FraterUFA

What you've posted are not "very common" concepts at all and no, I didn't look at your link. Is this really what you spend your time on? Ok, I'll bite: Aaaaand I'm out. And I wasn't pulling your leg. I don't have any clue what an order-8, order-16 or magic circle are. A magic square is the same as it always was though: rows, columns and diagonals add up to the same sum. I learned how to do this as a kid. Looks like Ben spent a lot more time on this, easy to do when there's no Internet (trust me). I guess this is vaguely interesting and I learned something new but there aren't enough minutes in the day as it is. Tell me why this matters. UFA

The square you started with isn't a magic square... all of the rows, columns and diagonals must add up to the same number. Start with that. Then it can be transposed to any other magic square by swapping rows and columns. UFA

True, but they are made in the same way. Just swap the columns and rows until you get the pattern you want. No... you're amazing UFA

Heh, there is nothing genius about this. It's just an old parlor trick. I learned how to do it when I was eight and amazed my friends and teachers with my incredible skill. Here's a 5x5 I just whipped up in Excel. Had to make sure I still knew how to do it :-) UFA

Hi Brian, I'm afraid that answer is complicated because the concept of Mercury has been used in many different - often contradictory - ways. Even if one limits the scope to classical alchemy, different authors assign multiple meanings to the word. Sometimes even the same author uses it in different ways. There are of course other fields, such as astrology and magic, which assign their own meanings to Mercury. IMO it causes considerable confusion to try and reconcile those with the various meanings found in alchemy. So I will stick to that. Mercury is said to be a principle which comes from the combination of Air and Water. These are both volatile elements, thus Mercury is exceedingly volatile. Its opposite, Sulphur, is said to unite (or result from the uniting of) Earth and Fire, the fixed elements. Salt serves as the vehicle for Mercury and Sulphur. Practically speaking, Mercury is said to be the Anima Mundi, sometimes defined as the "world soul", other times as the animating spirit of the world (I am of the latter opinion, based on practical lab experience. I hold that the world soul is better represented by Sulphur). This is where it begins to get complicated. This principle is exceedingly volatile and cannot be seen in its purest form, yet it is present practically everywhere. It has a profound uplifting effect on human consciousness. It is an "accelerator" of physical processes, as well as a solvent. It can be considered a universal substance, though it is determined in degrees: the vegetable, mineral and animal kingdoms each have their own mercuries. Mercury can mean many different things. There is a plant mercury, which few know. There are both red and white mercuries and these are probably the most carefully guarded secrets in alchemy. There is a vegetable mercury, which can exist in different degrees of power and there are mineral mercuries, which are poisonous. Mercury can be considered the animating spirit behind life. It is powerless however without the growing nature (in other words, the principle spirit which lies behind the development of physical structure)... wherever there is one, there must be the other. And when these two natures depart a being, the process of death set in. This is brought about by the two principles of decline and suffering, aided by two corruptible substances. There is common mercury (the ordinary metal), various mercuries in the three kingdoms, and Philosophical Mercury. Many men have lived out their entire lives and wasted fortunes searching for that last menstruum. It is said to be a universal medicine, capable of restoring all things to their highest state of health and potential, whether they be animal, mineral or vegetable. So... the answer is not simple. Generally it represents a highly volatile gas or liquid which serves as the animating principle behind life, but the specifics depend on context. Best, UFA

Now, now, Donald. That might be construed as "unhealthy squabbling". :-) UFA

.

Wow. Beautiful works. Thank you for sharing, I would love to see and learn more. UFA

I know nothing about Greek philosophy but I will say that Donald's descriptions do not sound far off from what I have personally experienced. I have found that there is Mind ("Wisdom") and Nature ("Understanding"). Mind is that which orders the universe. He is its laws. He has created you, me and everyone else through the medium of Nature. He is responsible for ordering every circumstance in our lives and he tells me that he has done this purposefully. Nature is the universe itself. The atoms which you consist of, every form and image you sense are her clothing. She is every circumstance in your life, good and bad, which you experience. She desires for her children to know her. She is a radiant light and a star of compassion. She desires for her children to know her and to bring them back before Mind. What lies beyond Mind and Nature is neither Mind nor Nature. UFA

