Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: The danger of producing a nilixir

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by elixirmixer View Post
    I suppose that a highly penetrating salt, that does not have a Sulfur ('tincture') could do more harm than good.

    I look at Meth this way, a highly penetrating volatile salt, however it lacks tincture and instead of building the body, it pulls it apart and destroys it.

    Mercury dissolves, Salt penetrates, however Sulfur is what feeds and vitalizes IMO.

    So many entities hey..... This does make sense because the emotional power I feel while performing alchemy is very strong, often too strong for me too handle. I broke a $300 quartz lens the other day and it felt like death was hanging over me.

    Perhaps I should really start this LBRP stuff. Thanks for the earnings Luzus and Seth-Ra, I really had no idea.
    "If you ask what is its use, I answer that before the due amount of coction has been performed, it is deadly poison, but afterwards it is the Great Medicine,"
    Sendivogius

    Basically we are told that the ingredients that make-up the stone are poisonous in their raw form and only after cooking is its characteristics transformed into a medicine.


    A quartz lense, you are trying to use it to focus/condense Sunlight/SM ?

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,632
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    There is a word used in Alchemical text for a substance which has the exact opposite properties to an elixir. I cant recall it right now so I will refer to it as a ni-lixir.
    Perhaps you are thinking of Boyle's account of the "anti-Elixir", one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of alchemy:

    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/boyle.html

    Boyle published it in the form of an alchemical conversation between several fictitious characters, but it is all based on some of his own personal experiences. It makes you wonder why would an alchemist go through the trouble of seeking to make such a counter-productive "tincture". For more information on this episode, see Lawrence Principe's excellent study of Boyle and alchemy/chymistry/transmutation:

    https://books.google.com/books?id=ns...elixir&f=false

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    400
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Perhaps you are thinking of Boyle's account of the "anti-Elixir", one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of alchemy:
    I have never read Boyles work so I did not see it in that. I wish I could remember which tract it was in and the exact word used but I cant. I think it may be in one of the tracts in Arthur Waite's Hermetic Museum but I cant be sure.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    1,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Luxus View Post
    You mean microcosm or are we talking Lord of the Rings one to rule them all
    The micro of the Macro, is still the Macro, just scaled down to be inside itself. It's still the One, which is the All; of course it rules over itself.
    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