the form of Allegory so that it might become easier for the readers to understand Ars Brevis.

alfr
08-18-2016, 03:39 AM
bho ? I think his wife's human sacrifice on the pyre of her husband has no consistency and is only one caste ancestral rite and imho it is totally unacceptable and abject and total crazy and and made by fanatic and insane mind of one total insane old atavims and certainly not followers of the path of light and justice
but it is mhio now i try with mind open so i like know if there a some congruence relation of this abbject fanatic rite of casta and succeed and so if there are thanks can so explication it congruence wiht the methods of he ars brevis at all as vey thanks

BUT if not it have ANY congruence maybe is better forgot this primitive and oscure total crazy rite but is good can you say us that you think on opreativity and methods matter fase step by step etc about way short in alchemic that perhaps this is sure better

regards alfr

Dwellings
08-18-2016, 04:36 PM
but it is mhio now i try with mind open so i like know if there a some congruence relation of this abbject fanatic rite of casta and succeed and so if there are thanks can so explication it congruence wiht the methods of he ars brevis at all as vey thanks

BUT if not it have ANY congruence maybe is better forgot this primitive and oscure total crazy rite but is good can you say us that you think on opreativity and methods matter fase step by step etc about way short in alchemic that perhaps this is sure better


If I understood you correctly, you wanted information about the operative practice. I have given sufficient enough details to know the ingridient(s). What is missing throughout my posts was information concerning the "Flick of the wrist". If you understand the ingredient(s) then you can easily come to understand what is the flick of the wrist without thinking twice.

Once everything is ready, throw everything into a crucible and set it on high fire since this is a dry path.

alfr
08-18-2016, 06:11 PM
ok now back better go seriously short way to alchemy (and leave aside imho the incongruous and obscure and disgust ancient rite obscure atavism of his wife's human sacrifice)

and now rightly focus on the short route but you since you're proposing indication BUT on it short way that concrete results did you get with this short way ?

regard alfr

Hellin Hermetist
08-18-2016, 06:23 PM
If I got it right, you learned those ingredients from Fulcanelli, right?

Dwellings
08-19-2016, 03:25 PM
and now rightly focus on the short route but you since you're proposing indication BUT on it short way that concrete results did you get with this short way ?

No, I have not performed any lab experiments related to the same. All I have done is figure out the path and share it here.


If I got it right, you learned those ingredients from Fulcanelli, right?
Yes.

Hellin Hermetist
08-19-2016, 03:32 PM
I guess that you know then, that those people who hide themselves under the pseudonym of Fulcanelli (mainly Champagne and Canselliet), didnt have any success at their research for the Stone.

Dwellings
08-19-2016, 03:46 PM
I guess that you know then, that those people who hide themselves under the pseudonym of Fulcanelli (mainly Champagne and Canselliet), didnt have any success at their research for the Stone.

Fulcanelli whoever he may be had succeded in making the stone, that much is clear if you read the treatises of him.

Also, whether Fulcanelli had the stone is not the topic of this thread.

Hellin Hermetist
08-19-2016, 04:16 PM
Fulcanelli whoever he may be had succeded in making the stone, that much is clear if you read the treatises of him.

Also, whether Fulcanelli had the stone is not the topic of this thread.

Starkey's (Philalethes) treatises (especially Ripley Revived) is one hundres times more clera and descriptive that those of Fulcanelli, and as we now know from his diaries he didnt succeed in his research for the stone. Ι have studied the books of Fulcanelli and I havent found anything valuable in them about alchemy. Maybe they are good if you are interested in decoration of old buildings.

JDP
08-19-2016, 05:23 PM
Starkey's (Philalethes) treatises (especially Ripley Revived) is one hundres times more clera and descriptive that those of Fulcanelli, and as we now know from his diaries he didnt succeed in his research for the stone. Ι have studied the books of Fulcanelli and I havent found anything valuable in them about alchemy. Maybe they are good if you are interested in decoration of old buildings.

Where did you find the diaries of "Fulcanelli"? I don't think I have ever heard of these having been discovered. Are you sure you are not confusing the two writers (Fulcanelli & Starkey/Philalethes)? We do have some surviving diaries of Starkey/Philalethes (they were transcribed and published by Newman and Principe some years ago), and from them we can conclude that he did not succeed in making the Stone with his theory that antimonial amalgams were supposedly the big key to success.

Hellin Hermetist
08-19-2016, 06:03 PM
Where did you find the diaries of "Fulcanelli"? I don't think I have ever heard of these having been discovered. Are you sure you are not confusing the two writers (Fulcanelli & Starkey/Philalethes)? We do have some surviving diaries of Starkey/Philalethes (they were transcribed and published by Newman and Principe some years ago), and from them we can conclude that he did not succeed in making the Stone with his theory that antimonial amalgams were supposedly the big key to success.

I am reffering to Starkey's diaries not Fulcanelli. Maybe my expression wasnt clear.

JDP
08-19-2016, 06:33 PM
I am reffering to Starkey's diaries not Fulcanelli. Maybe my expression wasnt clear.

OK, thanks for clarifying that. Since you were criticizing Fulcanelli and saying that he did not find the Stone I thought that your comments about the diaries had to be about him.

Hellin Hermetist
08-19-2016, 07:00 PM
The proof that Fulcanelli never had the Stone is the later work of Canselliet. Although Fulcanelli rejects most emphatically the antimony path at his second book, Canseliet, who knew who the real Fulcanelli was, prefered to follow Philalethes/Starkey instead of Fulcanelli and try his luck with the path of antimony. This shows clearly that Canseliet didnt trust Fulcanelli and didnt think of him as an accomplished alchemist.

Of course we can find many more inaccuracies in his book. Lets take a look, for example, at the passege which posted Dwellings: "A similar warning is rarely encountered in the books, and quite succinct as to what concerns the Ars Brevis, but which the Adept of Dampierre knew as perfectly as Ripley, Basil Valentine, Philalethes, Albertus Magnus, Huginus a Barma, Cyliani, or Naxagoras. " Now, we can clearly see that none of the above authors make any mention to some mysterious dry path that can be accomplished in a very short time, maybe with the expection of Cylliani. The brass founder, mentioned in Helvetius, is the one who has made such a claim, and not Philalethes, B.V., Albertus, or the other authors mentioned by Fulcanelli. And we can encounter this type of inaccuracies almost in any chapter of his books.

alfr
08-19-2016, 08:51 PM
Hello everyone Hellin Hermetist and JDP

diaries of the dry process results galena etc experiments unfortunately always always always zero results

still exist between the Canseliet cards diaries the full text chrysopea that's all transactions in dry process of dujol magophon of galena and original text chrisopea with commentary is not censored like the one published by the gilbert and Dervy and always among the canselit of cards exists (and Home at the turning Canseliet know it very well they look to talk
and copies were also sold by French antiquarian bookshop intersigne)
nb exists the laboratory diary of Dr. Emerit know 1939 1944 direct disciple of henry cotton Alvare which is known to all was a disciple of pierre dujol magophon well and I could read through them and unfortunately many experiments in the dry on galena many beautiful experiments and lots of beautiful theory as beautiful but is also too bad it's only theory he not experienced that OPERATIONS only theoretical's Dwellings here in Forun in everything chrysope laboratory diaries dr Emerit indications of 'friend Dwellings here always on the concrete etc forum results unfortunately zero

my best regard Alfr

.................................................. ...................

salve a tutti Hellin Hermetist JDP

diari su risultati di via secca galena etc esperimenti purtroppo sempre sempre sempre risultati zero

comunque esistono fra le carte di canseliet i diari il testo completo chrysopea che è tutto sull'operatività in via secca di dujol magophon su galena e il testo testo originale chrisopea con commentario non è censurato come quello pubblicato da gilbert dalle ed dervy e sempre tra le carte di canselit esiste (e gli interni al di giro di canseliet lo sanno ma ben se ne guardano di parlarne e nb copia fu anche venduta dalla libreria francese antiquaria intersigne )

il diario di laboratorio del dr emerit sa 1939 a 1944 discepolo diretto di henry coton alvare che come è noto a tutti era discepolo di pierre dujol magophon e li ho potuti ben leggere a fondo e purtroppo tanti esperimenti in via secca sulla galena tanti bei esperimenti e tanta bella teoria come bella è anche ma purtropo è solo teoria da lui non sperimentata quella dell'operativita solo teorica dell'amico Dwellings qui nel forum in tutto cio chrysope diari di laboratorio dr emerit indicazioni dell'amico Dwellings qui sul forum etc sempre concreti risultati purtroppo zero

my best regard alfr

JDP
08-19-2016, 10:37 PM
The proof that Fulcanelli never had the Stone is the later work of Canselliet. Although Fulcanelli rejects most emphatically the antimony path at his second book, Canseliet, who knew who the real Fulcanelli was, prefered to follow Philalethes/Starkey instead of Fulcanelli and try his luck with the path of antimony. This shows clearly that Canseliet didnt trust Fulcanelli and didnt think of him as an accomplished alchemist.

Of course we can find many more inaccuracies in his book. Lets take a look, for example, at the passege which posted Dwellings: "A similar warning is rarely encountered in the books, and quite succinct as to what concerns the Ars Brevis, but which the Adept of Dampierre knew as perfectly as Ripley, Basil Valentine, Philalethes, Albertus Magnus, Huginus a Barma, Cyliani, or Naxagoras. " Now, we can clearly see that none of the above authors make any mention to some mysterious dry path that can be accomplished in a very short time, maybe with the expection of Cylliani. The brass founder, mentioned in Helvetius, is the one who has made such a claim, and not Philalethes, B.V., Albertus, or the other authors mentioned by Fulcanelli. And we can encounter this type of inaccuracies almost in any chapter of his books.

Regarding the first point: or maybe it was because Fulcanelli did not teach his pupils the entire secret. By reading Canseliet one does not get the impression that he lost respect for whoever Fulcanelli was, he always refers to him positively. Plus according to Canseliet, he used a sample of Fulcanelli's Stone to transmute lead into gold, the artist Julien Champagne and the chemist Gaston Sauvage serving as witnesses in the demonstration. Whether this claim is true or not, it shows that Canseliet did not question Fulcanelli's status as an "adept".

Regarding the second point: you are quite correct, most of those authors did not make any claims about any "dry way/path", at least certainly not in the sense that Fulcanelli understands that claim, which is in the same vein as the claims made by the brass-founder of Helvetius' account. But I would be careful with a couple of the mentioned writers (like Basil Valentine and Naxagoras), since not all their works (whether real or attributed) have been available in languages other than German. There is no telling if Fulcanelli actually read some of them (I suspect that Fulcanelli understood German since he cites and was influenced by some German works for which I have not seen any translation into another language; either that or he had access to rare unpublished translations of some German works) that we have not read, and where he found evidence that these writers mention some sort of "dry" method. Of course, it is also perfectly possible, considering Fulcanelli's other inaccuracies/mistakes, that he misunderstood what some of these writers say and thought it referred to the "dry" method.

JDP
08-19-2016, 10:49 PM
Hello everyone Hellin Hermetist and JDP

diaries of the dry process results galena etc experiments unfortunately always always always zero results

still exist between the Canseliet cards diaries the full text chrysopea that's all transactions in dry process of dujol magophon of galena and original text chrisopea with commentary is not censored like the one published by the gilbert and Dervy and always among the canselit of cards exists (and Home at the turning Canseliet know it very well they look to talk
and copies were also sold by French antiquarian bookshop intersigne)
nb exists the laboratory diary of Dr. Emerit know 1939 1944 direct disciple of henry cotton Alvare which is known to all was a disciple of pierre dujol magophon well and I could read through them and unfortunately many experiments in the dry on galena many beautiful experiments and lots of beautiful theory as beautiful but is also too bad it's only theory he not experienced that OPERATIONS only theoretical's Dwellings here in Forun in everything chrysope laboratory diaries dr Emerit indications of 'friend Dwellings here always on the concrete etc forum results unfortunately zero

my best regard Alfr

.................................................. ...................

salve a tutti Hellin Hermetist JDP

diari su risultati di via secca galena etc esperimenti purtroppo sempre sempre sempre risultati zero

comunque esistono fra le carte di canseliet i diari il testo completo chrysopea che è tutto sull'operatività in via secca di dujol magophon su galena e il testo testo originale chrisopea con commentario non è censurato come quello pubblicato da gilbert dalle ed dervy e sempre tra le carte di canselit esiste (e gli interni al di giro di canseliet lo sanno ma ben se ne guardano di parlarne e nb copia fu anche venduta dalla libreria francese antiquaria intersigne )

il diario di laboratorio del dr emerit sa 1939 a 1944 discepolo diretto di henry coton alvare che come è noto a tutti era discepolo di pierre dujol magophon e li ho potuti ben leggere a fondo e purtroppo tanti esperimenti in via secca sulla galena tanti bei esperimenti e tanta bella teoria come bella è anche ma purtropo è solo teoria da lui non sperimentata quella dell'operativita solo teorica dell'amico Dwellings qui nel forum in tutto cio chrysope diari di laboratorio dr emerit indicazioni dell'amico Dwellings qui sul forum etc sempre concreti risultati purtroppo zero

my best regard alfr

If I understood your posts correctly, it seems that you have concluded that Fulcanelli worked with the mineral galena, but that all such claims are erroneous and always result in nothing ("sempre risultati zero") Correct?

But how can you be sure that Fulcanelli did work with galena, though? His works are always evasive when it comes to clearly identifying what is the mineral substance that he claims the secret solvent of alchemy is made from. All he does is give some rather vague descriptions that can be applied to quite more than just one mineral substance.

alfr
08-20-2016, 06:00 AM
JDP and prejudice at all

galena and dujol demonstration in the original historical documents

YES
So I just wanted to see that on dry process and materials as galena and operability of dujol magophon that many identify as a Fulcanelli head there
both famous text with the command text of Dujols chrysopea commented and integral belonged to henri cotton Alvart disciple of dujol magophon I will try to attach this nb text is not censored as it is the version published by Dervy editions by gilbert here ...https://www.amazon.fr/Chrysop%C3%A9e-Manuscrit-Dujols-Fulcanelli-traitant-alchimique/dp/2850766968

I put pdf of the censored version published by Dervy editions http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf
(and the internal environment working with Canseliet knows this very well, but well if they look good to say about it below quote here a specialized web dsu champagne article etc much more on what circulates in French environments search of Fulcanelli and Canseliet)
and also of galena etc dry lining and Dujols instructions there of great importance and undeniable historical truth and a laboratory of Dr. Emerit operational diary that goes from the years 1939 to 1945 when the dujol instructions and henri cotton Alvart are explicitly stated on dry process in which n 2 chysopea texts and diary of Dr. Emerit there are years and years of experiments under the guidance of heni coton Alvart of Dujols disciple but unfortunately without any serious result zero zero ..

my best regard Alfr

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::

salve JDP e a tutti

galena e dujol dimostrazione nei documenti originali storici

dunque io volevo solo fare constatare che su via secca e materie come galena e operativita di dujol magophon che molti identificano come una testa di fulcanelli esistono
sia famoso testo con l'istruzione operativa il testo di dujols chrysopea commentato e integrale appartenuto a henri coton alvart discepolo di dujol magophon che cercherò di allegare questo testo nb non è censurato come invece è la versione pubblicata dalle edizioni dervy da gilbert... https://www.amazon.fr/Chrysop%C3%A9e-Manuscrit-Dujols-Fulcanelli-traitant-alchimique/dp/2850766968

qui metto pdf della versione censurata pubblicata dalle edizioni dervy http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf
(e il l'ambiente interno che lavorava con canseliet lo sa molto bene ma ben se ne guardano bene da dirlo a riguardo qui sotto riporto qui un articolo del web specializzato dsu champagne etc molto altro su cio circola negli ambienti francesi si ricerca su fulcanelli e canseliet )
e inoltre su via secca galena etc e istruzioni di dujols esiste di grande importanza e di inoppugnabile e verità storica un diario operativo di laboratorio del dottor emerit che va dagli anni 1939 a 1945 in cui sono esplicitamente riportate le istruzioni di dujol e henri coton alvart sulla via secca n cui nei 2 testi chysopea e diario del dottor emerit ci sono anni e anni di esperimenti fatti sotto la guida di coton alvare discepolo di dujols ma senza purtroppo nessun serio risultato zero di zero ..

my best regard alfr

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

riporto qui dati poco conosciuti riguardo alle sperimentazioni su galena dujol e henri coton alvart e il suo discepolo doctor emerit

dal web di ricerca su champagne ecco un post
nb tutto l'articolo a questo link è molto interessante

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


report here very little known about the trials and galena dujol henri cotton Alvart and his disciple doctor Emerit
from web search of champagne here is a post

nb whole article and the posts at this link is all very interesting

http://www.archerjulienchampagne.com/article-3552044.html


Rahamim05/03/2015 18:55Répondre

Merci pour ces passages assez peu connu de la vie de Henri Coton.


Pour ce qui me concerne, j'ai trouvé l'ouvrage "Deux lumière" trop intello, donc dénué de portée didactique.

Je ne pense pas que les alchimistes d'avant le XXe siècle aient pu avoir autant de préoccupations philosophiques ou spirituelles, les vraies alchimistes étaient, pour la grande majorité, des "labourants" trop préoccupés à entretenir le feu de leurs fourneaux ou à potasser les vieux grimoires, pour perdre leur temps en vaines spéculations.


En revanche je possède une copie manuscrite d'un carnet de notes du Dr Emerit qui, sous la direction de son maitre Henry Coton, a effectué un certain nombre d'opérations par voie sèche ayant une similitude troublante avec le manuscrit de Dujols publié dans "Propos sur la chrysopée", tant au niveau opératoire qu'au plan des matériaux mis en œuvre.

Je voudrais ici faire une remarque, dans les deux manuscrits que je viens de citer, la matière première, le vieux dragon écailleux est nommé et, hélas, ce n'est pas du tout la stibine chère à Canseliet.

Encore un mot, je ne voudrais pas paraitre irrévérencieux à l'égard de Fulcanelli, mais toujours à propos de la matière première des vieux adeptes, il ignore la véritable signification du mot "Kohl", on peut le vérifier dans "Le Mystère des Cathédrales" que je cite :

"On sait que les alchimistes du XIVe siècle appelaient Kohl ou Kohol leur médecine universelle, des mots arabes al cohol, qui signifient poudre subtile, terme qui a pris plus tard, dans notre langue, le sens d’eau-de-vie (alcool). En arabe, Kohl est, dit-on, l’oxysulfure d’antimoine pulvérisé, qu’emploient les musulmanes pour se teindre les sourcils en noir. "

Il est regrettable que le grand maître n'ait pas pris la peine de vérifier la signification du mot Kohl à la source !

Je voudrais plutôt croire qu'il fut "envieux" au point de négliger ce détail d'une extrême importance.

En arabe Kohl ou plus exactement Khohl, signifie "Noir" tout simplement, et naturellement El Khohl se rapporte à cette poudre subtile dont les femmes orientale se servent pour maquiller leurs paupières.

Cette distinction permet de découvrir d'une manière radicale le nom de la véritable matière première, il suffit d'aller dans les souks marocains par exemple, pour s'en procurer; et, effectivement, il ne s'agit pas de stibine.

Je me suis laissé abusé durant des années, Canseliet y est probablement pour une grande part.

Hellin Hermetist
08-20-2016, 06:45 PM
Regarding the first point: or maybe it was because Fulcanelli did not teach his pupils the entire secret. By reading Canseliet one does not get the impression that he lost respect for whoever Fulcanelli was, he always refers to him positively. Plus according to Canseliet, he used a sample of Fulcanelli's Stone to transmute lead into gold, the artist Julien Champagne and the chemist Gaston Sauvage serving as witnesses in the demonstration. Whether this claim is true or not, it shows that Canseliet did not question Fulcanelli's status as an "adept".

I believe that Canseliet spoke about that transmutation incident, and about others more extraordinary tales as well (if I remember right he even said that he met Fulcanelli some yeara later in a castle and he looked many years younger than the last time he met him), because him, Champagne and others from that group, earned money from the sales of the books, so they wanted to keep the fairy tale of Fulcanelli alive.

Think about that. If you had met an alchemist that was without doubt a real possessor of the Stone, and if he had given you a sample of the Stone and you had performed a transmutation with your own hands, will you spend the rest of your years working with antimony or some other substance, if that sage man had assured you that this certain substance has nothing to do with the work of the Stone?

Illen A. Cluf
08-20-2016, 07:43 PM
I believe that Canseliet spoke about that transmutation incident, and about others more extraordinary tales as well (if I remember right he even said that he met Fulcanelli some yeara later in a castle and he looked many years younger than the last time he met him), because him, Champagne and others from that group, earned money from the sales of the books, so they wanted to keep the fairy tale of Fulcanelli alive.

Think about that. If you had met an alchemist that was without doubt a real possessor of the Stone, and if he had given you a sample of the Stone and you had performed a transmutation with your own hands, will you spend the rest of your years working with antimony or some other substance, if that sage man had assured you that this certain substance has nothing to do with the work of the Stone?

My understanding (and I stand corrected) is that Canseliet did not actually start with Antimony, but with Galena (Fulcanelli's "G" matter). He only switched to Antimony in 1945 after failing in all his numerous attempts with Galena, and thinking that Fulcanelli must really have meant Antimony in a hidden way, not Galena.

For example see:

https://gryendemorgonrodnaden.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/the-path-of-the-black-dragon1.pdf

where he says:

"Some state that Canseliet initially worked with Galena (see following image of mineral “G”)
until 1945 (i.e. at the time of the disappearance of Fulcanelli) but failing in his work with lead
rejected it to embrace Stibnite, after meeting the Spanish alchemist José Gifreda. Being more
successful he started to understand that Fulcanelli must actually have meant Antimony, and
by “rejecting” it actually embraced it in the old traditional confusing manner of the old
masters of the Art as to hide their secrets".

Also, from deeply reading the nuances of the text, there seems little possibility that Canseliet wrote it. The style, words and experience certainly come from an older man, well versed in life, and with some degree of sophistication. That rules out both Canseliet and Champagne (who would have only been in his forties when the book was written, and who was not sophisticated, although he did seem to possess a good understanding of Alchemy already when he was 33 years of age).

JDP
08-21-2016, 01:04 AM
I believe that Canseliet spoke about that transmutation incident, and about others more extraordinary tales as well (if I remember right he even said that he met Fulcanelli some yeara later in a castle and he looked many years younger than the last time he met him), because him, Champagne and others from that group, earned money from the sales of the books, so they wanted to keep the fairy tale of Fulcanelli alive.

Think about that. If you had met an alchemist that was without doubt a real possessor of the Stone, and if he had given you a sample of the Stone and you had performed a transmutation with your own hands, will you spend the rest of your years working with antimony or some other substance, if that sage man had assured you that this certain substance has nothing to do with the work of the Stone?

Indeed, it is very difficult to reconcile the fact that Fulcanelli very plainly rejects antimony, either as stibninte or its "regulus", yet Canseliet, an alleged disciple, goes against the very teaching of his "master" and concentrates his work in this very substance. I wonder if Canseliet ever gave any explanations as to why he was not discouraged to work on antimony when his much admired "Fulcanelli" clearly rejected it. Does anyone know if Canseliet ever addressed this contradiction?

JDP
08-21-2016, 01:23 AM
My understanding (and I stand corrected) is that Canseliet did not actually start with Antimony, but with Galena (Fulcanelli's "G" matter). He only switched to Antimony in 1945 after failing in all his numerous attempts with Galena, and thinking that Fulcanelli must really have meant Antimony in a hidden way, not Galena.

