Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 31 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 306

Thread: Aspects of Alchemy

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,009
    Blog Entries
    7

    Initiation

    One can't practice alchemy based on the intellect alone. It is evident in historical literature if one reads it carefully that even known alchemists like Paracelsus have admitted that they were initiated into the Art. In other words, the breakthrough was more than just the work of the intellect. The undercurrents of this Art, those practitioners who're unknown alchemists, are all initiated alchemists! That's why they almost always stay quiet and remain unknown - it is by oath!

    History also provides us with a clear picture - if our intellect allows it so - that purely lab-alchemy is no thing more than the attributed name of "Puffers".

    Academia has it's purpose, but it will never, I mean never, pierce the veil because the veil can only be passed by initiation alone. Thus, it is very, very unlikely that one would make the Philosopher's Stone just by playing around in the lab, whether that's at Yale or Harvard or Bob's backyard.

    I don't have to be right about it, I'm just simply stating what I have seen.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth-Ra View Post
    Cause they are facts, as well as myths. They are literal, as well as symbolic. The language is on multiple levels, thus is subjective to your understanding-level.

    No, a fact, let's stick to gravity as a perfect example, is one thing which anyone can easily perceive and plainly see and experience, and a theory/speculation/conjecture/belief, say how gravity supposedly works, is another thing entirely different. One is a physical observable indisputable physical phenomenon, the other one is an attempt at rationalizing/explaining it.

    No, the "unworthy" keep themselves from achieving the same things, by remaining unworthy. The only person who is ever in your way, is yourself.

    It is achievable by anyone - when they do what is required. Everyone has the potential, but they limit themselves, due to their belief/non-belief.
    Again, if that was true then there would not be so much need of making such a big mystery regarding how to make it. They could very easily have published the whole process in plain words and let these "unworthy" people keep on preventing themselves from achieving it, while all the "worthy" ones would succeed. Of course, the fact is that things like "unworthy" and "worthy" are totally subjective concepts. Each individual has his own concept of what constitutes "worthy" or "unworthy". What may have been "worthy" for an ancient Graeco-Egyptian alchemist might have been totally "unworthy" to an Early Modern one.

    Spiritual Truths are often robed/wrapped in the religious covering of the area, and while their may be some "conjuring" involved (i prefer to say communion ) it isnt in the sense of it being fake/non-existent.
    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "spiritual truths" since they can never be proven, such claims belong to the realm of speculation. If they were provable, the problem of different conflicting religions would have been solved a long time ago and no one would be fighting each other regarding whose beliefs are "true" or "false".

    Actually, they are all facts - depending on the context/level of thought per each one. They say crystal-ball, we say iPhone. Same idea (speculations/theories/conjectures/beliefs), different manifestation/fact - equally valuable. Just because i know how to use a crystal-ball as well as an iPhone, and my dad doesnt, doesnt invalidate either of them, and just because he only believes in the phone, doesnt invalidate the crystal-ball. Different levels.
    This analogy is not quite true, since anyone can easily see that an iPhone works and does what its inventors say it does. It is not any "speculation/theory/conjecture/belief" but an easily perceived fact that can be demonstrated anytime anyone pleases, as long as they have a working iPhone with them. A crystal-ball, on the other hand, is just a claim that has never been proven by anyone. And if someone could really prove it, they could get a cool million dollars for their trouble:

    http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

    Besides of course the much bigger reward of proving once and for all that "spirits" do exist, which would make a lot of people think twice about their way of behaving towards one another.

    For the sake of this context: The non-believer can witness a transmutation, but the believer is the one that performed it.
    This can be easily contested from historical witness accounts of transmutation performed by people who had no idea how to make the Stone themselves, yet for different reasons samples of it fell into their hands. Some of these witnesses were in fact former detractors of alchemy/transmutation who became convinced of the reality of the subject after they performed transmutations with their own hands by means of those samples (like the Irish poet, translator and historian Richard Stanihurst, for example, who witnessed no less than 15 transmutations, at least one of them, of mercury into gold, made by means of a small sample of a red powder given to him by an acquaintance who knew an alchemist who knew how to make it. After such decisive ocular, tangible proof, needless to say Stanihurst became a most ardent defender of alchemy.)

