Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 27 FirstFirst ... 7 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 261

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #161
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Ripley, Nowell, Aurach, Ficinus, and Beuther are all from the 1500's or prior and give plain explications of our Art.

    Sendivogius, Philalethes, Greverus, Figulus, and St. Dunstan from the 1600's all deliver relatively straightforward explanations too..

    Grassot, Yworth, and Fleischer from the 1700's wrote quite understandably as well...
    Thank you - there are a few authors in that list that I wasn't aware of. I look forward to exploring them.

    Have you read all the texts in R.A.M.S. yet?
    I wish - it might take a lifetime to read them all :-) Unfortunately, many of them are biased in favor of a Rosicrucian perspective. Especially Bacstrom's collection.

    Looking forward to seeing this completed!
    I have so many such projects on the go. I'm currently focusing on the completion of Recreations Hermetiques along with two partners. I had hoped it would be published by this Fall, but a well known alchemist fluent in both English French as well as alchemy is currently reviewing it. This is another very open book that Fulcanelli used in decoding the alchemical secrets. A lot of the interpretations provided in this book is reflected in Fulcanelli's writing.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    Ripley, Nowell, Aurach, Ficinus, and Beuther are all from the 1500's or prior and give plain explications of our Art.

    Sendivogius, Philalethes, Greverus, Figulus, and St. Dunstan from the 1600's all deliver relatively straightforward explanations too..

    Grassot, Yworth, and Fleischer from the 1700's wrote quite understandably as well...
    I suggest reading Ripley’s, Key to the Golden Gate and St. Dunstan: Philosophia Maturata, to apprehend the nature of the starting matter. YWorth is good but Bolnest is better to achieve the means for Weidenfeld’s philosophical menstrums. The “work on metals” is to no avail unless you can make a simple philosophical mensturm.

    Knowing the means to the above is mental gymnastics until you can make a Vegetable Stone in the lab. Once you can do that you will realize the difference between the White and the Red. Hollandus’ Vegetable Stone and Ripley’s and St. Dunstan’s White are the same Way of the Poor.

    All is done with the one thing only which was once living, if you can catch the Spirit in that Dragon fire. The artful manipulation of heat allows the Spirit to fashion a new body from the death’s head in the Dragon’s fire. All of this is done with the elements obtained from the Dragon’s fire.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KQw...ature=youtu.be

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,078
    Quote Originally Posted by z0 K View Post
    The artful manipulation of heat allows the Spirit to fashion a new body from the death’s head in the Dragon’s fire. All of this is done with the elements obtained from the Dragon’s fire.
    By heat do you mean the common fire?

    To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this article from Canseliet:

    In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

    The full article:
    https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/a...-last-cooking/
    Last edited by True Initiate; 11-13-2016 at 09:30 PM.
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    By heat do you mean the common fire?

    To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this aricle from Canseliet:

    In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

    The full article:
    https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/a...-last-cooking/
    My keyboard is broken and it is a nightmare to write with it, so I will use a "telegram style".
    The quote by Canseliet is tricky.
    I don´t know anyone who says that the "secret fire" is the "vulgar fire" (indeed, it would be stupid to speak about a "secret fire" if we were talking about "vulgar fire").

    And yet, having discussed this issue in private with several persons, I´ve seen that this is tricky, because there are different ways to obtain the secret fire and SOME of them involve using "vulgar fire" (and others don´t). So it is somehow a mistake to completely EXCLUDE the vulgar fire from the realm of alchemy... yeah, it is for sure NOT the "secret fire", but such thing doesn´t mean that using vulgar fire in a part of the process makes the whole thing "non alchemical" or a "mistake".

    -and Canseliet does not suggest that Fulcanelli did NOT use vulgar fire at all in ANY part of is process... he only says that it was not his "secret fire" (which is quite obvious).

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by zoas23 View Post
    And yet, having discussed this issue in private with several persons, I´ve seen that this is tricky, because there are different ways to obtain the secret fire and SOME of them involve using "vulgar fire" (and others don´t). So it is somehow a mistake to completely EXCLUDE the vulgar fire from the realm of alchemy... yeah, it is for sure NOT the "secret fire", but such thing doesn´t mean that using vulgar fire in a part of the process makes the whole thing "non alchemical" or a "mistake".

    -and Canseliet does not suggest that Fulcanelli did NOT use vulgar fire at all in ANY part of is process... he only says that it was not his "secret fire" (which is quite obvious).
    Perhaps thist becomes a non-issue IF we take ICH literally when he writes that 'the heat of common fire' is a 'means (Mittel) of corporifying the spirit', but after that he rejects its use in almost all succeeding operations.

    BTW, have we gone completely off- topic or is the discussion still somehow revolving around the Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)?

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,823
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    By heat do you mean the common fire?

    To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this aricle from Canseliet:

    In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

    The full article:
    https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/a...-last-cooking/
    I wouldn't pay too much attention to that quote. Canseliet himself used fire all throughout his (unsuccessful) attempts at making the Stone (and he attempted the "dry" way, BTW; a remark just to keep this post "on topic".) He also used it in the "particulars" he tested (at least one of which he says was successful in yielding some gold.) Fire is indispensable to alchemy, "chymistry" and ordinary chemistry alike. Without it they would not exist.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    he attempted the "dry" way, BTW; a remark just to keep this post "on topic".
    To be more precise, I should address this question more to Illen and his Fulcanelli research: Is this about a longer 'dry way' (metal + mineral), or about the so-called 'Ars Brevis' (allegedly of 8 days or so)?

