Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

Patrons of the Sacred Art

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 269

Thread: Is Spiritual Alchemy A Valid Path?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202
    Me:
    but this would just lead to the next circular reasoning between us, what would you "accept" as proof? A video? A statistic? A famous person saying it on television? A clinical study? What other than personal experience would you deem credible?
    You:
    I could tell you, for example, that by flapping my arms real hard I can actually fly. Would you believe such nonsense without actual proof, though? No? Well, good, neither would I
    Me:
    In order to believe that you can really fly by flapping your arms I would either have to see you in person doing it or I would accept a experimental setup where I could arrange the observation modalities like choose how,where and with whom you should reproduce and how you should film it/monitor it.
    This would be an easy and doable solution in this particular case. And this would be the proof I need in this particular case

    You see how it is done? Now we could have a discussion because I have layed the groundwork, a fair and clear defined parameter for me believing something, and now everybody else can choose if they want to "debate" "against/for" that position but I have shown honesty and "vulnerability" in accepting the consequences of my believes being altered if these parameters are met and I will not avoid questioning.

    Me:
    what would you "accept" as proof? A video? A statistic? A famous person saying it on television? A clinical study? What other than personal experience would you deem credible?
    What if I show a video with the president of the USA saying it is real? Just a liar?
    What if I show you a video with an experiment and scientists who demonstrate how the fringe is real? Just a fake?
    What if I show you reports of evidence an testimony?Just missinterpretation and delusion?
    A very simple question because who better to know what it is you would need to "believe" in something than yourself. If you do not to state such parameters
    in a strict and clear way I will have to assume that you do not want to for your own reasons and thereby can judge the worth of future discussion on this particular topic.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,024
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Regarding alchemy among the Chinese: they too were interested in transmutation, but not as much as the medicinal/longevity aspects of the subject (the chief obsession of the Chinese alchemists was to eventually become one of the "immortals".) The whole "internal alchemy" thing (meaning, no operations with actual substances) among the Chinese is obviously a gross misunderstanding by some excessively mystically-minded later writers who either totally failed to achieve the goals of alchemy and tried to give the subject some other meaning in the face of such failure to achieve an actual "Elixir", or never in fact understood alchemy's goals to begin with and gave it a fanciful interpretation.
    Yes.

    Also see THIS POST.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,540
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki Morningstar View Post
    I will personally give you a thousand pound if you can prove you are not part of an elaborate experiment, a brain in a jar being stimulated with electrodes to perceive the existence you are living in. Shaman, Philosophers, Religious, and truly critical Scientists, have been thinking about this idea for thousands of years, and they still haven't figured it out. You sound like an fundamentalist atheist alchemist; any good scientist, alchemist, or philosopher should always be agnostic, or on the fence in my eyes.
    I am in fact an agnostic and an empiricist. You should already have guessed that much from my posts.

    I think you are judging something before you have even really looked deep enough in my eyes. How many people have proved they could change base metals into gold through chemistry under scientific conditions? I am pretty sure Randi's experiment would work just as well for this claim.
    So far none, but there are some good reasons why this has not happened yet, the chief being simply self-interest. Most people who discovered the empirical reality of transmutation did not want to "kill the goose that lays the golden eggs" for them by making it known to all. This situation might change, though. So far I have gathered enough demonstrable repeatable evidence to convince me of the reality of the subject. And fortunately for our subject matter, most of the processes discovered by the old "chymists" (not alchemists) only give small amounts of gold and silver, not enough to derive a profit from them (unlike the Philosophers' Stone of alchemy, which can turn many times its own weight of base metals into precious ones), but only valuable to demonstrate the reality of transmutation, and in fact several of them in their writings specifically offered such processes as proof of the reality of transmutation without fear that gold and silver would lose their value (i.e. without "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.") If or when I decide that I have enough evidence to prove it to the whole world is another matter. So far I too must remain on the fringe and simply limit myself to my personal convictions on this subject, which unlike many of the weird claims that others keep bringing up, do not rely on mind-altering substances or some sort of mysterious special Jedi-like powers, and can be repeated by anyone. In other words, REAL EMPIRICAL FACTS.

    I would have to agree with dev here. Alchemy most likely was started by herbal shaman. There is much historical proof of this. Shamans also being the first philosophers, the first thinkers we could say. Plus a lot of the ideas of ancient alchemy were based on the ideas of Plato's geometry principles, and other philosophers ideas. So alchemy certainly seems to have it's roots in philosophy of some variety. So if anyone is 'hijacking' alchemy as you put it, even though I do not judge either way, it is the western gold hunters.

    Personally, I do not believe either is possible. Many of the spiritualist claims, or the claim of being able to turn metals to gold. I try not to believe anything as much as possible, just to get an understanding. At the same time, I would like to see someone argue against geometry, or philosophy, and I would not personally judge anyone, ever. If that is their personal path, that is their personal path.

    As I said, all roads lead to Rome. All I personally do it to look for is greater understanding of the things we do 'know'. "I know one thing, and that is I know nothing", although I do know that "I am a thinking thing, that is, a being who doubts, affirms, denies, knows a few objects, and is ignorant of many …", but at the end of the day "A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool".

    I personally do not judge people for their views. Nor do I judge people for lacking people skills. At the end of the day, both shall effect them much more than they will me.

    I wish you all the best, I hope you find what you are 'actually' looking for, and if you wish for friendship, or companionship, on your journey toward truth, I am more than willing to support you in any way I can to get there.

    Love and Light.

    Loki.

    P.s. I feel my post on what my definition of alchemy may actually help in this situation. I am not saying it is the definition, or the way, but at a minimum it explains my ideas of what alchemy is, and why I 'bother with' Alchemy.
    It is good and healthy that you remain skeptical, even of transmutation. I am not criticizing you for it. I am a skeptic myself, so I understand your point of view. I merely limit myself here to let you know of my personal conviction, based on repeatable facts that anyone can carry out (no mysterious special "powers" of any kind required), that unlike all those strange "spiritualist", "occultist", "mentalist", or whatever else claims, transmutation is quite real and demonstrable. So far I have managed to make small amounts of silver and gold from some metals that I am quite sure through assaying did not contain the slightest visible amount of any of these two "noble" metals, so these are not the result of any supposed "impurities" in the materials used. May God (if he really exists) bless some of those old "chymists" who sometimes actually wrote the plain naked truth and defended it with tooth & nail by actually offering proof of the matter. It is thanks to them that I have been able to also become aware of the empirical reality of the subject.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,540
    Quote Originally Posted by JinRaTensei View Post
    Me:


    You:


    Me:
    In order to believe that you can really fly by flapping your arms I would either have to see you in person doing it or I would accept a experimental setup where I could arrange the observation modalities like choose how,where and with whom you should reproduce and how you should film it/monitor it.
    This would be an easy and doable solution in this particular case. And this would be the proof I need in this particular case

    You see how it is done? Now we could have a discussion because I have layed the groundwork, a fair and clear defined parameter for me believing something, and now everybody else can choose if they want to "debate" "against/for" that position but I have shown honesty and "vulnerability" in accepting the consequences of my believes being altered if these parameters are met and I will not avoid questioning.

    Me:




    A very simple question because who better to know what it is you would need to "believe" in something than yourself. If you do not to state such parameters
    in a strict and clear way I will have to assume that you do not want to for your own reasons and thereby can judge the worth of future discussion on this particular topic.
    Your post is very strange. You now demand actual proof of the bizarre claim I made as an example, yet you do not apply the same strict parameter for the other bizarre claims you bring up as "proof". Apply it to them as well, and you will see that no one has proven them either. They are about as "proven" as my purposefully ridiculous example claim that I can fly by flapping my arms real hard. They are just empty claims with no actual proof to back them up.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    202
    Thank you for your time and patience with me, there is no reason to ask again or put it more simple since your position seems apparent to me.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    In the moment...
    Posts
    7,778
    Blog Entries
    2
    A wall is a wall. A door is a door. If you put a door in a wall you can go through it. If you put a wall in a door you get a wall.

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

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Does "Nature" not have a "spiritual" cause? (Hermetic Law of Causality)

    I see Alchemy as involving Spiritual Principles practically applied (inside the "Alchemical Crucible" and laboratory) in & to the realm of physical matter, thus taking it beyond mere chemistry.

    What, in you view, are the attributes of the "Prima Materia" (generally)?

    You quoted Ab Roek earlier. If I'm not mistaken, both of you have openly admitted not to have performed practical laboratory work yet. It could be interesting to hear your perspectives after commencing the practical Work.

    For me, it's fascinating to observe how physical matter can have its properties radically altered when treated alchemically. Or even matter "mysteriously" appearing where there was none before.

    The Work in itself doesn't seem to require any "spiritual mind powers". However, a deep, primordial (dare I even say Gnostic) inner-standing of Spirit (and its manifestations, attributes and affinities in the physical realm) seems to be necessary in order to uncover the mysteries of the actual Practical Work.
    To your causality question, remember that in my statement I associatied spiritual with inner crap not that spiritual which you are pointing out.

    When did you ever hear any adept saying so applying spiritual (i guess you meant inner) principles to lab, when they talk of figures they want you to think deeply. Not work on your inner lab which does not exist. Remember I used the term inner lab.

    As for the attributes can't be explained here will send you a PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    204
    Quote Originally Posted by dev View Post
    If you looked a bit into this inner crap maybe you would be less inclined to waste energy about trying to convince the converted that it is a hoax. LOL.

    LOL, its now a cult.

    To Loki,

    You talk about negativity. What sort of negativity, nobody called you out. In fact the discussion is not about you or me but the Truth vs Hoax.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    204
    You people praise God sky high, sometimes even say he is generous and you people want to transmute your being.

    Why would God put you through such useless acrobatics before granting your desire.

    God is simple, his works may be replicated without much efforts.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Berlin, Germany
    Posts
    5,024
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thank you, it's much clearer now.

    I didn't mean applying "Inner Work" to the Lab Work, but Spirit ("Universal Spirit" made manifest) is nevertheless the Key to the Practical Work. I.M.S.E.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    To your causality question, remember that in my statement I associated spiritual with inner crap not that spiritual which you are pointing out.

    When did you ever hear any adept saying so applying spiritual (I guess you meant inner) principles to lab, when they talk of figures they want you to think deeply. Not work on your inner lab which does not exist. Remember I used the term inner lab.

    As for the attributes can't be explained here will send you a PM.

+ 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