There are a lot of errors in that book, though it is one my favorite references. The list you provided is quite accurate however. As for the true identity of the Prima Materia, Sophia decides who she will reveal it to and who remains in darkness. That is how you know your preparation, while perhaps being a great medicine, isn't what the alchemists are talking about. The stone can reproduce itself, just as vegetable life does. It is a living being. Best, UFA

There were reasons the Egyptians looked unfavorably upon the Greeks. Maybe that's one of them. Best, UFA

Yep, I know. That comment was not directed at you, of course. I would agree that there is something to that which is fundamental to alchemy. I'm not sure what you mean. The final (and intermediate) products of lab work do not look like nor can they act in the same manner as their previous natural body did. The binary force which allowed them to manifest in that state has been removed and so the usual living processes we recognize no longer apply. To avoid the usual misunderstandings which take place with statements like this, here is an example. What is shown below is the Prima Materia of approximately 20 lbs of wood: We can pour these jars out in a field and they will not grow. There is still the tie to life, but there is nothing I or anyone else can do that will revert the contents of these jars back to their original form of a tree. From the standpoint of virtually everyone other than the alchemist, the contents of these jars are dead. The 2nd stone will indeed have died. Its transformation would be cleaner and faster than would take place with the original manual process, but it is fundamentally the same process. Transmutation requires death. There's a lot of support for the idea that cow shit could be used as a starting matter. It may even make an excellent choice. But it is not the Prima Materia. A sealed putrefaction such as the one I think you are describing could (theoretically) result in an alchemical product, I admit. It would take a long time, probably no less than a year, depending on what exactly you're doing. Makes sense actually. Yes. But what I think you're describing is actually not very well known and not depicted in any old texts or images that I'm aware of. Those almost always depict a manual operation, while what you are describing is a simple and natural shortcut. Those are some awful small trees. Are you sure you're doing it right? :-) UFA

I can't say when it comes to Thomash Vaughn as I haven't studied him as much as others. Michael Maier's works are very subtle but they do refer to actual lab processes, as far as I have been able to determine. Best, UFA

It is my opinion, but it is backed up by centuries of alchemical texts which on the whole are overwhelmingly referring to physical processes, not psychological or spiritual (though not devoid of those things either). This modern, singularly spiritual interpretation began with Atwood and other authors, a consequence (I believe) of alchemy's displacement by chemistry and the parallel development of the scientific method. Michael refers to Boehme as being a counter-example of this. I have studied Boehme and he was not an alchemist. He was a Christian mystic who overlaid his mystical practices on the teachings of the alchemists. Though he claimed he knew how to make the Philosopher's Stone, he also basically said that "he hadn't gotten around to it yet". We have heard that same refrain countless times from armchair alchemists throughout the ages. Indeed, the vast majority of alchemical texts are entirely incomprehensible in the lens of a purely spiritual interpretation. This has been exhaustively demonstrated by AE Waite and other authors, including modern academics, who have demolished the purely "spiritual interpretation" of alchemy. But before anyone goes misinterpreting my words, let me state explicitly that there is a very deep spiritual aspect to alchemy. If you're extracting from plants, then it actually doesn't avoid the use of metal. Plants are made in no small part of metal: Potassium. Interestingly, humans are made of another: Sodium (as well as potassium, iron, copper and others). Puts the whole "metals" thing in a whole new light, doesn't it? It sounds more like spagyrics to me. That doesn't make it any less useful, but my interpretation of what alchemy is much stricter than what is loosely thrown around today. I think few people here (Michael Sternbach and Kio maybe excepted) have an appreciation for what alchemy truly entails. It is not a matter of simple spagyrics, which is content to separate three things, call them "principles" and mix them back together. Alchemy requires the complete separation of the three principles, their purification - both inner and outer - and then enlists nature to put them back together in accordance with her laws. The outcome is not more of the same, it is an entirely new, often unrecognizable substance with unusual properties, such as salts that can evaporate or float in mid-air. These principles are only purified when they are considered "homogeneous"... that is, they cannot be divided into discrete substances. Such an operation entails the elimination of all corruptible elements and requires the death of the living system in its natural form. If a true alchemical operation were performed on a garden, that garden would no longer exist as corruptible, earthly plant life. The very thing which made it a living organism (the Binary) would have been reduced to a nearly imperceptible state, rendering it a close approximation of an eternal substance in material form. I like gardens. They are pretty. I don't think we should do alchemy to them. :-) Anyway, everyone is free to believe what they like. I comment only from the perspective as a working lab alchemist. Best, UFA