For example see:

https://gryendemorgonrodnaden.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/the-path-of-the-black-dragon1.pdf

where he says:

"Some state that Canseliet initially worked with Galena (see following image of mineral “G”)
until 1945 (i.e. at the time of the disappearance of Fulcanelli) but failing in his work with lead
rejected it to embrace Stibnite, after meeting the Spanish alchemist José Gifreda. Being more
successful he started to understand that Fulcanelli must actually have meant Antimony, and
by “rejecting” it actually embraced it in the old traditional confusing manner of the old
masters of the Art as to hide their secrets".

Also, from deeply reading the nuances of the text, there seems little possibility that Canseliet wrote it. The style, words and experience certainly come from an older man, well versed in life, and with some degree of sophistication. That rules out both Canseliet and Champagne (who would have only been in his forties when the book was written, and who was not sophisticated, although he did seem to possess a good understanding of Alchemy already when he was 33 years of age).

The idea that galena is the matter that Fulcanelli worked with is a bit difficult to reconcile with some of the other things he says about the mineral substance that he claims is used to prepare the solvent. For example, in one place he describes it thus:

"The dragon’s general appearance, its well-known ugliness, its ferocity, and its unusual vital power correspond exactly to the external characteristics, properties and capabilities of this subject. The special crystallization of the latter finds itself clearly indicated by the scaly skin of the dragon. So are its colors, for the matter is black, spotted red or yellow as is the dragon, which is its likeness. As for the volatile quality of our mineral, we see it translated by the membranous wings with which the monster is equipped. "

With the only exception of the black color, none of these traits are characteristic of galena. And, of course, all these traits combined can fit quite more than just one mineral, so these "clues" don't exactly narrow it down too much.

Illen A. Cluf
08-21-2016, 02:22 AM
The idea that galena is the matter that Fulcanelli worked with is a bit difficult to reconcile with some of the other things he says about the mineral substance that he claims is used to prepare the solvent. For example, in one place he describes it thus:

"The dragon’s general appearance, its well-known ugliness, its ferocity, and its unusual vital power correspond exactly to the external characteristics, properties and capabilities of this subject. The special crystallization of the latter finds itself clearly indicated by the scaly skin of the dragon. So are its colors, for the matter is black, spotted red or yellow as is the dragon, which is its likeness. As for the volatile quality of our mineral, we see it translated by the membranous wings with which the monster is equipped. "

With the only exception of the black color, none of these traits are characteristic of galena. And, of course, all these traits combined can fit quite more than just one mineral, so these "clues" don't exactly narrow it down too much.

Don't get me wrong - I personally don't believe that Fulcanelli had Galena in mind at all (I believe it was a totally different substance). All I'm saying is that - for whatever reason - Canseliet was thought to have experimented with Galena until 1945, when he then changed to Antimony, and quite openly. I doubt if it was just because "galena" happened to start with the letter "G" which Fulcanelli stressed so much. The only commonality is that both can be considered a form of "Saturn" (lead). Saturn or his offspring/daughters could be a decnamen for many alchemical substances.

alfr
08-21-2016, 04:16 AM
JDP , Illen A. Cluf , Hellin Hermetist and prejudice at all

GALENA and dujol MANUSCRIPTS CHYSOPEA and DIARY OF DOCTOR EMERIT DISCIPLE OF H.C.A HENRI COTON ALVART of they work by the 1939 until the years 1945 demonstration in the original historical documents

NOW canseliet certainly will have worked with GALENA and after many years of him work on the GALENA (NB ehe instruction on galena of chrysopea od dujol and the diay notebook of dr emerit of all years 1939b until 1945 arrived by pesonal archive of house of canseliet ) he changed IT with the ANTIMONY and sure this reason undoubtedly we must understand why change GALENA IN ANTIMONI ? ?

even if mhio the figure of Canseliet and its theater he set up ..sulla figure of Fulcanelli etc does not inspire confidence at all
but on the other hand one thing is certain and absolutely incontrovertible and this is that dujol very close to being the head of HCA Fulcanelli andthe His direct disciple Enri Coton Alvart noche his cabinet button disciple doctor Emerit have all worked with GALENA and this is demonstrated by incontrovertible and indisputable laboratory diaries extremely clear and explicit enough on the operability and bearing years and years of experience made with galena all recorded in diaries from 1939 to 1945 and that they are all experiments performed with GALENA and this is incontrovertibly proven by manuscripts with instructions transmitted by master to disciple (and NB this is very clearly stated in the diaries) and these diaries and all instructions on the galena are incontrovertible and indisputable historical testimony


So I just wanted to see that on dry process and materials as galena and operability of dujol magophon that many identify as a Fulcanelli head there
both famous text with the command text of Dujols chrysopea commented and integral belonged to henri cotton Alvart disciple of dujol magophon I will try to attach this nb text is not censored as it is the version published by Dervy editions by gilbert here ...https://www.amazon.fr/Chrysop%C3%A9e-Manuscrit-Dujols-Fulcanelli-traitant-alchimique/dp/2850766968
(CENSORED because the text published that I have attached here were omitted the names of substances in the original INSTEAD of henri cotton Alvart the qule received him from Dujols instead the names of the subjects of the work to get the chrisopea are all well aware GALENA ETC)
I put pdf of the censored version published by Dervy editions http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf
(and the internal environment working with Canseliet knows this very well, but well if they look good to say about it below quote here a specialized web dsu champagne article etc much more on what circulates in French environments search of Fulcanelli and Canseliet)
and also of galena etc dry lining and Dujols instructions there of great importance and undeniable historical truth and a laboratory of Dr. Emerit operational diary that goes from the years 1939 to 1945 when the dujol instructions and henri cotton Alvart are explicitly stated on dry process in which n 2 chysopea texts and diary of Dr. Emerit there are years and years of experiments under the guidance of heni coton Alvart of Dujols disciple but unfortunately without any serious result zero zero ..

my best regard Alfr

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::

JDP , Illen A. Cluf , Hellin Hermetist and prejudice at all

GALENA and dujol MANUSCRIPTS CHYSOPEA and DIARY OF DOCTOR EMERIT DISCIPLE OF H.C.A HENRI COTON ALVART of they work by the 1939 until the years 1945 demonstration in the original historical documents

galena e dujol dimostrazione nei documenti originali storici

ORA certo canseliet avra lavorato con galena e poi cambiato con l'antimonio e il perchè è indubbiamente da capire anche se mhio la figura di canseliet e il suo teatro da lui allestito ..sulla figura di fulcanelli etc non ispira fiducia per nulla
ma per contro un fatto è certo e assolutamente inoppugnabile ed questo è che dujol molto vicino ad essere testa di fulcanelli HCA eil suo diretto discepolo Enri Coton Alvart noche il suo dietto discepolo doctor emerit hanno tutti lavorato con la GALENA e cio lo dimostrano inoppugnabili e indiscutibili diari di laboratorio estremamente chiari ed espliciti sulla operativita basti e riportanti anni e anni di sperimenti fatti con la galena tutti registrati in diari da 1939 agli anni 1945 e che sono tutti esperimenti effettuati con la GALENA e cio è inoppugnabilmente testimoniato da manoscritti con istruzioni trasmesse da maestro a discepolo (e NB cio nei diari viene detto molto chiaramente) e questi diari e istruzioni tutti sulla galena ne sono inoppugnabile e indiscutibile testimonianza storica .

dunque io volevo solo fare constatare che su via secca e materie come galena e operativita di dujol magophon che molti identificano come una testa di fulcanelli esistono
sia famoso testo con l'istruzione operativa il testo di dujols chrysopea commentato e integrale appartenuto a henri coton alvart discepolo di dujol magophon che cercherò di allegare questo testo nb non è censurato come invece è la versione pubblicata dalle edizioni dervy da gilbert... https://www.amazon.fr/Chrysop%C3%A9e-Manuscrit-Dujols-Fulcanelli-traitant-alchimique/dp/2850766968
(CENSURATO perche nel testo pubblicato che qui ho allegato sono stati omessi il nomi delle materie INVECE nell'originale di henri coton alvart il qule lo ricevette da dujols invece i nomi delle materie dell'opera per ottenere la chrisopea sono tutti ben presenti GALENA ETC )

qui metto pdf della versione censurata pubblicata dalle edizioni dervy http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf
(e il l'ambiente interno che lavorava con canseliet lo sa molto bene ma ben se ne guardano bene da dirlo a riguardo qui sotto riporto qui un articolo del web specializzato dsu champagne etc molto altro su cio circola negli ambienti francesi si ricerca su fulcanelli e canseliet )
e inoltre su via secca galena etc e istruzioni di dujols esiste di grande importanza e di inoppugnabile e verità storica un diario operativo di laboratorio del dottor emerit che va dagli anni 1939 a 1945 in cui sono esplicitamente riportate le istruzioni di dujol e henri coton alvart sulla via secca n cui nei 2 testi chysopea e diario del dottor emerit ci sono anni e anni di esperimenti fatti sotto la guida di coton alvare discepolo di dujols ma senza purtroppo nessun serio risultato zero di zero ..

my best regard alfr

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

riporto qui dati molto poco conosciuti riguardo alle sperimentazioni su galena dujol e henri coton alvart e il suo discepolo doctor emerit

dal web di ricerca su champagne ecco un post
nb tutto l'articolo a questo link è molto interessante

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


report here very little known about the trials and galena dujol henri cotton Alvart and his disciple doctor Emerit
from web search of champagne here is a post

nb whole article and the posts at this link is all very interesting

http://www.archerjulienchampagne.com/article-3552044.html

08/07/2016 17:44Répondre

HCA avait donné à chacun de ses disciples et de ses amis des éléments de ses travaux et recherches. Sans doute cela était suffisant pour permettre à chacun de travailler sur l'oeuvre.
Le problème c'est que certains n'ont rien trouvé de mieux que de publier ses travaux en rompant le pacte moral qui accompagnait leur détention. C'est triste à tous les points de vue.



Rahamim05/03/2015 18:55Répondre

Merci pour ces passages assez peu connu de la vie de Henri Coton.


Pour ce qui me concerne, j'ai trouvé l'ouvrage "Deux lumière" trop intello, donc dénué de portée didactique.

Je ne pense pas que les alchimistes d'avant le XXe siècle aient pu avoir autant de préoccupations philosophiques ou spirituelles, les vraies alchimistes étaient, pour la grande majorité, des "labourants" trop préoccupés à entretenir le feu de leurs fourneaux ou à potasser les vieux grimoires, pour perdre leur temps en vaines spéculations.


En revanche je possède une copie manuscrite d'un carnet de notes du Dr Emerit qui, sous la direction de son maitre Henry Coton, a effectué un certain nombre d'opérations par voie sèche ayant une similitude troublante avec le manuscrit de Dujols publié dans "Propos sur la chrysopée", tant au niveau opératoire qu'au plan des matériaux mis en œuvre.

Je voudrais ici faire une remarque, dans les deux manuscrits que je viens de citer, la matière première, le vieux dragon écailleux est nommé et, hélas, ce n'est pas du tout la stibine chère à Canseliet.

Encore un mot, je ne voudrais pas paraitre irrévérencieux à l'égard de Fulcanelli, mais toujours à propos de la matière première des vieux adeptes, il ignore la véritable signification du mot "Kohl", on peut le vérifier dans "Le Mystère des Cathédrales" que je cite :

"On sait que les alchimistes du XIVe siècle appelaient Kohl ou Kohol leur médecine universelle, des mots arabes al cohol, qui signifient poudre subtile, terme qui a pris plus tard, dans notre langue, le sens d’eau-de-vie (alcool). En arabe, Kohl est, dit-on, l’oxysulfure d’antimoine pulvérisé, qu’emploient les musulmanes pour se teindre les sourcils en noir. "

Il est regrettable que le grand maître n'ait pas pris la peine de vérifier la signification du mot Kohl à la source !

Je voudrais plutôt croire qu'il fut "envieux" au point de négliger ce détail d'une extrême importance.

En arabe Kohl ou plus exactement Khohl, signifie "Noir" tout simplement, et naturellement El Khohl se rapporte à cette poudre subtile dont les femmes orientale se servent pour maquiller leurs paupières.

Cette distinction permet de découvrir d'une manière radicale le nom de la véritable matière première, il suffit d'aller dans les souks marocains par exemple, pour s'en procurer; et, effectivement, il ne s'agit pas de stibine.

Je me suis laissé abusé durant des années, Canseliet y est probablement pour une grande part.

Hellin Hermetist
08-21-2016, 10:15 AM
Also, from deeply reading the nuances of the text, there seems little possibility that Canseliet wrote it. The style, words and experience certainly come from an older man, well versed in life, and with some degree of sophistication. That rules out both Canseliet and Champagne (who would have only been in his forties when the book was written, and who was not sophisticated, although he did seem to possess a good understanding of Alchemy already when he was 33 years of age).

A man in his forties has all the possibilities to be well versed in life, and can quite easily be the author of the two books ascribed in Fulcanelli, especially if he has shown that he possess a good grasping of the alchemical literature as early as the age of 33. I wouldnt say that any of the two books are revelatroy. The concept of the destruction of two bodies (a mineral and a metal) to extract a mercury is taken from the Hermetic Triumph of St Didier. The mondus operandi, as described in many different chapters, is taken from the Lullian corpus. The particulars are taken from Naxagoras and some other authors, and some of them, that is promised that can lead to transmutation (eg: tinge gold by melt it several times with copper and tinge silver with the red gold) are erroneous. The theoretical conceptions about phlogiston theory are also taken from older authors, who have written whole treatises about that theory. The only prototype theory in the books is that of ancient Greek cabal hidden inside the alchemical corpus, which is also erroneous. There was an ancient Greek cabal but not under the form which Fulcanelli presents. So, at the end of the day, I dont think that the books have the value that have been ascribed to them.

zoas23
08-21-2016, 08:13 PM
A man in his forties has all the possibilities to be well versed in life, and can quite easily be the author of the two books ascribed in Fulcanelli, especially if he has shown that he possess a good grasping of the alchemical literature as early as the age of 33.

The idea that Canseliet was the WHOLE of Fulcanelli does not make sense to me. Fulcanelli was either his teacher or a "collective person" (several writers, probably 3, writing as one... with one of them being Canseliet).

If there is something in common between Fulcanelli and Canseliet is their love for Art (architecture, paintings, sculpture, non-alchemical literature)... and maybe that's their greatest contribution (to be somehow the pioneers of analyzing Art from an alchemical point of view... of course, they were not the first ones, the Splendor Solis was doing it in a different way and there are other examples too... but they did it as the basis of their teachings). This somehow lead to the creation of a "new school" of writers who wrote essays about art from an alchemical point of view (Maurizio Calvesi is my favorite example... if you like contemporary art, do not miss his book on Duchamp).

If you examine that part of their texts, then you'll find that Fulcanelli was quite similar in his artistic tastes to someone like Rene Guenon (pardon me for bringing such a horrible name here): the history of art and the true traditions "finish" with the Renaissance... what comes with the Renaissance and later is "bullshit" to them. Of course, that's the ONLY thing they shared... otherwise they are very different.

Canseliet was by far more "playful" and LOVED the Renaissance AND contemporary art (he was hanging around with the Surrealist Group).

So it doesn't make sense to me to imagine someone writing two books to explain why "punk rock" was the worst thing that happened to music under a pen name (Fulcanelli)... and then writing under his real name (Canseliet) a set of other books praising "punk rock" and explaining why it's the best thing that happened to music (this is a metaphor).

JDP
08-21-2016, 08:26 PM
JDP , Illen A. Cluf , Hellin Hermetist and prejudice at all

GALENA and dujol MANUSCRIPTS CHYSOPEA and DIARY OF DOCTOR EMERIT DISCIPLE OF H.C.A HENRI COTON ALVART of they work by the 1939 until the years 1945 demonstration in the original historical documents

NOW canseliet certainly will have worked with GALENA and after many years of him work on the GALENA (NB ehe instruction on galena of chrysopea od dujol and the diay notebook of dr emerit of all years 1939b until 1945 arrived by pesonal archive of house of canseliet ) he changed IT with the ANTIMONY and sure this reason undoubtedly we must understand why change GALENA IN ANTIMONI ? ?

even if mhio the figure of Canseliet and its theater he set up ..sulla figure of Fulcanelli etc does not inspire confidence at all
but on the other hand one thing is certain and absolutely incontrovertible and this is that dujol very close to being the head of HCA Fulcanelli andthe His direct disciple Enri Coton Alvart noche his cabinet button disciple doctor Emerit have all worked with GALENA and this is demonstrated by incontrovertible and indisputable laboratory diaries extremely clear and explicit enough on the operability and bearing years and years of experience made with galena all recorded in diaries from 1939 to 1945 and that they are all experiments performed with GALENA and this is incontrovertibly proven by manuscripts with instructions transmitted by master to disciple (and NB this is very clearly stated in the diaries) and these diaries and all instructions on the galena are incontrovertible and indisputable historical testimony


So I just wanted to see that on dry process and materials as galena and operability of dujol magophon that many identify as a Fulcanelli head there
both famous text with the command text of Dujols chrysopea commented and integral belonged to henri cotton Alvart disciple of dujol magophon I will try to attach this nb text is not censored as it is the version published by Dervy editions by gilbert here ...https://www.amazon.fr/Chrysop%C3%A9e-Manuscrit-Dujols-Fulcanelli-traitant-alchimique/dp/2850766968
(CENSORED because the text published that I have attached here were omitted the names of substances in the original INSTEAD of henri cotton Alvart the qule received him from Dujols instead the names of the subjects of the work to get the chrisopea are all well aware GALENA ETC)
I put pdf of the censored version published by Dervy editions http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf
(and the internal environment working with Canseliet knows this very well, but well if they look good to say about it below quote here a specialized web dsu champagne article etc much more on what circulates in French environments search of Fulcanelli and Canseliet)
and also of galena etc dry lining and Dujols instructions there of great importance and undeniable historical truth and a laboratory of Dr. Emerit operational diary that goes from the years 1939 to 1945 when the dujol instructions and henri cotton Alvart are explicitly stated on dry process in which n 2 chysopea texts and diary of Dr. Emerit there are years and years of experiments under the guidance of heni coton Alvart of Dujols disciple but unfortunately without any serious result zero zero ..

my best regard Alfr

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::

JDP , Illen A. Cluf , Hellin Hermetist and prejudice at all

GALENA and dujol MANUSCRIPTS CHYSOPEA and DIARY OF DOCTOR EMERIT DISCIPLE OF H.C.A HENRI COTON ALVART of they work by the 1939 until the years 1945 demonstration in the original historical documents

galena e dujol dimostrazione nei documenti originali storici

ORA certo canseliet avra lavorato con galena e poi cambiato con l'antimonio e il perchè è indubbiamente da capire anche se mhio la figura di canseliet e il suo teatro da lui allestito ..sulla figura di fulcanelli etc non ispira fiducia per nulla
ma per contro un fatto è certo e assolutamente inoppugnabile ed questo è che dujol molto vicino ad essere testa di fulcanelli HCA eil suo diretto discepolo Enri Coton Alvart noche il suo dietto discepolo doctor emerit hanno tutti lavorato con la GALENA e cio lo dimostrano inoppugnabili e indiscutibili diari di laboratorio estremamente chiari ed espliciti sulla operativita basti e riportanti anni e anni di sperimenti fatti con la galena tutti registrati in diari da 1939 agli anni 1945 e che sono tutti esperimenti effettuati con la GALENA e cio è inoppugnabilmente testimoniato da manoscritti con istruzioni trasmesse da maestro a discepolo (e NB cio nei diari viene detto molto chiaramente) e questi diari e istruzioni tutti sulla galena ne sono inoppugnabile e indiscutibile testimonianza storica .

dunque io volevo solo fare constatare che su via secca e materie come galena e operativita di dujol magophon che molti identificano come una testa di fulcanelli esistono
sia famoso testo con l'istruzione operativa il testo di dujols chrysopea commentato e integrale appartenuto a henri coton alvart discepolo di dujol magophon che cercherò di allegare questo testo nb non è censurato come invece è la versione pubblicata dalle edizioni dervy da gilbert... https://www.amazon.fr/Chrysop%C3%A9e-Manuscrit-Dujols-Fulcanelli-traitant-alchimique/dp/2850766968
(CENSURATO perche nel testo pubblicato che qui ho allegato sono stati omessi il nomi delle materie INVECE nell'originale di henri coton alvart il qule lo ricevette da dujols invece i nomi delle materie dell'opera per ottenere la chrisopea sono tutti ben presenti GALENA ETC )

qui metto pdf della versione censurata pubblicata dalle edizioni dervy http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf
(e il l'ambiente interno che lavorava con canseliet lo sa molto bene ma ben se ne guardano bene da dirlo a riguardo qui sotto riporto qui un articolo del web specializzato dsu champagne etc molto altro su cio circola negli ambienti francesi si ricerca su fulcanelli e canseliet )
e inoltre su via secca galena etc e istruzioni di dujols esiste di grande importanza e di inoppugnabile e verità storica un diario operativo di laboratorio del dottor emerit che va dagli anni 1939 a 1945 in cui sono esplicitamente riportate le istruzioni di dujol e henri coton alvart sulla via secca n cui nei 2 testi chysopea e diario del dottor emerit ci sono anni e anni di esperimenti fatti sotto la guida di coton alvare discepolo di dujols ma senza purtroppo nessun serio risultato zero di zero ..

my best regard alfr

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

riporto qui dati molto poco conosciuti riguardo alle sperimentazioni su galena dujol e henri coton alvart e il suo discepolo doctor emerit

dal web di ricerca su champagne ecco un post
nb tutto l'articolo a questo link è molto interessante

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


report here very little known about the trials and galena dujol henri cotton Alvart and his disciple doctor Emerit
from web search of champagne here is a post

nb whole article and the posts at this link is all very interesting

http://www.archerjulienchampagne.com/article-3552044.html

08/07/2016 17:44Répondre

HCA avait donné à chacun de ses disciples et de ses amis des éléments de ses travaux et recherches. Sans doute cela était suffisant pour permettre à chacun de travailler sur l'oeuvre.
Le problème c'est que certains n'ont rien trouvé de mieux que de publier ses travaux en rompant le pacte moral qui accompagnait leur détention. C'est triste à tous les points de vue.



Rahamim05/03/2015 18:55Répondre

Merci pour ces passages assez peu connu de la vie de Henri Coton.


Pour ce qui me concerne, j'ai trouvé l'ouvrage "Deux lumière" trop intello, donc dénué de portée didactique.

Je ne pense pas que les alchimistes d'avant le XXe siècle aient pu avoir autant de préoccupations philosophiques ou spirituelles, les vraies alchimistes étaient, pour la grande majorité, des "labourants" trop préoccupés à entretenir le feu de leurs fourneaux ou à potasser les vieux grimoires, pour perdre leur temps en vaines spéculations.


En revanche je possède une copie manuscrite d'un carnet de notes du Dr Emerit qui, sous la direction de son maitre Henry Coton, a effectué un certain nombre d'opérations par voie sèche ayant une similitude troublante avec le manuscrit de Dujols publié dans "Propos sur la chrysopée", tant au niveau opératoire qu'au plan des matériaux mis en œuvre.

Je voudrais ici faire une remarque, dans les deux manuscrits que je viens de citer, la matière première, le vieux dragon écailleux est nommé et, hélas, ce n'est pas du tout la stibine chère à Canseliet.

Encore un mot, je ne voudrais pas paraitre irrévérencieux à l'égard de Fulcanelli, mais toujours à propos de la matière première des vieux adeptes, il ignore la véritable signification du mot "Kohl", on peut le vérifier dans "Le Mystère des Cathédrales" que je cite :

"On sait que les alchimistes du XIVe siècle appelaient Kohl ou Kohol leur médecine universelle, des mots arabes al cohol, qui signifient poudre subtile, terme qui a pris plus tard, dans notre langue, le sens d’eau-de-vie (alcool). En arabe, Kohl est, dit-on, l’oxysulfure d’antimoine pulvérisé, qu’emploient les musulmanes pour se teindre les sourcils en noir. "

Il est regrettable que le grand maître n'ait pas pris la peine de vérifier la signification du mot Kohl à la source !

