PDA

View Full Version : The Grrreat Work



Awani
11-04-2016, 05:42 AM
http://i60.photobucket.com/albums/h18/deviadah/forum/images_zpselc66xrd.jpeg

I swear by the Great Lord of the Bright Star that the secret of the Great Work is bleeding obvious. LOL. :)

You are welcome to turn this into a debate about alchemy being about physical lab work or not, frankly do your best (although it is not my intention for this to be such a thread... there are already other ones of the sort). I am not trying to convince anyone. This is just an offering that can be ignored if that makes your world easier. Certainly doesn't effect mine.

According to history, just like there is the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, there are the four alchemists. Interestingly they are all women. These women were active even before Zosimos of Panopolis, who is the man that provided humanity with one of the earliest (perhaps the first even) account of alchemy.

If you take the time and look into Zosimos it is pretty obvious that he is not talking about any pseudo-chemistry in the literal sense, but rather about some sort of divine initiation.

Back to the women. They were Maria the Jewess, Medera, Taphnutia and most important Cleopatra the Alchemist (not related to the famous Cleopatra).

Cleopatra the Alchemist is the author (so they say) of the Chrysopoeia of Cleopatra. In this papyrus there is an image we all know: the Ouroboros.

There is an inscription:


One is the Serpent which has its poison according to two compositions, and One is All and through it is All, and by it is All, and if you have not All, All is Nothing

Maria the Jewess, the one who coined the slogan join the male and the female, and you will find what is sought is not known as Maria the Doctor. Not known as Maria the Chemist. Rather she is known as Maria the Prophetess. The Prophet.

Now I don't claim that none of these people did not dabble with cooking stuff up. They certainly did. Any medicine man or shaman worth its weight in healing do just that. There is nothing strange about this... but to claim that alchemy is only an art that is concerned with "physical" matters is - in my opinion - a failure of immense magnitude.

Before all these people I've mentioned there was Hermes/Thoth.

This individual is today a God, but even if he was simply a man his work has always been considered divine.

Etymologically according to Wiki:
The word alchemy was borrowed from Old French... and which is in turn borrowed from Arabic... the Arabic word is borrowed from Late Greek chēmeía... ‘black magic’... this ancient Greek word was derived from the early Greek name for Egypt, based on the Egyptian name for Egypt... ‘black earth’... - source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy#Name)


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

The Great Work really only needs One Thing.

This One Thing is All there is.

And if you do not have it All (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Frontal_lobe_animation.gif) you have Nothing.

That's it...

Also easier said than done, but that is another story.

:cool:

If this post seems to imply that I have completed the Great Work, then I can reveal that I have certainly not done so... when I have you'll never hear from me again.

Andro
11-04-2016, 07:01 AM
This is just an offering that can be ignored if that makes your world easier. Certainly doesn't effect mine.

Not everyone ignoring the above offering will do so because 'it makes their world easier'. I suspect quite a few will ignore it because their personal experience indicates otherwise.

What if those who make statements like the above (especially if repeated often), may do so because the alternative could somehow make their world harder... There is a known human psychological tendency to over-repeat ourselves regarding issues we are unsure/insecure about. Most of us do this, consciously or not :)


to claim that alchemy is only an art that is concerned with "physical" matters is - in my opinion - a failure of immense magnitude.

Alchemy is the branch of Hermeticism that deals specifically with the physical/material plane, the plane of 'physical' matter. One can be a Hermetist without dabbling in ALL the branches. It's OK.


The Great Work really only needs One ThingThere isn't more than One Thing anyway :)


when I have you'll never hear from me again.

I guess we'll know upon 'completion'. According to lore, some 'stick around' and exert subtle influence/guidance, while others are indeed never heard from again in the VR.

Kiorionis
11-04-2016, 10:45 AM
Curious about the four women alchemists. Where did you hear about them?

zoas23
11-04-2016, 11:07 AM
You are welcome to turn this into a debate about alchemy being about physical lab work or not, frankly do your best (although it is not my intention for this to be such a thread... there are already other ones of the sort).

LOL... It's very much like creating a thread about U.F.O.s and stating that the intention is not to talk about U.F.O.s.

You are the only person I know who has this extreme position about Alchemy (and maybe a few Jungians, though you are very far from Jung in your ideas -thankfully!).


According to history, just like there is the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, there are the four alchemists. Interestingly they are all women.