I am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. I am a native English speaker btw. No, but the underpinnings of what eventually were embodied by modern Qabalah were well known to them, having been transmitted to them by the Egyptians. That is correct. I intentionally added the labels "Nature" and "God" to indicate that I was speaking generally, and not merely through the lens of the Qabalah. Not inherently wrong, but technically wrong, for sure. I seem to have incorrectly assumed you were looking for a practical viewpoint on this as opposed to an academic one. I used the Qabalistic labels because they are well known and are useful in that they can be used as common terminology among those with an experiential foundation in the tree of life. However, it doesn't appear that you have this practical understanding as evidenced by the confusion which is coming across in your words. It should be clear that Sophia does not refer to either Ruach, Nephesch, nor Chokmah, however this is not at all obvious if one is operating from merely a semantic / intellectual level of understanding (due to the error stemming from the misidentification of the English translation "wisdom" in either case). Sophia refers to Binah ("Understanding"), or what may be considered the higher intelligence of nature. This intelligence (in the technical esoteric sense of Partzufim) does not proceed from the personal mental or emotional faculties. Best, UFA

Not really. The usage of the cognitive functions is not what the philosophers mean. Wisdom typically refers to the connection with the higher functions, Chiah and Neschamah, or God and Nature. UFA

The difficulty with this statement is that the extracts of plants and metals are a fundamental part of alchemy. It is like saying that you want to study Christianity but don't aren't interested in Christ. UFA

This is the road to Wisdom. All life serves a purpose which can be seen given the proper perspective. That anyone could seriously entertain the notion of a Supreme Being - who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent - having created a world without purpose, or more strangely, a world which is hostile to our fundamental spiritual identities, seriously boggles my mind. I never cease to be impressed by the serpent's capabilities! The neo-Gnostics suffer from a lack of true perspective among other things (such as cult-like devotion to an L. Ron Hubbard type character and a slavish adherence to dogma). Even false teachers and organizations have their purpose however and that makes them an interesting study. Best, UFA

I agree... don't mess with the Devil! He's not a bad guy and doesn't deserve to be messed with. UFA

,

The default view does not need to be defended. The connection between alchemy and kundalini is 100% fabricated and has no evidence to support it. I've said enough to put anyone interested on the right track, so I will limit all future replies in this thread to on-topic discussion. Best, UFA

I remember my first Gnostic meeting. Young guy leading the group, very passionate about what he was preaching (and he was most definitely preaching). I remember how serious he was... no way he would crack a smile. Found out later he was pretty active on Amazon astroturfing Samuel Aun Weor's books and writing negative reviews about his detractors. Anyway... the reason I attended this particular meeting is because it was on alchemy. At the time, I had studied the texts on and off for almost 20 years. I knew a little bit. Enough to know that there was a layer of complexity underneath the surface that was easy to overlook until you had made a thorough study of it. Things such as there being three mercuries, four sulphurs, what types of mercuries and sulphurs those were, etc. Not really understanding any of the inner meaning, just the surface. I was impressed by his eloquence... at first. Until about halfway through when he began making some serious mistakes in regards to alchemical terminology. The same mistakes I later found which were scattered through the Gnostic books and lectures. This individual had no true understanding. He was just repeating what he had read (oops, I mean what SAW taught him on the inner plane, according to him). Your comments here suggest you are firmly seated on the Gnostic tour bus, so I don't expect this can lead to any productive discussion (though I may suggest that a Google search for "samuel aun weor cult" will turn up some interesting reading). But for anyone else reading... there is no Kundalini signified or implied in alchemy or by the serpent. The symbolism of "metal" has both literal and metaphorical meanings. But it has nothing to do with sex practices. This is the "go-to" alchemical diagram from the Gnostic crowd. That bed in the back does not refer to sexual practices, btw. Best, UFA