    Understand, ofcourse, im not talking about belief, which is stagnant dogmatic BS - im talking about True, experienced, realized Spiritual relationship being manifested. If you cannot see or hear, then how can you read or interpret correctly?
    Again, such things as "spiritual relationship being manifested" can't be proven to anyone. They may seem like "facts" to you, but to no one else, unless you can really prove them to be so. And I don't mean by making assertions, but by actually performing something visible and measurable which can't really be explained or denied.

    Fact is, Spirit Is. Proof is in the consciousness and Order of all systems, living things, and creation itself. Two dimensional "scientists" that cannot tap into whats behind the veil, do not have the facts, only their beliefs about them.
    All of these are speculative concepts, not "facts". Any biologist will tell you that living things and nature are not proof of anything regarding "spirits" or any other metaphysical claims.

    Alchemy, on any level (physical, mental, spiritual) is the Art of Life: of Transmutation/Transition/Transcendence Change/Ascension.
    Unfortunately, the only one that lends itself to being tested is the "physical" one i.e. actual alchemy (because the "other" ones are not really "alchemy", they are actually metaphysics.)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    504
    ~Seth-Ra: Thanks, and Right On to this: "Understand, ofcourse, im not talking about belief, which is stagnant dogmatic BS - im talking about True, experienced, realized Spiritual relationship being manifested."
    γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    504
    Unfortunately, the only one that lends itself to being tested is the "physical" one i.e. actual alchemy (because the "other" ones are not really "alchemy", they are actually metaphysics.)

    You are conflating chemistry with alchemy. Alchemy is an "occult science," a term which, from a strictly physical scientist's perspective is oxymoronic. Aside from alchemy's purely psychological reality, as C.G. Jung and his followers (Marie Louise von Franz, and Edward Edinger, most prominently), its physical 'labor' aspect, partakes as much from the machinations of ritual magick as it does from laboratory technique. For example, a classic alembic apparatus in alchemy is not merely a distillation device, it is a symbolic representation of the 'inner planets,' the psychic centers or chakras, which transmutes one form of energy into another (by physical parallel, the kinetic energy of rushing water can transfer to a turbine which in turn transmutes kinetic energy into heat and controlled kinetic energy in a turbine, which in turn is transmuted into electricity, which can produce hot incandescent or cool fluorescent light). Moreover, what occurs in the glass alembic is simultaneously occurring in the 'internal alembic' of the Operator. This inner-outer parallel is perhaps most clearly illustrated in Taoist alchemy's diagrammatic 'circulation of the light' wherein one has language like 'the lower and upper cauldron,' where the closed system is similar to a laboratory reflux apparatus (see Lu K'uan Yu's Taoist Yoga: Alchemy and Immortality).

    If any of the physically impossible transmutations that are said to occur in the alchemist's laboratory do in fact occur (like the classic transmutation of Lead or Mercury into Gold), an entirely different paradigm about physical matter is being demonstrated. There is no high-energy particle accelerator creating a radioactive isotope by adding neutrons to a base metal. Where is the energy coming from that would give physical mass in sufficient quantities to be visible to the human eye let alone quantifiable at a microscopic level by spectroscopy? Furnace heat is not capable by the laws of physics. If, however, for the sake of argument, metals have 'spirits,' some essential quality that corresponds to an essence of a planetary body, and some kind of 'resonance' can be set in motion, the theory is that the matter in a flask can 'capture' that corresponding essence, but the intention (the single invariant aspect of consciousness according to Phenomenology) of the Operator is integral. The consciousness of the Operator, that is to say, the highest spiritual consciousness (Nous, Neshamah, Holy Spirit, Anima Mundi), that is God's immanence operating through the Operator), is integral to a transmutation. It is these factors which make the process preternatural as well as metaphysical, insofar as Spirit (archaic for Consciousness) in ontologically prior to matter (The Creator precedes the creation).

    Alchemy is therefore an alternative religious endeavor, wherein the Operator is non-dualistically involved in the process of transmutation. Inner and outer are conjoined as ONE. As the 3rd line of The Emerald Tablet reads: "And as all things have been & arose from One by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this One Thing by adaptation." The One is Spirit, the One Thing is matter, just as in the Shiva-Shakti or Purusha-Prakriti apparent duality in Hindu thought.

    γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    504
    I'll look into Waite's book, as I've read him since 1972 (and despite Crowley's rather dismissive and derisive attitude towards Waite). I am aware of Jung's misgivings. I read Richard Noll's books The Jung Cult and Aryan Christ after I (like Noll) were rejected from our application to train in Analytical Psychology. These facts do not deter from the very credible notion that many or most alchemists were projecting unconscious psychic contents onto their laboratory procedures. The shortcoming here, is that the second movement - re-absorbing those psychic contents from their targets - is missing. This is what seems to be intended in Spagyrics. The medicines have 'occult virtues' by reason of magickal correspondences with planetary spirits, and although not everyone who prepares elixirs, end, etc. is intentionally practicing Initiatory alchemy, that does not preclude that an Initiatory process can still be made of Spagyrics. Mark Stavish wrote of this in The Path of Alchemy.

    Again, this is a reason why NOT "alchemy should be judged by different standards than other scientific claims, since it claims to achieve some peculiar physical phenomena." The transmutations are not occurring by strictly physical laws. I do not know how you regard the miracles in the New Testament, such as 'turning water to wine,' but at this stage of my life, I not only question the historicity of Iesous himself, but I have been shown that many of the events that comprise the New Testament are culled directly from the earlier Pyramid and Coffin texts of the Egyptians (see D.M. Murdock's Christ in Egypt if interested).

    There was a time, long ago, where such miracles were taken literally and I listened to metaphysical explanations by Paramahansa Yogananda in pseudo-yogic jargon (Autobiography of a Yogi). Then, in seminary, I simply [bracketed] said miracles in a phenomenological way, suspending judgement one way or the other. Later, I saw miracles as midrash and metaphor, rather than metaphysics. After that, I waxed Gnostic, and began to consider Reality as 'The Matrix,' of a Demiurge (not The Architect of the Wachowski trilogy, but the Creator of this universe), in which "glitches" in The Matrix could occur (miracles, spooks, paranormal phenomena, etc.). Of course, from strictly theistic perspective, God the Creator doesn't make mistakes, but then again, in Kabbalism, there was a catastrophic bursting of the vessels at the beginning of time, and the creation requires a restoration (tikkun). So, perhaps there are 'permissible' opportunities for co-creation by morally upright individuals. The Psi functions of telepathy, and precognition are things I have personally experienced on many occasions. I am convinced of the veracity of other people's clairvoyance (knowing someone has died, been injured, etc.), but telekinesis is the closest Psi function to metallic transmutation, and I have never known or read anything credible (including Uri Geller's outrageous claims, even though I have seen a bent key (parapsycholgist/Egyptologist Bob Brier) and a cracked sapphire in a ring (Jean Houston's), which seemed was a star sapphire to begin with.

    As Thomas is my favorite New Testament disciple, I will remain as 'doubting' as he is said to have been about the wounds of a physically resurrected Iesous. It seems that a resuscitated corpse would also have healing properties, as the biblical Iesous was said to have had on others, but more importantly, the 'empty tomb narratives' were more public relations writings than anything approaching journalistic accuracy. Resurrection for Paul was not a physical event, a resuscitation, but a spiritual verity. More midrash! I must agree with the highest Yoga doctrines that the power of Self-Realization, of "being in Christ" or Buddhist Realization of our True Nature as Eternal, trumps any lesser powers (siddhis) which manifest as mere materiality. Neither is Eternal Life the same thing as personal immortality. Wealth and immortality seem more like the misguided myths of Chinese alchemy, when the real goal is the same in Christianity as in Taoism. The Way (Tao) is The Way (Christ), is The Way..."A rose by any other name smells as sweet."
    Last edited by MarkostheGnostic; 03-05-2014 at 09:09 PM.
    γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Elfen Forest T Range California
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkostheGnostic View Post
    Alchemy is not merely a primitive and undeveloped chemistry, it is a premise about the permeability of matter and spirit, or more contemporarily speaking, space-time and psyche. I will not even venture into a quantum analogy of wave collapse and particle paradox with regard to the presence of an observer of quantum experiments (partly because of my limited understanding and partly because it is a digression), but consciousness is an integral part of alchemy.
    I don't see it is as digression. I believe it is at the core of alchemical philosophy.

