PDA

View Full Version : The chest of the mysteries



Luxus
08-18-2017, 12:30 PM
http://www.marhamchurchantiques.com/wp-content/uploads/KIM6876_edited-1.jpg
Know that the adepts have in their wisdom locked the mysteries in a chest that has three locks. Three keys are required to open it and gain access to the treasures of antiquity. The adepts in their writings hint at how the first two keys may be obtained but when it comes to discussion of the last key they press their finger tightly against their lips. They teach and believe that this last key must be given to you by the revelation of God, they say only a good man will receive it. Few are those who have had the honour of placing that last key in the lock and turning it three times!

Kiorionis
08-18-2017, 03:06 PM
Interesting stuff!

Can i ask, what are the first two keys that are openly shared?

Luxus
08-18-2017, 06:33 PM
Interesting stuff!

Can i ask, what are the first two keys that are openly shared?

Alchemy is just one of the mysteries of which traditionally there are three, these three mysteries are broken into three parts each.

Thrice greatest hermes was one who was a master adept possessing the three parts of the three chief mysteries.

Since this forum is about Alchemy chiefly the first key liberally discussed in Alchemical text is the identity of the first matter. The second key discussed less so then the first is the solvent of the alchemists. The third key is what they simply call "cooking" which is made out to be a simple task when in reality its the hardest part of the whole procedure.

It is perhaps for this reason that in my opinion there has been no one who has completed the great work in quite a few hundred years.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 06:43 PM
Since this forum is about Alchemy chiefly the first key liberally discussed in Alchemical text is the identity of the first matter. The second key discussed less so then the first is the solvent of the alchemists. The third key is what they simply call "cooking" which is made out to be a simple task when in reality its the hardest part of the whole procedure.


You've summed up all of alchemy very nicely, Luxus. It's all about the composition, the water and the cooking.

The composition is One, but based on several.

The identity of the water(s) is likely the most hidden secret in alchemy.

The "cooking" involves four different temperature regimes to fix the subtle and to sublitize the fixed.

JDP
08-18-2017, 06:51 PM
You've summed up all of alchemy very nicely, Luxus. It's all about the composition, the water and the cooking.

The "cooking" involves four different temperature regimes.

But unlike what Luxus says the most hidden and difficult to decipher part of alchemy is in fact the composition of the "matter" and the secret solvent. The "coction" is what is actually more freely and clearly described in most texts, and for an obvious reason: no one can fully figure out the actual substances used at the start of the process by reading descriptions of the "coction" or last part of the process.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 06:56 PM
But unlike what Luxus says the most hidden and difficult to decipher part of alchemy is in fact the composition of the "matter" and the secret solvent. The "coction" is what is actually more freely and clearly described in most texts, and for an obvious reason: no one can fully figure out the actual substances used at the start of the process by reading descriptions of the "coction" or last part of the process.

You just wrote that while I was editing my message. I agree, but think that the most hidden part is the identity of the water. There are many clues as to the identity of the matters that result in the composition, but almost no clues at all on the identity of the water.

JDP
08-18-2017, 07:16 PM
You just wrote that while I was editing my message. I agree, but think that the most hidden part is the identity of the water. There are many clues as to the identity of the matters that result in the composition, but almost no clues at all on the identity of the water.

After having read what many Alexandrian, Byzantine and Arab alchemists say on the subject of "Magnesia" (their favorite code-name for the initial composite "matter"), there are two possibilities:

1- The "water" is generated from the "Magnesia" itself

2- The "water" is a separate preparation with its own peculiar set of substances that give it birth, and is then applied to the "Magnesia" (for example, as seen in al-Iraqi's "Cultivation of Gold" treatise, where one of the components of the "Magnesia" is obviously a liquid)

Maybe the answer to the apparent contradiction is that there are two separate -but still related- approaches that give positive results. One method prepares the "water" from the "Magnesia" itself (by adding some key substances to its composition), while the other one prepares the "water" separately and then uses it to compose the "Magnesia". In all cases, though, this "water", no matter when prepared, is crucial and absolutely necessary to make the Stone. Without it there can be no "Stone", since part of its very substance is derived from this "water" by "coagulation" through prolonged "coction".

Kiorionis
08-18-2017, 07:17 PM
What might lead to some interesting meditations is if quadrapolarity is applied to the secret solvent just like it is to the regimes of cooking.

But that's just a guess ;)


Edit: you guys are fast today! Haha


The "water" is a separate preparation with its own peculiar set of substances that give it birth, and is then applied to the "Magnesia" (for example, as seen in al-Iraqi's "Cultivation of Gold" treatise, where one of the components of the "Magnesia" is obviously a liquid)

Luxus
08-18-2017, 07:17 PM
Do remember, and you are frequently reminded that when we speak plainly we are being most obscure and when we speak obscurely we are actually speaking most plainly(at least as plainly as is permitted). So the fact that you believe the cooking procedure is the one most plainly described should tell you that...it ant that simple!

Kiorionis
08-18-2017, 07:19 PM
Simple in theory, difficult in practice?

Also, thanks for the reply, Luxus

JDP
08-18-2017, 07:27 PM
Do remember, and you are frequently reminded that when we speak plainly we are being most obscure and when we speak obscurely we are actually speaking most plainly(at least as plainly as is permitted). So the fact that you believe the cooking procedure is the one most plainly described should tell you that...it ant that simple!

Many people misunderstand this saying and try to liberally apply it to anything the alchemists say that for whatever reason they do not happen to like. When the alchemists said that, they were referring to things like apparently clear "recipes", like those seen in the typical "puffer" collections of processes, with all the substances involved being clearly spelled out by their proper names, which the alchemists keep blasting as "sophistical and false", and which sometimes also make their appearance in alchemical treatises properly. This saying does not apply to passages where the matters to be used in making the Stone are already hidden under a barrage of "decknamen". The "coction" part of the process will not reveal these, so there is no need to try to be too secretive about it. The majority of alchemists make very little "secret" of this last part of the process simply because by reading such desciptions you won't be able to figure out what substances they used at the beginning of the process. That simple.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 07:27 PM
After having read what many Alexandrian, Byzantine and Arab alchemists say on the subject of "Magnesia" (their favorite code-name for the initial composite "matter"), there are two possibilities:

1- The "water" is generated from the "Magnesia" itself

2- The "water" is a separate preparation with its own peculiar set of substances that give it birth, and is then applied to the "Magnesia" (for example, as seen in al-Iraqi's "Cultivation of Gold" treatise, where one of the components of the "Magnesia" is obviously a liquid)

Maybe the answer to the apparent contradiction is that there are two separate -but still related- approaches that give positive results. One method prepares the "water" from the "Magnesia" itself (by adding some key substances to its composition), while the other one prepares the "water" separately and then uses it to compose the "Magnesia". In all cases, though, this "water", no matter when prepared, is crucial and absolutely necessary to make the Stone. Without it there can be no "Stone", since part of its very substance is derived from this "water" by "coagulation" through prolonged "coction".

As for #1, there is a 'different' water generated from the magnesia. It is often called "the water of sulphur" (also called "vapour") and derives from the second operation. The 'first' water is rarely ever mentioned in any texts. This applies to #2 of your choices.

Thus I think there are at least two distinct 'waters', as you identified above in separate points.

Luxus
08-18-2017, 07:31 PM
Simple in theory, difficult in practice?

Also, thanks for the reply, Luxus

Yes its not at all what you imagine it is, like I said when they speak most plainly they are actually being most obscure.

JDP
08-18-2017, 07:34 PM
Yes its not at all what you imagine it is, like I said when they speak most plainly they are actually being most obscure.

Nope, that saying does not apply to such a thing as descriptions of the "coction". There is no need to. It won't reveal anything important regarding the beginning of the work, no matter how clearly you describe it. To give you a more "mundane" analogy, it is like if I described to you how to fry a country-style chicken steak, but did not explain anything else regarding how it is prepared first (like for example, how to make the "batter" for the chicken.) By simply reading the description of how to fry the already prepared chicken, you will NEVER figure out how it was actually prepared.

Luxus
08-18-2017, 07:50 PM
The majority of alchemists make very little "secret" of this last part of the process simply because by reading such desciptions you won't be able to figure out what substances they used at the beginning of the process. That simple.

The majority, actually all make a secret of the whole process from beginning to end. None of these keys will be given to you, you must earn each one.

This is why symbolically the path of alchemy is symbolised by a maze because its full of deceptions. It is the fools path who walks half naked in rags https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=fools+path+naked+tarot&oq=fools+path+naked+tarot&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10781.12761.0.13945.6.6.0.0.0.0.223.849.0j5 j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.sG3tIXi3s-g#imgrc=cbBxZMhBv8R2UM:

zoas23
08-18-2017, 07:52 PM
Know that the adepts have in their wisdom locked the mysteries in a chest that has three locks. Three keys are required to open it and gain access to the treasures of antiquity. The adepts in their writings hint at how the first two keys may be obtained but when it comes to discussion of the last key they press their finger tightly against their lips. They teach and believe that this last key must be given to you by the revelation of God, they say only a good man will receive it. Few are those who have had the honour of placing that last key in the lock and turning it three times!

When we *cut* a whole in pieces, we are always doing it in a subjective way... which doesn't mean that it does not work (actually it is often convenient to cut a whole in pieces as to analyze it).
I.e, Qabalah *cuts* the whole in 10 pieces (or 32 actually)... being myself a true lover of Qabalah, I have no problems in stating that if someone REALLY thinks that the Universe has 10 (or 32) "parts", then that person has a problem.

The allegory of the chest with 3 locks works... as long as you remember that it's an allegory (i.e, similar to the case of those alchemist who describe the whole of the work in 12 steps and others describe it in 7 steps... and quite often they are not really saying something different, just "cutting the same cake" in a different way as to analyze it).

Luxus
08-18-2017, 07:58 PM
Nope, that saying does not apply to such a thing as descriptions of the "coction". There is no need to. It won't reveal anything important regarding the beginning of the work, no matter how clearly you describe it. To give you a more "mundane" analogy, it is like if I described to you how to fry a country-style chicken steak, but did not explain anything else regarding how it is prepared first (like for example, how to make the "batter" for the chicken.) By simply reading the description of how to fry the already prepared chicken, you will NEVER figure out how it was actually prepared.

Or it is like taking a photo of a cow and then cutting it into three. No one other piece will allow you to recover the whole picture, you need all three!

JDP
08-18-2017, 08:07 PM
The majority, actually all make a secret of the whole process from beginning to end. None of these keys will be given to you, you must earn each one.

This is why symbolically the path of alchemy is symbolised by a maze because its full of deceptions. It is the fools path who walks half naked in rags https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=fools+path+naked+tarot&oq=fools+path+naked+tarot&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10781.12761.0.13945.6.6.0.0.0.0.223.849.0j5 j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.sG3tIXi3s-g#imgrc=cbBxZMhBv8R2UM:

If that was true then it would pointless to even bother to write about it in the first place. Better just not write anything.

JDP
08-18-2017, 08:11 PM
Or it is like taking a photo of a cow and then cutting it into three. No one other piece will allow you to recover the whole picture, you need all three!

The majority of alchemists disagree with this statement, since they did not make anywhere even near as much mystery surrounding the "coction" part as they did about the beginning of the work. It goes without saying that the beginning of ANY SUBJECT, not just alchemy, is the most crucial part.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 08:14 PM
The majority, actually all make a secret of the whole process from beginning to end. None of these keys will be given to you, you must earn each one.

