Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 31 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 306

Thread: Aspects of Alchemy

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkostheGnostic 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.)

    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.
    No, I'm not. I distinguish alchemy from chemistry, in fact I even distinguish alchemy from the older "chymistry" of the 17th and part of the 18th century, which unlike the modern (i.e. Lavoisierian) chemistry that started from the late 18th century onward still very much accepted transmutation, and not only as theoretically possible, many chymists in fact were very positive that they had achieved it with their own particular methods, no "Philosophers' Stone" needed. Having said that, you do not need to conjure up "supernatural" things to make such a distinction. The alchemists themselves made a distinction between their science and "vulgar chymistry", but this distinction was based on their practice, which was more "philosophical", meaning more subtle, based on secret operations and techniques, than that of the "chymists" and "puffers" they attacked. The only time that alchemists bring up something that can be deemed "supernatural" is in that whole claim of a "Divine permission" or "Divine will" that supposedly allows one to know how to make this "Stone", a claim which, as I have pointed out before, they must not have taken very seriously themselves, otherwise their careful secrecy about its manufacture would have been pretty unnecessary.

    The "laws" of physics and chemistry are in fact speculations/conjectures/theories themselves, assumptions and generalizations based on the empirical facts known to those sciences. Who says that it is impossible that the alchemists and chymists of past centuries couldn't have discovered some empirical facts that these more modern scientists have not discovered or failed to notice? If you read chemical literature and its rejection of transmutation and alchemy you won't fail to notice how dogmatic the whole thing is. I have never seen the work of any chemist who has actually bothered to systematically test many of the alleged proofs of transmutation that you can find in chymical books of the 17th and 18th century, for example. Yet you can see the persistence in rejecting the subject, despite the fact that chemists themselves don't have any definitive proof about such "impossibility". Even historians of science like Lawrence Principe (a chemist himself) acknowledges that even as late as the early 20th century chemistry still did not have even any theory that precluded the possibility of transmutation by means of making substances react with one another (even though Principe does not specifically mention what this 20th century theory is, he is obviously referring to the electron and its alleged role in chemical reactions, which supposedly prevents the nucleus of an atom from being altered, short of bombarding it with a particle accelerator that can get through the electron layers.) Curiously enough, this theory that supposedly precludes the possibility of transmutation by making substances react with one another is not original of chemistry but actually an import from physics, a science which is even more alien to the literature of alchemy and chymistry.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by MarkostheGnostic View Post
    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."
    For an occultist, Waite was a pretty good rational and logical critic. That last book of his on the subject of alchemy is indeed worth a read. He pretty much debunked those "spiritualist" interpretations of alchemy so much in vogue during the late 19th and early 20th century, long before the historians of science did.

    I think that you are very aware of the fact that Jung and his followers could never prove their claim about "projecting unconscious psychic contents". Such a concept is pretty much absent from alchemical literature. Even some of the alchemists Jung quotes (like Thomas Norton, for example) speak of being careful to choose lab assistants who are not dishonest as they might steal the Stone after it's finished (like he says happened to him.) Notice he is not worried about any "psychic projections" by these lab assistants he puts in charge of things while he is gone somehow interrupting the process and resulting in failure, he is worried that they aren't actually thieves who will run away with the finished product while the master is busy attending to other matters. So much for any alleged "psychic projections" of the alchemist himself really making a difference in the outcome of the operations.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,105
    Blog Entries
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    ...the typical opinion of chemists regarding alchemy & transmutation: stating that no one has succeeded in making even a speck of gold by making any substances react with one another...
    I am now of the opinion that trying to create gold is a fools game. I am not saying that it is something that is impossible, not at all... I am sure anything can be done, but what I am saying is that such a pursuit will make you mad, blind, greedy and in the end an asshole.

    Gold = Money

    Sure you can use gold for healing, but in general if you have 1 gram of gold, or more, in your possession you are in possession of money. Not that money is wrong, I just don't think any form of healthy self-improvement or search for enlightenment can ever be reached just by the mere act of trying to create gold... or even successfully creating gold. This is not the answer.

    If an alchemist is NOT trying to achieve a higher state of existence/being, and is only focused on creating gold or transforming minerals, then this person is NOT an alchemist, but a chemist.

    IMO.

    So yes, I guess, this post is a general argument against Practical Alchemy as a whole. Not only do I think it is a waste of time, but I also think it will not, ever, yield any 'profits'... not unless the laboratory is the body. But chemistry is sure interesting... but a sacred art? Not really...