    I think Jung changed his mind about the reality of lab alchemy after a discussion with Archibald Cockren.

    For me, Jung's most significant contribution to alchemical philosophy was his treatise on Synchronicity. The physicist Rupert Sheldrake formulated the possibility of such with his Morphic Field theory. Which in turn supports the theory of Quantum Resonance.

    Synchronicity allows one to observe/experience the Universe Mind/Intelligence, God if you are religious, Tao if you are pragmatic. The Universe Intelligence operates outside of time as well and in time. For instance, recently I was involved in private conversations with some alchemists about this very topic. That was caught in the Synchronous Web and manifest through the Morphic Field emerging hear and now on this thread by Quantum Resonance.

    So, thanks to Morphic Resonance; the jist of it goes:

    From the article: http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/stapp.html

    "Following, then, the mathematics, instead of intuition, I shall adopt the assumption that the Schrodinger equation holds uniformly in the physical world. That is, I shall adopt the view that the physical universe, represented by the quantum state of the universe, consists merely of a set of tendencies that entail statistical links between mental events.

    In fact, this point of view is not incompatible with the Copenhagen interpretation, which, although epistemological rather than ontological in character, rests on the central fact that in science we deal, perforce, with connections between human observations: the rest of science is a theoretical imagery whose connection to reality must remain forever uncertain."

    It certainly is a thought provoking conundrum or paradox.

    In alchemy the information unfolds to the depth of the operators observational skills. The deeper you look the more information there is. The more information you see the greater the influence you have on the nature expressed by the information systems unfolding. At the point of emergence of the information ideas and expectations and hopes are possible as the information is still undetermined or in flux.

    The operator's expectations participate in the fixing or determination of the information flux, either negatively or positively: failure or success of the expectations is possible. Either way the operator will then utilize the fixed determination (result) of the experiment (experience) to initiate a new experiment where the operator's previous expectations have been refined (or more concisely focused) into an experimental procedure and applied to the emerging information system influencing the outcome to the desired goal or ideal. With enough cycles the emerging information system is synchronous or coincident with the operator's expectations. Hopefully

    In alchemy "Philosophical" can mean many things. In the old texts it refers to specific knowledge about the nature of the materials used as opposed to the vulgar or common materials named in the allegorical illustrations. Usually the vulgar materials named look superficially similar to the philosophical preparations they're describing.

    The Philosophical world is the Microcosm. It is populated by potential that unfolds into the Macrocosm as kinetic mass/energy information systems, which are projections of an eternal or timeless flux of three elements in one: spirit/soul/body where spirit is energizing, soul is uniqueness and body is manifestation. You cannot have one without the others.

    Then there is the "you" component: the "observer:" the scintilla or divine spark, where divine means the three (philosophical principles) in one, inseparable yet separate, being experienced by the absolutely unknowable as a scintilla that is "you." We are all "me" and "you," depending on the perspective of the observer that is remote: you, or central: me. We are the same only differentiated by the Information System we observe.

    Unless there is an observer the outcome is both, not either/or. It's like the Schrodinger's Cat analogy from quantum physics. The Cat in the box is both dead and live until one looks inside the box. In quantum chemistry the production is matter/energy at the point of emergence until it is observed. Then it is either particles or waves: substance or radiation.

    Since the operator designs the instruments to determine the state of the production, the instrument is an observational device, but if no observer is operating the tool then the outcome is both, not either/or. At least that's how I see it right now.

    As far as we know the Universe seems to work quite well utilizing the proportional relationships we've discovered over the millennia. So before we came along into the existence the laws of physics functioned without our observations and probably will do so long after we're gone. I believe this is a functional paradox manipulable in the lab with the artful input of the operator/observer. This is one way to open a paradox for manipulation to fix a point in space/time.

    Engineers routinely discount the "paradoxical" solutions to equations because the outcome is of no engineering value in that you can't manufacture anything with the nonsense solutions. So they are called "invalid," though in reality it is "undefined."