This is why symbolically the path of alchemy is symbolised by a maze because its full of deceptions. It is the fools path who walks half naked in rags https://www.google.co.uk/search?biw=1366&bih=659&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=fools+path+naked+tarot&oq=fools+path+naked+tarot&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10781.12761.0.13945.6.6.0.0.0.0.223.849.0j5 j1.6.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0.sG3tIXi3s-g#imgrc=cbBxZMhBv8R2UM:

But at the same time, many of the sages wrote that if you read, and re-read their texts, the truth will become known to you. They used a lot of symbolism and allegory. Once you break that, it becomes easier and easier to understand what they actually meant.

They also inserted a lot of nonsense and deliberately added operations that had nothing to do with the process of alchemy. But some of them taught how to detect those deceptions and diversions. Others would also reveal some of the decknamen that they used. Eventually, you can begin to read between the lines and see some consistency.

Luxus
08-18-2017, 09:14 PM
If that was true then it would pointless to even bother to write about it in the first place. Better just not write anything.

It is not pointless since hidden within the text are clues to recover the keys...but they are never plainly given, not one of them and it is better to know and accept this.

Luxus
08-18-2017, 09:25 PM
But at the same time, many of the sages wrote that if you read, and re-read their texts, the truth will become known to you. They used a lot of symbolism and allegory. Once you break that, it becomes easier and easier to understand what they actually meant.

They also inserted a lot of nonsense and deliberately added operations that had nothing to do with the process of alchemy. But some of them taught how to detect those deceptions and diversions. Others would also reveal some of the decknamen that they used. Eventually, you can begin to read between the lines and see some consistency.

That is true they will often say one thing and then retract it a few lines down. Others will tell you take this, add it to that, do this, do that and what follows is complete gibberish. When I first started reading Alchemy text I thought these people were completely off their heads.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 09:40 PM
That is true they will often say one thing and then retract it a few lines down. Others will tell you take this, add it to that, do this, do that and what follows is complete gibberish. When I first started reading Alchemy text I thought these people were completely off their heads.

Actually, some of these sages were absolute geniuses in how they could reveal something that only the most studious, dedicated and sincere student could uncover. Their intellect often seems to exceed ours today, especially with regards to subtle communication.

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 09:45 PM
Actually, some of these sages were absolute geniuses in how they could reveal something that only the most studious, dedicated and sincere student could uncover. Their intellect often seems to exceed ours today, especially with regards to subtle communication.
I have high doubts about that you can get their clues with enough dedication. E.g., forgive me God for writing this, but after learning from other sources that salamander is asbestos, I swear I would never get it from any alchemical book with their subtle allegories. And even if I'd get it, some other book would make sure that I discard such assumption.

JDP
08-18-2017, 10:32 PM
It is not pointless since hidden within the text are clues to recover the keys...but they are never plainly given, not one of them and it is better to know and accept this.

It would be pointless because no one could unravel such "clues" since you can always pull the excuse that the alchemists never mean what they say. Like I said, such arguments as concealing methods apply to when it comes time to discuss the substances employed to make the Stone, and for obvious reasons (otherwise anyone could make it, something the alchemists were not disposed to let happen), but hardly to things like the "coction", where the prepared "matter" is only put through a controlled regimen of heat and also "fed" with its "water" as needed (you can read plenty of quite clear descriptions of this in writers like Ibn Umail or John Dastin, for example, but you will be stumped to follow their directions if you don't know how and out of what they prepared the "water" and the "earth" that they are "cooking" into the Stone.) There is no point in trying to hide this, as many alchemists realized, since if no one teaches openly how to compose that "matter" most people will never get to the "coction" stage in the first place. The stumbling block of alchemy, therefore, is not this last part, but its beginning.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 10:42 PM
I have high doubts about that you can get their clues with enough dedication. E.g., forgive me God for writing this, but after learning from other sources that salamander is asbestos, I swear I would never get it from any alchemical book with their subtle allegories. And even if I'd get it, some other book would make sure that I discard such assumption.

I doubt very much that salamander means asbestos (that becomes a very literal interpretation). Rather, it relates to the fixed principle, after the composition can withstand the fire - the 'subtle' (spirit) is alchemically blended with the fixed in such a way during the operations that the entire composition becomes one and is able to withstand the fire. The key is to unravel their allegories and decknamen in such a way that you begin to see consistency, not only within the treatises, but between other respected treatises as well.

How does one determine which are the most respected treatises or authors? Simple. Begin with some well-known treatises, and see which sages those treatises refer to. Then check out those sages and see which ones they refer to. Each author, whether authentic or not, tries to lend respectability and credence to their work by referencing respected authors. Eventually you will end of with a list of authors who are often mentioned in many different treatises. Those are the authors that you should focus on. I personally believe that the further back they go, the more authentic to old alchemical tradition they are likely to be.

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 10:54 PM
I doubt very much that salamander means asbestos. Rather, it relates to the fixed principle. The key is to unravel their allegories and decknamen in such a way that you begin to see consistency, not only within the treatises, but between other respected treatises as well.
That's exactly what I wrote about. Given the true meaning behind some symbols, you wouldn't be sure if they are true and most likely would discard them. The name of the matter doesn't mean much by itself - you also need to know the operation. And, of course, Salamander isn't Magnet of Philosophers, it isn't Philosophers' Mercury, etc. Those are actually different things. The One thing which matters is Anima Mundi and Man as Microcosm.

Even by the one name, e.g. Philosophers Mercury, a lot of entirely different things were understood - depending on the author and on context...

Schmuldvich
08-18-2017, 10:54 PM
The allegory of the chest with 3 locks works... as long as you remember that it's an allegory (i.e, similar to the case of those alchemist who describe the whole of the work in 12 steps and others describe it in 7 steps... and quite often they are not really saying something different, just "cutting the same cake" in a different way as to analyze it).

YES!! Very well put.








"An Open Entrance To The Closed Palace Of the King" by Philalethes, 1668

Know then that our regimen throughout consists in coction and digestion, but that it implies a good many other processes, which those jealous sages have made to appear different by describing them under different names. Therefore you must know once and for all that distillation, cohobation, sublimation, calcination, reverberation, waxing, etc., are for us from the beginning to the end one and the same operation, which is to dissolve & coagulate, which is the same as wetting & drying.



Actually, some of these sages were absolute geniuses in how they could reveal something that only the most studious, dedicated and sincere student could uncover. Their intellect often seems to exceed ours today, especially with regards to subtle communication.
This, imo, is what it all boils down to. Fulcanelli was great with the double (and sometimes triple) speech, whereas others wrote slightly more openly.








"The Dwellings Of The Philosophers" by Fulcanelli, 1929

Know thyself!

We have already encountered, in some ancient manuscripts, the same maxim thus paraphrased: "You who want to know the stone, know thyself well and you shall know it". Such is the statement of the law of analogy which gives in effect the key to the mystery. Now that which precisely characterizes our figure is that column responsible for the emblematic serpent’s support is reversed in relation to the inscription’s direction. An intentional, deliberate, and premeditated arrangement giving to the whole the appearance of a key as well as of the graphic sign with which the Ancients used to record their mercury. Key and pillar of the Work are moreover epithets applied to mercury, because it is the mercury that the elements assembled in appropriate proportions and natural quality; from it everything proceeds because it alone has the power to dissolve, mortify and destroy the bodies, to dissociate them, to separate their pure parts, and to join them with spirits and this to generate new metallic beings different from their parents. The authors are therefore right to assert that everything that the sages search for can be found in mercury per se, and this should indicate the alchemist to direct his efforts to the acquisition of this indispensable body.

However in order to succeed we advise him to act methodically and to study in a simple, and rational fashion, the manner in which nature operates in living beings in order to transform the absorbed food, rid it of useless substances through the digestion process, into black blood, and then into red blood, the generator of organic tissues and vital energy. Nosce te ipsum. The alchemist will thus recognize that the mineral producers of mercury, which are also the authors of its feeding, growth and life, must first be chosen with discernment and worked with care. For, although theoretically everything can be used for this composition, nevertheless some are too far removed from the active metallic nature to be truly useful to us, either because of their impurities or because their maturation was arrested or pushed beyond the required term. Rocks, stones, and metalloids belong to the first category; gold and silver enter the second one. The agent we need lacks vigor in the metalloids and its debility cannot help us in any way; in gold and silver, on the other hand, we would search in vain: nature has separated it from the perfect bodies during their appearance on the physical plane.



I have high doubts about that you can get their clues with enough dedication. E.g., forgive me God for writing this, but after learning from other sources that salamander is asbestos, I swear I would never get it from any alchemical book with their subtle allegories.

Because our Salamander is not asbestos...BUT...it is indeed similar to asbestos.

Learning how to read the Texts is the key most everybody lacks. You may want to immediately reconsider your sources if they are telling you outright lies like this. The Texts (all of them, in parallel) are hands down the best source of information out there, and most of them are freely available online!

It boils down to how much this means to each Seeker and how much time they are willing to put forth cracking the code, understanding the Texts, and comprehending what was written by the Sages. The only way to really know is to begin the Work yourself. Unless you have someone showing you things in their flask that directly correlate with what the Authorities said, there really is not any kind of shortcut that exists with Alchemy.









"Spagyric Medicine" by Rhumelius, 1648

That not everybody can comprehend it as easily as a recipe for apple pie is understandable, and also that the Art is not within everybody's reach but must be practiced at the sweat of one's brow and with great devotion and humility. All cannot be learned by reading the Masters; fervent prayer is required and also the courage to work in the coal with one's own hands, as I myself did in my time. Pigeons do not fall all roasted into the mouths of those who remain seated behind the furnace. One has to go to a great deal of trouble, travel, wander here and there, sometimes at great cost and in great danger, even of one's life.

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 11:02 PM
Because our Salamander is not asbestos...BUT...it is indeed similar to asbestos.

Learning how to read the Texts is the key most everybody lacks. You may want to immediately reconsider your sources if they are telling you outright lies like this. The Texts (all of them, in parallel) are hands down the best source of information out there, and most of them are freely available online!
Of course there is additional assumption that it might be saltpetre (potassium or sodium nitrate) - at least that's how some authors want us to believe, BUT! Put your attention at the silicate nature of asbestos.

Schmuldvich
08-18-2017, 11:03 PM
Of course there is additional assumption that it might be saltpetre (potassium or sodium nitrate), BUT! Put your attention at the silicate nature of asbestos.
Can you explain why you suggest this?

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 11:04 PM
That's exactly what I wrote about. Given the true meaning behind some symbols, you wouldn't be sure if they are true and most likely would discard them. The name of the matter doesn't mean much by itself - you also need to know the operation. And, of course, Salamander isn't Magnet of Philosophers, it isn't Philosophers' Mercury, etc. Those are actually different things. The One thing which matters is Anima Mundi and Man as Microcosm.

Even by the one name, e.g. Philosophers Mercury, a lot of entirely different things were understood - depending on the author and on context...

Basically, yes. One thing to understand is that the sages often used different names for the very same thing, but which referred to the various changes in color of that same thing. Thus even the 'mercury' changed names at different stages of the process.

Schmuldvich
08-18-2017, 11:06 PM
Basically, yes. One thing to understand is that the sages often used different names for the very same thing, but which referred to the various changes in color of that same thing. Thus even the 'mercury' changed names at different stages of the process.
The way I describe the word "Mercury" to those seeking comprehension of the texts, is that the word basically means "it". It's an easy way to talk about something without saying exactly what it is, or revealing what Stage of our Matter is being talked about. Generally it is refered to as "our Mercury" in this context.

Now, I would say that Mercury Of The Sages or Mercury Of The Philosophers most often has a concrete meaning and is used to describe something in particular more often than not.