    Last edited by Awani; 03-06-2014 at 03:39 PM.
    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by Seth-Ra View Post
    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.
    Where is this proof? According to modern chemistry and physics, it only happens inside nuclear reactors (whether natural, like the sun, or man-made.)

    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.
    Gravity is a part of your everyday life, without it things would be very different, in fact, life as we know it would not even exist (just think of what would happen to our atmosphere without it.) Regarding Newton and Einstein and gravity: they only tried to provide explanations for it. Again, that is different from the fact that gravity just "is", and its effects can be directly observed by anyone. Whether someone's explanations regarding why or how gravity works are correct or not is a different issue. Once again: empirical fact here, theories/speculations/conjectures/beliefs over there.


    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)
    For there to be "another level" other than a physical one you must first prove that any other "level" actually exists. Good luck doing that (and no, personal beliefs and convictions do not count as "proof".)

    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.
    Not plainly enough, specially not regarding the initial materials to work with, their most carefully guarded secret. Otherwise anyone with any experimental ability could do it too, something which they obviously did not like, and some of them give very honest explanations as to why they don't want this knowledge to be spread around to the "vulgar", and it is not what people who think of alchemy as some sort of "spiritual quest" would expect: they were afraid that gold and silver were going to be devalued, and that everyone would want to become rich and stop plowing the fields and be productive in other activities necessary to human life, and so forth. Very materialistic (and realistic) objections, not the kind you would expect from an alleged "spiritual quest". Alchemists were in fact rather zealous and elitist people, pretty different behavior from all the piety they preached. Alchemy to them was sort of an "exclusive club" where only those whom they deemed "worthy" should be allowed in.

    The language of alchemy is secretive, not like that of modern scientists, so the comparison is quite wrong. It might be difficult for many people to get acquainted with some of the lingo of modern chemistry, but once you do the meaning can be followed and the results replicated by anyone. The language of alchemy is quite different because it relies on totally arbitrary designations ("Green Lions", "Magnesias", "Toads", "Dragons", etc.), which may very well not be the same even among the alchemists themselves (in fact, alchemists themselves sometimes complain about the difficulty of deciphering their very own lingo since one thing can have many different code-words, and many code-words can designate just one thing) that you would have to pretty much be a mind-reader (and not just a "regular" one, but one who can actually read the mind of people who have been dead for centuries) to correctly guess what substances were really intended behind those names.

    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.
    Again, where is the proof that any of these "Higher (deeper) Laws" even exist to begin with? Once again, making assumptions about things one has no proof whatsoever and empirical facts are two very different things. "Worthy" and "unworthy" are purely subjective human concepts, not "laws" of any kind. What might seem "worthy" to a pagan might very well not be so to a Muslim. Purely subjective points of view.

    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.
    Not at all. Do you seriously think that if anyone could prove the reality of any of those claims that the world would not be affected by this and such behavior would pretty much banish? Do you seriously think that even the most greedy "materialist" would risk any sort of after-life repercussions for his behavior if he actually knew for sure that such things are very real and to be expected? You would have to be pretty out of touch with how most people are to believe that. Self-interest and self-preservation are the norm.

    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.
    Scientists argue with each other on points they disagree (once again regarding theories, speculations, conjectures, explanations, but none of them denies empirical facts), they don't really wage "war" like I was referring to.

    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.
    Bad analogy. A blind and deaf person cannot tell many other things other than iPhones, that doesn't mean they don't exist or do not work as intended. Plus the blind and deaf person still can tell that iPhones are at least tangible by touching them, so without anyone else's input he can figure out as much on his own. But who has seen, heard or touched any of the things you speak about? Your own testimony is just anecdotal. There is no proof to anyone else.

    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.
    Once again, these are just claims that have no support. I can also make up things and tell you that I can project my mind to any corner of the universe I so please and see what is going there as if I was watching TV. See I just made up a totally empty boast that requires no proof whatsoever. This can be done by anyone. A very different thing is actually proving it.

    Plus the excuse of not wanting the money reward is so not valid at all. The winner can easily donate all the money to his favorite charity, doesn't have to keep it. He would not only show the reality of such a claim (a reward greater for all mankind than any prize money) but would be considered a generous philanthropist to boot.