    Of course the ultimate Paradox is each of us. We are not any of the things we identify as "myself." Everything you might think you are can be objectified and possessed by calling it "mine." Once it is yours it cannot be you. So at the core we are no things but take things as our own.

    I think that everything we become aware of can be explained, or will be explained once we’ve observed it enough to understand it. That may take a long time and many generations of observers to know it fully. Then there will always be new things we observe and don’t understand, so we fill in the gaps as best we can, at first building imperfect models and then finally getting it right to fit our expectations.

    http://noetic.org/noetic/issue-four-...hic-resonance/
    "The fields responsible for the development and maintenance of bodily form in plants and animals are called morphogenetic fields. In animals, the organization of behavior and mental activity depends on behavioral and mental fields. The organization of societies and cultures depends on social and cultural fields. All these kinds of organizing fields are morphic fields.

    Morphic fields are located within and around the systems they organize. Like quantum fields, they work probabilistically. They restrict, or impose order upon, the inherent indeterminism of the systems under their influence. Thus, for example, a protein field organizes the way in which the chain of amino acids (the “primary structure” determined by the genes) coils and folds up to give the characteristic three-dimensional form of the protein, “choosing” from among many possible structures, all equally possible from an energetic point of view. Social fields coordinate the behavior of individuals within social groups, for example, the behavior of fish in schools or birds in flocks."

    Quantum entanglement is morphic resonance. It even hits on the concept of Spiritus Mundi:

    "...new systems should show an increasing tendency to come into being the more often they are repeated. They should become increasingly probable; they should happen more easily as time goes on. For example, when a new chemical compound is synthesized by research chemists and crystallized, it may take a long time for the crystal to form for the first time. There is no pre-existing morphic field for the lattice structure. But when the first crystals form, they will make it easier for similar crystals to appear anywhere in the world. The more often the compound is crystallized, the easier it should be to crystallize."

    Personally I don't think the Philosopher's Stone can be achieved without Morphic Resonance or, put another way, Quantum entanglement. Working with the right matter is an operation involving chemical engineering on the quantum level in a very complex field of cyclic polymers morphing this way and that depending on ion doping within the flux. The field is kept in flux of formation by the operator/observer until the sought for resonance and entanglement is achieved. The outcome polymer formation could even be influenced by a shout, or perhaps a thought, synchronous with the regulation of the elements in the vessel.
    Magic is the function of the Mysterious
    Mysterious is the Way of the Unknown
    Unknown is the Seed of Infinity
    Infinity is the Embryo of unfolding Chaos
    Chaos to function is Magic

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,009
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by lwowl View Post
    Personally I don't think the Philosopher's Stone can be achieved without Morphic Resonance or, put another way, Quantum entanglement. . .
    I think you're onto something with that statement.

    Those are modern terms (new descriptors), I think the Ancients would have called that "God's grace".

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    504
    I too am a fan of Rupert Sheldrake, and I agree that his ideas are very apt for the application to alchemical transmutation, as is quantum entanglement in the 'Implicate-Explicate Order' of David Bohm. To these, because I am equally interested in Spagyrics, are the ideas of Masaru Emoto, whose hypotheses about the Universal Solvent, water, may well be part of the puzzle pertaining to the Wet Path.

    Birthing new crystals, or a new organic compound from a polymer flux, with the notion of morphic resonance sounds wonderfully sci-fi and occult simultaneously, but the consciousness component has been ignored since positivism, materialism and pure empiricism eliminated any vestiges of metaphysics from the sciences. Who knows to what extent consciousness operating from the unconscious, unarticulated range of the psyche, has contributed to the so-called physical sciences. I'm not even referring to well-known factoids like Friedrich Kekule's dream of an Ouroboric snake, and who awakened with the conscious idea of the ring-structure of organic molecules having arisen from the archetype.