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 11:08 PM
Can you explain why you suggest this?
One of the secrets of alchemists was semi-liquid quartz glass, based on silicate. Also quartz (quercus, oak) seems to allow all Sun rays to go through it unlike common glass. it is also interesting to see on materials usually used for normal glass, a lot of them are good pretenders for various alchemical substances.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 11:08 PM
The way I describe the word "Mercury" to those seeking comprehension of the texts, is that the word basically means "it". It's an easy way to talk about something without saying exactly what it is, or revealing what Stage of our Matter is being talked about.

Yes, it's a very general catch-all for the mercuric principles, as is the word "sulphur" for the sulphuric principles and "water" for the moist principles.

Schmuldvich
08-18-2017, 11:14 PM
One of the secrets of alchemists was semi-liquid quartz glass, based on silicate.
This is an interesting notion that I believe has little or no Truth to it. Do you have anything that you can reference that backs up this idea?

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 11:24 PM
This is an interesting notion that I believe has little or no Truth to it. Do you have anything that you can reference that backs up this idea?
All I can say on that matter is that there is some solvent which allows to do it, and that it has some relation (but it isn't equal) to "universal solvent". There is also a "poor" relative of asbestos, but I am a bit afraid to write about it publicly, but I can say that it is also relative to coal. Now what concerns this "relative" IS my speculation, but it looks close to truth and being one of THOSE things. Yet again, without knowledge of operation it is hard to say anything concrete, possible only to speculate. So I don't impose my speculations, and I am saying only what I am 99,9999% certain about (there is always some seed of doubt).

Luxus
08-18-2017, 11:33 PM
One of the secrets of alchemists was semi-liquid quartz glass, based on silicate. Also quartz (quercus, oak) seems to allow all Sun rays to go through it unlike common glass. it is also interesting to see on materials usually used for normal glass, a lot of them are good pretenders for various alchemical substances.

"Quartz based on silicate" this phrase makes no sense because quartz is silicate (silicon dioxide). But I think I know what you are talking about, flexible glass, liquefaction of gems and the glowing glass used in churches said to be produced by alchemists. These are things that can be accomplished with the stone apparently however you need the stone first.

Illen A. Cluf
08-18-2017, 11:37 PM
All I can say on that matter is that there is some solvent which allows to do it, and that it has some relation (but it isn't equal) to "universal solvent". There is also a "poor" relative of asbestos, but I am a bit afraid to write about it publicly, but I can say that it is also relative to coal. Now what concerns this "relative" IS my speculation, but it looks close to truth and being one of THOSE things. Yet again, without knowledge of operation it is hard to say anything concrete, possible only to speculate. So I don't impose my speculations, and I am saying only what I am 99,9999% certain about (there is always some seed of doubt).

Mica? I doubt that is the subject matter as well, although it has interesting properties.

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 11:45 PM
"Quartz based on silicate" this phrase makes no sense because quartz is silicate (silicon dioxide).
Forgive me my English, I wanted to say "quartz, which is basically also silicate".

Warmheart
08-18-2017, 11:47 PM
Mica? I doubt that is the subject matter as well, although it has interesting properties.
No, I meant flint.

Illen A. Cluf
08-19-2017, 12:01 AM
No, I meant flint.

Certainly an interesting choice, considering how it interacts with steel to produce a spark. Fulcanelli often talked about a "spark". However, his pupil, Eugene Canseliet would certainly have tried to use it if he had thought it was the subject matter. Instead he first focused on antimony, pursued it for a very long time, and eventually dismissed it.

JDP
08-19-2017, 12:07 AM
No, I meant flint.

How are flints "related" to coal? Coals are mostly carbon with varying mixtures of hydrocarbons, while flints are silicon dioxide based.

Warmheart
08-19-2017, 12:11 AM
How are flints "related" to coal? Coals are mostly carbon with varying mixtures of hydrocarbons, while flints are silicon dioxide based.
They are related by fire aspect.

JDP
08-19-2017, 12:16 AM
Certainly an interesting choice, considering how it interacts with steel to produce a spark. Fulcanelli often talked about a "spark". However, his pupil, Eugene Canseliet would certianly have tried to use it if he had thought it was the subject matter. Instead he first focused on antimony, and later dismissed it.

There's something strange in the "master & apprentice" relationship between Canseliet and whoever "Fulcanelli" really was. Canseliet wasted a great deal of his time and money trying to make the Stone from antimony, yet his "master" Fulcanelli categorically rejects this substance, either to make the solvent or the Stone. Apparently there must have been some communication or other type of problem between the two men. Either Canseliet misunderstood Fulcanelli's instructions, or Fulcanelli decided that Canseliet was not a "worthy" disciple and purposefully gave him wrong information to send him on a wild-goose chase.

JDP
08-19-2017, 12:26 AM
They are related by fire aspect.

Not much of a "relationship", really. The whole premise is too vague & general and also rests on false analogies. By the same token I can say that pyrites and rocket fuel are "related" by "fire aspect" (!!!)

Warmheart
08-19-2017, 12:31 AM
Not much of a "relationship", really. The whole premise is too vague & general and also rests on false analogies. By the same token I can say that pyrites and rocket fuel are "related" by "fire aspect" (!!!)
Depends on rocket fuel.

But pyrite is definitely related to flint by fire aspect :)

Carbon and silicon are also like relatives. One is for so-called organic life, the other seems to be of great importance in Mineral Kingdom.

JDP
08-19-2017, 01:13 AM
Depends on rocket fuel.

But pyrite is definitely related to flint by fire aspect :)

Carbon and silicon are also like relatives. One is for so-called organic life, the other seems to be of great importance in Mineral Kingdom.

False analogies.

Illen A. Cluf
08-19-2017, 02:43 AM
There's something strange in the "master & apprentice" relationship between Canseliet and whoever "Fulcanelli" really was. Canseliet wasted a great deal of his time and money trying to make the Stone from antimony, yet his "master" Fulcanelli categorically rejects this substance, either to make the solvent or the Stone. Apparently there must have been some communication or other type of problem between the two men. Either Canseliet misunderstood Fulcanelli's instructions, or Fulcanelli decided that Canseliet was not a "worthy" disciple and purposefully gave him wrong information to send him on a wild-goose chase.

Yes, this is something that has perplexed me also for a very long time. Fulcanelli spent about 2 or 3 pages denying that the subject matter is antimony/stibnite. I can't see how Canseliet could misinterpret it. Maybe he thought that because Fulcanelli was denying it so strongly that it was the adept's way of actually pointing to it. It does seem to show that Fulcanelli didn't reveal much of anything to Canseliet.

black
08-19-2017, 02:46 AM
Alchemy is just one of the mysteries of which traditionally there are three, these three mysteries are broken into three parts each.

Thrice greatest hermes was one who was a master adept possessing the three parts of the three chief mysteries.

Since this forum is about Alchemy chiefly the first key liberally discussed in Alchemical text is the identity of the first matter. The second key discussed less so then the first is the solvent of the alchemists. The third key is what they simply call "cooking" which is made out to be a simple task when in reality its the hardest part of the whole procedure.

It is perhaps for this reason that in my opinion there has been no one who has completed the great work in quite a few hundred years.

An interesting thread Luxus.

Some keys open....some keys close.


From what I have read our cooking is not what most people believe it to be.

To my understanding our cooking is Philosophical Cooking.

Do you share this view ?

Luxus
08-19-2017, 02:39 PM
An interesting thread Luxus.

Some keys open....some keys close.


From what I have read our cooking is not what most people believe it to be.

To my understanding our cooking is Philosophical Cooking.

Do you share this view ?

Yes it is more elaborate and detailed then people imagine, even astrology is taken into account when selecting a start date, duration, degree of flame...and if you get this part wrong even if you have the correct ingredients you will not be successful.

JDP
08-19-2017, 07:57 PM
Yes it is more elaborate and detailed then people imagine, even astrology is taken into account when selecting a start date, duration, degree of flame...and if you get this part wrong even if you have the correct ingredients you will not be successful.

Even if one admitted this unproven belief that the stars somehow have a saying in anything that goes on "down here", that still doesn't mean that the alchemist has to know about this in order to make the Stone. In fact, this very argument was one of the medieval objections to alchemy. The Latin Geber, during his enumeration of such arguments, summarizes it like this:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UybbGc_ky3kC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=%22So+likewise,+the+Being+and+Perfection+are+gi ven+from+the+Stars,%22&source=bl&ots=rahTNy51-Y&sig=ENck4I6supga_-lLI9dj65NGcqo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkkMXo_OPVAhWEOiYKHSVAC7UQ6AEIJjAA#v=on epage&q&f=false

"So likewise, the Being and Perfection are given from the Stars, as the first Perficients, moving the Nature of Generation and Corruption, to the Being and not Being of Species. But this is done suddenly, and in an instant, when one or more Stars, by their Motions, come to a determinate Site in the Firmament, by which the Being of Perfection is given: for every One thing acquires to it self a Being, in a moment, from a certain Site of the Stars. And there is not only one Site, but many, and divers each from other, as the Effects of them are divers. And We cannot know the Diversity and Distincion of these each from other; because to us they are unknown and infinite. How then will you supply the Defect in your Work, being ignorant of the Diversity of Sites of the Stars, according to the Motion of them? And admit you did know the certain Site of one or more Stars, by which Perfection is given to Metals , yet you could not perfect your Work according to your Intent. For there is no Preparation of any Work, for receiving Form by Artifice, in an instant, but successive. Therefore Form cannot be given to the Work, the Preparation being not made in an Instant."

So this objection is that man does not know what are the motions and positions of the stars which generate metals/minerals in the earth, therefore alchemy is impossible. A bit further (page 39) Geber gives his opinion of such arguments, and further on (pp. 46-47) replies to this (among others) objection to alchemy thus:

“Therefore, by reason of these Sophistical Reasons, and others less apparent than these, they conceit they can destroy this Divine Art. All these are Persuasions of Sophisters, simply denying the Art to be…

And if they say from the Site of one or more Stars , Perfection is given to Metals, which Site We know not. To this We answer, We have no necessity to know this Site, because it is not a Species of Things Generable and Corruptible, but from the Individuals of it is made Generation and Corruption of something, every day; whence it is evident that the Site of Stars is every day the Perfeitive and Corruptive of one or other Species of Individuals. Therefore it is not necessary to expect the Site of Stars, yet it would be profitable; but it is sufficient for Nature only to dispose; for she herself being Wise, disposeth her Work by the convenient Sites of moveable Bodies: Yea, Nature cannot perform her own Motion without the Motion and Site of Things moveable. Therefore if you dispose the Artifice of Nature, and consider whatsoever shall fall in from the Contingents of this Magistery, the Work will be duly perfected by Nature, under a due Site Convenient for it, without any previous Consideration thereof. For when We see a Worm deduced to a Being from a Dog, or other putrefiable Animal, We do not immediately confider the Site of the Stars, but the Dispositions of the surrounding Air, and other Causes (besides that) perfective of Putrefaction. From such a Consideration We sufficiently know, Worms to be produced into a Being, according to Nature; for Nature finds out a Site convenient for herself, although unknown by Us.”

For those who have trouble understanding the medieval theories and mentality of the Latin Geber and the manner of expression of his 17th century English translator, the gist of Geber's counter-argument is this: He accepts the ancient belief that the stars have an influence on the "generation" of things down on Earth, but he says that it is unnecessary for the alchemist to be privy of how nature disposes the motion and position of these heavenly bodies to generate things because nature is constantly generating things all the time, including metals/minerals, so there is no need to worry about this. He brings up the example (according also to ancient beliefs that Geber does not question the veracity of, like "spontaneous generation") of how worms are "generated" from decaying animals as an example. We don't know the disposition of the stars during such generation, but we can easily observe that decaying animals always "generate" worms. This happens all the time. No need to observe the position and motion of the stars. Nature will take its course as always, no matter what you do or what you know about it. So the Stone will be made, whether you pay attention to the motion and positions of the stars or not, it won't make you fail. Nature will do "its thing" whether you are aware of it or not.

Conclusion (and not just based on medieval logical arguments like those of Geber, but on our more modern ones as well): in alchemy it is hardly necessary to pay attention to the groundless ramblings of astrology.

Hellin Hermetist
08-19-2017, 09:00 PM
I have high doubts about that you can get their clues with enough dedication. E.g., forgive me God for writing this, but after learning from other sources that salamander is asbestos, I swear I would never get it from any alchemical book with their subtle allegories. And even if I'd get it, some other book would make sure that I discard such assumption.

Salamadra is not asbestos. That one of the many sophistries of H.P. Blavatsky. Alchemists called salamander the stone prepared and completed to the red. Fulcanelli on the other hand, in an attempt to supprot his sophistry of the phonetic cabal, pretented that alchemical salamander is sel niter.

Hellin Hermetist
08-19-2017, 09:12 PM
Yes, this is something that has perplexed me also for a very long time. Fulcanelli spent about 2 or 3 pages denying that the subject matter is antimony/stibnite. I can't see how Canseliet could misinterpret it. Maybe he thought that because Fulcanelli was denying it so strongly that it was the adept's way of actually pointing to it. It does seem to show that Fulcanelli didn't reveal much of anything to Canseliet.

I believe that this point can be solved without much difficulty. Canseliet knew that Fulcanelli/Champagne wasnt an accomplished adept and was never able to complete the stone, so he preferred to to try his luck with the antimonial path of Philalethes-Starkey.

JDP
08-19-2017, 09:53 PM
I believe that this point can be solved without much difficulty. Canseliet knew that Fulcanelli/Champagne wasnt an accomplished adept and was never able to complete the stone, so he preferred to to try his luck with the antimonial path of Philalethes-Starkey.

Canseliet actually had a pretty different take on the belief that the Stone can be made from antimony. His ideas are obviously based on those of Fulcanelli (except that Fulcanelli clearly rejects antimony, I don't understand how could Canseliet not see this) about the "short" or "dry" way being performed inside crucibles and using high temperatures, which in turn Fulcanelli and all others who propose this claim got from the anonymous visitor who gave Helvetius a sample of the Stone. So far I have not been able to find any writer before the Helvetius account who makes such a claim, though. What writers before this usually understood by "dry" way was the claim that the Stone can be made from metallic "mercuries", and since mercury "does not wet the hands" like other liquids do that explains the name of this method. However, nowhere do these writers say that the whole process is carried out in crucibles and using strong fires.

Warmheart
08-19-2017, 10:34 PM
Salamadra is not asbestos. That one of the many sophistries of H.P. Blavatsky. Alchemists called salamander the stone prepared and completed to the red. Fulcanelli on the other hand, in an attempt to supprot his sophistry of the phonetic cabal, pretented that alchemical salamander is sel niter.
I don't exclude 0,00001% possibility that I am wrong and that salamander is something else (maybe even nitre, more precisely ammonium nitrate). But it is definitely not the finite product. Charades of some alchemists are so mega convoluted, so that without any outside help or some honest and sincere manuscripts it is impossible to understand them.

Visita Interiora Terrae, Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem Et Ultimam Medicinam = Vitri Oleum. Now take those stories about semi-liquid glass (vitrum) and look that asbestos is silicate. Considering secret oil from it, it is quite possible that you can make semi-perpetual light with it, as this thing will be less or more self-sufficient.

Kiorionis
08-19-2017, 10:39 PM
But light is already perpetual, courtesy our Sun

Why do you need to "re-create" it?

Warmheart
08-19-2017, 11:05 PM
But light is already perpetual, courtesy our Sun

Why do you need to "re-create" it?
Unless you are speaking allegorically, there was a secret of nearly perpetual light (can't say that it is everlasting, but it can burn for many centuries). They were spoken about by many alchemists and historians and such as being excavated and found in some graves but, once broken up, fire would extinguish forever. It has a very practical application, because it is "lightened up" always, while Sun is only there for the day. One could say about reflected Sun rays from the Moon, but it looks like a very poor argument, especially if to consider New Moon Phase, when there is totally no visible light.

Kiorionis
08-19-2017, 11:30 PM
Nope, not allegorical. Literal.


while Sun is only there for the day. One could say about reflected Sun rays from the Moon, but it looks like a very poor argument, especially if to consider New Moon Phase, when there is totally no visible light.

Quite geocentric of you :)

Say we stop the Earth's rotation at high noon. Time collapses and all we know is the perpetual burning of the Sun.

Of course, this would completely throw things out of balance.

If my signature is correct, how to recreate the Sun in the flask?

Warmheart
08-19-2017, 11:51 PM
Quite geocentric of you :)

Say we stop the Earth's rotation at high noon. Time collapses and all we know is the perpetual burning of the Sun.

Of course, this would completely throw things out of balance.

If my signature is correct, how to recreate the Sun in the flask?
Need to somehow fix Sun/Moon rays with the help of some Magnet. I don't know how....

JDP
08-20-2017, 01:56 AM
Unless you are speaking allegorically, there was a secret of nearly perpetual light (can't say that it is everlasting, but it can burn for many centuries). They were spoken about by many alchemists and historians and such as being excavated and found in some graves but, once broken up, fire would extinguish forever. It has a very practical application, because it is "lightened up" always, while Sun is only there for the day. One could say about reflected Sun rays from the Moon, but it looks like a very poor argument, especially if to consider New Moon Phase, when there is totally no visible light.

Fortunio Liceti wrote a thick volume on the subject of old lamps, including the "perpetual" ones:

https://books.google.com/books?id=sPV4XkCckP8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fortunio+Liceti+%22De+lucernis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxztyr1-TVAhWI5SYKHRapCF4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Fortunio%20Liceti%20%22De%20lucernis%22&f=false

Some alchemists claimed that the Stone could actually glow in the dark, but the majority of alchemists do not point out anything of the sort, though. Supposing the phenomenon is true, maybe it has to do with how it was prepared? According to Fulcanelli, the property of glowing in the dark is acquired when the Stone is "multiplied" (through several repeated "coctions") and exalted to such a high degree that instead of coagulating into a solid it remains in the form of a liquid that glows with a soft red phosphorescence.

Kibric
08-20-2017, 02:19 AM
There is a bible quote ? about Noah ? having a Glowing Crystal aboard the Ark

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P6sJPc7aY4oC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68&dq=glowing+crystal+noahs+ark&source=bl&ots=pZat7Qgo7k&sig=LxBUPcIlyXuYPhdBR-g3W6VHG0o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj75tqj3-TVAhWID8AKHQpJCP0Q6AEIPzAI#v=onepage&q=glowing%20crystal%20noahs%20ark&f=false

more on glowing stuff


Hugh Nibley has called attention to accounts from Jewish tradition of similar arrangements that were made for the ark of Noah1, to which the Jaredite vessels are compared in Ether 6:7. Several early Jewish sources indicate that God told Noah to suspend precious stones or pearls inside the ark to lighten it; in some traditions, it is a jewel-encrusted heavenly book.2 The gem would glow during the night and grow dim during the day so Noah, shut up in the ark, could tell the time of day and how many days had passed.3 This was the explanation given by the rabbis for the sôhar that the Lord told Noah to construct in the ark. The word is rendered "window" in the King James Version of Genesis 6:16, but "light" in some other translations.


And the Lord said: I will prepare unto my servant Gazelem, a stone, which shall shine forth in darkness unto light, that I may discover unto my people who serve me, that I may discover unto them the works of their brethren, yea, their secret works, their works of darkness, and their wickedness and abominations.


The medieval Jewish text Bahir speaks of "the power of the precious stones that are called Socheret and Dar,"11 saying of the latter, "God took a thousandth of its radiance, and from it He constructed a beautiful precious stone. In it He included all the commandments. Abraham came, and He sought a power to give him. He gave him this precious stone, but he did not want it."12 Abraham said that though he did not want the stone, he would "keep all the commandments that are included in it."13 The document further notes that the two stones are alluded to in Habakkuk 3:4 in connection with the "rays" (KJV "horns") coming from God's hand.14



The heavenly city is very much like the residence of God and the future celestialized earth, as described in Doctrine and Covenants 130:6–9, "a globe like a sea of glass and fire, . . . a great Urim and Thummim . . . like unto crystal." John saw a "sea of glass" that supported the throne of God (see Revelation 4:5–6). In Revelation 15:2, he describes it as "a sea of glass mingled with fire." Joseph Smith explained that this was "the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state "(D&C 77:1). The crystal that surrounds the throne of God is mentioned by other prophets (see Exodus 24:10; Ezekiel 1:22, 26–28; 10:1; compare 28:13–16) and in various pseudepigraphic works.

After describing the celestialized earth, Doctrine and Covenants 130:10–11 notes that "the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one." Significantly, this stone, like the high-priestly Urim and Thummim and the precious stone foundations and gates of the New Jerusalem, is inscribed, not with the names of the twelve tribes, but with a "new name [that] is the key word."39 Zohar Exodus 240a–b, citing Isaiah 55:11, notes that the foundations of the future Jerusalem will be of sapphire that "will possess the radiation from the supernal light and will be embedded in the abyss so that no one will be able to loosen them. These are the sapphires that will shed their light above and below


https://publications.mi.byu.edu/pdf-control.php/publications/jbms/6/2/S00006-Glowing_Stones_in_Ancient_and_Medieval_Lore.html

Schmuldvich
08-20-2017, 02:40 AM
There is a bible quote ? about Noah ? having a Glowing Crystal aboard the Ark

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=P6sJPc7aY4oC&pg=PT68&lpg=PT68&dq=glowing+crystal+noahs+ark&source=bl&ots=pZat7Qgo7k&sig=LxBUPcIlyXuYPhdBR-g3W6VHG0o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj75tqj3-TVAhWID8AKHQpJCP0Q6AEIPzAI#v=onepage&q=glowing%20crystal%20noahs%20ark&f=false
Definitely not from the Bible, but very cool! Am I the only one seeing an elucidation of our Great Work here?!


http://i.imgur.com/mYsiafo.png
http://i.imgur.com/UeX4bNz.png


...Thanks for sharing, Kibric!

Warmheart
08-20-2017, 09:47 AM
Some alchemists claimed that the Stone could actually glow in the dark, but the majority of alchemists do not point out anything of the sort, though. Supposing the phenomenon is true, maybe it has to do with how it was prepared? According to Fulcanelli, the property of glowing in the dark is acquired when the Stone is "multiplied" (through several repeated "coctions") and exalted to such a high degree that instead of coagulating into a solid it remains in the form of a liquid that glows with a soft red phosphorescence.
I will definitely read this book.

To me it seems, that you can use universal solvent to make oil out of asbestos, and then put that oil with asbestos and lighten asbestos in a closed container/flask.

There was also a thing with Phosphoros, some alchemists thought IT was a thing, especially those alchemists who were persuaded that urine was the first matter. So some of them in their books wrote about Phosphoros.

Luxus
08-20-2017, 11:24 AM
Even if one admitted this unproven belief that the stars somehow have a saying in anything that goes on "down here", that still doesn't mean that the alchemist has to know about this in order to make the Stone. In fact, this very argument was one of the medieval objections to alchemy. The Latin Geber, during his enumeration of such arguments, summarizes it like this:
.

Most Alchemists used astrology as a means of timing the great work. They worked more with solar/lunar cycles then the influence of individual stars. The 12 house in astrology were used to calculate the degrees of heat, duration, when to begin etc. All alchemists used a timing sequence based on the seven days of the planets or the 12 houses of the zodiac or the 28 lunar phases or some elaborate combination of these.