    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.
    I did not "misunderstand" you, you just wrote it in a manner that was vague. You should have said the manufacture of the Stone itself, not the transmutation. The transmutation itself could be performed by anyone who had access to a sample of the Stone, whether he knew how to make it or not.

    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.
    I don't "outright refuse" anything, but proof is required for any given claim. As long as someone doesn't prove any claim that he/she puts forward, it remains just that, an unsubstantiated claim to everyone else.


    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.
    If you have seen any documentary about Creationism vs Evolution, you will easily perceive what the position of most biologists is. They say that they are perfectly capable of explaining life without conjuring up any supernatural elements. If you read biology text-books you will see pretty much the same thing. Modern scientists take it as a very important rule not to mix up their personal religious/spiritual beliefs, that they know very well rely on faith and can't be substantiated, with science. Science has to deal with demonstrable facts.


    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).
    By me or anyone else. And one would need to prove first that even such "other alchemies" exist to begin with.

    Alchemy claims to deal with physical substances and achieve physical, tangible results. The connection it has with metaphysics is in some of the "explanations" some alchemists tried to come up with for the results they allegedly achieved. But once again we are confronted with the difference between empirical facts and theories/speculations/conjectures. For argument's sake, let us take for granted that the Stone is real and that alchemy therefore did achieve what it claims. Does that follow that the theoretical "explanations" given by the alchemists must be correct? Not at all. Achieving something and coming up with a correct explanation for that achievement do not necessarily go hand in hand. For example, for thousands of years people have known how to make fire without actually understanding the role that gases in the atmosphere play in this phenomenon. That did not stop them from speculating regarding what exactly causes fire. Their explanations (some of them very interesting, by the way, despite their flaws) have been proven mistaken by Lavoisier and his followers (the founders of modern chemistry), yet that did not stop them one bit from making fires all the same. Fire is the empirical fact here, the "explanations" given to it by pre-Lavoisierian thinkers are the theories/speculations/conjectures.
    Last edited by JDP; 03-06-2014 at 04:41 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,876
    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    I am now of the opinion that trying to create gold is a fools game. I am not saying that it is something that is impossible, not at all... I am sure anything can be done, but what I am saying is that such a pursuit will make you mad, blind, greedy and in the end an asshole.

    Gold = Money

    Sure you can use gold for healing, but in general if you have 1 gram of gold, or more, in your possession you are in possession of money. Not that money is wrong, I just don't think any form of healthy self-improvement or search for enlightenment can ever be reached just by the mere act of trying to create gold... or even successfully creating gold. This is not the answer.

    If an alchemist is NOT trying to achieve a higher state of existence/being, and is only focused on creating gold or transforming minerals, then this person is NOT an alchemist, but a chemist.

    IMO.

    So yes, I guess, this post is a general argument against Practical Alchemy as a whole. Not only do I think it is a waste of time, but I also think it will not, ever, yield any 'profits'... not unless the laboratory is the body. But chemistry is sure interesting... but a sacred art? Not really...

    The question of whether gold and silver can be artificially made by causing some substances to react with one another, as so many throughout the centuries have claimed to have achieved, is much more than just mere greed, though. Think of it as a very valid scientific inquiry. Even some chemists have given this perplexing question some thought, and the implications (and not just economic) it would have were it to be proven a fact.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    8,105
    Blog Entries
    2
    Yes if would have big simplifications if proven as fact no doubt. But if the goal is enlightenment it will not be found in the lab transmuting metals. It is a material dream, and my only point was that it doesn't matter; alchemist or chemist... if they both concentrate on making gold they are both fools.

    Donít let the delusion of reality confuse you regarding the reality of the illusion.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,329
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    But if the goal is enlightenment it will not be found in the lab transmuting metals.
    It is a material dream, and my only point was that it doesn't matter; alchemist or chemist...

    If they both concentrate on making gold they are both fools.
    Maybe we're all fools, in a bigger fool's dream

    To the point: Universal (High) Alchemy is concerned with employing/operating Causes (as opposed to 'affecting effects with effects', i.e. chemistry).

    Its foundational framework is Generation (rather than combining/recombining what is already at hand) and it's Goal is Accelerated Evolution.

    And Accelerated Evolution doesn't care if it's Men, Metals or anything else, for that matter.

    Speaking of Generation, Practical Alchemy is not too far a cousin of Agriculture, only taken to a whole new level (i.e. 'Celestial Agriculture').