Je voudrais plutôt croire qu'il fut "envieux" au point de négliger ce détail d'une extrême importance.

En arabe Kohl ou plus exactement Khohl, signifie "Noir" tout simplement, et naturellement El Khohl se rapporte à cette poudre subtile dont les femmes orientale se servent pour maquiller leurs paupières.

Cette distinction permet de découvrir d'une manière radicale le nom de la véritable matière première, il suffit d'aller dans les souks marocains par exemple, pour s'en procurer; et, effectivement, il ne s'agit pas de stibine.

Je me suis laissé abusé durant des années, Canseliet y est probablement pour une grande part.

I would like some clarification regarding your position: are you suggesting that Dujols was "Fulcanelli" or just that he had an influence on him? Unfortunately, I can't fully understand all the contents of your posts so I have to wonder about this point since you keep insisting on bringing up Pierre Dujols in this context. Patrick Riviere has examined the "Chrysopee" of Dujols and did not find much in common with Fulcanelli and his style and claims.

Regarding galena and Fulcanelli: if you read the descriptions that he makes of the mineral that he claims the secret solvent of alchemy is made from, such as in the quote I provided above in post #26, you will see that it does not quite fit with galena.

JDP
08-21-2016, 09:31 PM
A man in his forties has all the possibilities to be well versed in life, and can quite easily be the author of the two books ascribed in Fulcanelli, especially if he has shown that he possess a good grasping of the alchemical literature as early as the age of 33. I wouldnt say that any of the two books are revelatroy. The concept of the destruction of two bodies (a mineral and a metal) to extract a mercury is taken from the Hermetic Triumph of St Didier. The mondus operandi, as described in many different chapters, is taken from the Lullian corpus. The particulars are taken from Naxagoras and some other authors, and some of them, that is promised that can lead to transmutation (eg: tinge gold by melt it several times with copper and tinge silver with the red gold) are erroneous. The theoretical conceptions about phlogiston theory are also taken from older authors, who have written whole treatises about that theory. The only prototype theory in the books is that of ancient Greek cabal hidden inside the alchemical corpus, which is also erroneous. There was an ancient Greek cabal but not under the form which Fulcanelli presents. So, at the end of the day, I dont think that the books have the value that have been ascribed to them.

Fulcanelli also blatanly "borrowed" (usually without giving credit) from other sources. For example, the idea that some buildings had alchemical imagery on public display is already found centuries before "Fulcanelli", most notably in the curious 17th century work of Esprit Gobineau de Montluisant.

Regarding the "tinged gold" for transmutation: you are quite correct about the claim with copper-gold alloy and nitric acid that Fulcanelli quite uncritically accepted as if it was a proven fact, which he obviously "borrowed" (without giving his source any credit) from "Alchymia Denudata" (a text which sometimes says and describes very interesting things, but in this case totally fails to deliver anything but a lie) and did not bother to test whether it was true or not. But there seems to be "something" to this claim of "exalting gold" (and then using it to partly transmute silver into gold) by means of the supposed "sulphur" or "tincture" of some other metals/minerals, but by USING CERTAIN OTHER METHODS, not something as vulgar and ineffective as a simple separation in common nitric acid. This is a subject currently under investigation, so for the moment being I will not say more about it. Preliminary tests for producing "exalted gold" have not even begun yet, but I do already have a good deal of experience with similar methods that use no gold, but yet I can confirm that "dark calxes" which seem to be gold (they survive even the cupellation of the silver that contains them!) are indeed obtainable from silver so treated. So maybe the inclusion of "exalted gold" with the silver does increase the gold yield of such methods, as some chymists assure. Some sources that deal with these "exalted gold" claims are still undergoing examination (when a given source happens to be in a language I can understand) or translation (in the case of those written in languages I don't know much about.)

More regarding nitric acid and Fulcanelli: he was also fooled into thinking (yet again!) that a simple dissolution in common nitric acid was enough to alter a small part of a given silver mass into a metal that resembles gold, and which can become actual gold after certain special treatments which he says the old "puffers" and chymists called "confirmation". Once again, Fulcanelli was caught in several self-concocted confusions and mistaken assumptions from his reading of old chymical treatises. I have identified several of the sources that Fulcanelli was drawing from (which he again gives no credit whatsoever) and I can tell you that:

1- He assumed that the chymists who made this claim (like Becher) were working with the exact same pure nitric acid he was working with (which they usually were not; in the 17th -and even through a good part of the 18th- century nitric acid was still usually prepared through methods quite different than those of the ordinary chemistry that came later)

2- The mysterious "confirmation" operation was actually carried out on the "embryonic", "volatile" or "immature" gold contained or "impregnated" in silver by means of a series of quite longer and more complex operations, not something as simple as dissolving silver in any acid (not even in the special "gradatory" types of aqua fortis, which almost always are said to directly produce some gold out of silver, no "confirmation" operation being necessary, just a simple melting with borax or direct cupellation with lead reduces the dark calxes obtained by such means into a solid gold bead/button)

Illen A. Cluf
08-22-2016, 02:49 AM
A man in his forties has all the possibilities to be well versed in life, and can quite easily be the author of the two books ascribed in Fulcanelli, especially if he has shown that he possess a good grasping of the alchemical literature as early as the age of 33.

I still maintain that there's a huge difference in how a man in his 40's expresses himself and how a man in his 80's expresses himself. But then again, this is an interesting subject for a different thread - I don't really want to hijack this one since it has its own merits.

Illen A. Cluf
08-22-2016, 02:57 AM
JDP and prejudice at all

galena and dujol demonstration in the original historical documents

YES

Dear alfr - thank you for your comments and for the fascinating documents. Thank you also for verifying Canseliet's experimentation with Galena until 1945 at which time he changed to Antimony.

I don't quite understand exactly what you were trying to say in the rest of your message, but you always seem to have some important information that I truly wish could be better clarified.

> report here very little known about the trials and galena dujol henri cotton Alvart and his disciple doctor Emerit
from web search of champagne here is a post

I read a translation of that link, but unfortunately was unable to find any reference in it to Dujol's and the other's trials using galena.

Illen A. Cluf
08-22-2016, 03:06 AM
Regarding galena and Fulcanelli: if you read the descriptions that he makes of the mineral that he claims the secret solvent of alchemy is made from, such as in the quote I provided above in post #26, you will see that it does not quite fit with galena.

Part of being a messenger of information often results in people thinking that the messenger holds the same belief as the message he provides. This was not the case at all. I specifically mentioned that I personally didn't think that Fulcanelli used Galena (or Antimony, for that matter). I only suggested that this is what Canseliet allegedly seemed to believe at first. Regarding Antimony, Fulcanelli spent 2 or 3 pages denying that Antimony was used at all in the process. (Since Canseliet ended up believing that Antimony was the subject matter, it is hard to believe that he was the author of Fulcanelli's books, or even one of a group of authors). Rather, Fulcanelli seemed to closely follow the path that Philalethes described. Some people think that Philalethes also used Antimony. Others disagree. I also disagree.

Illen A. Cluf
08-22-2016, 04:31 AM
I put pdf of the censored version published by Dervy editions http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Dujols_Chrysopee.pdf

Hello, alf,

This still seems to be the uncensored version (which leaves blank spaces/lines for the identification of the matters discussed, etc.)

alfr
08-22-2016, 06:12 AM
hi Illen A. Cluf

sure i have tell this as i have just say i have read and study the original of chrysopea dujol and diary of emerit 1939 until 1934 by one person and in version original there are the name GALENA ETC

but in french ambient circle there are more many post etc about it i try to found more post etc

hi jdp you ask :

are you suggesting that Dujols was "Fulcanelli" or just that he had an influence on him?

now for MIHO dujols is one BIG head of fulcanelli group/lodge and and he dujol had and very BIG influence on it fulcanelli group/lodge and henri coton alvart and dr emerit are direct disciple of the same lignage of dujol and in this lignage of dry way they use galena as have also use it galena canseliet until 1945

my best regard alfr

JDP
08-22-2016, 12:38 PM
Part of being a messenger of information often results in people thinking that the messenger holds the same belief as the message he provides. This was not the case at all. I specifically mentioned that I personally didn't think that Fulcanelli used Galena (or Antimony, for that matter). I only suggested that this is what Canseliet allegedly seemed to believe at first. Regarding Antimony, Fulcanelli spent 2 or 3 pages denying that Antimony was used at all in the process. (Since Canseliet ended up believing that Antimony was the subject matter, it is hard to believe that he was the author of Fulcanelli's books, or even one of a group of authors). Rather, Fulcanelli seemed to closely follow the path that Philalethes described. Some people think that Philalethes also used Antimony. Others disagree. I also disagree.

I know, I had already read your post. This time the comments about galena and Fulcanelli were directed at alfr, since he keeps bringing up the alleged connection between the two. But, as I pointed out several times, the general descriptions of the mineral that Fulcanelli hints at do not quite fit with galena.

Regarding "Philalethes": if Newman & Principe's identification of "Philalethes" with Starkey is correct (and it certainly seems so from the evidence that they have gathered so far), then it is unquestionable that he was working with antimony.

Illen A. Cluf
08-22-2016, 12:51 PM
I know, I had already read your post. This time the comments about galena and Fulcanelli were directed at alfr, since he keeps bringing up the alleged connection between the two. But, as I pointed out several times, the general descriptions of the mineral that Fulcanelli hints at do not quite fit with galena.

I totally agree. I also think that the word "galena" as used by Dujols and others, even in the censored version of Chrysopee, was also a cover name for something different. Most past alchemists agree that the lesser metals/minerals can never be used to make the Stone. Rather, something between a metal and a mineral is allegedly used.

Ghislain
08-22-2016, 03:31 PM
I always considered metals to be mineral, are you talking of a salt of a metal?

Ghislain

Illen A. Cluf
08-22-2016, 03:55 PM
I always considered metals to be mineral, are you talking of a salt of a metal?

Ghislain

They usually distinguish between the metal (regulus) and the the mineral matter (sulfide, etc.) in which the metal is found. Thus (for example purposes) there is a distinction made between Antimony and Stibnite (Antimony Sulfide); between Galena (Lead(II) Sulfide) and Lead; between Copper Sulfide and Copper, etc.

Hellin Hermetist
08-22-2016, 04:42 PM
The idea that Canseliet was the WHOLE of Fulcanelli does not make sense to me. Fulcanelli was either his teacher or a "collective person" (several writers, probably 3, writing as one... with one of them being Canseliet).


I didnt say that Canselliet was the author if the books. I said that Cansellier knew the identity of the persons who wrote under the pseudonym of Fulcanelli, and as he later chose to follow Philalethes and not those authots for practical work, he must also knew that they werent accomplished alchemists and didnt possess the stone.

JDP
08-22-2016, 07:31 PM
I didnt say that Canselliet was the author if the books. I said that Cansellier knew the identity of the persons who wrote under the pseudonym of Fulcanelli, and as he later chose to follow Philalethes and not those authots for practical work, he must also knew that they werent accomplished alchemists and didnt possess the stone.

I have not read everything that Canseliet ever wrote, but from what I have read of his works, it seems like he did not exactly try to follow "Philalethes" either. Canseliet gives the impression of wanting to follow that strange idea that the Stone can be made by "dry" operations carried out in crucibles pretty much from beginning to end. This is certainly not what Philalethes/Starkey claimed, who also worked with retorts and flasks (they are needed for the amalgam operations he dealt with), but those that derive from the statements of the brassfounder of Helvetius' account.

Illen A. Cluf
08-25-2016, 01:03 PM
Terms like "Flick of the Wrist" are highly obscure and cannot be interpreted easily.

So, in such a situation one must go back to basics.

The key problem in Alchemy IMO stems from a lack of understanding of Nature. Adepts were well aware of this shortcoming. To solve this problem, they always demonstrated the long path where you work with common gold at some point. Contrary to popular opinion where the writing of the long path was attributed to the malicious intentions of the adepts, their intention was to show the possibilities of the nature, her workings so that once understood their discpiles or readers will have no problem in Alchemy. The trouble arose when adepts started writing in extremely perverted ways. Should you encounter such treatises, set them aside and move on to some other treatise.

If you are able to understand the path properly and is able to explain away everything related to the same without issue, you will have no problem deciphering other paths or terms that the adepts are using. In fact, the entire Alchemy lays open the moment you are able to understand the long path.

So, Dwellings, what is your interpretation of the meaning of "Flick of the Wrist"? Where are you going with these posts?

Dwellings
08-26-2016, 05:20 PM
So, Dwellings, what is your interpretation of the meaning of "Flick of the Wrist"?
If you figured out the ingredient(s) and realized the laws at stake. You do not need to be told what it is.


Where are you going with these posts?
???

Dwellings
08-26-2016, 05:23 PM
The thread from page 2 has veered off course and the information presented there needs a thread of its own IMO.

If you could move those posts to another spin off thread. The flow would be restored to this thread.

The relevant post after page 1 is only from Illen to which I have replied ie on page 5.

You may delete this post at your discretion.

Thanks.

Andro
08-26-2016, 06:07 PM
The thread from page 2 has veered off course and the information presented there needs a thread of its own IMO.

If you could move those posts to another spin off thread. The flow would be restored to this thread.

The relevant post after page 1 is only from Illen to which I have replied ie on page 5.

You may delete this post at your discretion.

Thanks.

Such suggestions are better sent in PM to one of the mods.

Sometimes a thread can take a life of its own, and you can also moderate it yourself by politely asking people to stay on topic, if you feel some posts have strayed too much from the OT as to be of any relevance.

Illen A. Cluf
08-26-2016, 06:08 PM
If you figured out the ingredient(s) and realized the laws at stake. You do not need to be told what it is.



If we were mind readers and already knew what ingredients YOU were thinking of, we would also have no need for your previous messages.

Dwellings
08-26-2016, 06:52 PM
If we were mind readers and already knew what ingredients YOU were thinking of, we would also have no need for your previous messages.

[Phoenix,Eagle]/[Mirror,Lemon] Are the ingredient(s) now clear?

The post that you quoted of mine regarding the "Flick of the Wrist" was deliberately written by me. To be frank, I had other intentions though in perfect agreement with the thread than the one that a reader takes from it at the first glance.

I know that I am vague, that too intentionally but if you or anyone can point out to me through examples or otherwise how to reveal as much as is permitted in an easier format it would be nice.

Illen A. Cluf
08-26-2016, 07:03 PM
[Phoenix,Eagle]/[Mirror,Lemon] Are the ingredient(s) now clear?

The post that you quoted of mine regarding the "Flick of the Wrist" was deliberately written by me. To be frank, I had other intentions with it than the one that a reader takes from it at the first glance.

I know that I am vague, that too intentionally but if you or anyone can point out to me through examples or otherwise how to reveal as much as is permitted in an easier format it would be nice.

In time - I hope to do just that. But until I actually MAKE the Stone and test it, I have no right making up riddles. There are already too many confusing riddles in the thousands of texts written about the Stone. What we desperately need more than anything is more openness and clarity.

Andro
09-30-2016, 06:50 PM
In Indian culture betel leaves and betel nuts have their own significance which will be obvious to any who look at the photos of the same.

http://kitairu.net/images/products/products_176860_bc187d63f2d3bfe0c560d1f255851f06.j peg

Those nuts seem indicative of the Marcasite/Pyrite family. Former forum member LeoRetilus discussed them extensively at some point, I believe.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/MarcasiteGeode.jpg/330px-MarcasiteGeode.jpg

If memory serves, Glauber even has a dedicated process with Marcasite nodules as attractive to vital humidity...

For anyone interested, just enter glauber marcasite in the forum's Google search bar.

Andro
10-04-2016, 05:11 PM
Those nuts seem indicative of the Marcasite/Pyrite family.

This also seems to correspond to Fulcanelli's infamous 'cat whiskers' :)

Illen A. Cluf
10-04-2016, 05:56 PM
This also seems to correspond to Fulcanelli's infamous 'cat whiskers' :)

.... which were used to indicate the letter "X".

Andro
10-04-2016, 06:25 PM
It's also common in Indian Alchemy/Medicine to take some matter(s), wrap them (airtight) in clay and cook them for periods of time. This ties in with Fulcanelli's mention of clay as well.

Theory: Crushed Marcasite Ore (possibly already 'prepared'/extra magnetized/opened) + possibly some Spirit-magnetic matter/salt, all wrapped in airtight fireproof clay, Fire/Secret Fire/Mars introduced directly into the heart of the crucible instead of just exposing the vessel directly to high temperatures.

However, at this time, I am only speculating/theorizing (just like Dwellings), because I have not experimented with this path and honestly I have no significant personal interest in it.

Andro
10-04-2016, 07:41 PM
Addendum:

There is also a 'long' path with Marcasite, with which I am just a bit more familiar (from a friend's work), involving gradual/progressive 'opening' and 'magnetization' of the matter via cycles of 'Solve & Coagula' (which is a general/universal principle of opening & magnetizing matter).

Eventually, the decanted liquid, when evaporated, leaves behind the same radial pattern ('Cat Whiskers') as the original ore.

But this is off-topic, since this thread is dealing with the 'Short Way'.

Dwellings
10-07-2016, 06:04 PM
It's also common in Indian Alchemy/Medicine to take some matter(s), wrap them (airtight) in clay and cook them for periods of time. This ties in with Fulcanelli's mention of clay as well.

Theory: Crushed Marcasite Ore (possibly already 'prepared'/extra magnetized/opened) + possibly some Spirit-magnetic matter/salt, all wrapped in airtight fireproof clay, Fire/Secret Fire/Mars introduced directly into the heart of the crucible instead of just exposing the vessel directly to high temperatures.

However, at this time, I am only speculating/theorizing (just like Dwellings), because I have not experimented with this path and honestly I have no significant personal interest in it.

Ars Brevis is a dry path so high temps are a must. You have not factored it. Also no mention of flick of the wrist.


Addendum:

There is also a 'long' path with Marcasite, with which I am just a bit more familiar (from a friend's work), involving gradual/progressive 'opening' and 'magnetization' of the matter via cycles of 'Solve & Coagula' (which is a general/universal principle of opening & magnetizing matter).

Eventually, the decanted liquid, when evaporated, leaves behind the same radial pattern ('Cat Whiskers') as the original ore.

But this is off-topic, since this thread is dealing with the 'Short Way'.

Did he/she participated in violent battle before proceeding further? If so can you tell me how it went.

'Cat Whiskers' that mention in this post were green in color and there were a lot of strands crossing each other, was that the case?

Andro
10-07-2016, 06:29 PM
Did he/she participated in violent battle before proceeding further? If so can you tell me how it went.

This was just the preparation of the subject. Remember, I said this was a long path with marcasite.


'Cat Whiskers' that mention in this post were green in color and there were a lot of strands crossing each other, was that the case?

Dark green when completely dried, light green when still in solution. Whitish salt covering in the end as well, very interesting.

I don't recall seeing the 'strands' crossing each other at the end of the preparation/magnetization, but there were some mid-process patterns that were crossing.

Illen A. Cluf
10-07-2016, 06:30 PM
The short path requires very high furnace temperatures, and a resulting explosive reaction between the dragon and the knight. Because of this violent explosive reaction when a certain salt is added incrementally, one must hold the lid of the crucible down with all his/her weight. All the salt cannot be added at once, or you may experience the explosion of your laboratory, serious injury and possible death. Thus it is added in increments. When each reaction is complete, and before adding more salt, one hand twists the lid open while the other quickly adds the salt. Then the hand holding the lid twists it back closed very quickly, and pressure is again applied to the lid to avoid injury and assist in the process.

This is the likely meaning of "flick of the wrist".

Dwellings
10-28-2016, 04:23 PM
The short path requires very high furnace temperatures, and a resulting explosive reaction between the dragon and the knight. Because of this violent explosive reaction when a certain salt is added incrementally, one must hold the lid of the crucible down with all his/her weight. All the salt cannot be added at once, or you may experience the explosion of your laboratory, serious injury and possible death. Thus it is added in increments. When each reaction is complete, and before adding more salt, one hand twists the lid open while the other quickly adds the salt. Then the hand holding the lid twists it back closed very quickly, and pressure is again applied to the lid to avoid injury and assist in the process.

This is the likely meaning of "flick of the wrist".

Sorry for delay in replying, was busy.

How can you keep your hand on the crucible when it is at 1000 degrees. Its impossible.

In the long path, you must provoke the dragon and slay him face to face, you are thinking about that.

In Ars Brevis, you must kill him with cunning, so putting hands on the crucibles is impossible.

Why was Fulcanelli so confident that in Ars Brevis, you will discover the flick of the wrist post explosion, ponder over it. You will have the answer.

Read Basil Valentine, he most clear in the concepts regarding this.

Dwellings
10-28-2016, 04:26 PM
This was just the preparation of the subject. Remember, I said this was a long path with marcasite.



Dark green when completely dried, light green when still in solution. Whitish salt covering in the end as well, very interesting.

I don't recall seeing the 'strands' crossing each other at the end of the preparation/magnetization, but there were some mid-process patterns that were crossing.

Sorry for delay in replying, was busy.

Thanks.

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2016, 06:04 PM
How can you keep your hand on the crucible when it is at 1000 degrees. Its impossible.
Simple - you use oven gloves and/or tongs.

Andro
10-28-2016, 08:02 PM
a resulting explosive reaction between the dragon and the knight.

Another means or 'cheat' to open/elevate/spiritualize/magnetize fixed matter is DETONATION. This is also hinted at in 'Elixir Proprietatis', in the context of 'Salt Volatilization'.

Gunpowder, anyone?

:cool:

Schmuldvich
10-28-2016, 08:15 PM
Because of this violent explosive reaction when a certain salt is added incrementally, one must hold the lid of the crucible down with all his/her weight. All the salt cannot be added at once, or you may experience the explosion of your laboratory, serious injury and possible death. Thus it is added in increments. When each reaction is complete, and before adding more salt, one hand twists the lid open while the other quickly adds the salt. Then the hand holding the lid twists it back closed very quickly, and pressure is again applied to the lid to avoid injury and assist in the process.

This is the likely meaning of "flick of the wrist".


How can you keep your hand on the crucible when it is at 1000 degrees. Its impossible.


Simple - you use oven gloves and/or tongs.

Let's analyze this suggested scenario...

You suggest for us to add some kind of salt to something that makes some kind of big explosive reaction. This explosive reaction is so violent that, according to you, it is literally going to blow the lid off the crucible. So what do you suggest? You suggest adding this salt that causes an explosion to your crucible by really quickly taking off the lid, throwing some of this salt in the crucible, frantically trying to cover it up again before this explosive reaction occur, then you suggest putting all your weight on top of the crucible so the lid doesn't fly off.


That is what you suggest...Have you ever done any of this before, Illen?


Do you think this makes much sense? Is one able to add this salt quickly enough, so soon before this explosion occurs, that he is able to grab the lid and put it back on? Is the explosion not big enough to explode the crucible but big enough that your body weight is needed to hold the crucible lid on? Why are you working with crucibles (or high heat even) in the first place? We all know that no high heat is used in our Work until the end when we are nearing Fixation.

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2016, 10:13 PM
Let's analyze this suggested scenario...

You suggest for us to add some kind of salt to something that makes some kind of big explosive reaction. This explosive reaction is so violent that, according to you, it is literally going to blow the lid off the crucible. So what do you suggest? You suggest adding this salt that causes an explosion to your crucible by really quickly taking off the lid, throwing some of this salt in the crucible, frantically trying to cover it up again before this explosive reaction occur, then you suggest putting all your weight on top of the crucible so the lid doesn't fly off.


That is what you suggest...Have you ever done any of this before, Illen?