The alchemists concept of how metals were formed in the Earth was the influence of the seven planetary lights influencing the radical moisture in the Earth. In addition to this the quality's of the earth.

Luxus
08-20-2017, 11:35 AM
I don't exclude 0,00001% possibility that I am wrong and that salamander is something else (maybe even nitre, more precisely ammonium nitrate). But it is definitely not the finite product. Charades of some alchemists are so mega convoluted, so that without any outside help or some honest and sincere manuscripts it is impossible to understand them.

Visita Interiora Terrae, Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem Et Ultimam Medicinam = Vitri Oleum. Now take those stories about semi-liquid glass (vitrum) and look that asbestos is silicate. Considering secret oil from it, it is quite possible that you can make semi-perpetual light with it, as this thing will be less or more self-sufficient.

The Salamander along with the phoenix are both mythical creatures which grow in fire. They are just symbols of the stone because it also grows in fire, that's all it means.

Luxus
08-20-2017, 11:50 AM
Fortunio Liceti wrote a thick volume on the subject of old lamps, including the "perpetual" ones:

https://books.google.com/books?id=sPV4XkCckP8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fortunio+Liceti+%22De+lucernis%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxztyr1-TVAhWI5SYKHRapCF4Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=Fortunio%20Liceti%20%22De%20lucernis%22&f=false

Some alchemists claimed that the Stone could actually glow in the dark, but the majority of alchemists do not point out anything of the sort, though. Supposing the phenomenon is true, maybe it has to do with how it was prepared? According to Fulcanelli, the property of glowing in the dark is acquired when the Stone is "multiplied" (through several repeated "coctions") and exalted to such a high degree that instead of coagulating into a solid it remains in the form of a liquid that glows with a soft red phosphorescence.

That is correct however multiplication (quantity) and augmentation (power) are not to be confused. The stone glows in the dark when it is augmented to the 3rd degree, passed this it is said no glass container can hold it and it will pass through the glass like hot wax through paper. If this be true then augmentation of the lapis albus will give you a white light whilst augmentation of the lapis ruber will give you a red light.

It is also possible alchemists playing around with bone ash managed to extract phosphorous.

Vedic text also talk about naga gems/stones that glow in the dark, naga loka is said to be illuminated with the light of these stones. Also Plato mentions a metal that glows red. According to the Critias of Plato, the three outer walls of the Temple to Poseidon and Cleito on Atlantis were clad respectively with brass, tin, and the third outer wall, which encompassed the whole citadel, "flashed with the red light of orichalcum"

Warmheart
08-20-2017, 11:52 AM
The Salamander along with the phoenix are both mythical creatures which grow in fire. They are just symbols of the stone because it also grows in fire, that's all it means.
And how sure are you about your words?

Also, some words from Marco Polo:
“The real truth is that the Salamander is no beast, as they allege in our part of the world, but is a substance found in the earth.” He relates the experiences of a Turkish acquaintance in China, where the man dug up “Salamander,” or asbestos as we know it, and processed its fibers into napkins. “When first made these napkins are not very white, but by putting them into the fire for a while they come out as white as snow. And so again whenever they become dirty they are bleached by being put in the fire.”

That's why I wrote that sometimes Alchemical charades are going way off the track, especially when charade-maker himself is in error.

I am not saying that asbestos is THE main subject of the work. I am simply saying that possible use of asbestos in ever-burning lamps is just one of peculiar particularities which you can achieve by using Philosophers' Mercury.

I will be glad if I will be proven wrong (which I am most likely not) and shown the true nature of Alchemical salamander, but it must have some tangible weight under it and not some speculation.

Kiorionis
08-20-2017, 01:22 PM
The Salamander along with the phoenix are both mythical creatures which grow in fire. They are just symbols of the stone because it also grows in fire, that's all it means.

Salamanders are not mythical creatures. We have a shit ton around the parks where I live. Also, the salamander evolves in the water, on account of it being an amphibian:

https://userscontent2.emaze.com/images/98fd3414-afd1-46e0-a89b-66fd24b95b57/4ba3b74a-b2b1-42a0-aab1-4d47a61f072e.jpg

The alchemical Salamander, as well as the elemental Salamanders, are similar. They're able to endure the Fire because of their Watery nature. But to add even more confusion, this doesn't mean that they are not made of fire.

Most others will probably have a different opinion on this than me.

Another variation of this concept is the palm of the Hand of the Philosophers, in which the fish lives in the fire.


The Phoenix though. Most likely mythical haha

Illen A. Cluf
08-20-2017, 01:31 PM
I believe that this point can be solved without much difficulty. Canseliet knew that Fulcanelli/Champagne wasnt an accomplished adept and was never able to complete the stone, so he preferred to to try his luck with the antimonial path of Philalethes-Starkey.

But that's not true. Canseliet clearly spells out in one of the Introductions that Fulcanelli indeed DID complete the stone at the Gasworks (early 1920's). Canseliet obviously believed that Fulcanelli was a true adept.

Warmheart
08-20-2017, 01:34 PM
Salamanders are not mythical creatures. We have a shit ton around the parks where I live.
I think it was Pliny who wanted to see if myth about salamanders not burning in fire was true, so he put such salamander in the fire, and it burned away...

Kiorionis
08-20-2017, 01:51 PM
Haha Pliny was a clever one then ;)

I'd be curious to see what parts stayed behind!

Luxus
08-20-2017, 01:57 PM
When the alchemists were talking about the salamander they were talking about the elemental salamander which depending if you believe in the four elemental creatures or not is mythical or real. It is a creature which lives in fire and derives is sustenance from that fire.

Anything that can resist fire can be compared to a salamander.

As for ever burning lamps asbestos was thought to be a suitable material from which to make a wick which would not be consumed in an oil lamp...but then they had the problem of making an oil which would regenerate itself. Some have suggested subterranean oil or bitchumen deposits, Kircher was very interested in such things.

""In Egypt there are rich deposits of asphalt and petroleum. What did these clever fellows [the priests] do, then, but connect an oil deposit by a secret duct with one or more lamps, provided with wicks of asbestos!" Kircher

Warmheart
08-20-2017, 02:29 PM
When the alchemists were talking about the salamander they were talking about the elemental salamander which depending if you believe in the four elemental creatures or not is mythical or real. It is a creature which lives in fire and derives is sustenance from that fire.
Surely Paracelsus, writing about Salamanders, Sylphes, Undines and Gnomes, was writing about Elemental Creatures in that case. But Alchemical Salamanders, just like Alchemical Doves, Horses, Dogs are a bit different beasts in my opinion.

Anything that can resist fire can be compared to a salamander.
Alchemical Salamander was often depicted as biting its own tail, so I don't think it is only about resistance to Fire.


""In Egypt there are rich deposits of asphalt and petroleum. What did these clever fellows [the priests] do, then, but connect an oil deposit by a secret duct with one or more lamps, provided with wicks of asbestos!" Kircher
I think we have a complex case here. Probably old Egyptians knew very well a lot of things which would look like miracles to us. But as time passed, they started forgetting such things and so they tried faking it. It is like Holy Fire miracle which is done by modern church - they are just faking it by convoluted mechanisms. So Kircher most likely saw the faked versions.

JDP
08-20-2017, 04:50 PM
Most Alchemists used astrology as a means of timing the great work. They worked more with solar/lunar cycles then the influence of individual stars. The 12 house in astrology were used to calculate the degrees of heat, duration, when to begin etc. All alchemists used a timing sequence based on the seven days of the planets or the 12 houses of the zodiac or the 28 lunar phases or some elaborate combination of these.

The alchemists concept of how metals were formed in the Earth was the influence of the seven planetary lights influencing the radical moisture in the Earth. In addition to this the quality's of the earth.

They sure did not. Most alchemical treatises say nothing of the sort. Most alchemists accepted the notion that the stars & planets have an influence on the generation of terrestrial things, but also subscribed to ideas like those of Geber, namely: that the operator does not know such things, and neither does he need to know them. Nature is constantly doing its work. It is not the concern of the alchemist to know these things. The alchemist's concern is with the "immediate" disposition of things (i.e. the visible tangible things that surround us and that can be manipulated by the hand of man.)

JDP
08-20-2017, 04:56 PM
That is correct however multiplication (quantity) and augmentation (power) are not to be confused. The stone glows in the dark when it is augmented to the 3rd degree, passed this it is said no glass container can hold it and it will pass through the glass like hot wax through paper. If this be true then augmentation of the lapis albus will give you a white light whilst augmentation of the lapis ruber will give you a red light.

It is also possible alchemists playing around with bone ash managed to extract phosphorous.

Vedic text also talk about naga gems/stones that glow in the dark, naga loka is said to be illuminated with the light of these stones. Also Plato mentions a metal that glows red. According to the Critias of Plato, the three outer walls of the Temple to Poseidon and Cleito on Atlantis were clad respectively with brass, tin, and the third outer wall, which encompassed the whole citadel, "flashed with the red light of orichalcum"

It makes you wonder why then most alchemists did not notice such properties. Phosphorescence is not something that most people take lightly (no pun intended), specially in older times when the phenomenon was less common, so most alchemists failing to notice this alleged characteristic of the Stone certainly sounds strange.

Luxus
08-20-2017, 06:04 PM
They sure did not. Most alchemical treatises say nothing of the sort. Most alchemists accepted the notion that the stars & planets have an influence on the generation of terrestrial things, but also subscribed to ideas like those of Geber, namely: that the operator does not know such things, and neither does he need to know them. Nature is constantly doing its work. It is not the concern of the alchemist to know these things. The alchemist's concern is with the "immediate" disposition of things (i.e. the visible tangible things that surround us and that can be manipulated by the hand of man.)

Your right they usually say nothing about it....but their accompanying images are full of it. Remember a picture speaks a thousand words!

Luxus
08-20-2017, 06:22 PM
It makes you wonder why then most alchemists did not notice such properties. Phosphorescence is not something that most people take lightly (no pun intended), specially in older times when the phenomenon was less common, so most alchemists failing to notice this alleged characteristic of the Stone certainly sounds strange.

Perhaps they were content with the stone of the first degree and never bothered or knew how to augment it. It appears the stone of the first degree does not glow. The red stone of the first degree is a brittle solid, when augmented further it becomes waxy and passed this it will become liquid.

The stone augmented to the liquid phase is fiery and a lethal poison if consumed.

JDP
08-21-2017, 12:33 AM
Your right they usually say nothing about it....but their accompanying images are full of it. Remember a picture speaks a thousand words!

They usually say nothing about it because to many of them the thought never even entered their minds, while to others it was not deemed necessary to know such things. As I showed, it was one of the medieval arguments AGAINST alchemy that men simply cannot know how the motions and positions of the heavenly bodies influence terrestrial generations, it was considered something that only "God" and nature know, so therefore alchemy is impossible since man cannot know such things. Alchemists responded to the argument in similar fashion to those already quoted from one of Geber's books. It is not necessary for man to know such things. We see such generations happening all the time around us. Nature is constantly at work. It is not up to man to know such things, he only worries about the things he can know (and perhaps even manipulate to his own advantage), like the "dispositions of the surrounding air", to use the example Geber used of a decomposing animal carcass supposedly generating worms. Today we know that such "generations" have different causes, but to the ancient, medieval and even early modern mind it was still possible to conceive how the stars/planets could somehow have something to do with any of this. But that "fact" did not concern the alchemist because that was just how nature supposedly worked, whether he knew or not how exactly the stars/planets played a part on the generation of terrestrial things would not stop nature one bit from doing its work, therefore it was rather pointless to try to figure out such things. Whatever motions of the stars/planets were causing these effects, they were CONSTANT, always at work all year-round, the alchemist did not need to worry about them.

As for pictures in alchemical texts, some of the oldest surviving examples we have come from some Arabic authors, like Ibn Umail (10th century AD; his name got Latinized as "Senior Zadith, son of Hamuel" around the 13th century AD, when about half of his treatise entitled "Book of the Silvery Water and the Starry Earth", which is in fact a long commentary on his own poem entitled "Epistle of the Sun to the Crescent Moon", got translated into that language and had a huge impact on the Latin-speaking world, which at that point in time was still largely unfamiliar with alchemy), and he in fact SCOFFED at those who were ignorant of alchemy and who thought that such cryptic pictures, as those found in some old Egyptian temples, had to do with things like astrology in his commentary to his own "Poem Rhyming in (the letter) Nun" (Ibn Umail in fact loved breaking into the old Egyptian temples that were still surviving in his times to study the statues and paintings found inside, many of which were the subject of his own poems and treatises.)

True Initiate
08-21-2017, 12:42 AM
The alchemist's concern is with the "immediate" disposition of things (i.e. the visible tangible things that surround us and that can be manipulated by the hand of man.)

:rolleyes:

JDP
08-21-2017, 12:50 AM
Perhaps they were content with the stone of the first degree and never bothered or knew how to augment it. It appears the stone of the first degree does not glow. The red stone of the first degree is a brittle solid, when augmented further it becomes waxy and passed this it will become liquid.

The stone augmented to the liquid phase is fiery and a lethal poison if consumed.

The subject of "multiplying/augmenting/exalting" the Stone was a common one in the literature. It is therefore a bit strange that if the Stone can really acquire the property of glowing in the dark after several such repetitions of its "coction" so very few alchemists would have taken notice of such a remarkable characteristic.

JDP
08-21-2017, 12:54 AM
:rolleyes:

Take the "rolleyes" to the old alchemists, like the already quoted Geber, since they are the ones saying & implying that. And I agree with them on that one.

Schmuldvich
08-21-2017, 04:01 AM
As for pictures in alchemical texts, some of the oldest surviving examples we have come from some Arabic authors, like Ibn Umail (10th century AD; his name got Latinized as "Senior Zadith, son of Hamuel" around the 13th century AD, when about half of his treatise entitled "Book of the Silvery Water and the Starry Earth", which is in fact a long commentary on his own poem entitled "Epistle of the Sun to the Crescent Moon", got translated into that language and had a huge impact on the Latin-speaking world, which at that point in time was still largely unfamiliar with alchemy), and he in fact SCOFFED at those who were ignorant of alchemy and who thought that such cryptic pictures, as those found in some old Egyptian temples, had to do with things like astrology in his commentary to his own "Poem Rhyming in (the letter) Nun" (Ibn Umail in fact loved breaking into the old Egyptian temples that were still surviving in his times to study the statues and paintings found inside, many of which were the subject of his own poems and treatises.)
I'm intrigued!

Is this poem or any of his texts available online, or can you share any of his words with us?

elixirmixer
08-21-2017, 04:11 AM
The subject of "multiplying/augmenting/exalting" the Stone was a common one in the literature. It is therefore a bit strange that if the Stone can really acquire the property of glowing in the dark after several such repetitions of its "coction" so very few alchemists would have taken notice of such a remarkable characteristic.

The stone in it's first degree does glow. Something I read that Snoofix quoted from 'aphorisums something something', said something along the lines of:
and the purer the starting matter, the easier, simpler, and more powerful your work'

I might be pretty new here and to your sides of this wonderful science, however I will gently remind that I have a decade of Gnostic meditation and heavy reading; and I just wanted to share my experiences that I received through revelation.

There are, most certainly, many many red stones that have exceptional medicinal power. As many species of plant, animal and mineral that there is, that is how many Red and White stones may be had. Jut ask Hollandus. True hermetic alchemical practise will bring ALL things to stonehood.

The philosophers stone is a stone that is brought about by the MOST pure elements. May I refer you to several of Andro's thread to display the concepts I'm talking about (insert threads here?) I don't know how to do that but you can find it.

The !Glowing! is not only present when the stone is completed, but it is also present at the very very start. You cannot give, that which you do not have; and stones that glow, must start from a matter that glows.

It is compounded and glows immediately (I'll take te time now to clarify that my method is not the same as Andro's, in fact mine is more particular, and if we were both to succeed, Andro's would most certainly be more true than my own, an may not follow the same glowing theory that mine does)

Once the compound glows, it immediately begins putrefaction and blackens. Only then at the end, reviving with it's new Red Glow.

Alpha Omega. The beginning and the end.

There are so many here that are sooo close. I look forward to meeting you all personally after we have all succeeded :)

Luxus
08-21-2017, 08:57 AM
The !Glowing! is not only present when the stone is completed, but it is also present at the very very start. You cannot give, that which you do not have; and stones that glow, must start from a matter that glows.

It is compounded and glows immediately (I'll take te time now to clarify that my method is not the same as Andro's, in fact mine is more particular, and if we were both to succeed, Andro's would most certainly be more true than my own, an may not follow the same glowing theory that mine does)



I would have to agree with you from an esoteric point of view all matter is glowing because all matter is just the crystallisation of light "let there be light" and it was done. Everything is light and all we know was formed from this light "the Sun is its father". Unless you have psychic vision (in which case everything is glowing) the stone does not glow until augmented in power.

It is said "it glows in the dark like a coal" and its rays "smites the eyes"

JDP
08-21-2017, 10:04 AM
The stone in it's first degree does glow. Something I read that Snoofix quoted from 'aphorisums something something', said something along the lines of:

I might be pretty new here and to your sides of this wonderful science, however I will gently remind that I have a decade of Gnostic meditation and heavy reading; and I just wanted to share my experiences that I received through revelation.

There are, most certainly, many many red stones that have exceptional medicinal power. As many species of plant, animal and mineral that there is, that is how many Red and White stones may be had. Jut ask Hollandus. True hermetic alchemical practise will bring ALL things to stonehood.

The philosophers stone is a stone that is brought about by the MOST pure elements. May I refer you to several of Andro's thread to display the concepts I'm talking about (insert threads here?) I don't know how to do that but you can find it.

The !Glowing! is not only present when the stone is completed, but it is also present at the very very start. You cannot give, that which you do not have; and stones that glow, must start from a matter that glows.

It is compounded and glows immediately (I'll take te time now to clarify that my method is not the same as Andro's, in fact mine is more particular, and if we were both to succeed, Andro's would most certainly be more true than my own, an may not follow the same glowing theory that mine does)

Once the compound glows, it immediately begins putrefaction and blackens. Only then at the end, reviving with it's new Red Glow.

Alpha Omega. The beginning and the end.

There are so many here that are sooo close. I look forward to meeting you all personally after we have all succeeded :)

If you consult the literature, you will see that most alchemists say absolutely nothing about the Stone glowing in the dark, let alone any of the substances used to prepare it. Such a feature would be impossible to miss, so it is a bit suspicious that so few have remarked that the Stone is endowed with phosphorescence. But if Fulcanelli is correct in his statements regarding this, maybe it has to do with the fact that most alchemists did not want to "multiply/augment/exalt" the Stone so many times until it turned into a liquid instead of the solid form of the Stone for fear that they might lose it through some accident. So maybe many alchemists ignored that the liquid Stone would glow in the dark since they never actually went that far, preferring to play it safe and keep the Stone in solid form.

JDP
08-21-2017, 10:38 AM
I'm intrigued!

Is this poem or any of his texts available online, or can you share any of his words with us?

There is an incomplete English translation of Ibn Umail's "Epistle of the Sun to the Crescent Moon" in von Franz's "Alchemy: An Introduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology" (just ignore her absurd psychological interpretation of it.) I have a complete translation of the poem, personally commissioned.

Ibn Umail's "Book of the Silvery Water and the Starry Earth", a long commentary on his own previously mentioned poem, has never been fully translated into any language. Not even I have a complete translation of this treatise. About half of it was translated into Latin around the 13th century, and in the 1930s-1950s Stapleton and his colleagues translated many portions of it and published them in the Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and the journal Ambix. Theodor Abt (the Jungian psychologist in charge of the CALA series) has also translated several parts of it and published them in a commentary of another treatise of Ibn Umail that he published (see below.)

A related treatise of Ibn Umail, focusing this time on the multitude of "decknamen" employed by the alchemists, entitled "Book of the Explanation of the Symbols", was translated and published by the people from Living Human Heritage in their CALA (Corpus Alchemicum Arabicum) series:

http://www.livinghumanheritage.org/?p=82

Same caveat as with von Franz's book, though: ignore the ridiculous Jungian misinterpretations. Their editions of Arabic alchemical texts are only interesting for the translations of the original texts, not their ludicrous outlandish ideas and conjectures about what these alchemists were doing (which is plainly manipulating some substances to make the Stone, and not playing silly and pointless mental games. The Jungians are simply delusional. Sometimes I can't help roll on the floor laughing my ass off when reading their unbelievably absurd "interpretations" of these interesting old alchemical texts.)

As for Ibn Umail's "Poem Rhyming in (the letter) Nun" and his own commentary on it, I am the only one (as far as I can tell) who has a translation of it (made for me by my Arabic translator.)

Schmuldvich
08-21-2017, 02:12 PM
Can you open your chest of mysteries and share with us an excerpt of his writing from your personal collection?

"Epistle of the Sun to the Crescent Moon" seems fascinating.

elixirmixer
08-21-2017, 03:34 PM
JDP: the alchemists of old, we're no different from the alchemists of today, they had differing opinions, we're working with different matter, which, when described hermetically, sound EXTREMEMLY similar, since, all matters can be viewed hermetically, in regards to their elements, and any bloke, old or new, that takes any matter, and treats it hermetically, will make something worth writing about. You guys idolise these old alchemical scriptures, while you don't realise that they are of an equal value of any post that us here on this forum, put a bit of fucking effort into.

LuXus, and everyone else. Blood, as Skrilix has shown us (sorry man for exposin your epic stuff; it's for the good of the all) has our spirit in it. Augmented, it loses it's feces and will glow. However, it will require this augmentation to transmute. Without it, you can expect a good medicine, particular for you. VERY PARTICULAR in comparison to purist methods like Andro's.

Like is said, I work differently to Andro, more particular but still EXTREMELY pure, way way way more than blood, which is way way way better than the blokes pissing in jars, mining actual rocks whilst telling us not to take the literature literally ??? Dew, archeus, ect.

Hermetics makes the stone. Alchemy is just the proper chemistry required to produce it in the lab.

SM is the key.

The body,
Most especially blood more than ANYTHING attracts it.

SM makes the stone, and all other good elixirs quickly.

Hermetics makes SM.

Hermetics makes blood.

Hermetics was the doctrine of Christ.

And how did He save us?

If you are not called to the true stone (there are not many positions left in the Counsel of 144,000 (The Order of the Son of God) then use blood.

You have all have many opertunities to find the Stone, from days old until the very day, MaleCREATIVEFIREFemale (God) mercy is in front of you always, we just do not see it on the vast majority of circumstances and situations.

I ACT like a massive dickhead on here, because I can, because it's fun. However, I love you. I fucking love you. You, you dickhead, reading this. I'll make the ducking stone and rock up your door, just to show you that I ment what I said.

This is a hologram.

The words your writing.

The breath your taking.

Don't underestimate how much God loves you. And He doesn't work through hands.

He works through Men; and women... No sorry, Woman.

Things are soon to change.