    We mine for 'Cause Seed' and let it grow/evolve in its proper Earth.
    _______
    I.M.S.U.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    France
    Posts
    241
    Too bad you don't read JDP carefully...
    Alchemy is the physical study of universe, Astrology is the astral study of the universe and Magic is the spiritual study of the universe.
    The three pillars are related, but don't mix them.
    That's the great error of "spiritual alchemy": a loss of marks.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,329
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Green Lion View Post
    Alchemy is the physical study of universe.
    Well, yes, it's definitely physical/material/corporeal in practice, just like all Generation across the Kingdoms in the Physical Universe.

    It complies with laws which affect our (current) physical realm, and there are indeed measurable effects.

    Quote Originally Posted by Green Lion View Post
    That's the great error of "spiritual alchemy": a loss of marks.
    My personal view is that no special 'spiritual practice' is required of the Operator in order to facilitate 'Practical Alchemy'.

    Given the proper conditions and attention, 'Nature' knows very well how to do its job.

    However:

    1. To arrive at the Keys/Laws/Principles of Alchemical Generation, a 'journey' is usually needed, which may be deemed 'spiritual' (in a sense - depending on the subjective definitions we use).

    2. Some effects of Alchemical Generation may also be deemed as being of a 'spiritual' nature - again, depending on the subjective definitions we use.

    3. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about the role that 'practical'/'physical' Alchemical Generation plays in Evolution. But it's not my job (or my desire) to address this here & now.

    _______
    I.M.S.U.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Miami, Florida
    Posts
    504
    The main point by Jung is that the alchemists themselves were unconscious of their dynamics of projection. Jung analyzed their writings and motives, which remained for them on a conscious level. The alchemists didn't have a concept of the unconscious. Typically, dreams and visions in antiquity were assigned to spiritual agencies, perhaps their concept for something other than themselves (as conscious selves). That 'otherness,' was completely prone to the "Pre-Trans Fallacy" so named by Ken Wilber which has routinely, in spiritual writings, confused Unconscious conditions for Superconscious conditions, or again, Pre-personal for Transpersonal. Jung himself could not grok that a consciousness that transcended ego would be aware. In his preface to the Tibetan Book of the Great Liberation he stated that one becomes unconscious to the extent that the ego is transcended. He admitted of a "depotentiated ego," but did not enjoin transpersonal, transcendental states in his system. And I believe he knew this shortcoming, which is why when he had the opportunity of meeting Sri Ramana Maharshi, Jung declined, dismissively saying, "I know the type."

    Of the claims of alchemists of yore, we can be certain of nothing more than their claims. I enjoy the myth of Nicholas (as did J.K. Rowling) and Perenelle Flamel, for example, but I currently see these stories of extreme longevity as a myth belonging to the twin hopes of alchemy: wealth and longevity, which, by extension, one might think gave two conditions for the attainment of wisdom. Of course, duration in time is not a prerequisite for the accrual of wisdom, (and neither is wealth, as a prerequisite for leisure time) if one understands Eckhart Tolle properly. The Realization of wisdom, of Eternal Life, of the very biblical kingdom of Heaven occurs outside of time, in Being, in the Eternal Now. So, the misunderstanding that it might require great life-spans to reach a spiritual goal is based on a radical misunderstanding, just as the multitudes of Christians misunderstand (as did Paul himself), that the End Times are the end of time - the moment, here and now, that one identifies with Being, not some historical apocalypse that ends the historical world at some mythic future time.

    This Realization seems to me to be the Diamond Body, the Mani Stone, or the Wish-Fulfilling Gem, of the Vajrayana, the Immortal Fetus or Cubic Inch of Jade of the Taoists, the Corpus Incorruptibilis, Pearl of Great Price, or Sacred Heart of Christianity, or The Philosopher's Stone of Alchemy. If the jist of all credible religious forms is to point to the dream-like, transient, insubstantial nature of Reality (i.e., as spiritual) relative to The Real, why then the reverse focus on magickal substances? The White and Red 'drops' (Bindu, Thig le) in Vajrayana Buddhism, the Water and Blood in the crucifixion mythos of Christianity might be 'fixed' into substances (as the latter was in the Grail legends), but I think this is a misunderstanding of 'Solve et Coagula' at the highest levels of conceptualization.


    Last edited by MarkostheGnostic; 03-06-2014 at 10:57 PM.
    γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Sauton - Know Thyself

+ 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