Why do you find such thing interesting? I mean, why is it interesting for you that they were women?

I find it interesting that the initiator of Socrates was a woman... and the idea of an initiation is VERY clear there is Plato's Symposium... and the idea that the Pythagorean system of Initiations was also a practice that Socrates respected if very clear in the comedy "The Clouds" by Aristophanes... and I know that it's a comedy, but every comedy is based on actual facts, otherwise it is not funny. It's one of my favorite books, because the theory of Three Hypostases is VERY clear there... whilst with Plato the idea somehow "vanishes" and returns several centuries later with neo-platonism, the chaldean oracles,Christian Gnosticism, etc. I find it interesting because Plato was quite misogynistic, but explains how his greatest hero, Socrates, had been initiated by a woman into Philosophy.

Anyway... why is it interesting for you that the first (known) four were women?


Maria the Jewess, the one who coined the slogan join the male and the female, and you will find what is sought is not known as Maria the Doctor. Not known as Maria the Chemist. Rather she is known as Maria the Prophetess. The Prophet.

It is, for me, impossible to separate the early Gnostic ideas from Alchemy... The core theory of alchemy is 100% Gnostic (using a more or less wide definition of "Gnostic" -i.e, The Hermetic Religion -yes, I call it Religion- was a Gnostic Religion).


... but to claim that alchemy is only an art that is concerned with "physical" matters is - in my opinion - a failure of immense magnitude.

I agree with you there... I see Alchemy as something impossible to separate from Gnosticism... and YET, if these "Gnostics" would have decided not to "play" with matter, then we would only have Gnosticism, but not Alchemy.

Though I agree with the idea that Alchemy began as a meta-philosophy (same thing goes for Gnosticism) and that "playing with the matter", as to use a colloquial expression, was only a part of it.

Same thing goes for other issues... i.e, understanding that Astrology began as a divination system is completely missing the point... it began as a way to investigate how the universe works... a meta-philosophy too. And yet it's hard to find ANY astrologist who was "not interested" in understanding how the movement of the planets affects the matter.

I think you are right when you state that Alchemy began as a mystical practice (and in my opinion, VERY linked to Gnosticism)... but that mystical practice involved "playing with the matter", though it was also a meta-philosophy. An Episteme and a Praxis.


Before all these people I've mentioned there was Hermes/Thoth.
This individual is today a God, but even if he was simply a man his work has always been considered divine.

Hermes Trismegistus was, in my opinion, not a physical person... but a Pagan Gnostic deity without a physical existence. I am not sure that Hermes Trismegistus existed as a God before Mary the Prophetess existed (of course that "Hermes" and "Thoth" did... but the myth of "Hermes Trismegistus" was probably contemporary to the times of Mary... it's a bit hard to establish the exact date of the birth of each one of them... but I have no doubts that Hermes Trismegistus was created as a Pagan "emulation" of "Jesus"... and several treatises of the Corpus show a very clear intent of creating some sort of "Egyptian National Pride" -in the context of a conquered Egypt, which was probably a sad situation for a lot of persons).


If this post seems to imply that I have completed the Great Work, then I can reveal that I have certainly not done so... when I have you'll never hear from me again.

LOL... I think you did it and she's very cute... and that's one of the most noble paths of alchemy, which doesn't produce "gold", but something by far more interesting than a metal (Would you exchange your daughter for ALL the metals, including silver and gold, that the universe has???? I know you wouldn't... thus you have created something which has more value than "all the gold you can eat"... and I dare to call such thing "The Great Work", which produced something more precious than a Stone that transmutes metals -and such thing isn't refuting my previous statements).

JDP
11-04-2016, 12:17 PM
I swear by the Great Lord of the Bright Star that the secret of the Great Work is bleeding obvious. LOL. :)

You are welcome to turn this into a debate about alchemy being about physical lab work or not, frankly do your best (although it is not my intention for this to be such a thread... there are already other ones of the sort). I am not trying to convince anyone. This is just an offering that can be ignored if that makes your world easier. Certainly doesn't effect mine.

According to history, just like there is the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, there are the four alchemists. Interestingly they are all women. These women were active even before Zosimos of Panopolis, who is the man that provided humanity with one of the earliest (perhaps the first even) account of alchemy.

If you take the time and look into Zosimos it is pretty obvious that he is not talking about any pseudo-chemistry in the literal sense, but rather about some sort of divine initiation.