Get ready.

zoas23
08-21-2017, 07:11 PM
There is an incomplete English translation of Ibn Umail's "Epistle of the Sun to the Crescent Moon" in von Franz's "Alchemy: An Introduction to the Symbolism and the Psychology" (just ignore her absurd psychological interpretation of it.) I have a complete translation of the poem, personally commissioned.

Nice, you should publish them actually. It is somehow easy these days.
Other than that, I am currently translating some old texts as to publish them (I won't say which ones), but in Spanish.
I am VERY surprised by the fact that there is an English translation of several of them by translators who have the fame of being "very academic" (I can't say who they are, it would be disrespectful).... and I am finding that their translations are bullshit. I do not mean "alchemical mistakes", but vulgar translation mistakes.

Warmheart
08-21-2017, 07:27 PM
I am VERY surprised by the fact that there is an English translation of several of them by translators who have the fame of being "very academic" (I can't say who they are, it would be disrespectful).... and I am finding that their translations are bullshit. I do not mean "alchemical mistakes", but vulgar translation mistakes.
Do you mean such translations as Waite's translation of Philalethes' Introitus Apertus, where he changed Mercury to Sulphur, omitted whole paragraphs and allowed himself other such freedom with the text?:)

zoas23
08-21-2017, 08:06 PM
Do you mean such translations as Waite's translation of Philalethes' Introitus Apertus, where he changed Mercury to Sulphur, omitted whole paragraphs and allowed himself other such freedom with the text?:)

I know the translations of Waite, but I have not checked them with the originals, so I have to trust your word.
Omitted paragraphs, but also sentences which simply don't say what the original text says (and sometimes I am scratching my head and trying to understand how the hell someone decided to translate like that).

JDP
08-21-2017, 08:09 PM
JDP: the alchemists of old, we're no different from the alchemists of today, they had differing opinions, we're working with different matter, which, when described hermetically, sound EXTREMEMLY similar, since, all matters can be viewed hermetically, in regards to their elements, and any bloke, old or new, that takes any matter, and treats it hermetically, will make something worth writing about. You guys idolise these old alchemical scriptures, while you don't realise that they are of an equal value of any post that us here on this forum, put a bit of fucking effort into.

http://musicpleer.audio/#!0e2e6d9c4d95c72f973b1eba8c0b113c

JDP
08-21-2017, 08:17 PM
Can you open your chest of mysteries and share with us an excerpt of his writing from your personal collection?

"Epistle of the Sun to the Crescent Moon" seems fascinating.

A pertinent quote here (seeing as our friend elixirmixer is still entertaining the ILLUSION that there are "many Stones" or that the Stone can be made from a bunch of different and totally unrelated things by all manner of different processes), from the first half of Ibn Umail's "Book of the Silvery Water and the Starry Earth", his very own commentary on his own above mentioned poem, from my personal edition of it based on the medieval Latin translation and a modern French translation of it, with numerous corrections made to it from the translated portions by Stapleton and his colleagues directly from the Arabic original, and also those of Theodor Abt, and some missing parts that had not been translated by anyone before which I had translated directly from the Arabic by my personal Arabic translator (thus creating in the process the most complete translation of the first half of this treatise to date):

King Aros/Aras says also: “If the palm was diminished of one finger, its power would be diminished”. By this they mean that nothing should be diminished in the coagulation. In this there are actually five which are the male, the female, which are two, and three imbibitions of which speaks Aros/Aras. If the palm was diminished by one finger, the blood of the deer will be defective. When everything will be coagulated, then we will call it the sea of the sages. This earth is the mother of color/colors, the mother of the two smokes; it is everything. From it we obtain everything that we need in our work. It is the animated ashes of which Dhu’n-Nun al-Misri says: “It was thrown over the manure/dunghill, it is vile to the eye of the ignorant. If one would tell them that in there is the science and the work, they would think this is false”. This meaning that they give it comes from the white magnesia, and of ashes obtained from ashes. You must therefore know the way to take two in one, these three things that make the male and the female white are three earths. No one of them can be without the other, because each one of them has a [specific] work. The first earth is the earth of pearls, the second earth is the earth of the silver, and the third one is the earth of the gold. It dyes the elixir and the elixir dyes it. When these five are joined together, united, and become one stone, it is the perfect natural stone of the sages. It is the perfect, hidden, honoured abar-nuhas (i.e. an Arabization of the Greek code-word "molybdochalkos", literally meaning "lead-copper".) This is the “Stone” in which is collected all the powers, and whiteness which they compare with the Egg on account of its manifest whiteness, and redness in its interior. This whiteness that one assimilates to the shell of the egg encloses what is in it, everything that the worker needs; the same way as the shell of the egg encloses the white and the yellow, which are everything the chicken needs. They called this stone by all names and they said: “Our science is in everything”. It is one of their sophisms against/towards men. From that these have wasted their money and their mind; they have worked hard/deeply for the preparation of everything, they were stubborn in their presumption. Being ignorant, they believed that the stone is in everything they prepared, so it can be prepared with everything they believe in their wrong understanding.

JDP
08-21-2017, 08:29 PM
I am currently translating some old texts as to publish them (I won't say which ones), but in Spanish.


What's wrong with saying what texts are you working on translating? If I don't happen to already have them, I would be interested.

zoas23
08-21-2017, 09:07 PM
What's wrong with saying what texts are you working on translating? If I don't happen to already have them, I would be interested.

I had a bad experience last year, I told someone that it would be a good idea to translate X text to Spanish and publish it...
I was working on something else and one day I saw this person publishing the text.
So it's not about secrecy, but about having learnt that saying something in public is not always a good idea.
It won't be a "secret" once I publish the texts, but until then I prefer to remain silent... some people has very few ideas and have to take them from someone else!
(and translating is a mix of "fun" with "a pain in the ass"... So I'd rather not see someone doing the same, remaining silent is a way to protect it until it is published).
Then again, I am doing it in Spanish, so it's not very interesting for maybe 95% of the people here anyway.

JDP
08-21-2017, 09:26 PM
I had a bad experience last year, I told someone that it would be a good idea to translate X text to Spanish and publish it...
I was working on something else and one day I saw this person publishing the text.
So it's not about secrecy, but about having learnt that saying something in public is not always a good idea.
It won't be a "secret" once I publish the texts, but until then I prefer to remain silent... some people has very few ideas and have to take them from someone else!
(and translating is a mix of "fun" with "a pain in the ass"... So I'd rather not see someone doing the same, remaining silent is a way to protect it until it is published).
Then again, I am doing it in Spanish, so it's not very interesting for maybe 95% of the people here anyway.

What text was it that that guy translated before you did? Depending on how much work you had put into it before he published his translation, he might have in fact saved you a lot of tedious work.

Also, if these translations are being done from source languages like Latin, Greek or Arabic the chances are rather high that most people who frequent public forums won't know them and therefore won't attempt a translation. So it would be fairly safe to mention them.

elixirmixer
08-21-2017, 09:45 PM
http://musicpleer.audio/#!0e2e6d9c4d95c72f973b1eba8c0b113c

LOL!

zoas23
08-21-2017, 10:07 PM
What text was it that that guy translated before you did? Depending on how much work you had put into it before he published his translation, he might have in fact saved you a lot of tedious work.

Also, if these translations are being done from source languages like Latin, Greek or Arabic the chances are rather high that most people who frequent public forums won't know them and therefore won't attempt a translation. So it would be fairly safe to mention them.

I simply mentioned how some alchemical translations are a DISASTER... and it's not even because of a poor understanding of alchemy, but they contain mistakes which are hard to believe.

Other than that, this is getting off topic, but:
Hmmm... I enjoy publishing books, it's something I like... if something has never been published in Spanish and another person "steals" the idea, he's not saving me from anything.

Yes, I use the version in the source language (no Arabic texts, I sadly don't know Arabic at all).... and most people can't translate such texts, but there is always a few who can. After having had a bad experience... and after having learnt that there is nothing to "gain" by mentioning the texts, I adopted a "trust no one" idea (only for the translations, it's not for everything).

As for which one was the X text that someone else published... and what I've learnt... no need to give details, this video explains it all:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VjPM5CeWs

JDP
08-21-2017, 10:18 PM
I simply mentioned how some alchemical translations are a DISASTER... and it's not even because of a poor understanding of alchemy, but they contain mistakes which are hard to believe.

Other than that, this is getting off topic, but:
Hmmm... I enjoy publishing books, it's something I like... if something has never been published in Spanish and another person "steals" the idea, he's not saving me from anything.

Yes, I use the version in the source language (no Arabic texts, I sadly don't know Arabic at all).... and most people can't translate such texts, but there is always a few who can. After having had a bad experience... and after having learnt that there is nothing to "gain" by mentioning the texts, I adopted a "trust no one" idea (only for the translations, it's not for everything).

As for which one was the X text that someone else published... and what I've learnt... no need to give details, this video explains it all:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VjPM5CeWs

But what was the text that he translated before you did? What is the point now in keeping this a secret? "The deed is done", there's nothing you can do about it now.

Unless you are gaining money from publishing translations, I don't see how someone taking the brunt of the work for you can be seen as "bad". The way I see it, that guy saved you a lot of time and effort in translating whatever that text is that he "stole" your idea of having it translated. Unless of course you were planning on earning some money from the translation.

Hellin Hermetist
08-21-2017, 10:18 PM
But that's not true. Canseliet clearly spells out in one of the Introductions that Fulcanelli indeed DID complete the stone at the Gasworks (early 1920's). Canseliet obviously believed that Fulcanelli was a true adept.

Canseliet was part of the group of ppl who created the myth of Fulcanelli, and after published and sold the books at high prices. He wasnt dumb to destroy the myth he created with many labours and earned much money by it. Later he began saying much more incredible things, like that Fulcanelli had reversed his age and when he saw him for last time he looked very young and other fairy tales.

zoas23
08-21-2017, 10:44 PM
But what was the text that he translated before you did? What is the point now in keeping this a secret? "The deed is done", there's nothing you can do about it now.

Unless you are gaining money from publishing translations, I don't see how someone taking the brunt of the work for you can be seen as "bad". The way I see it, that guy saved you a lot of time and effort in translating whatever that text is that he "stole" your idea of having it translated. Unless of course you were planning on earning some money from the translation.

LOL... a silly comment created this whole off topic conversation which is hardly interesting for anyone.

1. I won't mention the text that "was translated" because it would be to east to link such thing to X person and I'm not a vindictive mercenary. No need to expose the person. He knows what he did, I know what he did... no need for other persons to know it.

2. Yes, the point of making a book is many things, making money is one of them (then again, it's not the MAIN things... the work that it takes compared to the money they produce is not the most amazing "investment"... and if I was into it for money, then probably I would pick OTHER books, a bit more mainstream).

3. I do not "need" the translation for myself when I can read the original, though if you EVER translated something (I think you did, besides from all these "commissioned translations" you often mention), then you know that translating is also an awesome way of learning... you end up discovering a lot of "tricks" which are not always so evident.

Luxus
08-21-2017, 10:45 PM
elixirmixer: there are four elements Earth and Water are receptive and Air and Fire are transmissive. This means you can take earth (a solid) or water (a liquid) and charge it with the astral light to produce a potion (charged liquid) or a talisman (charged solid). Such things are very useful and you may justly call them elixirs however they are the product of natural magic and not Alchemy. If you can excel in this it is practically as good (second best) to possessing the philosophers stone.

Warmheart
08-21-2017, 11:26 PM
Canseliet was part of the group of ppl who created the myth of Fulcanelli, and after published and sold the books at high prices. He wasnt dumb to destroy the myth he created with many labours and earned much money by it. Later he began saying much more incredible things, like that Fulcanelli had reversed his age and when he saw him for last time he looked very young and other fairy tales.
However, if you read Fulcanelli, you will see that he shows deep knowledge of Alchemy. If you read Canseliet, his texts feel empty and are no better than texts of any vulgar outside researcher.