Do you think this makes much sense? Is one able to add this salt quickly enough, so soon before this explosion occurs, that he is able to grab the lid and put it back on? Is the explosion not big enough to explode the crucible but big enough that your body weight is needed to hold the crucible lid on? Why are you working with crucibles (or high heat even) in the first place? We all know that no high heat is used in our Work until the end when we are nearing Fixation.

Whether or not I think it makes sense, the technique is not some fancy invention made by me or a fancy way to explain the "trick of the wrist". It doesn't come from me or any of my assumptions, but directly from the writings of either Fulcanelli or his Master (Pierre Dujols), or at the very least, a close partner (a lot has already been written on this which I won't go into here). The text suggests exactly what I said - it's up to you to interpret what it means and how to do it safely.

The text states:

"When the temperature is reached, which can be recognized by the torrent of white and poisonous smoke which escapes from the crucible, using tongs, seize the lid of the crucible with the left hand, quickly throw in a parcel of saltpetre weighing approximately from 10 to 12 grams, and cover the crucible with the lid which is held down with two hands. Buzzing noises can be heard, followed soon by internal explosions, of a muffled noise, then clearly and rapidly, like those of an automobile engine; sometimes the force developed is so great that all your energy is needed, and all your weight on the lid to maintain it".

How he holds it down with his 'hands' is beyond me, but so the Master says. I merely offered a suggestion that either tongs or special furnace mitts must have been used. Or even some other insulating device/material.

Kiorionis
10-29-2016, 02:14 AM
How he holds it down with his 'hands' is beyond me, but so the Master says. I merely offered a suggestion that either tongs or special furnace mitts must have been used. Or even some other insulating device/material.

If it was me doing the work, I would make sure I had a full body suit :)


https://youtu.be/AGQLXFlLD20

Here is a link to the "detonation" of antimony (you might have to rewind to view the whole video). It's really not that powerful of an explosion. I'm assuming the only reason you would want to cover the crucible is so that the volatile parts don't escape so much.

In the last few seconds of the video you can catch the gold, silver and black bits. I'd put my dollars on the black bits.

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 02:57 AM
If it was me doing the work, I would make sure I had a full body suit :)


https://youtu.be/AGQLXFlLD20

Here is a link to the "detonation" of antimony (you might have to rewind to view the whole video). It's really not that powerful of an explosion. I'm assuming the only reason you would want to cover the crucible is so that the volatile parts don't escape so much.

In the last few seconds of the video you can catch the gold, silver and black bits. I'd put my dollars on the black bits.

I've done a detonation with the same person in the video. The explosion is much more powerful when the lid is on.

Kiorionis
10-29-2016, 02:58 AM
Curious that I picked that random video then! Ha..

I can imagine it would be. Reduce the space to increase the force.

I'm curious if there are crucibles or techniques which would allow for a delayed reaction, so that the operator could seal the lid with clamps before the detonation...

Wax?

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 03:25 PM
Curious that I picked that random video then! Ha..

I can imagine it would be. Reduce the space to increase the force.

I'm curious if there are crucibles or techniques which would allow for a delayed reaction, so that the operator could seal the lid with clamps before the detonation...

Wax?

Yes, that was quite an amazing coincidence! I'm not sure if such a crucible could be easily designed, since the detonation happens quite soon after the nitre is added. Perhaps a hinged lid with a locking mechanism would work.

Dwellings
10-29-2016, 03:26 PM
Illen, I can assure you that nothing will be used. Once all is set, either you will reach the stone or the crucible will explode.

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 04:16 PM
Illen, I can assure you that nothing will be used. Once all is set, either you will reach the stone or the crucible will explode.

What do you mean by "nothing wil be used"?

Kiorionis
10-29-2016, 05:39 PM
I'm not sure if such a crucible could be easily designed, since the detonation happens quite soon after the nitre is added. Perhaps a hinged lid with a locking mechanism would work.

The reaction occurs on account of the temperature being high enough, correct? Why not add everything together, close and seal the crucible, then increase the temp until combistion?

I'm guessing an appropriately sturdy crucible would be necessary.

Ghislain
10-29-2016, 05:58 PM
Another means or 'cheat' to open/elevate/spiritualize/magnetize fixed matter is DETONATION. This is also hinted at in 'Elixir Proprietatis', in the context of 'Salt Volatilization'.

Gunpowder, anyone?

:cool:

The Red Carbuncle (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1211-Red-Carbuncle&p=6009&highlight=carbuncle#post6009)

Ghislain

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 06:08 PM
The reaction occurs on account of the temperature being high enough, correct? Why not add everything together, close and seal the crucible, then increase the temp until combistion?

I'm guessing an appropriately sturdy crucible would be necessary.

Good question! I think that the main reason for not soing so, is that the nitre has to be added in separate quantities, not all at once. So there are actually several detonations of the matter. If you were to add ALL of the nitre at first and then heat it, you would have a very dangerous explosion, not just blowing apart the crucible, but the entire laboratory - as has happened to past alchemists. Fulcanelli (Dwellings, Page 153) wrote:


"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 why, aware of our responsibility, we urgently beseech those who do not possess this secret to abstain until then. They will thus avoid the fate of an unfortunate priest of the diocese of Avignon, about which the following notice briefly gives an account: "Abbot Chapaty thought to have discovered the philosophers’ stone but, unfortunately for him, the crucible burst asunder, the metal exploded against him, attached itself to his face, arms and clothes; he ran in this way along the Infirmaries Street, dragging himself in the gutters as though possessed, and he perished miserably burnt, like a damned person. 1706". "

I also think that the sudden detonation is a necessary part of the process. Perhaps this is the process necessary to "open" up the metal so that its seed can be extracted.

Kiorionis
10-29-2016, 06:10 PM
Interesting, thanks for the responses, Illen.

Dwellings
10-30-2016, 04:04 AM
What do you mean by "nothing wil be used"?

Nothing means tongs, gloves etc.

Illen A. Cluf
10-30-2016, 03:01 PM
Nothing means tongs, gloves etc.

If you read Dwellings very carefully, you will see that the "flick of the wrist" definitely involves controlling the explosive nature of the reaction in the crucible. It is a great secret. Pierre Dujols states that this involves holding the lid down with all your force.

I've been overly open about my interpretations and have provided sources. You merely dogmatically state things in riddles as though you're some type of Adept, yet never seem to provide provide any source or documentation or verification. I'm simply unwilling to take your word and don't see how your contributions are of help to anyone here.

Illen A. Cluf
10-30-2016, 03:03 PM
Artephius keeps on deliberately babbling about the long path and its finer details but he prefers to perform the wet path which takes roughly half the time of long path.

I think you're confused. The wet path is the same as the long path.

Schmuldvich
10-30-2016, 03:14 PM
You will see that the "flick of the wrist" definitely involves controlling the explosive nature of the reaction in the crucible. It is a great secret.

Why do you believe this "flick of the wrist" is a great secret or even important in our Art?

Schmuldvich
10-30-2016, 03:20 PM
Artephius keeps on deliberately babbling about the long path and its finer details but he prefers to perform the wet path which takes roughly half the time of long path.


I think you're confused. The wet path is the same as the long path.


There are two paths spoken of by the Sages, the Wet Path which is the "long way", and the Dry Path which is the "short way".



Wet Path (Long Way)





Other Philosophers, subsequently, after another method, which is the humid way, have extracted from the interior of Mercury an igneous spirit, which is mineral, vegetable, and reproductive. In the humid concavity of this spirit is concealed the primitive Mercury, or universal quintessence. By the means of this spirit, they have attracted the spiritual seed contained in gold, and have thus obtained their sulphur, and that Mercury of the Philosophers which is neither solid as a Metal, nor of fluid-like Quicksilver, but has a medial condition between them.


From Compostella the return can be made either by the same path, following a different itinerary or by the wet or maritime path, the only way the authors indicate in their writings. In this case the pilgrim choosing the maritime route boards under the leadership of an expert pilot, a proven mediator captain capable of ensuring the safety of the vessel during the entire crossing. Such is the difficult part played by the Pilote de l’Onde Vive because the sea is full of reefs, and storms are frequent. Indeed, in our opinion, the dry path would be preferable, but we have no choice. Cyliani warns his reader that he describes the wet way, full of difficulties and surprises, only by duty. Our Adept deems the same, and we must respect his will.


Dry Path (Short Way)





Those Philosophers who experimented by the dry path have succeeded in rendering a part of their gold volatile, and reducing it into a sublimate, white as snow and shining like crystal. The remaining portion they have converted into a fixed salt, and from the conjunction of the volatile and the fixed, they have made their Elixir.


By using the dry path, represented by the earthly road followed at first by our traveler, one can successfully but progressively exalt the diffuse and latent virtue, transforming into activity that which was only potential. The operation is completed when, on the surface, appears a shining star, formed of rays emanating from a single center, prototype of the great roses of our gothic cathedrals. A sure sign that the pilgrim has successfully reached the end of his first trip. The dry path, also called the Work of Saturn, rarely translated into iconography as it is described in texts, based upon the use of solid and crystallized materials, the brief way (ars brevis) only requires the help of a crucible and the application of high temperatures. The dry way, the only one which authors reserved without providing any explanation about it, is a joy to the artist as well as a treasure to the alchemist. Nevertheless, contrary to the humid way, whose glass utensils allow for easy control and accurate observation, the dry way cannot enlighten the operator at any time in the process of the Work. So, although the time factor reduced to a minimum constitutes a serious advantage in the practice of the ars brevis, the necessity of high temperatures, on the other hand, presents the serious inconvenience of an absolute uncertainty as to the progress of the operation. Everything happens in the deepest mystery inside the crucible which is carefully sealed, buried at the core of the incandescent coals. It is therefore important to be very experienced and to know the fire’s behavior and power well as one could not find in it, from the beginning to the end the least of indication. All the characteristic reactions of the humid way having been indicated among the classical authors, it is possible for the studious artist to acquire indications precise enough to allow him to undertake his long and difficult work. Here on the contrary, it is without any guide that the traveler, brave to the point of rashness, enters this arid and burnt desert. No road laid out, no clue, no landmark; nothing save the apparent inertia of the earth, of the rock, of the sand. The shiny kaleidoscope if the colored stages does not brighten up his uncertain walk; it is as a blind man that he continues his path, without any other certainty save that of his faith, without any other hope but his confidence in divine mercy.

Illen A. Cluf
10-30-2016, 03:24 PM
Why do you believe this "flick of the wrist" is a great secret or even important in our Art?

Because it says so very clearly in Dwellings. Read pages 338-340.

Dwellings
10-31-2016, 04:09 AM
If you read Dwellings very carefully, you will see that the "flick of the wrist" definitely involves controlling the explosive nature of the reaction in the crucible. It is a great secret. Pierre Dujols states that this involves holding the lid down with all your force.

I've been overly open about my interpretations and have provided sources. You merely dogmatically state things in riddles as though you're some type of Adept, yet never seem to provide provide any source or documentation or verification. I'm simply unwilling to take your word and don't see how your contributions are of help to anyone here.

(Spear,Shield) are the best tools employed to fight the dragon, this is only used in the first purification. Not in Ars Brevis.

What you are describing is the use of shield, which must be something heavy like a block of iron perhaps to maintain force.

Andro
10-31-2016, 06:40 AM
(Spear,Shield) are the best tools employed to fight the dragon, this is only used in the first purification. Not in Ars Brevis.

So there is a purification/preparatory stage in your interpretation of the Brief Art, preceding the 'main part'?

Also, in your interpretation, what is the required max. temperature for 'Ars Brevis'? Is it raised slowly/gradually or relatively fast?

Is detonation involved anywhere in the main Work, in the preparatory work, or not at all?

Is the vessel employed made of clay or another material?
_____________________

As a side note, from the little I know about Indian Alchemy, there seems to be a predisposition for high temperatures and/or for tightly sealed clay vessels...

Dwellings
10-31-2016, 08:15 AM
So there is a purification/preparatory stage in your interpretation of the Brief Art, preceding the 'main part'?

Also, in your interpretation, what is the required max. temperature for 'Ars Brevis'? Is it raised slowly/gradually or relatively fast?

Is detonation involved anywhere in the main Work, in the preparatory work, or not at all?

Is the vessel employed made of clay or another material?
_____________________

As a side note, from the little I know about Indian Alchemy, there seems to be a predisposition for high temperatures and/or for tightly sealed clay vessels...

1.In Brief Art ie Ars Brevis No.

=================================
Side Note:
Yes and no. It depends on how you want to kill the dragon.

There are two ways either fight face to face or kill him with cunning. In the former you need to use spear and shield and then proceed to prepare "Our Mercury" & "Our Sulfur" followed by the great coction.

In the latter, you must know the properties of our water and how dragon was born. That will give you sufficient clues as to how to proceed and finish it.

Then there is Ars Brevis, which thread is all about.

This the total set of works in metallic kingdom IMO

=================================

2.You start with high temps and stick to it in Ars Brevis.

3.Yes, detonation in preparatory work when fighting with dragon face to face.

4.Yes, Clay.

----------------------------

Indian guys always preferred Regimen of Saturn OR Pure SM path for executing the Great Work from the allegories that I have studied.

Dwellings
10-31-2016, 08:30 AM
I think you're confused. The wet path is the same as the long path.

Not at all, in the path that takes roughly half the time, you by a certain method must make the substance in your vessel urinate. Should you suceed, you are set.

Also, the long path is called the dry path. When you accelerate it, you get short dry path.

Illen A. Cluf
10-31-2016, 02:00 PM
(Spear,Shield) are the best tools employed to fight the dragon, this is only used in the first purification. Not in Ars Brevis.

What you are describing is the use of shield, which must be something heavy like a block of iron perhaps to maintain force.

Yes, it's possible that a thick block of iron is used to maintain the force - that could be the "lid" spoken about. The lid itself does not have to be red-hot, so it could be handled easier.

Illen A. Cluf
10-31-2016, 02:19 PM
Not at all, in the path that takes roughly half the time, you by a certain method must make the substance in your vessel urinate. Should you suceed, you are set.

Also, the long path is called the dry path. When you accelerate it, you get short dry path.

This is not at all the traditional way of naming these paths. The Ars Brevis (short, abridged path) is also called the "dry way", while the long path is also known as the "wet" or "humid way" (read for example, Dwellings, Pages 367-368). Both paths start the same way. The short path only requires the use of a sealed crucible and very high temperatures, and can be done in a short time (some say about a week). The humid way uses glass utensils, so can be observed more readily. This way takes a long time, some say over a year.

Dwellings
10-31-2016, 04:10 PM
This is not at all the traditional way of naming these paths. The Ars Brevis (short, abridged path) is also called the "dry way", while the long path is also known as the "wet" or "humid way" (read for example, Dwellings, Pages 367-368). Both paths start the same way. The short path only requires the use of a sealed crucible and very high temperatures, and can be done in a short time (some say about a week). The humid way uses glass utensils, so can be observed more readily. This way takes a long time, some say over a year.

The initial prep in long way happens by dry way, this is why i wrote so.

There is a proper wet way in which you will make the substance urinate.

Illen A. Cluf
10-31-2016, 04:53 PM
The initial prep in long way happens by dry way, this is why i wrote so.

There is a proper wet way in which you will make the substance urinate.

There's either a dry way or a wet way, but not both. Both start the same way, but branch off into two distinct ways - later. The start is neither the dry nor the wet way - it's just the "preparation"..

Dwellings
10-31-2016, 05:02 PM
There's either a dry way or a wet way, but not both. Both start the same way, but branch off into two distinct ways - later. The start is neither the dry nor the wet way - it's just the "preparation"..

I am talking of a path where there is no preparation.

I will take a certain substance and make it urinate and take it to the end. The urination is why it is called wet path IMO.

Schmuldvich
10-31-2016, 05:32 PM
What is this "urination" you speak of, Dwellings? Can you elaborate?

Also, I suggest you do more reading regarding Wet Path and Dry Path. You seem confused. Illen & I both are trying to explain to you what these terms mean as clearly as we can. I even provided references hundreds of years old for you to parallel.

Illen A. Cluf
10-31-2016, 05:34 PM
I am talking of a path where there is no preparation.

I will take a certain substance and make it urinate and take it to the end. The urination is why it is called wet path IMO.

Oh, you mean a method of attracting the spiritus mundi directly?

True Initiate
11-01-2016, 12:06 AM
Oh, you mean a method of attracting the spiritus mundi directly?

Yeah, after a long night of drinking beer there is a lot of spiritus mundi in the public toilets.

Illen A. Cluf
11-01-2016, 02:00 AM
Yeah, after a long night of drinking beer there is a lot of spiritus mundi in the public toilets.

Think how rich the contents would have been if you had drunk 'spirits' instead of beer :-)

Dwellings
11-01-2016, 04:17 PM
What is this "urination" you speak of, Dwellings? Can you elaborate?

Also, I suggest you do more reading regarding Wet Path and Dry Path. You seem confused. Illen & I both are trying to explain to you what these terms mean as clearly as we can. I even provided references hundreds of years old for you to parallel.


Oh, you mean a method of attracting the spiritus mundi directly?

I am talking about a path in metallic kingdom. The substance emits a seed by a certain method, this is what I called urination.
The substance is a mineral.

Illen A. Cluf
11-01-2016, 04:31 PM
I am talking about a path in metallic kingdom. The substance emits a seed by a certain method, this is what I called urination.
The substance is a mineral.

Then how does it differ from the approach that Fulcanelli used? He also extracts the seed of a common metal (the knight) by the use of the solvent contained in a mineral (dragon).

Dwellings
11-01-2016, 04:39 PM
Then how does it differ from the approach that Fulcanelli used? He also extracts the seed of a common metal (the knight) by the use of the solvent contained in a mineral (dragon).

Knight IMO is restricted to spear and shield, does not include iron nails.

Fulcanelli uses the technique to quickly fix SM in salt form (Cyliani for detailed descriptions) and perform purifications on the dragon.

The technique was mostly used to show the possibilities of nature, to throwaway as many seekers as possible.

None in their right mind will ever perform this unless for amusement purposes.

Illen A. Cluf
11-01-2016, 06:43 PM
Knight IMO is restricted to spear and shield, does not include iron nails.

Fulcanelli uses the technique to quickly fix SM in salt form (Cyliani for detailed descriptions) and perform purifications on the dragon.

The technique was mostly used to show the possibilities of nature, to throwaway as many seekers as possible.

None in their right mind will ever perform this unless for amusement purposes.

I don't think that's correct. Fulcanelli does not specifically try to attract the SM, as it is already either contained in the Subject Matter or further attracted during the formation of the first mercury. The iron nails are nothing else than the "three" blows of a rod of steel or hammer against the sides of the crucible in order to separate the regulus from the rest of the matter.

Why criticize this approach when you have said nothing convincing or supportive about your approach which you indicate is the only correct approach?

Andro
11-01-2016, 09:50 PM
For a bit of additional elucidation on 'Dry' & 'Wet', Hermes Old Nature Way dedicates a few pages to it.

If interested, go HERE (http://montalk.net/ICH-Natural_Path.pdf) and scroll down to page 46 of the PDF (page 33 of the actual book).

Illen A. Cluf
11-01-2016, 10:31 PM
For a bit of additional elucidation on 'Dry' & 'Wet', Hermes Old Nature Way dedicates a few pages to it.

If interested, go HERE (http://montalk.net/ICH-Natural_Path.pdf) and scroll down to page 46 of the PDF (page 33 of the actual book).

Thanks Andro. I actually own the actual book. I'm surprised to see it as a PDF, since I know the author went to a lot of trouble to have it published.

-----------------------------------------

Downloadable PDF related - continued HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2855-Hermes-Trismegistus-Old-and-True-Natural-Path-now-available-in-English&p=45215#post45215).

horticult
11-02-2016, 12:17 AM
urination = mose´s rock?

Dwellings
11-02-2016, 09:57 AM
I don't think that's correct. Fulcanelli does not specifically try to attract the SM, as it is already either contained in the Subject Matter or further attracted during the formation of the first mercury. The iron nails are nothing else than the "three" blows of a rod of steel or hammer against the sides of the crucible in order to separate the regulus from the rest of the matter.

Why criticize this approach when you have said nothing convincing or supportive about your approach which you indicate is the only correct approach?

Did I ever thrust it upon you? I just pointed something out.

Rest is your call. If you love working day and night for 2yrs, then go ahead.

Dwellings
11-02-2016, 09:58 AM
urination = mose´s rock?

???

Illen A. Cluf
11-02-2016, 01:31 PM
Did I ever thrust it upon you? I just pointed something out.

Rest is your call. If you love working day and night for 2yrs, then go ahead.

You haven't pointed out anything substantial that you could thrust on anyone. Just a bunch of vague words like always with no backing, references, or substantiation. Why even join in these conversations when you never have anything to offer but dogmatic criticism?

horticult
11-02-2016, 02:15 PM
I am talking of a path where there is no preparation.

I will take a certain substance and make it urinate and take it to the end. The urination is why it is called wet path IMO.

= Numbers 20:11 ?:

"And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also."

& fulcanelli´s pissing into sabot??

Illen A. Cluf
11-02-2016, 02:48 PM
= Numbers 20:11 ?:

"And Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also."

& fulcanelli´s pissing into sabot??

When Fulcanelli talks about Moses' rod and other myths where a rod-like object causes water to flow from a dry rock, I believe that he is using the symbolism to express two different actions. One is striking the crucible with a metal rod in order to separate the regulus from the rest of the matter.

The second refers to the action of the 'secret fire', which is activated by the external fire and causes the matter to fuse in a liquid or molten state.

Dwellings
11-08-2016, 06:02 PM
@Horticult

Moses striking the rock IMO is related to killing the dragon to get the fountain running as Fulcanelli explains the method of purifications in Salamander of Lisieux III.

@Illen

If you have read Philalethes properly, you would only agree with my criticism. You need to be a master before you can execute that path.

The entire difficulty is due to two major reasons one is that you must operate on vulgar gold, render it imperfect and from it draw perfection that is our gold and the second one Philalethes has brilliantly explained in Open Entrance.

Illen A. Cluf
11-08-2016, 06:38 PM
@Illen

If you have read Philalethes properly, you would only agree with my criticism. You need to be a master before you can execute that path.

The entire difficulty is due to two major reasons one is that you must operate on vulgar gold, render it imperfect and from it draw perfection that is our gold and the second one Philalethes has brilliantly explained in Open Entrance.

But Fulcanelli follows the Philalethes path completely. Fulcanelli does not use ANY vulgar gold UNTIL after the Elixir is made. Only then does he use it to change the Elixir (Medicine) to the transmutation powder, also known as the Philosophers Stone. Once you add the vulgar gold, you can no longer use it for medicinal purposes.

Before that, any reference to "our gold", "philosopher's gold", etc., only refers to the sulphur principle, which is extracted from the common metal (not gold, silver, mecury, or antimony, or any of the other metalloids).

Dwellings
11-08-2016, 06:48 PM
But Fulcanelli follows the Philalethes path completely. Fulcanelli does not use ANY vulgar gold UNTIL after the Elixir is made. Only then does he use it to change the Elixir (Medicine) to the transmutation powder, also known as the Philosophers Stone. Once you add the vulgar gold, you can no longer use it for medicinal purposes.

Before that, any reference to "our gold", "philosopher's gold", etc., only refers to the sulphur principle, which is extracted from the common metal (not gold, silver, mecury, or antimony, or any of the other metalloids).

If it were not for this path, all alchemical treatises would begin and end in a single page. Fulcanelli, Philalethes, Ripley these guys have mixed everything in Alchemy that it is next to impossible for figure out what is what. The stuff that I am talking about is explained more charitably by Vaughan, Norton & some anonymous authors.

They always explain how to operate on Common Gold while slenderly woving in the easy path. Unless you already know it from these other others you will not be able to figure out how they have woven it.

Illen A. Cluf
11-08-2016, 07:04 PM
If it were not for this path, all alchemical treatises would begin and end in a single page. Fulcanelli, Philalethes, Ripley these guys have mixed everything in Alchemy that it is next to impossible for figure out what is what. The stuff that I am talking about is explained more charitably by Vaughan, Norton & some anonymous authors.