    So my question is really more out of curiosity, because I have never really personally researched this approach...

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    To be more precise, I should address this question more to Illen and his Fulcanelli research: Is this about a longer 'dry way' (metal + mineral), or about the so-called 'Ars Brevis' (allegedly of 8 days or so)?

    So my question is really more out of curiosity, because I have never really personally researched this approach...
    My understanding is that the "longer" way is the wet way, while the "shorter" way, is called "Ars Brevis". I'm not aware of a longer dry way, although Dwellings mentioned it without any explanation.

    According to Fulcanelli, both the longer wet way and the shorter dry way start in the very same way, which is called the "Preparation". Only after the initial preparation do the two ways begin.

    Also, the short way involves high temperatures utilizating a crucible, while the longer way requires more moderate temperatures, and utilizing a glass container.

    The whole issue of heat/fire is a bit of an enigma because it involves the use of a "secret fire" (not a true fire but possibly some kind of potent chemical/electrical/piezoelectric reaction). This secret fire absolutely requires an "external fire" as a sort of catalyst to get it to react.

    So the whole question of using a strong fire in the short dry way is an issue. it appears that a moderate fire is used to stimulate the secret fire, but that a strong fire is also required. Thus the stronger fire must be applied at a different stage of the process.

    I think this brings the two conversations together.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,321
    Blog Entries
    1
    Thanks Illen! That helps clarify your position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    My understanding is that the "longer" way is the wet way, while the "shorter" way, is called "Ars Brevis". I'm not aware of a longer dry way, although Dwellings mentioned it without any explanation.

    According to Fulcanelli, both the longer wet way and the shorter dry way start in the very same way, which is called the "Preparation". Only after the initial preparation do the two ways begin.

    Also, the short way involves high temperatures utilizating a crucible, while the longer way requires more moderate temperatures, and utilizing a glass container.

    The whole issue of heat/fire is a bit of an enigma because it involves the use of a "secret fire" (not a true fire but possibly some kind of potent chemical/electrical/piezoelectric reaction). This secret fire absolutely requires an "external fire" as a sort of catalyst to get it to react.

    So the whole question of using a strong fire in the short dry way is an issue. It appears that a moderate fire is used to stimulate the secret fire, but that a strong fire is also required. Thus the stronger fire must be applied at a different stage of the process.

    I think this brings the two conversations together.

  10. #170
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    295
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    By heat do you mean the common fire?

    To all those who think that common fire has anything to do with alchemy please read this aricle from Canseliet:

    In l’Alchimie Expliquée sur ses Textes Classiques Canseliet wrote: “Like the unlucky discoverer of radium (Pierre Curie), Fulcanelli knew very well that the fire under his oven, or burners, was unable to produce any transmutation. The sublimity of the arcane awoke his caution in revealing, so, when covering the Secret Fire topic, he never went beyond the ancient alchemists. This is also the reason why we have treated once again on the chemical and physical realization by this great unknown.

    The full article:
    https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/a...-last-cooking/
    If by “common fire” you mean “heat” that ordinary folks can produce and manipulate, then yes.

    Without common heat you would not be alive to pose the statement that it has nothing to do with alchemy:-) Mental gymnastics will move all the heat to your head and your body will get cold. So then you have to do real physical gymnastics to get the heat flowing back into your limbs.

    As great as you might think the Secret Fire is your brain will use it up and you will grow cold. That is what happens when one feels the loss of heat. Remove all the heat and the Secret Fire goes down the wormhole.

    Interesting, I laid out a sequence of suggested reading so than those still desiring to ascertain the material with which to work in the lab might be able to break out of the BS and ignoramus assertions of modern pop alchemy enthusiasts. I don’t mean anyone in particular, just the published modern hypothesis masquerading as alchemical theory since the time after Cyliani.

    To demonstrate that what I said was not simply my own modern BS as an alchemical ignoramus I posted a link to a video showing the manifestation of the necessary elements to make the White Stone. That’s the one that is good for you. Also those elements are necessary to make the secret solvent, mercury, sulfur, Azoth, etc., for the Red Stone as well. That is the one where Au is added, and JDP is right that it is not made from only one thing:-)

    I had expected some form of criticism about the video but no? Not even any questions.

    The article you linked to misses the point if it is intended to address the Secret Fire. Canseliet was the apprentice of a fictions alchemist: Fulcanelli. Focusing on the tragic discovery of nuclear fission that burned the Curies to death slowly is to focus on the decaying physical body of unstable periodic elements. Nuclear decomposition could be seen as an expression of the Secret Fire, so is common heat.

    The alchemical element Fire has Nature beyond what is seen and felt with the senses. All the Elements are manifestations of Spiritus Mundi, the original Secret Fire of the universe. If the alchemy you are after is the transmutation of periodic table elements then it would be better to study Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. The idea is to subtly coax low energy neutrons away from the nucleus by the artful manipulation of heat.

    Hypothetically the LENR neutrons then rapidly decompose into protons and electrons in a properly prepared menstrum that is targeted to assemble desired periodic table elements. It is the Secret Fire of the Spiritus Mundi that ordains the hierarchy of energy matrices. The Secret Fire is in the Elements; the Secret Fire is in your head:-)

    As for the Short Dry Way: it is in your head! The Magnum Opus....

+ 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