I think Canseliet wasn't properly taught by Fulcanelli, because he broke the Fulcanelli's trust. Most people have such "friends": you entrust them some private information, asking to keep it in secret, and quite soon you see this information becoming part of public property. So you keep further relations with such person friendly, but no longer entrust anything serious to that person.

Schmuldvich
08-21-2017, 11:35 PM
If you read Canseliet, his texts feel empty and are no better than texts of any vulgar outside researcher.
Where can I read Canseliet in English?

Warmheart
08-21-2017, 11:41 PM
Where can I read Canseliet in English?
I don't know. I had Canseliet book in Russian, but gave away to someone. I also have Russian version of Basil's 12 Keys with Canseliet's comments. Those comments... They are so totally wrong and have nothing to do with actual text.

Edit: I actually seem to have electronic version of Canseliet's book "Alchemy" but it is on Russian language. It says to be translation of:
A L C H I M I E
Etudes diverses de
Symbolisme hermétique
et de Pratique
Philosophale
par
Eugène Canseliet
F.C.H.
Chez Jean-Jacques Pauvert

Hellin Hermetist
08-21-2017, 11:57 PM
I think Canseliet wasn't properly taught by Fulcanelli, because he broke the Fulcanelli's trust. Most people have such "friends": you entrust them some private information, asking to keep it in secret, and quite soon you see this information becoming part of public property. So you keep further relations with such person friendly, but no longer entrust anything serious to that person.

Thats reminds me the incident mentioned by Schwaller de Lubicz. He describes how he entrusted to J. L. Champagne the documents about the medieval cathedrals he had written himself or collected after a long time, and after some time found the biggest part of them published under the non de plume of Fulcanelli. More infos here:

http://alchemy1961.tripod.com/fulcanelli.htm

JDP
08-22-2017, 12:11 AM
Where can I read Canseliet in English?

As far as I can tell, none of his works have been translated into English. Besides the French originals, some of his books are available in Spanish and Italian versions.

JDP
08-22-2017, 12:22 AM
LOL... a silly comment created this whole off topic conversation which is hardly interesting for anyone.

It is to me, if the text in question happens to be about alchemy. I am curious to know which one it is. I may have it, since I have a lot of what has been published on the subject in Spanish, but then again it might be something very rare that I was not aware it existed. This happened to me some years ago when someone informed me that there actually was a published Spanish version of Ramon Llull's "Book of the Secrets of Nature or Quintessence". Not only I had no idea that the Spanish version of this text even existed but to my surprise it had indeed been published (in 1989):

https://www.amazon.es/secretos-naturaleza-esencia-doctistimo-filosofo/dp/8485362411

Needless to say, I tracked down a used copy of this very rare publication and acquired it. And luckily, I did not have to pay the INSANE prices (352.36 euros!!!) that are now being asked for this rare book.

Warmheart
08-22-2017, 01:10 AM
Thats reminds me the incident mentioned by Schwaller de Lubicz. He describes how he entrusted to J. L. Champagne the documents about the medieval cathedrals he had written himself or collected after a long time, and after some time found the biggest part of them published under the non de plume of Fulcanelli. More infos here:

http://alchemy1961.tripod.com/fulcanelli.htm
I have read some theories that Lubicz was THE Fulcanelli. Myths made up by Canselliet (about him seeing Fulcanelli young again and stuff) make me sad a bit. By the way, I always wanted to read some of the works of actual Lubicz, but so much stuff on my hands lately :)

Someone also wrote third book of Fulcanelli - it is labeled "Finis Gloria Mundi", I think it was available only in Spanish and I have it somewhere in electronic format too. Doesn't have to do anything with Actual Fulcanelli and/or Lubicz.

Edit: Can't fall sleep so I am reading some curious article here: http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/28/books/that-old-black-magic.html?mcubz=0

Excerpt:
"Soon afterward, Fulcanelli (certainly a pseudonym) vanished mysteriously. De Lubicz claimed that Fulcanelli had not only pirated his (de Lubicz's) ideas on the symbolism of cathedrals, but had also attempted to make gold without fully understanding the procedure. This last had fatal consequences, and Mr. VandenBroeck tells us that, when de Lubicz visited Fulcanelli on his deathbed, the alchemist had turned black. "

JDP
08-22-2017, 02:21 AM
Someone also wrote third book of Fulcanelli - it is labeled "Finis Gloria Mundi", I think it was available only in Spanish and I have it somewhere in electronic format too. Doesn't have to do anything with Actual Fulcanelli and/or Lubicz.

Indeed, it's a forgery. However, there was a real Fulcanellian "Finis Gloriae Mundi" in the works back in the 1920s, but it was never published, and as far as I can tell, no one knows what happened to the manuscript notes that were to serve as its basis. According to Canseliet, these manuscript notes were requested by "Fulcanelli" and returned, who decided not to publish this third work.

Warmheart
08-22-2017, 12:09 PM
Indeed, it's a forgery. However, there was a real Fulcanellian "Finis Gloriae Mundi" in the works back in the 1920s, but it was never published, and as far as I can tell, no one knows what happened to the manuscript notes that were to serve as its basis. According to Canseliet, these manuscript notes were requested by "Fulcanelli" and returned, who decided not to publish this third work.
How some people say, "Finis Gloria Mundi" was cancelled and whatever was supposed to be such book, became the final part of "Les Demeures philosophales" - "Paradox of infinite scientific progress". So it was published, sort of. And it speaks about the end of the world, so we can pretty safely assume that it IS the Finis Gloria Mundi.

Hellin Hermetist
08-22-2017, 12:43 PM
Where can I read Canseliet in English?

Why? Dont you speak any other language? I thought that you are a great scholar, with all those long quotes you reproduce every other day.

Hellin Hermetist
08-22-2017, 12:48 PM
I have read some theories that Lubicz was THE Fulcanelli. Myths made up by Canselliet (about him seeing Fulcanelli young again and stuff) make me sad a bit.

Lubicz never pretented that he was Fulcanelli. He only said that mainly Champagne - with some other ppl too - created the myth and published the books under the nom de plum Fulcanelli, and also that he plagiarized some of his stuff about the cathedrals.

Hellin Hermetist
08-22-2017, 12:57 PM
This happened to me some years ago when someone informed me that there actually was a published Spanish version of Ramon Llull's "Book of the Secrets of Nature or Quintessence".

Isnt this book the same with the one of Rupescissa named "De La Vertu Et La Propriete De La Quintessence De Toutes Choses"?

Weidenfeld
08-22-2017, 01:45 PM
Some time ago I stumbled upon an earlier work (17th / 18th cent.) that dealt with the mysteries of cathedrales in France, unfortunately I don't remember yet its exact source and title. I think it was also in French and even its title was similar to Fulcanelli's book (it's possible that I have found this at archiv.org) Is somebody aware of such a text and whether this could have been the source work for Schwaller ?
I'll try to find the reference later.

Weidenfeld

Hellin Hermetist
08-22-2017, 01:51 PM
Some time ago I stumbled upon an earlier work (17th / 18th cent.) that dealt with the mysteries of cathedrales in France, unfortunately I don't remember yet its exact source and title. I think it was also in French and even its title was similar to Fulcanelli's book (it's possible that I have found this at archiv.org) Is somebody aware of such a text and whether this could have been the source work for Schwaller ?
I'll try to find the reference later.

Weidenfeld

Most probably you are refering to the work of Gobineau de Montluisant about Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Here you can find it:

http://bnam.fr/IMG/pdf/gobineau.pdf

Weidenfeld
08-22-2017, 01:55 PM
Most probably you are refering to the work of Gobineau de Montluisant about Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Here you can find it:

http://bnam.fr/IMG/pdf/gobineau.pdf

I think this was the source. Thanks.

Schmuldvich
08-22-2017, 02:13 PM
Why? Dont you speak any other language? I thought that you are a great scholar, with all those long quotes you reproduce every other day.

Well thank you!! It's nice to know that you think I'm a scholar :p

I am no great scholar and only speak English. I would like to learn Latin and Hebrew one day.

JDP
08-22-2017, 05:16 PM
How some people say, "Finis Gloria Mundi" was cancelled and whatever was supposed to be such book, became the final part of "Les Demeures philosophales" - "Paradox of infinite scientific progress". So it was published, sort of. And it speaks about the end of the world, so we can pretty safely assume that it IS the Finis Gloria Mundi.

That chapter is only a fragment of the notes that were intended to be the third "Fulcanelli" book, which was going to be a full-length book, not just a chapter. Canseliet said that he could not examine the entire bundle of notes that were to be used to make the third book before they were returned to "Fulcanelli".

JDP
08-22-2017, 05:20 PM
Most probably you are refering to the work of Gobineau de Montluisant about Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Here you can find it:

http://bnam.fr/IMG/pdf/gobineau.pdf

Yes, Gobineau's book is the most obvious source of inspiration for "Fulcanelli" regarding this subject of cathedrals and alchemy.

JDP
08-22-2017, 05:32 PM
Isnt this book the same with the one of Rupescissa named "De La Vertu Et La Propriete De La Quintessence De Toutes Choses"?

No, it is different. The Rupescissa book concentrates on medicinal topics (it is usually regarded as the first book to be devoted to the medicinal aspect of alchemy), while the Lullian book concentrates more on transmutational ones. That Spanish edition is a translation of this Latin one:

https://books.google.com/books?id=1v6fCRExhP0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Llull+%22de+secretis+naturae%22&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj658ywruvVAhXM8YMKHdA4DkcQ6AEILTAB#v=on epage&q=Llull%20%22de%20secretis%20naturae%22&f=false

zoas23
08-22-2017, 07:26 PM
It is to me, if the text in question happens to be about alchemy. I am curious to know which one it is. I may have it, since I have a lot of what has been published on the subject in Spanish, but then again it might be something very rare that I was not aware it existed. This happened to me some years ago when someone informed me that there actually was a published Spanish version of Ramon Llull's "Book of the Secrets of Nature or Quintessence". Not only I had no idea that the Spanish version of this text even existed but to my surprise it had indeed been published (in 1989):

https://www.amazon.es/secretos-naturaleza-esencia-doctistimo-filosofo/dp/8485362411

Needless to say, I tracked down a used copy of this very rare publication and acquired it. And luckily, I did not have to pay the INSANE prices (352.36 euros!!!) that are now being asked for this rare book.

I won't open the "chest of the mystery" until I have it published. Once I do, you'll know it and my policy is to sell very cheap (only hardcovers and something around $25 to $30).
I also use a system to prevent the books going out of print as to avoid re-sellers (I saw a work by me -a movie, not a book- being re-sold for $666 [how esoteric] when the DVD got sold out).

Do not be surprised to find "strange" books by Llull in Spanish or in Catalan... He is somehow like a "national hero" in the zone of Catalunya. So Llull and pseudo-Llulll have somehow a "big audience" there that transcends the typical audience interested in Alchemy (a bit like Kafka in Prague, where you may find yourself sleeping at the hotel Kafka which in on a street called "Kafka" and next to you there is a gift-shop called "Kafka" too, next to the Kafka coffee shop, etc).

Warmheart
08-22-2017, 07:32 PM
<snip>
Hmmm, I wonder if "Ludus Puerorum o Tratado intitulado Trabajo de mujeres y juego de niños" was translated by you or that other person? Seems to be a very interesting work. I think I saw its latin version in Theatrum Chemicum, and I was never able to find English version (there is similar work on English but entirely different), however I managed to find Spanish version :)