I find Fulcanelli to be incredibly clear and more generous than any other alchemist before or after him. He has explained every detail very clearly, and only leaves you guessing about the subject matter (even there he has given some great clues), and a few "tricks". The only problem is that you have to re-read his book carefully at least a half dozen times. It's all there in his books, but in no logical order.

Dwellings
11-08-2016, 07:08 PM
I find Fulcanelli to be incredibly clear and more generous than any other alchemist before or after him. He has explained every detail very clearly, and only leaves you guessing about the subject matter (even there he has given some great clues), and a few "tricks". The only problem is that you have to re-read his book carefully at least a half dozen times. It's all there in his books, but in no logical order.

I have made edits to my post that you have replied to.

It is true what you have said. But have you figured out the heads and tails. It is this difficulty that I am speaking of.

Illen A. Cluf
11-08-2016, 07:56 PM
I have made edits to my post that you have replied to.

It is true what you have said. But have you figured out the heads and tails. It is this difficulty that I am speaking of.

I've pretty well figured out almost all of it - but I'm not sure what you mean by "heads and tails"? Are you referring to the Ourobrous?

Or, are you referring to the sublimations (eagles)?

True Initiate
11-08-2016, 09:37 PM
Can you give us the general overview of the path without spilling all the magic beans?

JDP
11-09-2016, 04:35 PM
I find Fulcanelli to be incredibly clear and more generous than any other alchemist before or after him. He has explained every detail very clearly, and only leaves you guessing about the subject matter (even there he has given some great clues), and a few "tricks". The only problem is that you have to re-read his book carefully at least a half dozen times. It's all there in his books, but in no logical order.

Though his two books are interesting, I would not completely agree that he explains everything in an exceedingly clear manner. He leaves a lot of questions unanswered. For example, he keeps claiming that the secret solvent of alchemy is a solid saline substance and strongly rejects any writer who describes the secret solvent as a liquid (this in itself is a huge contradiction to the bulk of alchemical literature, since the vast majority of alchemists in fact describe the secret solvent as a liquid substance; but that is another issue.) OK, fine, let us accept his claim for argument's sake. However, there comes a part in his description of the operations where he in fact contradicts his very own statement and describes the effects of a "golden" liquid or water which is DECANTED after its preparation and then used to IMBIBE and DAMPEN a certain mineral, which is then digested with it in order to prepare a substance he calls "sulphur".

Another example: he describes the secret solvent as a VOLATILE saline substance. Yet the initial reactions in the preparation of this solvent he describes in a semi-veiled manner that seem like a violent reduction of a mineral into a "regulus" (that is what has made so many people think that he was just talking about making regulus of antimony, despite the fact that he very clearly rejects both stibnite and antimony regulus as having any part in making either the secret solvent or the Stone.) So how can the obvious contradiction that such violent high-temperature reactions could possibly lead to the production of a VOLATILE substance (all or most of it would be lost during its very preparation!) is totally unexplained.

Illen A. Cluf
11-09-2016, 05:25 PM
However, there comes a part in his description of the operations where he in fact contradicts his very own statement and describes the effects of a "golden" liquid or water which is DECANTED after its preparation and then used to IMBIBE and DAMPEN a certain mineral, which is then digested with it in order to prepare a substance he calls "sulphur".

That used to confuse me as well, but after re-reading his books numerous times over many years, many of the contradictions started falling away one by one, and it now makes perfect sense. There's no contradiction here if you know the terms he uses very well (sometimes dozens of words for the same thing - you have to first make a concordance of all the terms). The solution came to me over the past few months when I re-read his books twice over again.


Another example: he describes the secret solvent as a VOLATILE saline substance. Yet the initial reactions in the preparation of this solvent he describes in a semi-veiled manner that seem like a violent reduction of a mineral into a "regulus" (that is what has made so many people think that he was just talking about making regulus of antimony, despite the fact that he very clearly rejects both stibnite and antimony regulus as having any part in making either the secret solvent or the Stone.) So how can the obvious contradiction that such violent high-temperature reactions could possibly lead to the production of a VOLATILE substance (all or most of it would be lost during its very preparation!) is totally unexplained.

I agree. This is one part that still confuses me and is one I am currently working on. There's also another seeming contradiction that I'm still working on as well, which is his explanation of the first preparation, in the story of Jupiter and Danae. For some odd reason, he seems to completely reverse the roles of the mineral and metal. The mineral in this case contains the sulphur, while the metal contains the mercury - exactly opposite to ALL the other references in his book.

However, having already resolved many of the other seeming "contradictions" in his books, I think there might also be an explanation for this. I think I'm close.

Illen A. Cluf
11-09-2016, 05:26 PM
Can you give us the general overview of the path without spilling all the magic beans?

Are you asking Dwellings for an overview of his path, or an overview of Fulcanelli's path?

JDP
11-09-2016, 05:50 PM
That used to confuse me as well, but after re-reading his books numerous times over many years, many of the contradictions started falling away one by one, and it now makes perfect sense. There's no contradiction here if you know the terms he uses very well (sometimes dozens of words for the same thing - you have to first make a concordance of all the terms). The solution came to me over the past few months when I re-read his books twice over again.



I agree. This is one part that still confuses me and is one I am currently working on. There's also another seeming contradiction that I'm still working on as well, which is his explanation of the first preparation, in the story of Jupiter and Danae. For some odd reason, he seems to completely reverse the roles of the mineral and metal. The mineral in this case contains the sulphur, while the metal contains the mercury - exactly opposite to ALL the other references in his book.

However, having already resolved many of the other seeming "contradictions" in his books, I think there might also be an explanation for this. I think I'm close.

Glad to see we agree on several of these problems in Fulcanelli's descriptions of the operations. But I see that, despite what you said regarding the first example, you still have some unanswered questions regarding that whole "Danae" and "Jupiter" description. I still say that his persistent claims about the secret solvent being a solid saline substance are contradicted by what he says in that chapter, where he clearly describes the "Hermetic solvent" as a GOLDEN LIQUID. Yes, it is true that he says that this happens "after undergoing fermentation in an oak barrel" but that still does not excuse his claims that the secret solvent must be a solid and his criticism of all other writers who say it is a liquid, since he seems to be admitting that it can actually also take on a liquid form (and in fact, several alchemists from centuries before Fulcanelli accept that the secret solvent can take both liquid and solid forms. Anyone who has read alchemists like Ibn Umail or Franz Clinge will know this.)

True Initiate
11-09-2016, 06:04 PM
Are you asking Dwellings for an overview of his path, or an overview of Fulcanelli's path?

I was asking you for an an overview of Fulcanelli's path for example in terms of chronology of operations. Reduction, assation and so on...

Andro
11-09-2016, 06:16 PM
he keeps claiming that the secret solvent of alchemy is a solid saline substance and strongly rejects any writer who describes the secret solvent as a liquid (this in itself is a huge contradiction to the bulk of alchemical literature, since the vast majority of alchemists in fact describe the secret solvent as a liquid substance; but that is another issue.) OK, fine, let us accept his claim for argument's sake. However, there comes a part in his description of the operations where he in fact contradicts his very own statement and describes the effects of a "golden" liquid or water which is DECANTED after its preparation and then used to IMBIBE and DAMPEN a certain mineral, which is then digested with it in order to prepare a substance he calls "sulphur".

If we go back to the ICH/Cyliani/Recreations lineage, they all explain how the Ph. Mercury/Alkahest is initially obtained as a cotton-like or wool-like salt, which however needs to be dissolved in the 'Astral Spirit' prior to commencing the dampenings/imbibitions, either of metallic gold or of what appears to be the caput mortum of the same mineral that was also previously used in the preparation of the Ph. Mercury (in this lineage, probably originally an iron sulfide, given the 'Union-with-Mars' reference in both Cyiliani and Recreations, as well as implied in the '13 Secret Letters (http://montalk.net/Boehme-13_Letters.pdf)').

In this lineage, working with metallic gold is termed the 'Wet Way', while rejecting metallic gold is termed the 'Dry Way'. I can not tell if this is in any way directly or indirectly connected with the 'Short Way'.
______________________

Note: This does not necessarily reflect my own research, I'm just extracting from available relevant literature here.

Illen A. Cluf
11-09-2016, 07:40 PM
Glad to see we agree on several of these problems in Fulcanelli's descriptions of the operations. But I see that, despite what you said regarding the first example, you still have some unanswered questions regarding that whole "Danae" and "Jupiter" description. I still say that his persistent claims about the secret solvent being a solid saline substance are contradicted by what he says in that chapter, where he clearly describes the "Hermetic solvent" as a GOLDEN LIQUID. Yes, it is true that he says that this happens "after undergoing fermentation in an oak barrel" but that still does not excuse his claims that the secret solvent must be a solid and his criticism of all other writers who say it is a liquid, since he seems to be admitting that it can actually also take on a liquid form (and in fact, several alchemists from centuries before Fulcanelli accept that the secret solvent can take both liquid and solid forms. Anyone who has read alchemists like Ibn Umail or Franz Clinge will know this.)

The explanation is really quite simple. The "mercury" first coagulates as an "oily film" on the surface of the mixture as it undergoes coction. It looks like a "golden liquid" just before it coagulates. It is removed carefully with a spoon (feather in some books). Once it dessicates, it then becomes a solid, crystalline secret solvent. So the trick was that it can take on more than one form, and many different names. Many of the "riddles" are like this.

Illen A. Cluf
11-09-2016, 07:42 PM
I was asking you for an an overview of Fulcanelli's path for example in terms of chronology of operations. Reduction, assation and so on...

It took me many years of intense reading and contemplation to finally unravel it. Working for the answer teaches many other clues and techniques and understandings that cannot be obtained without going through the thought process. But I'll see if I can provide you a general overview by private mail.

JDP
11-09-2016, 07:49 PM
The explanation is really quite simple. The "mercury" first coagulates as an "oily film" on the surface of the mixture as it undergoes coction. It looks like a "golden liquid" just before it coagulates. It is removed carefully with a spoon (feather in some books). Once it dessicates, it then becomes a solid, crystalline secret solvent. So the trick was that it can take on more than one form, and many different names. Many of the "riddles" are like this.

There's still problems with this interpretation. For example, he calls the product of the coagulation between the "golden liquid" and the chosen "mineral" the "sulphur", not the secret solvent. In fact, he plainly calls the golden liquid the "hermetic solvent" already, in its very liquid form, which is plainly a contradiction to his criticism of those who describe the secret solvent as a liquid, when he himself has no problem implying that the secret solvent can indeed have a liquid form too!

Illen A. Cluf
11-09-2016, 08:56 PM
There's still problems with this interpretation. For example, he calls the product of the coagulation between the "golden liquid" and the chosen "mineral" the "sulphur", not the secret solvent. In fact, he plainly calls the golden liquid the "hermetic solvent" already, in its very liquid form, which is plainly a contradiction to his criticism of those who describe the secret solvent as a liquid, when he himself has no problem implying that the secret solvent can indeed have a liquid form too!

Again, more deliberate confusion and quite easy to understand once you know their jargon! The "sulphur" and the "mercury" names are exchangeable. There is a "sulphur" principle that comes from the metal, and a "mercury" pricniple that comes from the mineral, but after they are joined, it is either called "mercury" or "sulphur" just to confuse you.

Schmuldvich
11-10-2016, 01:49 AM
It took me many years of intense reading and contemplation to finally unravel it. Working for the answer teaches many other clues and techniques and understandings that cannot be obtained without going through the thought process. But I'll see if I can provide you a general overview by private mail.

What have you figured out?

Illen A. Cluf
11-10-2016, 02:39 AM
What have you figured out?

The process that Fulcanelli follows. It's all there in his books.

Schmuldvich
11-10-2016, 03:06 AM
The process that Fulcanelli follows. It's all there in his books.

Can you reply here or PM me what you have figured out? The process, techniques, general overview, or whatever you think you've unravelled. I'm curious and appreciate what you've already shared.

JDP
11-10-2016, 12:57 PM
Again, more deliberate confusion and quite easy to understand once you know their jargon! The "sulphur" and the "mercury" names are exchangeable. There is a "sulphur" principle that comes from the metal, and a "mercury" pricniple that comes from the mineral, but after they are joined, it is either called "mercury" or "sulphur" just to confuse you.

It is true that Fulcanelli sometimes likes to confuse things, but he is very consistent with his terminology throughout both of his books. He even several times calls the attention of the reader to be on his guard regarding the possible confusion between what he calls the "first mercury" or "simple mercury" (which is nothing else but the secret solvent) and what he calls "double/second/philosophical mercury", which is the secret solvent with the metallic "sulphur" mixed in. The whole "Danae" and "Jupiter" section seems to be about the obtention of the "sulphur", and what he uses here to prepare it is plainly a liquid form of the secret solvent (he even clearly says that this golden liquid is the "HERMETIC SOLVENT"), contrary to his claims that the secret solvent MUST be a solid, white, saline substance, and anyone who says otherwise is supposedly "wrong". But, as you yourself originally noticed, there also seems to be a contradiction regarding the preparation of the "sulphur" itself since Fulcanelli keeps consistently insisting that it is prepared from metals, while the secret solvent is prepared from a "mineral" (i.e. a metallic compound) plus several other materials (like two salts) that intervene in the operations, and in this "Danae & Jupiter" section he also contradicts this claim by making the "sulphur" to be prepared from a mineral instead of a metal! We can't simply and arbitrarily say that he must be confusing the terminology, since all over his texts he is very consistent in clearly distinguishing the "mercury" and the "sulphur". The only slight confusion is regarding the distinction between the two "mercuries", but even here he is usually consistent and only occasionally confuses things.

Illen A. Cluf
11-10-2016, 03:36 PM
Can you reply here or PM me what you have figured out? The process, techniques, general overview, or whatever you think you've unravelled. I'm curious and appreciate what you've already shared.

Schuldvich and True Initiate: As mentioned, every detail is in his book, and with a lot of work, anyone should be able to figure it out. So, instead of spelling it all out for you and thereby removing the personal experience of learning (the main goal of alchemy), I can provide a few suggestions on how to unravel Fulcanelli's books.

The first main key is reading, reading and reading again and again. It will require at least 6-8 times from cover to cover.

Secondly, it should be noted that he often mixes discussions about two separate processes - the shorty, dry way, and the long, moist way. They both start the same way, but then branch off into two different approaches.

Third, his books are in no logical order. He may start discussing part of the process at one place, and then continues it many pages later, Sometimes he talks about the later part first and continues the earlier part later. Thus there are little "pieces" all over his books, like puzzle pieces, that need to be arranged in the proper order.

Fourth, he provides numerous names that the Masters used for any specific matter, principle or operation (sometimes dozens of different names for the same thing). So he may use one name to explain something, and then continue or elaborate the explanation elsewhere using an entirely different name. This is what creates the greatest confusion and is a technique used by all alchemists. So I would suggest, upon reading that you first have a number of blank pages. On each page, put the name of some of the main matters, principles, or operations on top of each page. Then, as you read, write down the other names that Fulcanelli uses when describing each of these. Eventually you may get dozens of names for any one thing. As you come across names during your reading that do not seem connected to the names on your list, start a new page with that name. Then when re-reading, you will begin to see connections between some of the names. Keep adjusting the lists as you re-read. Examples of some of the key words include (but certainly not limited to): Subject of the Sages; First Solvent; Philosophical Mercury; Philosophical Gold; Vitriol of the Adepts; Rebis; Common Mercury; Secret Fire.

Fifth, learn the difference between the First Mercury and the Second Mercury. This is probably the very greatest difficulty to surmount before things begin to make sense.

Sixth, realize that, although Fulcanelli often explains something and then says that he is not permitted to say anything more about it, he actually does. However, it is often very difficult to find where he does elaborate because at first glance there may seem to be no connection. Thus, even where Fulcanelli seems to talk about something out of the blue that may not seem important, it could be one of the very keys to unlocking his method. This is why it is absolutely necessary to read his books again and again. Each time, you make another connection, and then when you re-read, parts that did not make sense earlier, or parts which seemed to be contradictory, suddenly begin to make sense.

Many people have complained about the many contradictions in his books. I also did for many years. But now, having read his books cover to cover at least 8 times, almost all of those contradictions have disappeared. As I mentioned to JDP, there are still two major contradictions remaining. Just less than the last two months, I re-read his books cover to cover again twice. During that time, I resolved numerous contradictions. I now need to re-read it one more time to resolve the last two major contradictions. That's how it works. Each time you read it, it makes more and more sense. Don't think that you will understand it by reading it through once or a couple of times.

The Latin expression: "Lege, lege, relege, bora et invenies" ("Read, Read, Read, Read Again and You Shall Find") on the Frontispiece in Fulcanelli's "Le Mystere des Cathedrales" is no joke. It was not put there to be cute. In my opinion, it is THE greatest clue to solving the alchemical mystery, and is the one that almost nobody pays any attention to. Most jump directly into the recipes and waste decades of time and money experimenting without any real philosophical understanding of what they are trying to accomplish.

I can't stress enough the importance of re-reading his books and making copious notes each time. I probably have well over 100-200 pages of notes to date. These notes have been invaluable. I also make flow diagrams of the process and revise them each time I read, as I become more and more familiar with the terms.

Illen A. Cluf
11-10-2016, 04:03 PM
It is true that Fulcanelli sometimes likes to confuse things, but he is very consistent with his terminology throughout both of his books. He even several times calls the attention of the reader to be on his guard regarding the possible confusion between what he calls the "first mercury" or "simple mercury" (which is nothing else but the secret solvent) and what he calls "double/second/philosophical mercury", which is the secret solvent with the metallic "sulphur" mixed in. The whole "Danae" and "Jupiter" section seems to be about the obtention of the "sulphur", and what he uses here to prepare it is plainly a liquid form of the secret solvent (he even clearly says that this golden liquid is the "HERMETIC SOLVENT"), contrary to his claims that the secret solvent MUST be a solid, white, saline substance, and anyone who says otherwise is supposedly "wrong". But, as you yourself originally noticed, there also seems to be a contradiction regarding the preparation of the "sulphur" itself since Fulcanelli keeps consistently insisting that it is prepared from metals, while the secret solvent is prepared from a "mineral" (i.e. a metallic compound) plus several other materials (like two salts) that intervene in the operations, and in this "Danae & Jupiter" section he also contradicts this claim by making the "sulphur" to be prepared from a mineral instead of a metal! We can't simply and arbitrarily say that he must be confusing the terminology, since all over his texts he is very consistent in clearly distinguishing the "mercury" and the "sulphur". The only slight confusion is regarding the distinction between the two "mercuries", but even here he is usually consistent and only occasionally confuses things.

Yes, he is incredibly consistent with his terminology, once that terminology has been nailed down with a concordance. Understanding the difference between the "first mercury" and "second mercury" is one of the greatest stumbling blocks. Once resolved, it clarifies much. The other stumbling block is understanding how to differentiate the mercury principle from the sulphur principle, and how, in the very beginning and in the end, they can be the same thing. Another important stumbling block is understanding the Masters' philosophy of how minerals "generated" beneath the earth. That is a most important key to the whole alchemical mystery, and why the Masters called their art a "Philosophy" rather than a "science". This is vitally important in determining the most appropriate starting matters. The different "states" of "forms" of the same matter throughout the process is also important, as often the same names are used as well as different names. Thus the solvent can be in both a "liquid" as well as "solid, crystalline" form. Metals can also be solid or liquid depending on the environment (e.g. in a furnace). The Masters loved to create confusion based on these different forms or states of matter.

The Danae/Jupiter myth and its relevance to the first preparation is still one of the two major stumbling blocks that I have not yet resolved. This part seems completely contradictory (reverse) to everything else he has said in his books. At first I thought it was a mistake in translation, but it seems to be the same in French. Now I'm seeing some subtleties in the explanation that may resolve the contradiction. I'm still working on it.

The two salts are another source of confusion, since he often says that nothing else is needed other than the two starting matters (a mineral and a metal). But I think he means that these are the only two matters that contain elements that end up in the Stone. The rest are just "agents" to assist in the operation. For example, one of the two salts is used to control the intensity of the reaction. It's possible that one of the salts may help explain one of the two contradictions I'm struggling with. Perhaps that is what helps prevent the volatile matter from escaping.

So, I agree that he is incredibly consistent throughout with the terminology and that there are likely NO contradictions in his books. I'm convinced that the two that I'm currently stumbling with are not contradictions, but will resolve based on the correct understanding. Perhaps there was a subtlety that was missed during the translation from French to English.

Dwellings
11-10-2016, 06:13 PM
Guys, instead of pondering over first, second mercuries or whatever. Why don't you go back to the drawing board and see if you can prevent the need of using common gold.

Illen A. Cluf
11-10-2016, 07:10 PM
Guys, instead of pondering over first, second mercuries or whatever. Why don't you go back to the drawing board and see if you can prevent the need of using common gold.

To do that, one must first accurately understand the language, process and philosophy of the Sages. Thus the absolute importance of understanding the subtleties between words such as "first" and "second" mercuries. Anything else is pure conjecture. it's better to approach this systematically, and logically. Besides, it's already been established that Common gold or silver is essential if one wants to make a transmutation powder.

Kiorionis
11-10-2016, 07:15 PM
I can provide a few suggestions on how to unravel Fulcanelli's books.

Thanks for taking the time to write that up Illen. Fulcanelli is one author I have yet to get around to, but your advice will be very helpful when I do.

Illen A. Cluf
11-10-2016, 07:16 PM
JDP: regarding your confusion over the liquid and coagulated crystalline states of our mercury as addressed by Fulcanelli, I found the reference I was referring to before where I said that it can exist in both states. Read page 122 of Dwellings, where Fulcanelli first describes the Mercury of the Philosophers (solvent) as a "transaparent oil" (liquid form) which is "easily coagulable" (solid state), which is then the "salt of metals" (crystalline). He specifically states that this coagulated oil has a "crystalline structure" which resembles "melted salt".

Dwellings
11-10-2016, 08:09 PM
To do that, one must first accurately understand the language, process and philosophy of the Sages. Thus the absolute importance of understanding the subtleties between words such as "first" and "second" mercuries. Anything else is pure conjecture. it's better to approach this systematically, and logically. Besides, it's already been established that Common gold or silver is essential if one wants to make a transmutation powder.

I never had any particular interest in executing the path except for witnessing the initial explosions. So my reason for avoiding it. Some adepts like Philalethes, Norton, Vaughan, Ripley stated the purpose was to simply fool the seeker.

But nonetheless a theoretical understanding of this path is extremely beneficial for the understanding the art. If you know what our water is and means to work with it, I don't see any see reason why you still are thinking about the means to extract sulfur from common gold and mercury preparations and so forth.

Illen A. Cluf
11-10-2016, 08:54 PM
I never had any particular interest in executing the path except for witnessing the initial explosions. So my reason for avoiding it. Some adepts like Philalethes, Norton, Vaughan, Ripley stated the purpose was to simply fool the seeker.

But nonetheless a theoretical understanding of this path is extremely beneficial for the understanding the art. If you know what our water is and means to work with it, I don't see any see reason why you still are thinking about the means to extract sulfur from common gold and mercury preparations and so forth.

I don't think you have understood me correctly. The sulphur principle is NOT extracted from Gold. It is extracted from a common metal. Gold (or Silver) only serves as a 'ferment' to orient the Stone to the mineral Kingdom, so that it can then be used for transmutation purposes. Also, common mercury has no place in the operation at all. The "mercury" the Sages speak about has nothing to do with vulgar mercury. It starts out as a principle and materializes as their solvent. This materialization of the "water" from an unseen principle to a visible manifestation is the entire secret behind why alchemy differs from Science. It is the Spring or Fountain that 'magically' flows from the roots of the oak tree.