Back to the women. They were Maria the Jewess, Medera, Taphnutia and most important Cleopatra the Alchemist (not related to the famous Cleopatra).

Cleopatra the Alchemist is the author (so they say) of the Chrysopoeia of Cleopatra. In this papyrus there is an image we all know: the Ouroboros.

There is an inscription:



Maria the Jewess, the one who coined the slogan join the male and the female, and you will find what is sought is not known as Maria the Doctor. Not known as Maria the Chemist. Rather she is known as Maria the Prophetess. The Prophet.

Now I don't claim that none of these people did not dabble with cooking stuff up. They certainly did. Any medicine man or shaman worth its weight in healing do just that. There is nothing strange about this... but to claim that alchemy is only an art that is concerned with "physical" matters is - in my opinion - a failure of immense magnitude.

Before all these people I've mentioned there was Hermes/Thoth.

This individual is today a God, but even if he was simply a man his work has always been considered divine.

Etymologically according to Wiki:

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

The Great Work really only needs One Thing.

This One Thing is All there is.

And if you do not have it All (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Frontal_lobe_animation.gif) you have Nothing.

That's it...

Also easier said than done, but that is another story.

:cool:

If this post seems to imply that I have completed the Great Work, then I can reveal that I have certainly not done so... when I have you'll never hear from me again.

Zosimos was obviously talking about reactions between certain substances (what you think is "pseudochemistry"), semi-hidden, of course, under a barrage of symbols, allegories, "decknamen", etc. (typical alchemical tactic since ancient times), definitely not some weird "metaphysical" goal to be "carried out" in your mind (as if such a thing was even possible to begin with.) Can anyone reading his "Visions" or his letters to "Theosebeia" not really plainly see this? In one of these letters Zosimos even scoffs at a priest (yes, the old clergy was heavily involved with the topic of making silver and gold) called "Nilus" for burning his matters in a calcining furnace. Notice that Zosimos does not criticize him for working with these substances (some of which are hidden under obvious decknamen, like "cobathia"), or any substances actually, but for how he is going about it (he criticizes him for "burning" the substances, not for working with substances!) What we have here, in fact, are some of the earliest references to what later would be labelled as "sophists", "puffers", "multipliers", "vulgar chymists", etc. In other words, seekers after the Stone who worked on either the wrong matters or the wrong methods (or both.) Zosimos writings are heavily concerned with such things as the "Divine/Sulfur Water" (the secret solvent of alchemy.) Do not confuse Zosimos personal religious/spiritual beliefs with what he was actually doing in his lab. Alchemists very often had the bad habit of mixing their beliefs into their writings. This has caused much confusion in the minds of people who obviously have a lot of trouble separating empirical facts from fiction/speculation.

As for the ancient women alchemists you mention: same as with Zosimos. They all obviously talk about operations with substances. "Maria" is in fact still widely remembered today by the "Bain-Marie" ("Mary's bath", meaning, the water bath, still employed in kitchens and labs all over the world), even though she did not really invent it (but used it herself in some operations.) As for her being labelled a "prophetess": hardly surprising, since, as pointed out above, many people involved with religion were also heavily involved with the topic of making silver and gold. Religion and money have a very long history together. Just like today. Nothing has changed in this respect.

JDP
11-04-2016, 12:43 PM
Curious about the four women alchemists. Where did you hear about them?

Consult just about any history of alchemy. "Cleopatra" and Maria are almost always mentioned as examples of early alchemists. "Medera" is more obscure and hardly ever mentioned. And "Taphnutia" was apparently a female "puffer". Zosimos refers to her in letters to Theosebia (yes, yet another woman involved with alchemy too; women seem to have been more involved with alchemy in ancient times than in later times) and he is not flattering to her at all. Her name comes up in the same context as the further above referred to priest "Nilus", and Zosimos implies that she got scorned by the alchemists for her wrong ideas.

Kiorionis
11-04-2016, 01:21 PM
Thanks for the references, JDP. I don't read much alchemical history, so the most I ever paid attention to was the vague "it comes from Egypt".

Awani
11-04-2016, 01:22 PM
What if those who make statements like the above (especially if repeated often), may do so because the alternative could somehow make their world harder...

I actually wrote that in my first draft of this post, but decided to exclude it because it would actually make my life way easier. What some think is hard, others think is easy. The Great Work is hard. A materialistic only world-view is easy... although in such a world it is very hard indeed to MAKE the Stone. It cannot be made.

