Patrons of the Sacred Art

Can't log in? Contact Us

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 262

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,080
    Can you give us the general overview of the path without spilling all the magic beans?
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    I find Fulcanelli to be incredibly clear and more generous than any other alchemist before or after him. He has explained every detail very clearly, and only leaves you guessing about the subject matter (even there he has given some great clues), and a few "tricks". The only problem is that you have to re-read his book carefully at least a half dozen times. It's all there in his books, but in no logical order.
    Though his two books are interesting, I would not completely agree that he explains everything in an exceedingly clear manner. He leaves a lot of questions unanswered. For example, he keeps claiming that the secret solvent of alchemy is a solid saline substance and strongly rejects any writer who describes the secret solvent as a liquid (this in itself is a huge contradiction to the bulk of alchemical literature, since the vast majority of alchemists in fact describe the secret solvent as a liquid substance; but that is another issue.) OK, fine, let us accept his claim for argument's sake. However, there comes a part in his description of the operations where he in fact contradicts his very own statement and describes the effects of a "golden" liquid or water which is DECANTED after its preparation and then used to IMBIBE and DAMPEN a certain mineral, which is then digested with it in order to prepare a substance he calls "sulphur".

    Another example: he describes the secret solvent as a VOLATILE saline substance. Yet the initial reactions in the preparation of this solvent he describes in a semi-veiled manner that seem like a violent reduction of a mineral into a "regulus" (that is what has made so many people think that he was just talking about making regulus of antimony, despite the fact that he very clearly rejects both stibnite and antimony regulus as having any part in making either the secret solvent or the Stone.) So how can the obvious contradiction that such violent high-temperature reactions could possibly lead to the production of a VOLATILE substance (all or most of it would be lost during its very preparation!) is totally unexplained.
    Last edited by JDP; 11-09-2016 at 04:41 PM.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    However, there comes a part in his description of the operations where he in fact contradicts his very own statement and describes the effects of a "golden" liquid or water which is DECANTED after its preparation and then used to IMBIBE and DAMPEN a certain mineral, which is then digested with it in order to prepare a substance he calls "sulphur".
    That used to confuse me as well, but after re-reading his books numerous times over many years, many of the contradictions started falling away one by one, and it now makes perfect sense. There's no contradiction here if you know the terms he uses very well (sometimes dozens of words for the same thing - you have to first make a concordance of all the terms). The solution came to me over the past few months when I re-read his books twice over again.

    Another example: he describes the secret solvent as a VOLATILE saline substance. Yet the initial reactions in the preparation of this solvent he describes in a semi-veiled manner that seem like a violent reduction of a mineral into a "regulus" (that is what has made so many people think that he was just talking about making regulus of antimony, despite the fact that he very clearly rejects both stibnite and antimony regulus as having any part in making either the secret solvent or the Stone.) So how can the obvious contradiction that such violent high-temperature reactions could possibly lead to the production of a VOLATILE substance (all or most of it would be lost during its very preparation!) is totally unexplained.
    I agree. This is one part that still confuses me and is one I am currently working on. There's also another seeming contradiction that I'm still working on as well, which is his explanation of the first preparation, in the story of Jupiter and Danae. For some odd reason, he seems to completely reverse the roles of the mineral and metal. The mineral in this case contains the sulphur, while the metal contains the mercury - exactly opposite to ALL the other references in his book.

    However, having already resolved many of the other seeming "contradictions" in his books, I think there might also be an explanation for this. I think I'm close.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    Can you give us the general overview of the path without spilling all the magic beans?
    Are you asking Dwellings for an overview of his path, or an overview of Fulcanelli's path?

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    That used to confuse me as well, but after re-reading his books numerous times over many years, many of the contradictions started falling away one by one, and it now makes perfect sense. There's no contradiction here if you know the terms he uses very well (sometimes dozens of words for the same thing - you have to first make a concordance of all the terms). The solution came to me over the past few months when I re-read his books twice over again.



    I agree. This is one part that still confuses me and is one I am currently working on. There's also another seeming contradiction that I'm still working on as well, which is his explanation of the first preparation, in the story of Jupiter and Danae. For some odd reason, he seems to completely reverse the roles of the mineral and metal. The mineral in this case contains the sulphur, while the metal contains the mercury - exactly opposite to ALL the other references in his book.