Also, the approach described by Philalethes is exactly the approach used by Fulcanelli, although Fulcanelli focused more on the dry way. Norton and Ripley also described the wet way.

True Initiate
11-10-2016, 11:55 PM
Look at Mr. Serious taking it on Fuclanelli. Wow!

JDP
11-11-2016, 02:48 PM
JDP: regarding your confusion over the liquid and coagulated crystalline states of our mercury as addressed by Fulcanelli, I found the reference I was referring to before where I said that it can exist in both states. Read page 122 of Dwellings, where Fulcanelli first describes the Mercury of the Philosophers (solvent) as a "transaparent oil" (liquid form) which is "easily coagulable" (solid state), which is then the "salt of metals" (crystalline). He specifically states that this coagulated oil has a "crystalline structure" which resembles "melted salt".

The passage in question is a bit "blurry", as he begins talking about the "Mercury of the Philosophers" or "double mercury" (i.e. not the secret solvent by itself, but with the metallic "sulphur" in it) and then starts jumbling other things. In any event, my beef with Fulcanelli are his strange assertions like this one:

"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."

Which he then proceeds to contradict, like in the passages we have been talking about regarding the "golden water" or "oil", where he basically "quietly" (i.e. without calling the reader's attention to the flagrant contradiction) admits the liquid form of the secret solvent.

Illen A. Cluf
11-11-2016, 03:42 PM
The passage in question is a bit "blurry", as he begins talking about the "Mercury of the Philosophers" or "double mercury" (i.e. not the secret solvent by itself, but with the metallic "sulphur" in it) and then starts jumbling other things. In any event, my beef with Fulcanelli are his strange assertions like this one:

"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."

Which he then proceeds to contradict, like in the passages we have been talking about regarding the "golden water" or "oil", where he basically "quietly" (i.e. without calling the reader's attention to the flagrant contradiction) admits the liquid form of the secret solvent.

With his usual flair, what Fulcanelli is saying, seems to me to be logical. The "oil" that first appears is not yet the alkahest. As the oil appears, it is just materializing on the surface of the mixture as a film. At this point in its manifestation, it appears liquid, but is actually in the process of coagulating. When it is removed with a "net", it is a damp mass. It is then allowed to dry and becomes crystalline in form. It is at that final state in its coagulation (the crystalline state) when the alkahest actually works. Perhaps it is during crystallization that the mass attracts certain "influences" (sun, moon, stars or whatever). He stresses elsewhere how important crystalline structures are in alchemy. Thus Fulcanelli is saying that alkahests in liquid forms (such as urine or dew derived alkahests) are not the solvents of the Sages. The Sages described them as "dew", "urine", etc., only as allegories, not as actual substances to be used to make the alkahest. At least that's Fulcanelli's firm conviction, as he sees this solvent as THE unique substance in alchemy that one cannot do without. So I don't really see it as a contradiction from his point of view.

What I DO still see as significant contradictions are 1) his interpretation of the Jupiter/Danae myth, and 2) how he can prevent the volatile substance from escaping during the initial preparation when temperatures are said to be so extremely high.

Dwellings
11-11-2016, 04:45 PM
What I DO still see as significant contradictions are 1) his interpretation of the Jupiter/Danae myth, and 2) how he can prevent the volatile substance from escaping during the initial preparation when temperatures are said to be so extremely high.

From Dwellings




For you, unknown brothers of the mysterious city of the sun, we have formed the resolution of teaching the diverse and successive modes of our purifications. You will be thankful to us, we are certain, to have pointed out to you these reefs of the hermetic sea, against which so many inexperienced Argonauts have been shipwrecked. If you want to possess the griffin --- which is our astral stone --- by tearing it from its arsenical ganque, take two parts of virgin earth, our scaly dragon, and one part of the igneous agent, which is that valiant knight armed with the lance and shield. [*152-1] (Ares), more vigorous than Aries, must be in a lesser quantity. Pulverize and add the fifteenth part of this pure, white, admirable salt, washed and crystallized several times, which you must necessarily know. Intimately mix it; and then, following the example of the painful Passion of Our Lord, crucify it with three iron nails, so that the body dies and can then be resurrected. This done, drive away the coarsest sediments from the corpse; crush and triturate the bones; mix the whole thing on a slow heat with a steel rod. Then throw into this mixture half of this second salt, extracted from the dew that fertilizes the earth in the month of May, and you will obtain a body clearer than the preceding one. Repeat the same technique three times; you will reach the matrix of our mercury, and you will have climbed the first rung of the ladder of the sages. When Jesus resurrected the third day after his death, a luminous angel clothed in white alone occupied the empty sepulcher...

Dwellings
11-11-2016, 04:48 PM
I don't think you have understood me correctly. The sulphur principle is NOT extracted from Gold. It is extracted from a common metal. Gold (or Silver) only serves as a 'ferment' to orient the Stone to the mineral Kingdom, so that it can then be used for transmutation purposes. Also, common mercury has no place in the operation at all. The "mercury" the Sages speak about has nothing to do with vulgar mercury. It starts out as a principle and materializes as their solvent. This materialization of the "water" from an unseen principle to a visible manifestation is the entire secret behind why alchemy differs from Science. It is the Spring or Fountain that 'magically' flows from the roots of the oak tree.

Also, the approach described by Philalethes is exactly the approach used by Fulcanelli, although Fulcanelli focused more on the dry way. Norton and Ripley also described the wet way.

The sulfur is extracted from Gold since it contains a large quantity of perfect sulfur. We can't use common metal or any other metal due to imperfection in its sulfur. Yes Gold and Silver are used for transmutation too but that is at the end.

Also, there are two sulfurs if you remember.

JDP
11-11-2016, 04:59 PM
With his usual flair, what Fulcanelli is saying, seems to me to be logical. The "oil" that first appears is not yet the alkahest. As the oil appears, it is just materializing on the surface of the mixture as a film. At this point in its manifestation, it appears liquid, but is actually in the process of coagulating. When it is removed with a "net", it is a damp mass. It is then allowed to dry and becomes crystalline in form. It is at that final state in its coagulation (the crystalline state) when the alkahest actually works. Perhaps it is during crystallization that the mass attracts certain "influences" (sun, moon, stars or whatever). He stresses elsewhere how important crystalline structures are in alchemy. Thus Fulcanelli is saying that alkahests in liquid forms (such as urine or dew derived alkahests) are not the solvents of the Sages. The Sages described them as "dew", "urine", etc., only as allegories, not as actual substances to be used to make the alkahest. At least that's Fulcanelli's firm conviction, as he sees this solvent as THE unique substance in alchemy that one cannot do without. So I don't really see it as a contradiction from his point of view.

What I DO still see as significant contradictions are 1) his interpretation of the Jupiter/Danae myth, and 2) how he can prevent the volatile substance from escaping during the initial preparation when temperatures are said to be so extremely high.

But the Jupiter/Danae section contains that contradiction regarding the liquid vs solid form of the solvent:


"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 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 imbibition."

Here Fulcanelli is NOT using the solvent in its solid form but its liquid form, which is a contradiction since he himself rejects the liquid form of the solvent and says that "ALWAYS presents itself as a saline" substance. This is my beef with Fulcanelli, and the purpose of the quote in my previous post, not what matters some "chymists" thought should be used in composing the secret solvent of alchemy (which is NOT the Helmontian "alkahest", which is another huge confusion for many people.) I am not questioning that the liquid solvent can "coagulate" and assume a solid form (even as far back as Ibn Umail I have found evidence of this "coagulated" or "congealed" form of the solvent), but Fulcanelli's strange rejection of anyone who points out the liquid form of the solvent, which is contradicted by some of his very own descriptions elsewhere. If we were to take Fulcanelli's statements regarding the supposedly mandatory solid form of the secret solvent we would have to reject the bulk of alchemical literature, since most alchemists in fact describe the solvent as a liquid, not a solid (few exceptions from centuries before Fulcanelli are authors like the already mentioned Arabic alchemist Ibn Umail, or the German lawyer/alchemist Franz Clinge, who mention both forms of the solvent.)

JDP
11-11-2016, 05:12 PM
The sulfur is extracted from Gold since it contains a large quantity of perfect sulfur. We can't use common metal or any other metal due to imperfection in its sulfur.

Though there are many alchemists who feel that way, that is not what many other alchemists say, including Fulcanelli:


"This Mercury definitely is the matrix and the root of gold, and not the precious metal which is absolutely useless and without function in the way we are studying."

"A sumptuously dressed king, the gold is but an inert, albeit magnificent, body, a brilliant corpse compared to copper, iron, or lead. This usurper, that an ignorant and greedy crowd raises to the rank of god, cannot even claim to belong to the old and powerful family of metals; stripped of its coat, it then reveals the baseness of its origin and appears to us as a simple metallic resin, dense, fixed, and fusible, a triple quality which renders it obviously improper to the realization of our objective."

"This spiritual fire, given form and materialized in salt, is the hidden sulphur, since during its operation it is never made manifest or perceptible to our eyes. And yet this sulphur, as invisible as it may be, is not an ingenious abstraction or a doctrine stratagem. We know how to isolate it, how to extract it from the body that conceals it, by an occult means and in the appearance of a dry powder which, when it is in that state, becomes improper and without effect for the philosopher’s art. This pure fire, of the same essence as the specific sulphur of gold but less digested, is, on the other hand, more abundant than that of the precious metal. This is why it easily unites with the mercury of minerals and imperfect metals."

Notice, however, that he says "in the way we are studying", so it seems that Fulcanelli did admit that gold can be used in some other "way".

Schmuldvich
11-11-2016, 05:35 PM
Notice, however, that he says "in the way we are studying", so it seems that Fulcanelli did admit that gold can be used in some other "way".


There is a "noble" path and "less noble" path.



Here Philalethes describes both





When you have prepared our gold and Mercury in the manner described, put it into our vessel, and subject it to the action of our fire; within 40 days you will see the whole substance converted into atoms, without any visible motion, or perceptible heat (except that it is just warm). If you do not yet rightly know the meaning of "our gold," take one part of common gold (well purified), and three parts of our Mercury (thoroughly purged), put them together as directed (cap. xvi), place them over the fire, and there keep them at the boiling point, till they sweat, and their sweat circulates. At the end of 90 days you will find that the Mercury has separated and reunited all the elements of the common gold. Boil the mixture 50 days longer, and you will discover that our Mercury has changed the common gold into "our gold," which is the Medicine of the first order. It is already our Sulphur, but it has not yet the power of tinging. This method has been followed by many Sages, but it is exceedingly slow and tedious, and is only for the rich of the earth. Moreover, when you have got this Sulphur do not think that you possess the Stone, but only its true Matter, which you may seek in an imperfect thing, and find it within a week, by our easy yet rare way, reserved of God for His poor, contemned, and abject saints. Hereof I have now determined to write much, although in the beginning of this Book I decreed to bury it in silence.

This is the one great sophism of all adepts; some speak of this common gold and silver, and say the truth, and others say that we cannot use it, and they too, say the truth. But in the presence of God I will call all our adepts to account, and charge them with jealous surliness. I, too, had determined to tread the same path, but God's hand confounded my scheme. I say then, that both ways are true, and come to the same thing in the end -- but there is a vast difference at the beginning. Our whole Art consists in the right preparation of our Mercury and our gold. Our Mercury is our way, and without it nothing is effected. Our gold is not common gold, but it may be found in it; and if you operate on our Mercury with common gold (regulating the fire in the right way), you will after 150 days have our gold, since our gold is obtained from our Mercury. Hence if common gold have all its atoms thoroughly severed by means of our Mercury, and then reunited by the same agency, the whole mixture will, under the influence of fire, become our gold. But, if, without this preparatory purging, you were to use common gold with our Mercury for the purpose of preparing the Stone, you would be sadly mistaken; and this is the great Labyrinth in which most beginners go astray, because the Sages in writing of these ways as two ways, purposely obscure the fact that they are only one way (though of course the one is more direct than the other).

The gold of the Sages may then be prepared out of our common gold and our Mercury, from which there may afterwards be obtained by repeated liquefactions, Sulphur and Quicksilver which is incombustible, and tinges all things else. In this sense, our Stone is to be found in all metals and minerals, since our gold may be got from them all -- but most easily, of course, from gold and silver. Some have found it in tin, some in lead, but most of those who have pursued the more tedious method, have found it in gold. Of course, if our gold be prepared in the way I have described, out of common gold (in the course of 150 days), instead of being found ready made, it will not be so effectual, and the preparation of the Stone will take 1 1/2 years instead of 7 months. I know both ways, and prefer the shorter one; but I have described the longer one as well in order that I may not draw down upon myself the scathing wrath of the "Sages." The great difficulty which discourages all beginners is not of Nature's making: the Sages have created it by speaking of the longer operation when they mean the shorter one, and vice versa. If you choose common gold, you should espouse it to Venus (copper), lay them together on the bridal bed, and, on bringing a fierce fire to bear on them, you will see an emblem of the Great Work in the following succession of colours: black, the peacock's tail, white, orange, and red. Then repeat the same operation with Mercury (called Virgin's Milk), using the "fire of the Bath of Dew," and (towards the end) sand mixed with ashes. The substance will first turn a much deeper black, and then a completer white and red.

Hence if you know our Art, extract our gold from our Mercury (this is the shorter way), and thus perform the whole operation with one substance (viz., Mercury); if you can do this, you will have attained to the perfection of philosophy. In this method, there is no superfluous trouble: the whole work, from beginning to end, is based upon one broad foundation -- whereas if you take common gold, you must operate on two substances, and both will have to be purified by an elaborate process. If you diligently consider what I have said, you have in your hand a means of unravelling all the apparent contradictions of the Sages. They speak of three operations: the first, by which the inward natural heat expels all cold through the aid of external fire, the second, wherein gold is purged with our Mercury, through the mediation of Venus, and under the influence of a fierce fire; the third, in which common gold is mixed with our Mercury, and the ferment of Sulphur added. But if you will receive my advice, you will not be put out by any wilful obscurity on the part of the Sages. Our sulphur you should indeed strive to discover; and if God enlightens you, you will find it in our Mercury. Before the living God I swear that my teaching is true. If you operate on Mercury and pure common gold, you may find "our gold" in 7 to 9 months, and "our silver" in 5 months. But when you have these, you have not yet prepared our Stone: that glorious sight will not gladden your eyes until you have been at work for a year-and-a-half. By that time you may obtain the elixir by subjecting the substance to very gentle continuous heat.

Illen A. Cluf
11-11-2016, 07:40 PM
From Dwellings


For you, unknown brothers of the mysterious city of the sun, we have formed the resolution of teaching the diverse and successive modes of our purifications. You will be thankful to us, we are certain, to have pointed out to you these reefs of the hermetic sea, against which so many inexperienced Argonauts have been shipwrecked. If you want to possess the griffin --- which is our astral stone --- by tearing it from its arsenical ganque, take two parts of virgin earth, our scaly dragon, and one part of the igneous agent, which is that valiant knight armed with the lance and shield. [*152-1] (Ares), more vigorous than Aries, must be in a lesser quantity. Pulverize and add the fifteenth part of this pure, white, admirable salt, washed and crystallized several times, which you must necessarily know. Intimately mix it; and then, following the example of the painful Passion of Our Lord, crucify it with three iron nails, so that the body dies and can then be resurrected. This done, drive away the coarsest sediments from the corpse; crush and triturate the bones; mix the whole thing on a slow heat with a steel rod. Then throw into this mixture half of this second salt, extracted from the dew that fertilizes the earth in the month of May, and you will obtain a body clearer than the preceding one. Repeat the same technique three times; you will reach the matrix of our mercury, and you will have climbed the first rung of the ladder of the sages. When Jesus resurrected the third day after his death, a luminous angel clothed in white alone occupied the empty sepulcher...

From this quote alone, it does appear that only "slow heat" is used, because it doesn't elaborate (deliberately) on the other parts of the process, a typical tactic used by Fulanelli to make the student work for understanding. After numerous readings, I have learned that no one section can be read in isolation, but must be joined with all the other discussions throughout the book, like pieces of a puzzle, to come up with the whole.

There are other sections discussing the initial preparation which imply the use of a great heat - enough to melt metals. I could not quickly find all the references, but I'll give you one. On page 228, Fulcanelli talks about extracting the mercury from the surface of the "dissolved compound" by "creaming" it as it is being produced. This "dissolved compound" is a compound of the two initial matters - the mineral and the metal. There seems to be no possibility that this "compound" partly consisting of a metal, could be "dissolved" without the use of far more than a "slow heat".

Illen A. Cluf
11-11-2016, 07:59 PM
The sulfur is extracted from Gold since it contains a large quantity of perfect sulfur. We can't use common metal or any other metal due to imperfection in its sulfur. Yes Gold and Silver are used for transmutation too but that is at the end.

Also, there are two sulfurs if you remember.

According to Fulcanelli, the sulfur is definitely not extracted from vulgar gold. Fulcanelli specifically states (as JDP has referenced - and there are other references as well) that Gold is NOT used during the preparation, although he does admit that it is used later, as a ferment, in order to orient the Medicine to a metallic nature so that it can be used for transmutation purposes.

The "double" Nature of "sulfur" does not necessarily imply that one of the natures comes from gold. Rather, the double nature implies its use as a "fire". As a matter of fact, it is not even clear that Fulcanelli does signify a "double" nature to sulphur. It's certainly not clearly specified, although he repeatably does stress the double nature of mercury. And since mercury can also be considered as sulfur, both can be considered to be "double". But certainly not because of any connection to vulgar gold.

If you can find the reference that specifically indicates the double nature of sufur and how it connects to common gold, that would make this discussion much more tenable.

Illen A. Cluf
11-11-2016, 08:05 PM
But the Jupiter/Danae section contains that contradiction regarding the liquid vs solid form of the solvent:


"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 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 imbibition."

Here Fulcanelli is NOT using the solvent in its solid form but its liquid form, which is a contradiction since he himself rejects the liquid form of the solvent and says that "ALWAYS presents itself as a saline" substance. This is my beef with Fulcanelli, and the purpose of the quote in my previous post, not what matters some "chymists" thought should be used in composing the secret solvent of alchemy (which is NOT the Helmontian "alkahest", which is another huge confusion for many people.) I am not questioning that the liquid solvent can "coagulate" and assume a solid form (even as far back as Ibn Umail I have found evidence of this "coagulated" or "congealed" form of the solvent), but Fulcanelli's strange rejection of anyone who points out the liquid form of the solvent, which is contradicted by some of his very own descriptions elsewhere. If we were to take Fulcanelli's statements regarding the supposedly mandatory solid form of the secret solvent we would have to reject the bulk of alchemical literature, since most alchemists in fact describe the solvent as a liquid, not a solid (few exceptions from centuries before Fulcanelli are authors like the already mentioned Arabic alchemist Ibn Umail, or the German lawyer/alchemist Franz Clinge, who mention both forms of the solvent.)

Yes, I can see your concern. I always assumed by "water" he meant the "dry" type, or the "water that does not wet the hands". Perhaps the distinction lies in this bizarre mention (several times in his book) of fermenting it in an oak barrel. I thought that "oak barrel" was a deckname used to signify the vessel. But perhaps there is more to it. Maybe the crystalline solvent IS fermented in a real oak barrel, resulting in a liquefied form. This requires more thought.

JDP
11-11-2016, 10:07 PM
Yes, I can see your concern. I always assumed by "water" he meant the "dry" type, or the "water that does not wet the hands". Perhaps the distinction lies in this bizarre mention (several times in his book) of fermenting it in an oak barrel. I thought that "oak barrel" was a deckname used to signify the vessel. But perhaps there is more to it. Maybe the crystalline solvent IS fermented in a real oak barrel, resulting in a liquefied form. This requires more thought.

Yes, indeed, as you know, I suggested this possibility myself a few pages back. But even if the "fermentation in an oak barrel" (whether it is really literal or figurative) is the key, that still does not resolve the conflict with Fulcanelli's strange rejection of a liquid form of the secret solvent that he expresses elsewhere. I mean, he would be recognizing that by a special process the solvent can be made in liquid form. So why the rejection, then? This "Danae/Jupiter" section has always been puzzling to me because it goes against the grain of other statements that Fulcanelli makes elsewhere. Even the topic of the metallic origin of the "sulphur" is seemingly contradicted here as well (as you noted several pages back.)

Dwellings
11-12-2016, 06:53 AM
According to Fulcanelli, the sulfur is definitely not extracted from vulgar gold. Fulcanelli specifically states (as JDP has referenced - and there are other references as well) that Gold is NOT used during the preparation, although he does admit that it is used later, as a ferment, in order to orient the Medicine to a metallic nature so that it can be used for transmutation purposes.

The "double" Nature of "sulfur" does not necessarily imply that one of the natures comes from gold. Rather, the double nature implies its use as a "fire". As a matter of fact, it is not even clear that Fulcanelli does signify a "double" nature to sulphur. It's certainly not clearly specified, although he repeatably does stress the double nature of mercury. And since mercury can also be considered as sulfur, both can be considered to be "double". But certainly not because of any connection to vulgar gold.

If you can find the reference that specifically indicates the double nature of sufur and how it connects to common gold, that would make this discussion much more tenable.

Yet you admit that the path followed by Fulcanelli is same as Philalethes.

When you are skimming it with a feather, you are skimming the Sulfur extracted from Common Gold, read Cyliani. This is the Red Man that Sages speak of.

You can't use Iron, Lead etc since it does not contain a huge quantity of Pure Sulfur.

Dwellings
11-12-2016, 06:58 AM
Though there are many alchemists who feel that way, that is not what many other alchemists say, including Fulcanelli:


"This Mercury definitely is the matrix and the root of gold, and not the precious metal which is absolutely useless and without function in the way we are studying."

"A sumptuously dressed king, the gold is but an inert, albeit magnificent, body, a brilliant corpse compared to copper, iron, or lead. This usurper, that an ignorant and greedy crowd raises to the rank of god, cannot even claim to belong to the old and powerful family of metals; stripped of its coat, it then reveals the baseness of its origin and appears to us as a simple metallic resin, dense, fixed, and fusible, a triple quality which renders it obviously improper to the realization of our objective."

"This spiritual fire, given form and materialized in salt, is the hidden sulphur, since during its operation it is never made manifest or perceptible to our eyes. And yet this sulphur, as invisible as it may be, is not an ingenious abstraction or a doctrine stratagem. We know how to isolate it, how to extract it from the body that conceals it, by an occult means and in the appearance of a dry powder which, when it is in that state, becomes improper and without effect for the philosopher’s art. This pure fire, of the same essence as the specific sulphur of gold but less digested, is, on the other hand, more abundant than that of the precious metal. This is why it easily unites with the mercury of minerals and imperfect metals."

Notice, however, that he says "in the way we are studying", so it seems that Fulcanelli did admit that gold can be used in some other "way".

You can't use other metals IMO since their Sulfur lacks Purity. You already know this path takes long time. If you take a metal with impure Sulfur, you are only extending the time.

JDP
11-12-2016, 02:45 PM
You can't use other metals IMO since their Sulfur lacks Purity. You already know this path takes long time. If you take a metal with impure Sulfur, you are only extending the time.

Fulcanelli even admits that the "sulphur" of metals other than gold and silver can be used in "particulars", like the "exaltation of gold":

"Finally, the artist, by studying these different methods, will be able to discover better and even more efficient ones. For example, he only has to call upon sulphur directly extracted from lead to incerate it in a crude state and to project it little by little into molten gold which will keep its pure parts; unless you prefer to use iron, whose specific sulphur is, of all the metals, the one for which gold manifests the greatest affinity."

Now, if even in "chymical" (or "archemical", as Fulcanelli says) processes you can achieve transmutations by using the "sulphur" of base metals, then how much more so could you obtain by alchemical (properly) methods.