The Alkahest, and such medicine, can be made... but not the Stone. Not in the manner that "made" is considered to mean at least.

As for guidance I think those that have reached completion will come to understand that you cannot guide a monkey to write the Corpus Hermetica... the monkey has to first embrace his/her own existence and then together with the other monkeys come up with some sort of language.. etc...

:cool:

Awani
11-04-2016, 01:25 PM
zoas23: it is interesting because alchemy has way too many dicks, and if history is right its fun to know that it was founded by pussies. ;)

And yes, there is only one true Chemical Marriage. ;)

:cool:

So many threads about this, so decided to re-name this one "Grrreat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_the_Tiger)"...

Andro
11-04-2016, 01:50 PM
A materialistic only world-view is easy...

At least a few people here know me well enough to know that I most certainly do not hold a 'materialistic only world-view'. Can't speak for others, though...

I guess what I am saying is that the 'practical alchemy' aspect is part of a bigger picture (a valid part), and that I (personally) do not equate the great work of Alchemy with THE Great Work (let's call it the 'Ultimate Great Work'), which is something quite incomprehensible for the the way Mind & Perception are 'wired'...


it is very hard indeed to MAKE the Stone.

It cannot be made.

So which one is it? 'Very hard to make' or 'cannot be made'?


The Alkahest, and such medicine, can be made... but not the Stone.

With THE Alkahest/Philosophical Mercury, the Stone is just around the corner... The Alkahest results from the First Rotation, which is seemingly the most difficult of them all...

Do you know what the Alkahest is and what it does? Have you ever seen an Alkahest in action, even a 'particular' one?


you cannot guide a monkey to write the Corpus Hermetica...

I'm not talking about extreme, 'Quantum Leap' type 'guidance'... More like 'setting up' subtle synchronicity events to assist with the small(er) steps in the process... Not to say there weren't/aren't 'Quantum Leap' type interventions, but I don't personally/directly know of any (like some claim that human evolution was at some point artificially accelerated).


:cool:

:cool:

Andro
11-04-2016, 01:56 PM
And yes, there is only one true Chemical Marriage. ;)

And which marriage would that be?

Awani
11-04-2016, 01:58 PM
Do you know what the Alkahest is and what it does? Have you ever seen an Alkahest in action, even a 'particular' one?

It's just a substance with very good healing qualities. I have come across a few of these, none called it by that name... but that is basically what it is. As far as I can tell it is no older - by name - than Paracelsus. If you are asking about "seeing" something that can dissolve anything, no I haven't.. not if you mean physically dissolve. Sound pretty boring and water and time will do just fine. ;)

The lesser work and the greater work is the same work. Or in your words the great work of alchemy is the same as the Ultimate Great Work. Microcosm/Macrocosm. They only differ in scope.


So which one is it? 'Very hard to make' or 'cannot be made'?

Like I said. It is very hard... so hard in fact it cannot be done. Physically speaking.

Frankly - IMO - why would you even want to if you could, when you already have everything you need. My position is more like that.

Many alchemists are Alice tumbling down the rabbit hole... I prefer to manifest the Mad Hatter (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1498-10-6) instead.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26RTlPgg-tA

:cool:

Andro
11-04-2016, 02:09 PM
It's just a substance with very good healing qualities.

No. That would fall under the category of 'medicine'.

'Alkahest' is a destroyer/'killer'/'opener'/re-incrudation agent for created matter, to revive and reveal its UN-Created Center/Quintessence/etc and render it physically tangible & workable... Often wrongly labelled as 'universal solvent' - 'wrongly', because it doesn't 'dissolve' anything in the way we are accustomed to perceive this term.

Awani
11-04-2016, 02:14 PM
...agent for created matter, to revive and reveal its UN-Created Center/Quintessence/etc and render it physically tangible & workable...

Oh yes, well there is certainly such things if you are speaking non-materialistic, but as for matter I see no value in it. The quintessence of a carrot doesn't interest me as much as what you can do (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak-KOP8NjsI) with that carrot to people when they have fallen asleep. However if it is a process necessary in order to create some sort of medicine, yes that would be valuable.

:cool:

Andro
11-04-2016, 02:21 PM
However if it is a process necessary in order to create some sort of medicine, yes that would be valuable.

This is what it is, loosely speaking.