    I was fascinated by the original ruby LASER developed from the MASER in the early 1960s, partly because it was the first sci-fi death-ray,' (I was 10 years old with a copy of my friend' Sam's dad's Scientific American)and part of it was that my July birth stone is usually considered to be a ruby. Much later on, remembering the diamond & ruby ring my parents had given me while too young (which I lost while watching a school play in elementary school), the diamond and ruby in that little lost ring became images of the white and red drops (thig le, bindu) that migrate to the Brain and Root centers from the Heart in Vajrayana exercises). These emotional and magickal correspondences that I'm using are simply to illustrate alternative levels of association with certain substances that effect consciousness, and conversely, certain states of consciousness that may effect substances. I hope this didn't come across as hebephrenic 'word-salad.'
    γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,652
    I am sorry I haven't had the time to read through this thread in its entirety, but I would like to comment on post 16 by lwowl as it resonated with something I have been reading lately. If I repeat something that has already been said then I must apologise in advance.


    Quote Originally Posted by lwowl View Post
    the rest of science is a theoretical imagery whose connection to reality must remain forever uncertain
    Could it be that this substance of uncertainty is the material used to build the certainty; once observed it becomes fixed.

    Quote Originally Posted by lwowl View Post
    So before we came along into the existence the laws of physics functioned without our observations and probably will do so long after we're gone.
    If this statement can be joined with the one below...[which I find fascinating as it is something I have tried to explain to others, but can never find the correct words to do so...and now here they are ]

    Quote Originally Posted by lwowl View Post
    Of course the ultimate Paradox is each of us. We are not any of the things we identify as "myself." Everything you might think you are can be objectified and possessed by calling it "mine." Once it is yours it cannot be you. So at the core we are no things but take things as our own.
    Then, if we are "no thing" how could we have "come into existence" and this raises the question, "is it possible that the laws of physics do not function at all without 'our' observation as "no thing" may have existed before anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by lwowl View Post
    Engineers routinely discount the "paradoxical" solutions to equations because the outcome is of no engineering value in that you can't manufacture anything with the nonsense solutions. So they are called "invalid," though in reality it is "undefined."
    Is the undefined Spiritus Mundi?

    Perhaps that's why it is so hard to define

    MTG "hebephrenic" disorganized schizophrenia, very descriptive I shall add that to my vocabulibrary.

    Ghislain

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,102
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    No, a fact, let's stick to gravity as a perfect example, is one thing which anyone can easily perceive and plainly see and experience, and a theory/speculation/conjecture/belief, say how gravity supposedly works, is another thing entirely different. One is a physical observable indisputable physical phenomenon, the other one is an attempt at rationalizing/explaining it.
    I can say the same thing about transmutation. It is a fact. Period. It has been proven over and over again - not just by alchemists. It happens even now within each of our bodies, it happens in the earth, in the sun, etc etc.

    So what? How do you use it? That is where the understanding of it comes in. Newton understood gravity one way, and everyone agreed and operated accordingly, and still do - but it wasnt the whole story, and Einstein revealed more.
    Likewise, "scientists" understand things one way - Alchemists can reveal more (which is why we dont need nuclear reactors for transmuting).
    Again, a key difference comes in the understanding of the language used - which is part of the initial initiation. One has to learn the language of the "scientists" - likewise the Alchemists. By comparison, the "scientist's" is "flat" - for it is only on one level (physical).

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, if that was true then there would not be so much need of making such a big mystery regarding how to make it. They could very easily have published the whole process in plain words and let these "unworthy" people keep on preventing themselves from achieving it, while all the "worthy" ones would succeed. Of course, the fact is that things like "unworthy" and "worthy" are totally subjective concepts. Each individual has his own concept of what constitutes "worthy" or "unworthy". What may have been "worthy" for an ancient Graeco-Egyptian alchemist might have been totally "unworthy" to an Early Modern one.
    Many do speak quite plainly. The language used is such that it is designed to open the mind to the higher realms. Even for those that did not, and failed at the Great Work, continued to follow and contribute to the flat-science of their chemistry and physics, that still led to the physical proof of the concepts - everything from higher realms/dimensions/frequencies, to literal transmutation. The language isnt wrong, it is plain, it does what its designed to. Im sorry if you cant understand this.