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 03:46 PM
Yes, indeed, as you know, I suggested this possibility myself a few pages back. But even if the "fermentation in an oak barrel" (whether it is really literal or figurative) is the key, that still does not resolve the conflict with Fulcanelli's strange rejection of a liquid form of the secret solvent that he expresses elsewhere. I mean, he would be recognizing that by a special process the solvent can be made in liquid form. So why the rejection, then? This "Danae/Jupiter" section has always been puzzling to me because it goes against the grain of other statements that Fulcanelli makes elsewhere. Even the topic of the metallic origin of the "sulphur" is seemingly contradicted here as well (as you noted several pages back.)

Hi JDP,
Yes, that one section of his book has been an enigma for quite some time. It seems totally out of place with everything else he says in his book. But, as mentioned, I starting thinking a lot about it in the last few days. I got nowhere. But the mind works in very strange ways. I put it out of my mind yesterday, but when I woke up this morning I had the answer. The section resolved itself and it is totally consistent with everything else he says in his book. There's no contradiction. The problem was that I had foregone conclusions about what he was saying in that section, but the mind during sleep seems to address issues freshly, without any prejudice. I wish I could enter that state during waking hours :-)

Fulcanelli was brilliant, and must have had a very high IQ. The way he wrote his book with all the pieces of the puzzle and made the reader work for the understanding is truly brilliant. I now totally believe that there are no contradictions in his book, and that if you do find one, it only means that your understanding has not yet arrived to the state that he is hoping the reader will arrive at. The entire process is written in his book, far more openly than any author ever before him. Anybody who dismisses him because his writings don't make sense and seems contradictory just hasn't read him often or deeply enough or hasn't thought carefully enough about what he says without foregone conclusions. For various reasons, I really don't think that Fulcanelli was Champagne and/or Canseliet as so many believe. I think I know without much doubt who he might have been, but that is not at all important. He wanted to stay anonymous, so I'll give him that wish.

There are a few more issues that I need to resolve, but now that I know there are no contradictions, I think I'll solve the rest in the weeks ahead. Then I'll be able to test out his process.

I think that just about anybody could figure out his puzzle if they dedicate enough time to read his books numerous times and spend a lot of thought on what he says. I'm not a very bright person, so if I can figure it out, anybody can. It just takes time and dedication.

I'm quite excited about the solution I woke up with this morning! It makes me realize that Fulcanelli's books are a huge gift to the alchemical community. Whether or not he made the Stone (I really think he did), he has at least unraveled the words of his predecessors and has been almost completely open about the entire process, including the preparation which almost no author talks about. I highly encourage everyone to purchase his books (they're also online but it's better to have a book version that you can take along with you when travelling, etc.).

But as I have said, I have not yet put together all of his pieces, so there are still some gaping holes in the puzzle.

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 04:04 PM
Yet you admit that the path followed by Fulcanelli is same as Philalethes.

When you are skimming it with a feather, you are skimming the Sulfur extracted from Common Gold, read Cyliani. This is the Red Man that Sages speak of.

You can't use Iron, Lead etc since it does not contain a huge quantity of Pure Sulfur.

Hi Dwellings, first of all, it is not the sulphur that is skimmed off, but the mercury. The sulphur drops to the bottom of the mixture as a solid elliptical-shaped object, resembling a fish, dark on one side, light on the other.

Regarding the metals, Fulcanelli disagrees. On page 102 of Dwellings, he states:


"...unless you prefer to use iron, whose specific sulphur is, of all the metals, the one for which gold manifests the greatest affinity".

You still haven't answered two of my questions:

1."If you can find the reference that specifically indicates the double nature of sufur and how it connects to common gold, that would make this discussion much more tenable".
2. How do you explain the molten state of the mixture, which includes a metal, if you only use a moderate heat?

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 06:00 PM
You can't use other metals IMO since their Sulfur lacks Purity. You already know this path takes long time. If you take a metal with impure Sulfur, you are only extending the time.

I don't deny that some past alchemists tried to use the sulphur of vulgar gold in trying to make the stone. Thus it is easy to refer to other authors who used this approach. However, according to Fulcanelli, these alchemists were wrong. Just because they were well-known authors does not mean that they may have been wrong in their approach (this applies to Fulcanelli as well). But, here we are talking about Fulcanelli's approach. According to him, attempting to use the sulphur of vulgar gold leads nowhere:


Other philosophers maintain nevertheless that gold, although sterile in [146] its solid form, may recover its lost vitality and resume its evolution if we know how to "put it back into its first state". But this is an ambiguous teaching which we must guard ourselves from understanding in its common obvious meaning. Let us stop for a moment on this litigious point and not lose sight of the possibility of nature: it is the only means we have to recognize our way in tortuous labyrinth. Most hermeticists believe that, by the term reincrudation, one should understand that which brings back the metal to its primitive state; they take as a basis the meaning of the word itself, which expresses the action of rendering crude or retrograding. This conception is false. It is impossible for nature, and more so for the art, to destroy the effect of the work of centuries. What has been acquired remains acquired. And this is the reason why the old masters assert that it is easier to make gold than to destroy it. No one will ever flatter himself to give back to roasted meat and cooked vegetables the appearance and qualities they possessed before they underwent the action of fire. Here again the analogy and the possibility of nature are the best and surest guides. There is no example of regression anywhere in the world.

Other seekers believe that it is enough to bathe the metal in the primitive and mercurial substance which, through slow maturation and progressive coagulation, has given birth to it. This reasoning is more specious than true. Even supposing that they knew this first matter and where to get it --- that which the greatest masters did not know --- they could only obtain, in the final analysis, an increase of the gold they used and not a new body with a power higher to that of the precious metal. The operation, thus understood, boils down to the mixture of one and the same body taken in two different stages of its evolution, one liquid, the other solid. With some thought it is easy to understand that such an enterprise cannot lead us to our aim. Besides, it is in formal opposition to the philosophical axiom we have often stated: bodies have no action on bodies; only spirits are active and acting.

True Initiate
11-12-2016, 06:21 PM
Can i ask you something Illen? After all this years of research are you confident that you will suceed in making the Stone following Fulcanelli's instructions?

Dwellings
11-12-2016, 06:21 PM
@Illen,

I do not have time to respond as of now due to exams. As soon as I am over with it ie by 10th Dec, I will be posting detailed responses for the same.

Sorry for the delay.

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 06:38 PM
Can i ask you something Illen? After all this years of research are you confident that you will succeed in making the Stone following Fulcanelli's instructions?

Hi TI, no, my only purpose at this time is to try to understand the philosophy and process behind what Fulcanelli says. Once I do that, I will attempt some experiments in order to verify his approach and to refine my understanding of his approach. If it doesn't work, then either he is incorrect, or I have not understood him fully or correctly. That to me, is the only way to practice alchemy - gain understanding, then experiment, gain new understanding, experiment again, repeatedly.

If there are glaring errors in Fulcanelli's approach or philosophy, I will use my new knowledge to try to deeply understand yet another of the great alchemists, perhaps Paracelsus or Geber.

I don't believe in superficially trying to understand any of the Sages. It has to be as deep an undertaking as possible. I say this because it is absolutely clear that the Sages wrote in such a way that deeper and deeper levels of understanding are imbedded in their writings. They set many traps to those who take their writings, words and recipes literally or even superficially. They MEANT each reader to delve deeply, and only thereby would they be rewarded. They always stressed to read, read and read again, and I see perfectly what they meant. Those who read the texts literally, and think, for example, because Valentine and others mentioned antimony directly, are falling for the trap. I'm convinced that "antimony" is a deckname for the real mercurial mineral.

Reading Fulcanelli, I "feel" that how he interprets some of the old masters, especially the decknamen that they used, is basically correct and consistent.

A lot of the understanding seems to involve intuition, or at least some mental process that occurs subconsciously, as during sleep. But I don't think that can happen at all without first learning as much as possible, evaluating, thinking deeply about it, etc. It doesn't happen overnight (except for the resultant 'revelations'). It's like feeding your brain with as much information as necessary and then letting it do its own thing subconsciously. I guess that's how revelations occur: they aren't really 'mystical' revelations but rather some incredibly subtle logic algorithm that works beyond our conscious ability, but only when it has enough data.

Even knowing Fulcanelli's process doesn't guarantee the Stone. There are numerous subtleties, tricks and influences that must be met before that can ever happen. So my main goal at this time is attempting to learn the 'mind' of the Sages, trying to understand their philosophy of alchemy and nature. That is only the first tiny baby step towards trying to prepare the Stone itself.

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 07:05 PM
@Illen,

I do not have time to respond as of now due to exams. As soon as I am over with it ie by 10th Dec, I will be posting detailed responses for the same.

Sorry for the delay.

I understand. Thank you for your offer of detailed responses. I look forward to those responses at that time (or a little later as I'll be on vacation for a month starting in about 1 or 2 weeks). Good luck on your exams!

Andro
11-12-2016, 07:28 PM
Even supposing that they knew this first matter and where to get it --- that which the greatest masters did not knowIs Fulcanelli proclaiming himself to be above the 'great masters'? Are we to assume that he, of all alchemical writers, is somehow 'infallible'?


the philosophical axiom we have often stated: bodies have no action on bodies; only spirits are active and actingWith this concluding statement, isn't he being particularly 'sneaky' by contradicting everything he said before about vulgar gold? In the sense of (indirectly) implying that a SPIRIT (but not a 'body') can and will 'reincrudate' even vulgar metallic gold?

The ICH/Cyliani/Recreations lineage (which I think Fulcanelli does acknowledge at least partially) mainly describes the 'less noble' path with vulgar gold from the second rotation and on, with the exception of ICH, who also describes the (what he calls) 'dry way' with only the original 'earth' from which the 'sulfur' is also rendered, thus excluding vulgar gold... On the other hand, he also acknowledges St. Didier, who in his writings seems to reject vulgar gold altogether...

In any case, I think it would be a 'mistake' to regard Fulcanelli (and his ego) as infallible (I'm not implying that anyone does, just saying...). One book opens another, etc...

Schmuldvich
11-12-2016, 08:00 PM
In any case, I think it would be a 'mistake' to regard Fulcanelli (and his ego) as infallible (I'm not implying that anyone does, just saying...). One book opens another, etc...

I have to echo Andro. If you are going to put all your eggs in one basket, Illen, Fulcanelli is not the person I would invest in.

Like you stated earlier, "They MEANT each reader to delve deeply, and only thereby would they be rewarded". Plenty of other Authorities before him wrote much plainer, clearer, simpler, and short expositions of our Art. Geber is not someone I would recommend scrutinizing either, being that his works are so old, and the fact that many pseudo-Gebers exist. Paracelsus might be worth studying at a later time as I recommend studying Paracelsus' treatises after you have a solid foundation to stand upon. Someone like George Ripley might be a Master whose work would be worth much scrutiny imo. Philalethes too. Peter Bonus and Sendivogius as well. Just the works of these 4 Authors alone give a comprehensive overview of our Magnum Opus, with quite a lot of specific detail woven throughout their works.



A lot of the understanding seems to involve intuition, or at least some mental process that occurs subconsciously, as during sleep. But I don't think that can happen at all without first learning as much as possible, evaluating, thinking deeply about it, etc. It doesn't happen overnight (except for the resultant 'revelations'). It's like feeding your brain with as much information as necessary and then letting it do its own thing subconsciously. I guess that's how revelations occur: they aren't really 'mystical' revelations but rather some incredibly subtle logic algorithm that works beyond our conscious ability, but only when it has enough data.

^ My thoughts exactly! I put a lot of effort into "feeding" my subconscious a lot of data so it can later subconsciously unravel the mysteries I seek, as well as be familiar with, even on a subconscious level, particular terms, phrases, or iconography.

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 08:12 PM
Is Fulcanelli proclaiming himself to be above the 'great masters'? Are we to assume that he, of all alchemical writers, is somehow 'infallible'?

No, I think you have not understood his statement correctly. He is saying that NOBODY - including himself - knows what this 'first matter' really is, and how to get it. It is Nature that does it by herself.


With this concluding statement, isn't he being particularly 'sneaky' by contradicting everything he said before about vulgar gold? In the sense of (indirectly) implying that a SPIRIT (but not a 'body') can and will 'reincrudate' even vulgar metallic gold?

Yes, he is being as sneaky as possible all through his book, but on purpose. No, there's no contradiction. Only spirits can animate matter. Look at our own selves. Our bodies would be immobile without the spirit that inhabits it.


In any case, I think it would be a 'mistake' to regard Fulcanelli (and his ego) as infallible (I'm not implying that anyone does, just saying...). One book opens another, etc...

I agree. He's definitely not infallible, and in fact I don't think there has ever been a person in history who has not been infallible. Even Jesus (supposing he actually existed as opposed to be an allegory) lost his temper in the temple with the money changers. For example, I totally agree with his assumption that the Holyrood Palace was meant to symbolize alchemy. Irregardless, it served his purpose to introduce alchemical concepts. What I was trying to say, that his logic throughout is consistent without major contradictions - except for the few I'm still struggling with. But many that I initially thought were huge contradictions ended up not being so.

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 08:26 PM
I have to echo Andro. If you are going to put all your eggs in one basket, Illen, Fulcanelli is not the person I would invest in.

See my response to Andro. Also, I'm not putting all my eggs into Fulcanelli. I'm merely giving him my full attention at the moment, as I have done with other authors and will continue to do.


Like you stated earlier, "They MEANT each reader to delve deeply, and only thereby would they be rewarded". Plenty of other Authorities before him wrote much plainer, clearer, simpler, and short expositions of our Art.

Can you provide some examples? I have read hundreds of books and treatises and have never found any work as generous as Fulcanelli's. None that I have read so far comes even close. There is one or two that goes further, but only in some of the details. none as comprehensively as Fulcanelli.


Geber is not someone I would recommend scrutinizing either, being that his works are so old, and the fact that many pseudo-Gebers exist.

The older the text, the more valuable and untaited they are. I agree about the many pseudo texts. But, according to some scholars, there are some that are likely more genuine than others (e.g. Summa Perfefectionis).

Paracelsus might be worth studying at a later time as I recommend studying Paracelsus' treatises after you have a solid foundation to stand upon. Someone like George Ripley might be a Master whose work would be worth much scrutiny imo. Philalethes too. Peter Bonus and Sendivogius as well. Just the works of these 4 Authors alone give a comprehensive overview of our Magnum Opus, with quite a lot of specific detail woven throughout their works.

I have studied all these texts closely in the past, and in fact have been preparing a transcript of the original (unabridged) Bonus treatise which runs on and on for hundreds of pages (very boring and repetitious - this guy loved to extend his sentences and thoughts as long as possible - no wonder there was an abridgment, the treatise floating about on the web! What I meant was 'coming back' to some of these authors and re-reading them with a new perspective. I'm sure that now I might have a completely new appreciation for what they actually wrote.


My thoughts exactly! I put a lot of effort into "feeding" my subconscious a lot of data so it can later subconsciously unravel the mysteries I seek, as well as be familiar with, even on a subconscious level, particular terms, phrases, or iconography.

I'm glad somebody understands! To me, that's one of the true goals of studying alchemy. It teaches us so much about ourselves (and others)!

Schmuldvich
11-12-2016, 08:47 PM
Can you provide some examples?

Ripley, Nowell, Aurach, Ficinus, and Beuther are all from the 1500's or prior and give plain explications of our Art.

Sendivogius, Philalethes, Greverus, Figulus, and St. Dunstan from the 1600's all deliver relatively straightforward explanations too..

Grassot, Yworth, and Fleischer from the 1700's wrote quite understandably as well...



Have you read all the texts in R.A.M.S. yet?




I have studied all these texts closely in the past, and in fact have been preparing a transcript of the original (unabridged) Bonus treatise which runs on and on for hundreds of pages (very boring and repetitious - this guy loved to extend his sentences and thoughts as long as possible - no wonder there was an abridgment, the treatise floating about on the web!

Looking forward to seeing this completed!

Illen A. Cluf
11-12-2016, 09:04 PM
Ripley, Nowell, Aurach, Ficinus, and Beuther are all from the 1500's or prior and give plain explications of our Art.

Sendivogius, Philalethes, Greverus, Figulus, and St. Dunstan from the 1600's all deliver relatively straightforward explanations too..

Grassot, Yworth, and Fleischer from the 1700's wrote quite understandably as well...

Thank you - there are a few authors in that list that I wasn't aware of. I look forward to exploring them.



Have you read all the texts in R.A.M.S. yet?

I wish - it might take a lifetime to read them all :-) Unfortunately, many of them are biased in favor of a Rosicrucian perspective. Especially Bacstrom's collection.


Looking forward to seeing this completed!

I have so many such projects on the go. I'm currently focusing on the completion of Recreations Hermetiques along with two partners. I had hoped it would be published by this Fall, but a well known alchemist fluent in both English French as well as alchemy is currently reviewing it. This is another very open book that Fulcanelli used in decoding the alchemical secrets. A lot of the interpretations provided in this book is reflected in Fulcanelli's writing.

z0 K
11-12-2016, 11:12 PM
Ripley, Nowell, Aurach, Ficinus, and Beuther are all from the 1500's or prior and give plain explications of our Art.

Sendivogius, Philalethes, Greverus, Figulus, and St. Dunstan from the 1600's all deliver relatively straightforward explanations too..

Grassot, Yworth, and Fleischer from the 1700's wrote quite understandably as well...



I suggest reading Ripley’s, Key to the Golden Gate and St. Dunstan: Philosophia Maturata, to apprehend the nature of the starting matter. YWorth is good but Bolnest is better to achieve the means for Weidenfeld’s philosophical menstrums. The “work on metals” is to no avail unless you can make a simple philosophical mensturm.

Knowing the means to the above is mental gymnastics until you can make a Vegetable Stone in the lab. Once you can do that you will realize the difference between the White and the Red. Hollandus’ Vegetable Stone and Ripley’s and St. Dunstan’s White are the same Way of the Poor.

All is done with the one thing only which was once living, if you can catch the Spirit in that Dragon fire. The artful manipulation of heat allows the Spirit to fashion a new body from the death’s head in the Dragon’s fire. All of this is done with the elements obtained from the Dragon’s fire.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KQwQyY8y8o&feature=youtu.be

True Initiate
11-12-2016, 11:36 PM
The artful manipulation of heat allows the Spirit to fashion a new body from the death’s head in the Dragon’s fire. All of this is done with the elements obtained from the Dragon’s fire.


By heat do you mean the common fire?

To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this article from Canseliet:

In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

The full article:
https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/alchemy-science-history/pierre-curie-point-and-the-alchemical-last-cooking/

zoas23
11-13-2016, 12:13 PM
By heat do you mean the common fire?

To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this aricle from Canseliet:

In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

The full article:
https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/alchemy-science-history/pierre-curie-point-and-the-alchemical-last-cooking/

My keyboard is broken and it is a nightmare to write with it, so I will use a "telegram style".
The quote by Canseliet is tricky.
I don´t know anyone who says that the "secret fire" is the "vulgar fire" (indeed, it would be stupid to speak about a "secret fire" if we were talking about "vulgar fire").

And yet, having discussed this issue in private with several persons, I´ve seen that this is tricky, because there are different ways to obtain the secret fire and SOME of them involve using "vulgar fire" (and others don´t). So it is somehow a mistake to completely EXCLUDE the vulgar fire from the realm of alchemy... yeah, it is for sure NOT the "secret fire", but such thing doesn´t mean that using vulgar fire in a part of the process makes the whole thing "non alchemical" or a "mistake".

-and Canseliet does not suggest that Fulcanelli did NOT use vulgar fire at all in ANY part of is process... he only says that it was not his "secret fire" (which is quite obvious).

Andro
11-13-2016, 01:58 PM
And yet, having discussed this issue in private with several persons, I´ve seen that this is tricky, because there are different ways to obtain the secret fire and SOME of them involve using "vulgar fire" (and others don´t). So it is somehow a mistake to completely EXCLUDE the vulgar fire from the realm of alchemy... yeah, it is for sure NOT the "secret fire", but such thing doesn´t mean that using vulgar fire in a part of the process makes the whole thing "non alchemical" or a "mistake".

-and Canseliet does not suggest that Fulcanelli did NOT use vulgar fire at all in ANY part of is process... he only says that it was not his "secret fire" (which is quite obvious).

Perhaps thist becomes a non-issue IF we take ICH literally when he writes that 'the heat of common fire' is a 'means (Mittel) of corporifying the spirit', but after that he rejects its use in almost all succeeding operations.

BTW, have we gone completely off- topic or is the discussion still somehow revolving around the Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)?

JDP
11-13-2016, 02:37 PM
By heat do you mean the common fire?

To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this aricle from Canseliet:

In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

The full article:
https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/alchemy-science-history/pierre-curie-point-and-the-alchemical-last-cooking/

I wouldn't pay too much attention to that quote. Canseliet himself used fire all throughout his (unsuccessful) attempts at making the Stone (and he attempted the "dry" way, BTW; a remark just to keep this post "on topic".) He also used it in the "particulars" he tested (at least one of which he says was successful in yielding some gold.) Fire is indispensable to alchemy, "chymistry" and ordinary chemistry alike. Without it they would not exist.

Andro
11-13-2016, 02:49 PM
he attempted the "dry" way, BTW; a remark just to keep this post "on topic".

To be more precise, I should address this question more to Illen and his Fulcanelli research: Is this about a longer 'dry way' (metal + mineral), or about the so-called 'Ars Brevis' (allegedly of 8 days or so)?

So my question is really more out of curiosity, because I have never really personally researched this approach...

Illen A. Cluf
11-13-2016, 03:10 PM
To be more precise, I should address this question more to Illen and his Fulcanelli research: Is this about a longer 'dry way' (metal + mineral), or about the so-called 'Ars Brevis' (allegedly of 8 days or so)?

So my question is really more out of curiosity, because I have never really personally researched this approach...

My understanding is that the "longer" way is the wet way, while the "shorter" way, is called "Ars Brevis". I'm not aware of a longer dry way, although Dwellings mentioned it without any explanation.

According to Fulcanelli, both the longer wet way and the shorter dry way start in the very same way, which is called the "Preparation". Only after the initial preparation do the two ways begin.

Also, the short way involves high temperatures utilizating a crucible, while the longer way requires more moderate temperatures, and utilizing a glass container.

The whole issue of heat/fire is a bit of an enigma because it involves the use of a "secret fire" (not a true fire but possibly some kind of potent chemical/electrical/piezoelectric reaction). This secret fire absolutely requires an "external fire" as a sort of catalyst to get it to react.

So the whole question of using a strong fire in the short dry way is an issue. it appears that a moderate fire is used to stimulate the secret fire, but that a strong fire is also required. Thus the stronger fire must be applied at a different stage of the process.

I think this brings the two conversations together.

Andro
11-13-2016, 03:19 PM
Thanks Illen! That helps clarify your position.


My understanding is that the "longer" way is the wet way, while the "shorter" way, is called "Ars Brevis". I'm not aware of a longer dry way, although Dwellings mentioned it without any explanation.

According to Fulcanelli, both the longer wet way and the shorter dry way start in the very same way, which is called the "Preparation". Only after the initial preparation do the two ways begin.

Also, the short way involves high temperatures utilizating a crucible, while the longer way requires more moderate temperatures, and utilizing a glass container.

The whole issue of heat/fire is a bit of an enigma because it involves the use of a "secret fire" (not a true fire but possibly some kind of potent chemical/electrical/piezoelectric reaction). This secret fire absolutely requires an "external fire" as a sort of catalyst to get it to react.

So the whole question of using a strong fire in the short dry way is an issue. It appears that a moderate fire is used to stimulate the secret fire, but that a strong fire is also required. Thus the stronger fire must be applied at a different stage of the process.

I think this brings the two conversations together.

z0 K
11-13-2016, 03:59 PM
By heat do you mean the common fire?

To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this aricle from Canseliet:

In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

The full article:
https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/alchemy-science-history/pierre-curie-point-and-the-alchemical-last-cooking/

If by “common fire” you mean “heat” that ordinary folks can produce and manipulate, then yes.

Without common heat you would not be alive to pose the statement that it has nothing to do with alchemy:-) Mental gymnastics will move all the heat to your head and your body will get cold. So then you have to do real physical gymnastics to get the heat flowing back into your limbs.

As great as you might think the Secret Fire is your brain will use it up and you will grow cold. That is what happens when one feels the loss of heat. Remove all the heat and the Secret Fire goes down the wormhole.

Interesting, I laid out a sequence of suggested reading so than those still desiring to ascertain the material with which to work in the lab might be able to break out of the BS and ignoramus assertions of modern pop alchemy enthusiasts. I don’t mean anyone in particular, just the published modern hypothesis masquerading as alchemical theory since the time after Cyliani.

To demonstrate that what I said was not simply my own modern BS as an alchemical ignoramus I posted a link to a video showing the manifestation of the necessary elements to make the White Stone. That’s the one that is good for you. Also those elements are necessary to make the secret solvent, mercury, sulfur, Azoth, etc., for the Red Stone as well. That is the one where Au is added, and JDP is right that it is not made from only one thing:-)

I had expected some form of criticism about the video but no? Not even any questions.

The article you linked to misses the point if it is intended to address the Secret Fire. Canseliet was the apprentice of a fictions alchemist: Fulcanelli. Focusing on the tragic discovery of nuclear fission that burned the Curies to death slowly is to focus on the decaying physical body of unstable periodic elements. Nuclear decomposition could be seen as an expression of the Secret Fire, so is common heat.

The alchemical element Fire has Nature beyond what is seen and felt with the senses. All the Elements are manifestations of Spiritus Mundi, the original Secret Fire of the universe. If the alchemy you are after is the transmutation of periodic table elements then it would be better to study Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. The idea is to subtly coax low energy neutrons away from the nucleus by the artful manipulation of heat.

Hypothetically the LENR neutrons then rapidly decompose into protons and electrons in a properly prepared menstrum that is targeted to assemble desired periodic table elements. It is the Secret Fire of the Spiritus Mundi that ordains the hierarchy of energy matrices. The Secret Fire is in the Elements; the Secret Fire is in your head:-)

As for the Short Dry Way: it is in your head! The Magnum Opus....

Illen A. Cluf
11-13-2016, 04:39 PM
To demonstrate that what I said was not simply my own modern BS as an alchemical ignoramus I posted a link to a video showing the manifestation of the necessary elements to make the White Stone. That’s the one that is good for you. Also those elements are necessary to make the secret solvent, mercury, sulfur, Azoth, etc., for the Red Stone as well. That is the one where Au is added, and JDP is right that it is not made from only one thing:-)

I had expected some form of criticism about the video but no? Not even any questions.

But what's there actually to criticize or discuss? It's a nice little video with interesting music showing a sulphuric type of fume condensing, and I do appreciate seeing it. But there's no other real explanation, source, path or otherwise.

And I'm sure that answers to any questions will be met with total obscurity, otherwise wouldn't there have been more information in the video to begin with?

But if I'm wrong (I hope I am), and clear answers are forthcoming, here is a simple but crucial question, the answer to which should, in no way, give away any secrets:

What is/are the specific literary source(s) of this experiment? (Name of treatise(s), document(s), author(s), etc.)

Thank you.

z0 K
11-13-2016, 06:37 PM
But what's there actually to criticize or discuss? It's a nice little video with interesting music showing a sulphuric type of fume condensing, and I do appreciate seeing it. But there's no other real explanation, source, path or otherwise.

And I'm sure that answers to any questions will be met with total obscurity, otherwise wouldn't there have been more information in the video to begin with?

But if I'm wrong (I hope I am), and clear answers are forthcoming, here is a simple but crucial question, the answer to which should, in no way, give away any secrets:

What is/are the specific literary source(s) of this experiment? (Name of treatise(s), document(s), author(s), etc.)

Thank you.

You're welcome:-)

Is that all you see in the video, a suphuric type of fume condensing. Did you not see the salt sublimated on the receiver walls? Did you not see the particle stream exiting the furnace like water falling in a brook? There are three philosophical elements in one thing: the particle stream of dry water. In the furnace is the black earth saturated with philosophical mercury, sulfur and armoniac, that the Dragon Fire (Ripley) released from the previously roasted matter by dry distillation. The burnt wine was taken at a lower temp: Hollandus.

The video was made to demonstrate the validity of concurrent information found in treatise by all the sages from Lull to Cyliani. Each had their own creative writing style of prose and metaphores. The video is not words strung together to fashion an imaginary concept. It is the execution of the premise elucidated in the treatises. So in the video you see the matters obtained in the fight with Cyliani’s dragon if you like. Cyliani’s dragon is Ripley’s dragon as well.

Those that work in the lab laboring to successfully repeat experiments following Lull, Ripley, Hollandus, Cyliani and others, might see that the video is worth more than 10,000 words of prose explaining the philosophy written down in a book.

Hollandus is the most generous in giving details but not the progression from the starting matter to the mineral stone. Ripley details the work for the red stone in many treatises but never details how to make the preceding white stone which is made from a simple vegetable philosophical menstrum.

You have said that you have not been able to figure out the secret solvent of Fulcanelli by reading his books several times. The collective mind behind the character of Fulcanelli demonstrated in his books indicates to me the understanding of the processes possessed by the early 20th Century alchemists.

My reading of his books leads me to believe they knew of one somewhat ubiquitous mineral matter chaotic: types of coal and peat. It seems that they were not able to make the white stone from their material. I don’t work with it myself but peat is an interesting material to experiment with. Most coals are rather dry in Spirit.

So for the sake of discussion I will say the specific literary source for the Alchemystic Fire experiment was Hollandus’ vegetable stone from dry plants. However what you see in the video matches the description of events depicted in Ripley’s Scroll. The events are described better by Cyliani and the anonymous author of Hydropyrographum Hermeticum:

“The Elements shall melt with fervent heat; the Earth also, and the Works that are therein, shall be burnt up, and that there will be a new World, very glorious, excellent and good…There shall happen a destruction of the Elementary World by Fire. Observe in this Art, that the Fire must perform the like in its type in Nature. Therefore, my Son set thy thoughts upon this Water, wherewith the Body of Sol (which, as Rogerius witnesseth, is a perfect created World) is burnt up, and destroyed and dissolved, that it is not a common Fire, in regard the common is not able to burn or destroy the Gold: but it is a supernatural incombustible Fire, the strongest of all Fires, yea a Hellish Fire, which only hath the power to burn the Gold, and to set the same free from its stiff hard bonds.” [Hydropyrographum Hermeticum, page 15]

Here is a description of the process detailed in a 19th Century chemistry book:

“Perfectly dry wood of sycamore, oak, birch, box or poplar, heated in a sealed glass tube to 360C, melts to a black liquid which solidifies with tumefaction. Wood heated in the same manner with half its weight of water, is converted into a substance resembling bituminous coal, and burning with a smoky flame. Wood yields, when heated in a sealed glass tube, gases which escape with violence when the tube is opened, a very faintly coloured, clear or milky liquid, and a solid residue, which resembles red coal if it has been charred between 160C and 200C, black coal between 220C and 280C, and caking coal if charred at still higher temperatures. At 280C it still retains the structure of wood; between 300C and 320C it is tumefied, at 340C fused into a dense mass. Vegetable substances strongly pressed between moist clay, so that the vapours can escape but slowly, and heated to between 200C and 300C, yield a residue resembling coal. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

More descriptions with metaphores, and chymical experiments:

“Know that all Philosophers affirm, that the Matter is but one thing, and a vile thing which costeth nothing, cast in High-ways and trodden upon, which is the hope of Metals, or a thing containing all things needful for the Work within it self; and albeit curious Wits hold all these to be Aenigma's, yet they are true according to the letter. Briefly, to manifest the truth, you shall know that in all Mines whatsoever there doth lye certain Beds, of a lutinous or clayish substance, under the Earth, which in some places is harder than in others, the deeper the Mine is, the more unctuous is the Clay; and this Clay is the Mother of the Metals, the feeder of the Mines, for in it lies hid the Spirits, or the three Principles of Metals, (viz) Salt the Body, Sulphur the Soul, and Mercury the Spirit, not common nor running, but a white Vapour which resolves it self into a white Water; I say invisibly in this confused lump of Clay, lies hid the aforesaid Principles.” [Aurifontina Chymica, Privy Seal of Secrets]

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

Illen A. Cluf
11-13-2016, 11:22 PM
You're welcome:-)

Is that all you see in the video, a suphuric type of fume condensing. Did you not see the salt sublimated on the receiver walls? Did you not see the particle stream exiting the furnace like water falling in a brook? There are three philosophical elements in one thing: the particle stream of dry water. In the furnace is the black earth saturated with philosophical mercury, sulfur and armoniac, that the Dragon Fire (Ripley) released from the previously roasted matter by dry distillation. The burnt wine was taken at a lower temp: Hollandus.

The video was made to demonstrate the validity of concurrent information found in treatise by all the sages from Lull to Cyliani. Each had their own creative writing style of prose and metaphores. The video is not words strung together to fashion an imaginary concept. It is the execution of the premise elucidated in the treatises. So in the video you see the matters obtained in the fight with Cyliani’s dragon if you like. Cyliani’s dragon is Ripley’s dragon as well.

Those that work in the lab laboring to successfully repeat experiments following Lull, Ripley, Hollandus, Cyliani and others, might see that the video is worth more than 10,000 words of prose explaining the philosophy written down in a book.

Hollandus is the most generous in giving details but not the progression from the starting matter to the mineral stone. Ripley details the work for the red stone in many treatises but never details how to make the preceding white stone which is made from a simple vegetable philosophical menstrum.

You have said that you have not been able to figure out the secret solvent of Fulcanelli by reading his books several times. The collective mind behind the character of Fulcanelli demonstrated in his books indicates to me the understanding of the processes possessed by the early 20th Century alchemists.

My reading of his books leads me to believe they knew of one somewhat ubiquitous mineral matter chaotic: types of coal and peat. It seems that they were not able to make the white stone from their material. I don’t work with it myself but peat is an interesting material to experiment with. Most coals are rather dry in Spirit.

So for the sake of discussion I will say the specific literary source for the Alchemystic Fire experiment was Hollandus’ vegetable stone from dry plants. However what you see in the video matches the description of events depicted in Ripley’s Scroll. The events are described better by Cyliani and the anonymous author of Hydropyrographum Hermeticum:

“The Elements shall melt with fervent heat; the Earth also, and the Works that are therein, shall be burnt up, and that there will be a new World, very glorious, excellent and good…There shall happen a destruction of the Elementary World by Fire. Observe in this Art, that the Fire must perform the like in its type in Nature. Therefore, my Son set thy thoughts upon this Water, wherewith the Body of Sol (which, as Rogerius witnesseth, is a perfect created World) is burnt up, and destroyed and dissolved, that it is not a common Fire, in regard the common is not able to burn or destroy the Gold: but it is a supernatural incombustible Fire, the strongest of all Fires, yea a Hellish Fire, which only hath the power to burn the Gold, and to set the same free from its stiff hard bonds.” [Hydropyrographum Hermeticum, page 15]

Here is a description of the process detailed in a 19th Century chemistry book:

“Perfectly dry wood of sycamore, oak, birch, box or poplar, heated in a sealed glass tube to 360C, melts to a black liquid which solidifies with tumefaction. Wood heated in the same manner with half its weight of water, is converted into a substance resembling bituminous coal, and burning with a smoky flame. Wood yields, when heated in a sealed glass tube, gases which escape with violence when the tube is opened, a very faintly coloured, clear or milky liquid, and a solid residue, which resembles red coal if it has been charred between 160C and 200C, black coal between 220C and 280C, and caking coal if charred at still higher temperatures. At 280C it still retains the structure of wood; between 300C and 320C it is tumefied, at 340C fused into a dense mass. Vegetable substances strongly pressed between moist clay, so that the vapours can escape but slowly, and heated to between 200C and 300C, yield a residue resembling coal. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

More descriptions with metaphores, and chymical experiments:

“Know that all Philosophers affirm, that the Matter is but one thing, and a vile thing which costeth nothing, cast in High-ways and trodden upon, which is the hope of Metals, or a thing containing all things needful for the Work within it self; and albeit curious Wits hold all these to be Aenigma's, yet they are true according to the letter. Briefly, to manifest the truth, you shall know that in all Mines whatsoever there doth lye certain Beds, of a lutinous or clayish substance, under the Earth, which in some places is harder than in others, the deeper the Mine is, the more unctuous is the Clay; and this Clay is the Mother of the Metals, the feeder of the Mines, for in it lies hid the Spirits, or the three Principles of Metals, (viz) Salt the Body, Sulphur the Soul, and Mercury the Spirit, not common nor running, but a white Vapour which resolves it self into a white Water; I say invisibly in this confused lump of Clay, lies hid the aforesaid Principles.” [Aurifontina Chymica, Privy Seal of Secrets]

“When wood previously well dried is heated in vessels which allow free egress to the volatile products of decomposition, water is first driven out, and there passes into the receiver, first a colourless, then a yellowish liquid. As the temperature rises, the vapours become smoky, the distillate continually more coloured, and smoky gasses escape. The liquid distillate becomes mixed with drops of oil, at first mobile and slightly coloured, then continually more viscid and dark-coloured so that the exit-tubes are filled with black pitch liquified by the heat. The residue in the retort is charcoal. The liquids which pass over mix in the receiver and separate, when left at rest, into two layers, an upper watery layer, which is Crude Wood-vinegar, or Pyroligneous acid, and a lower layer consisting of Wood-tar. [Handbook of Chemistry Vol. XV; 1862; page 148-152]

Wow, z0 K! That is the exact type of response I was hoping for! My pessimism sprang from many other practioners in the past who provided piictures or videos of their process without the least explanation. Their method might have been valid, but pictures or videos alone do not substantiate the person's claim. Now you really do have me fascinated with your process, and I will explore the sources you suggested. I full appreciate your honest provision of the background, which is exactly the type of response that earns respect. Now I can re-watch the video knowing that it may indeed be a reflection of an actual process.

Thank you once again! I may have more questions later.

horticult
11-16-2016, 05:32 PM
z0 K
thanx a lot for detailed infos
did you achieve any medical effects based on this path?

z0 K
11-16-2016, 07:19 PM
z0 K
thanx a lot for detailed infos
did you achieve any medical effects based on this path?

Yes, the Vegetable Quintessence is the most therapeutic and potent alchemical product I’ve ever experienced. It has an accumulative effect the longer you take it. Physiologically it clears up digestive problems, allergies, lowers blood pressure, increases stamina; more energy is available without side effects, but it taken in too large a dose over excitement or stimulation can occur unless you know how to channel or distill or sublimate it into the CSF flow. Mystically perception becomes brighter and more lucid and delivers Spirit directly to the Inner Circulation for advanced alchemical navigation praxis if you know how to circulate it. Distilling it directly into the Central Channel CSF flow is euphoria beyond sex:-)

In other words it is rocket fuel in the Short Dry Way to Cosmic Consciousness and transcendence of the pervasive worldwide BS;-)

horticult
11-16-2016, 10:22 PM
great!

"Ripley’s, Key to the Golden Gate" - it seems to me that there is none george ripley work with this exact title, could you specify?

/dunstan + video hopefully decoded ))/

Illen A. Cluf
11-16-2016, 11:02 PM
great!

"Ripley’s, Key to the Golden Gate" - it seems to me that there is none george ripley work with this exact title, could you specify?

/dunstan + video hopefully decoded ))/

I think it's the same text as the one sometimes ascribed to St. Dunstan:

http://www.rexresearch.com/alchemy2/dunstan.htm. (Philosophia Maturata
Of the Stone of the Philosopher)

horticult
11-16-2016, 11:32 PM
SCHOENBERG_174750
Author(s): Ripley, George
Title: A Treatise Of The Philosophers Stone, Entitled The Key Of The Golden Gate
Primary Seller: Ashmole, Elias
Buyer/Recipient: Oxford, Bodleian Library
Catalogue: Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum angliae et hiberniae, v. 2 (E. Bernard) - 1690
Lot #: 7563
Provenance: Ashmole

http://dla.library.upenn.edu/cocoon/dla/schoenberg/search.html?sort=manuscript_date%20desc&fq=buyer_facet%3A%22Oxford%2C%20Bodleian%20Library %22%20AND%20provenance_facet%3A%22Ashmole%22%20AND %20author_facet%3A%22Ripley%2C%20George%22%20AND%2 0title_facet%3A%22A%20Treatise%20Of%20The%20Philos ophers%20Stone%2C%20Entitled%20The%20Key%20Of%20Th e%20Golden%20Gate%22

but can not find this "The Key Of The Golden Gate" nowhere in the book, which is titled:

"A Treatise of Mercury and the Philosophers Stone".

z0 K
11-17-2016, 03:05 AM
I think it's the same text as the one sometimes ascribed to St. Dunstan:

http://www.rexresearch.com/alchemy2/dunstan.htm. (Philosophia Maturata
Of the Stone of the Philosopher)

It is the same material for the most part but the Dunstan text, Philosophia Maturata is easier to read, better flow for the part that is the same in Ripley but Ripley's lab observations are the best. I believe Philosophia Mataurata is the copy transcribed by Kelly. The recipes that follow it are from someone else. I am unable to attach the Ripley treatise on this forum, drag and drop is not working.

Illen A. Cluf
11-17-2016, 03:16 AM
It is the same material for the most part but the Dunstan text, Philosophia Maturata is easier to read, better flow for the part that is the same in Ripley but Ripley's lab observations are the best. I believe Philosophia Mataurata is the copy transcribed by Kelly. The recipes that follow it are from someone else. I am unable to attach the Ripley treatise on this forum, drag and drop is not working.

I think the only way of attaching something here is by using a facility such as DropBox and linking to it. I've had problems with DropBox in the past, so have never used it.

horticult
11-24-2016, 07:35 PM
> z0 K

yworth is worth!
the matter in furnace in that video is better dry or fresh?

Andro
11-24-2016, 08:22 PM
A convenient way to upload files and share them is with Mega (http://mega.nz) (50 GB of free 'cloud' storage).

You create a (free) account, upload a file or folder, then generate a Link (with Key) and post it.

Or if you have your own website/domain/server, you can upload there and link here.


I am unable to attach the Ripley treatise on this forum, drag and drop is not working.


I think the only way of attaching something here is by using a facility such as DropBox and linking to it. I've had problems with DropBox in the past, so I have never used it.

horticult
12-03-2016, 01:35 PM
Spirit directly to the Inner Circulation for advanced alchemical navigation praxis if you know how to circulate it.

could you give some practical instructions for this?
i read golden flower - but its like typical alchemy literature ))

Kiorionis
12-03-2016, 03:32 PM
I recommend "Taoist Yoga" by Charles Luk for very good practical instructions.

z0 K
12-03-2016, 05:17 PM
could you give some practical instructions for this?
i read golden flower - but its like typical alchemy literature ))


yworth is worth!
the matter in furnace in that video is better dry or fresh?

The matter in the furnace is better to be dry because you can fit more dry matter into the retort than fresh material.

Here is the link to initiating the Inner Circulation. It all begins with the simple breathing exercise coordinating your will and imagination to the effects of breathing:

http://www.alchemylab.com/AJ2-5.htm

I agree with Kiorionis that Taoist Yoga by Charles Luc is very good. That is what got me started many years ago.

To become aware of Qi circulating through your body can be very difficult for some and somewhat easy for others. The old Taoist alchemists used to crowd new students into a meditation room and fumigate the native ignorance out of them by burning loads of cannabis incense until they saw the light.

Dwellings
12-22-2016, 05:20 PM
I don't deny that some past alchemists tried to use the sulphur of vulgar gold in trying to make the stone. Thus it is easy to refer to other authors who used this approach. However, according to Fulcanelli, these alchemists were wrong. Just because they were well-known authors does not mean that they may have been wrong in their approach (this applies to Fulcanelli as well). But, here we are talking about Fulcanelli's approach. According to him, attempting to use the sulphur of vulgar gold leads nowhere:

Both are right. You are free to use Vulgur Gold, render it hermetic and then multiply it provided you have the solvent*. Alternatively, you can use something which already contains hermetic gold and reach your goals in half the time.This is what Fulcanelli is implying with the paragraphs that you have quoted.

* (2nd para of Dwellings that you quoted in the post) What Fulcanelli is pointing here is the need for going through Eagles. He is pointing the need for activated metallic sulfur which is the Azoth of the sages which allows the extraction of metallic seed. Like Attracts Like. And I think due to similarites between the Azoth and that of Gold is the reason why alchemists only used Gold instead of lesser metals though their sulfurs may be easily extracted. This is atleast my understanding.


Meddle with nothing out of kind, whether Salts, or Sulphur, or whatever is of the like Imposition; and whatever is Alien from the perfect Metals, is reprobate in our Mastery. Be not deceived wither with Receipt or Discourse, for we verily do not intend to deceive you, but if you will be deceived, be deceived.

Our principal know that it is but one, and that is in Metals, even those metals which you may buy commonly, to wit, the perfectest of them: but before you can command it out of them, you must be a Master, and not a Scholar, namely as is wisely said in Norton;

To know to destroy their whole Composition,
That some of their Components may help in conclusion.

But trust me this is not for a Tyro, nor for every one of us, unless he have the Secret from his own Studies, and not by Tradition from a Master or Guide. Know then that this fore-recited way is true, but involved with a thousand broileries.

But our way which is an easie way, and in which no man may erre, our broad way, our Linear way, we have vowed never to reveal it but in Metaphors; I being moved with pity, will hint it to you. Take that which is not yet perfect, nor yet wholly imperfect, but in a way to perfection and out of it make what is most noble and most perfect: This you may conceive to be an easier Receipt, then to take that which is already perfect, and extract out of it what is imperfect, and then make it perfect, and after out of that perfection to draw a plusquam perfection: and yet this is true, and we have wrought it, And because it is an immense Labour for any to undertake, we describe that way; but this last discovery which I hinted in few words, is it which no man ever did so plainly lay open, nor may any man make it more plain, upon pain of an Anathema.
Source: Ripley Revived

Illen A. Cluf
12-22-2016, 06:33 PM
Both are right. You are free to use Vulgur Gold, render it hermetic and then multiply it provided you have the solvent*. Alternatively, you can use something which already contains hermetic gold and reach your goals in half the time.This is what Fulcanelli is implying with the paragraphs that you have quoted.

There is an old Arabic way that uses vulgar gold as an Elixir, but first the gold must be fed a "food" that has been purified of all its impurities. The gold then has excess tincture, humidity and dryness to perfect the imperfect metals.

Dwellings
12-22-2016, 06:53 PM
There is an old Arabic way that uses vulgar gold as an Elixir, but first the gold must be fed a "food" that has been purified of all its impurities. The gold then has excess tincture, humidity and dryness to perfect the imperfect metals.

I am not aware of the same but my recommendation would be stay close to the Alchemical paths that has been set forth by many adepts. A lot of paths point to the same thing but they expect that the reader will capture the spirit behind the letter and sadly the reader never does that and in the end hurts himself. During the initial days, I fell for this trap but later realized that but with sufficient enough knowledge you don't need to worry about paths and understand everything for what they are.

I personally ignore all of this stuff and stick to the classics or fairy tales. You won't belive me but the amount of crap peddled is just saddenig. I come from India where nobody believes in Alchemy and does the fraud spiritual Alchemy crap or sitting in yogic postures for hours or reciting mantras in the hope of enlightment. A careful reading of the Indian texts reveals that they were pointing to Alchemy yet people delude themselves.

BTW, what you have written points to the same stuff, extracting the seed of Gold and multiplying it. It is not an old arabic way but part of Alchemy proper.