    However, having already resolved many of the other seeming "contradictions" in his books, I think there might also be an explanation for this. I think I'm close.
    Glad to see we agree on several of these problems in Fulcanelli's descriptions of the operations. But I see that, despite what you said regarding the first example, you still have some unanswered questions regarding that whole "Danae" and "Jupiter" description. I still say that his persistent claims about the secret solvent being a solid saline substance are contradicted by what he says in that chapter, where he clearly describes the "Hermetic solvent" as a GOLDEN LIQUID. Yes, it is true that he says that this happens "after undergoing fermentation in an oak barrel" but that still does not excuse his claims that the secret solvent must be a solid and his criticism of all other writers who say it is a liquid, since he seems to be admitting that it can actually also take on a liquid form (and in fact, several alchemists from centuries before Fulcanelli accept that the secret solvent can take both liquid and solid forms. Anyone who has read alchemists like Ibn Umail or Franz Clinge will know this.)

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    Are you asking Dwellings for an overview of his path, or an overview of Fulcanelli's path?
    I was asking you for an an overview of Fulcanelli's path for example in terms of chronology of operations. Reduction, assation and so on...
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In-Between
    Posts
    5,784
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    he keeps claiming that the secret solvent of alchemy is a solid saline substance and strongly rejects any writer who describes the secret solvent as a liquid (this in itself is a huge contradiction to the bulk of alchemical literature, since the vast majority of alchemists in fact describe the secret solvent as a liquid substance; but that is another issue.) OK, fine, let us accept his claim for argument's sake. However, there comes a part in his description of the operations where he in fact contradicts his very own statement and describes the effects of a "golden" liquid or water which is DECANTED after its preparation and then used to IMBIBE and DAMPEN a certain mineral, which is then digested with it in order to prepare a substance he calls "sulphur".
    If we go back to the ICH/Cyliani/Recreations lineage, they all explain how the Ph. Mercury/Alkahest is initially obtained as a cotton-like or wool-like salt, which however needs to be dissolved in the 'Astral Spirit' prior to commencing the dampenings/imbibitions, either of metallic gold or of what appears to be the caput mortum of the same mineral that was also previously used in the preparation of the Ph. Mercury (in this lineage, probably originally an iron sulfide, given the 'Union-with-Mars' reference in both Cyiliani and Recreations, as well as implied in the '13 Secret Letters').

    In this lineage, working with metallic gold is termed the 'Wet Way', while rejecting metallic gold is termed the 'Dry Way'. I can not tell if this is in any way directly or indirectly connected with the 'Short Way'.
    ______________________

    Note: This does not necessarily reflect my own research, I'm just extracting from available relevant literature here.
    Last edited by Andro; 11-09-2016 at 07:41 PM.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Glad to see we agree on several of these problems in Fulcanelli's descriptions of the operations. But I see that, despite what you said regarding the first example, you still have some unanswered questions regarding that whole "Danae" and "Jupiter" description. I still say that his persistent claims about the secret solvent being a solid saline substance are contradicted by what he says in that chapter, where he clearly describes the "Hermetic solvent" as a GOLDEN LIQUID. Yes, it is true that he says that this happens "after undergoing fermentation in an oak barrel" but that still does not excuse his claims that the secret solvent must be a solid and his criticism of all other writers who say it is a liquid, since he seems to be admitting that it can actually also take on a liquid form (and in fact, several alchemists from centuries before Fulcanelli accept that the secret solvent can take both liquid and solid forms. Anyone who has read alchemists like Ibn Umail or Franz Clinge will know this.)
    The explanation is really quite simple. The "mercury" first coagulates as an "oily film" on the surface of the mixture as it undergoes coction. It looks like a "golden liquid" just before it coagulates. It is removed carefully with a spoon (feather in some books). Once it dessicates, it then becomes a solid, crystalline secret solvent. So the trick was that it can take on more than one form, and many different names. Many of the "riddles" are like this.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,222
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    I was asking you for an an overview of Fulcanelli's path for example in terms of chronology of operations. Reduction, assation and so on...
    It took me many years of intense reading and contemplation to finally unravel it. Working for the answer teaches many other clues and techniques and understandings that cannot be obtained without going through the thought process. But I'll see if I can provide you a general overview by private mail.

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    The explanation is really quite simple. The "mercury" first coagulates as an "oily film" on the surface of the mixture as it undergoes coction. It looks like a "golden liquid" just before it coagulates. It is removed carefully with a spoon (feather in some books). Once it dessicates, it then becomes a solid, crystalline secret solvent. So the trick was that it can take on more than one form, and many different names. Many of the "riddles" are like this.
    There's still problems with this interpretation. For example, he calls the product of the coagulation between the "golden liquid" and the chosen "mineral" the "sulphur", not the secret solvent. In fact, he plainly calls the golden liquid the "hermetic solvent" already, in its very liquid form, which is plainly a contradiction to his criticism of those who describe the secret solvent as a liquid, when he himself has no problem implying that the secret solvent can indeed have a liquid form too!

+ 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