    Spirit and the Higher(deeper) Laws have a standard/mode-of-operation/manifestation for the revealing to/pouring into a vessel (person or other substance). Its not that we (humans) dogmatically dictate who is "worthy" or not, its the law/agreement/logic of the Spirit/energy-flow.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "spiritual truths" since they can never be proven, such claims belong to the realm of speculation. If they were provable, the problem of different conflicting religions would have been solved a long time ago and no one would be fighting each other regarding whose beliefs are "true" or "false".
    That is a horribly flawed premise. For one, they can, do and are proven by all who experience/realize them. For those who do not - for those who are blinded by the illusions of materialism (the one's that seek dominance and rulership), they will and do continue the wars.

    Besides that, even "scientists" who use the same math and logic, dont agree on various things and "war" with each other. This is a base-human condition that only the Spirit heals and transmutes one away from.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This analogy is not quite true, since anyone can easily see that an iPhone works and does what its inventors say it does. It is not any "speculation/theory/conjecture/belief" but an easily perceived fact that can be demonstrated anytime anyone pleases, as long as they have a working iPhone with them. A crystal-ball, on the other hand, is just a claim that has never been proven by anyone. And if someone could really prove it, they could get a cool million dollars for their trouble:

    http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

    Besides of course the much bigger reward of proving once and for all that "spirits" do exist, which would make a lot of people think twice about their way of behaving towards one another.
    A blind and deaf person cannot tell an iPhone does anything - it might as well be a funny shaped hockey-puck. The analogy holds, whether you can see or hear it or not.

    Its also a very faulty and ignorant mistake to think that those of us that can and do perform the Spiritual Communions we do, would be interested in whoring it out for something as worthless as money. It is equivalent to trying to sell the Stone. Its wrong all around and only puffers/frauds are interested in such nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    This can be easily contested from historical witness accounts of transmutation performed by people who had no idea how to make the Stone themselves, yet for different reasons samples of it fell into their hands. Some of these witnesses were in fact former detractors of alchemy/transmutation who became convinced of the reality of the subject after they performed transmutations with their own hands by means of those samples (like the Irish poet, translator and historian Richard Stanihurst, for example, who witnessed no less than 15 transmutations, at least one of them, of mercury into gold, made by means of a small sample of a red powder given to him by an acquaintance who knew an alchemist who knew how to make it. After such decisive ocular, tangible proof, needless to say Stanihurst became a most ardent defender of alchemy.)
    Again, you misunderstand. The (in this context) "non-believer" did not cause/create/perform the Transmute - i.e. they did not make the Stone/Powder; they didnt cause the magick. They simply did what the real Alchemist/"believer" instructed them to, after the Alchemist had already did the work of manifesting the miracle.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Again, such things as "spiritual relationship being manifested" can't be proven to anyone. They may seem like "facts" to you, but to no one else, unless you can really prove them to be so. And I don't mean by making assertions, but by actually performing something visible and measurable which can't really be explained or denied.
    To those around me, i have done as you say. Those that know me, know. That is how many of us work; living catalysts for the world around us. So, while it may not be provable to you, because you outright refuse it, doesnt make it not a fact, just like someone who refused to believe the world was round. We who have made the journey, try to tell - mortal language is used to convey something that is immortal, and it is given new depth that those who are not ready cant hear/see, but their inability does not make us wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    All of these are speculative concepts, not "facts". Any biologist will tell you that living things and nature are not proof of anything regarding "spirits" or any other metaphysical claims.
    Youre free to believe that if you wish, but there are biologists that think differently, and those of us that have experienced first hand, and on occasion brought others with us for a portion of the ride - we know better.

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Unfortunately, the only one that lends itself to being tested is the "physical" one i.e. actual alchemy (because the "other" ones are not really "alchemy", they are actually metaphysics.)
    The only one that lends itself to being tested by you, is the physical, but that doesnt invalidate the others for the rest of us. If you think metaphysics has nothing to do with Alchemy, then youre not understanding Alchemy. Perhaps its not for you - perhaps youd make a better chemist (and there is nothing wrong with that, so dont take it as an insult. Everyone to their own understanding and frequency).





    ~Seth-Ra
    One fatal tree there stands of knowledge called, forbidden them to taste. Knowledge forbidden? Suspicious. Reasonless. And why should their Lord envy them that? Can it be sin to know? Can it be death? And do they stand by ignorance, is that their happy state, the proof of their obedience and their faith?

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts