Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 68

Thread: The Dry Path of Alchemy

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,078

    The Dry Path of Alchemy

    Does anybody knows what happened to this book? Has it finally came out?

    The Dry Path of Alchemy
    https://thefirelizard.wordpress.com/...th-of-alchemy/
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    Does anybody knows what happened to this book? Has it finally came out?

    The Dry Path of Alchemy
    https://thefirelizard.wordpress.com/...th-of-alchemy/
    Best seem to be to ask José Antonio Puche Riart himself who still is on Rubellus' forum.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    You are not missing much. Puche Riart et al. openly admit that their supposed "Stone" does NOT transmute metals, which is nothing other than tantamount to DECLARING FAILURE, but without actually openly admitting it. They have not succeeded in making the Stone, either with the so-called "humid" or "dry" method (both of them in fact rely on the secret solvent, which they don't know how to make, so naturally all their efforts so far have come to failure.)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,327
    Blog Entries
    1
    Which authors are not a waste of time? (just "The Stone" type of authors, no chymists or particulars).

    If there were/are genuine ALCHEMICAL authors out there, how do we know? How can we tell?

    What (in a book) would turn the needle of the baloney meter to the left?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,078
    The biggest value in this book it is their interpretation of the practical work of dry way so-called modus operandi. This is the most difficult piece of a puzzle to find. They are working with Stibnite which i don't think is the true matter but you can learn the modus operandi and use whatever first matter you think it is.
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,327
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Which authors are not a waste of time? (just "The Stone" type of authors, no chymists or particulars).

    If there were/are genuine ALCHEMICAL authors out there, how do we know? How can we tell?

    What (in a book) would turn the needle of the baloney meter to the left?
    Never mind, I found your opinion, sort of:

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    For an author to qualify as an alchemist there's one requirement: his works have to be predominantly devoted to the subject of making the Philosophers' Stone/Elixir. And for an alchemist to qualify as a reputed "adept" there is one requirement as well: he has to either explicitly or implicitly state that he has been successful at the task. These requirements obviously disqualify a whole bunch of people from the above list. Even "chymists" like Kunckel or Becher, as heavily involved in the subject of transmutation as they were, cannot really be considered "alchemists", and even less "adepts" (their works are not primarily devoted to the subject of making the Stone, plus they never claimed to have actually been successful at preparing it.)
    So just by claiming or implying, the author automatically qualifies? Where's the proof he's not bullshitting? Where's the empirical evidence of such claims?

    We have an example HERE of someone who checks ALL your above-listed boxes, and yet it's not enough

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,327
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    They are working with Stibnite which I don't think is the true matter.
    _______________

    Quote Originally Posted by pierre View Post
    A quote from Fulcanelli says the Antomony is not the subject of the work. That whatever be the method by which it worked, never will be the philosophical subject.
    We know that Fulcanelli worked the dry way. And he has reason! This is not the antimony such matter. Fulcanelli uses almost an entire chapter of his book to rule out such sulfur, because their material is Iron. What prevents say about antimony, it is that while it is not the philosophical matter, without it in the dry way, it is impossible to bring it to an end.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,078
    I would say that Iron is indispensable matter in the dry way. The first matter symbolized by our planet earth must stand for some form of carbon. I can't think of more primitive and vile subject than carbon. Stibnite is too exotic and silicon too metallic.
    Formerly known as True Puffer

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,457
    Quote Originally Posted by True Initiate View Post
    The biggest value in this book it is their interpretation of the practical work of dry way so-called modus operandi. This is the most difficult piece of a puzzle to find. They are working with Stibnite which i don't think is the true matter but you can learn the modus operandi and use whatever first matter you think it is.
    I have both versions (English and Spanish) because they were gifts from one of its authors.
    I'd say that it's an excellent book... specially because it provides a Modus Operandi, but also an obsessive chemical analysis of the results of every single step.


    Other than that, the book itself does not contradict the "Iron Statement" that is being discussed here.

    "Fulcanelli wrote very clearly that the other basic substance of the Great Work is Iron. Of course other elements can be used, but they do not last and therefore iron is all, it is the center of the art of alchemy. Other elements are used but do not last."

    The quote above is from the book... which heavily relies on Iron (and Stibine too, that's true)... but you can find the word "Iron" in probably every page of the book. So it is not a "let's not use Iron book", but quite the opposite.

    I would find it odd that a person who is into the Dry Path doesn't want to read it. Other than that, as the title says, it is certainly about the Dry Path and only about the Dry Path... So it can be a curiosity, but not a very useful one for the ones who are not heavily inclined to the Dry Path (i.e, a person who is exclusively devoted to "Wet Paths" can read the book and find that nothing there is too useful for him).

    I would be VERY surprised if a person who is heavily inclined to the Dry Path reads this book and decides that he has learnt "nothing". It may not be the last word on the Dry Path, but I do not know any other book that is so systematic like this one.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Andro View Post
    Never mind, I found your opinion, sort of:



    So just by claiming or implying, the author automatically qualifies? Where's the proof he's not bullshitting? Where's the empirical evidence of such claims?

    We have an example HERE of someone who checks ALL your above-listed boxes, and yet it's not enough
    "Rhoend" is obviously a modern charlatan whose only "Philosophers' Stone" is to sell his useless books at high prices. Loads of uncorroborated "hocus pocus" in his posts/texts (including one you know all too well and which I will not explicitly mention here [...] pointing out the logical fallacies and total lack of evidence for this claim.)

    Examples of actual alchemists are: Agathodaimon, Maria, Kings Marqunis & Sanfaja, Aras the Sage, Asfidus, Mihraris, Zosimos, Khalid, Jabir Ibn Hayyan, Ibn Tammam al-Iraqi, Ibn Umail, Al-Marrakushi, Abu'l-Qasim al-Iraqi, al-Tinnisi, al-Nasrani, Villanova, Llull, Dastin, Guido Montanor, Ripley, Norton, "Theodorus Mundanus", etc.

    How do we know if they really succeeded in making the Stone? Well, since they are no longer around they can't actually show us (but in the case of the above mentioned "Theodorus Mundanus" we have at least two historical witnesses who independently witnessed transmutations performed with samples of the Stone provided by him: Edmund Dickinson and Robert Boyle), but that's what the point is for studying the works they left behind, to see if we can replicate their claims. But at least their claims can be taken seriously, unlike characters like "Rhoend".
    Last edited by Andro; 01-11-2018 at 09:30 AM. Reason: [...] Adminitratrive interventions are not up for dicsussion on the public forum. PM the forum Admin for any such issues.

+ 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