Hi FieryWind, Good post. A few comments: You've touched upon something quite important here: the linkage between the traditional three kingdoms and these different veils of man. There are definite relationships between them which are exploited by the practice of lab ("outer") alchemy. I had alluded to my own work with alchemical preps in the vegetable kingdom in conjunction with this thread. I discovered in the course of my work that alchemical products in this kingdom had a strong, immediate strengthening effect on the so-called astral body. In fact, I attribute my experiences along these lines not to any innate natural talent (of which I have little) but almost entirely to these preparations... "spiritual short-cuts" if you will, offered to man by the grace of God. So based on your comments above, I am guessing you are approaching this from a neo-Gnostic perspective (your words are identical to the teachings of Samuel Aun Weor). I studied him for some time but grew to suspect from a number of inconsistencies and errors in his books that he was reinterpreting alchemy for his own purposes. I was able to confirm later that he knew virtually nothing about it. As it took me a considerable time to get to the bottom of this, I am going to offer some commentary about the diagram you posted. First, this image is one of relatively few which depicts inner alchemical practices. The dragon is not the "ego"... this is, in fact, an absurd teaching which directly contradicts Hermetic thought. I am aware of two similar, though not completely identical, interpretations of the dragon which were incorporated into the inner alchemical work. The alchemists were heavily influenced by western (Christian) mystical teachings. For some of them, the dragon (or serpent) was the "lower spirit", a mechanism of nature whose purpose was to blind man and draw him into the world of "creatures" and "desires". To the more daring alchemists who adopted the philosophy and teachings of the Qabalah, this dragon was called "Nachash". Based on the clever arrangement of the symbolism, I am quite certain that whoever drew this was of this school. It is also quite obvious they had ties to the early speculative Freemason lodges. The Nachash can be considered in large part to be identical to the "lower spirit", but this latter hides the greatest secret of western occultism, one which allows for the rapid acceleration of man's evolution. The transmission of this secret through initiation is what constitutes the common thread in the hidden esoteric tradition. It is a thread which runs through the specualtive Freemason guilds prior to 1717, through the Qabalists, through the Alchemists, the Templars, the Sufis, and on and on, back to ancient Egypt. As you can imagine, there were those in the Church who were adamantly opposed to such a teaching as it challenged their mystical hierarchy. In essence, if the cat were let out of the bag, anyone could achieve illumination and potentially undermine church doctrine. It is an inescapable conclusion to me that at least some of them knew that this teaching was legitimate and in fact, superior in its efficacy... but for the most part, they preferred their mystics to labor quietly for a lifetime and achieve illumination slowly, usually only in their declining years. I think it is also reasonable that they recognized the inherent danger in this method and opposed it on the grounds that it could seriously endanger the life and sanity of many of those who attempted it. The church's methods were much safer in this regard. Alchemy is dangerous... a high-risk, high-reward practice. Not merely in the physical sense (many alchemists have died from the preparations though), but moreso in the spiritual sense: premature evolution is brought about by a "hack" and most people can't handle it. This dragon, or Nachash, performs a great service: it instills in men a dysfunction that keeps him blinded to the higher divine consciousness. When the Nachash has rulership, it blinds men to its existence... or to those who have gone a bit farther, it blinds them to its true nature, sometimes through distractions like "astral travel". Ironically, this secret is hidden here in plain sight: it is shown in this diagram but virtually nobody can see it. The average occultist will look at this diagram and if they are honest, will probably admit they can't see it. If they are inwardly dishonest, they will claim they see it and come up with some sort of twisted explanation for it (SAW's theory that it represented the ego is a good example). It is very easy for someone who knows the secret to determine who else knows it. That is, in fact, the motive behind the polarizing tone I take in my posts... and only one individual on this forum has seen through it. Those of you who are Freemasons will have undoubtedly run into subtle and clever references to it in art, television and other media that most others miss. Similarly, those who have undergone the process I am describing will find the signs of this teaching in the most unlikely of places. This is an obvious depiction of it. I can tell you from personal experience that this diagram has nothing to do with sexual alchemy. It is also not correct to say that it depicts overcoming of the ego. It is merely a clever diagram which portrays the attainment of Adepthood. Best, UFA

I don't mean the word "channeled" in the sense that spiritualists use it. I simply mean it passed to and through them.

I just noticed we are going considerably off-topic. I apologize to Hassein for hijacking his thread. Hopefully I have contributed to it more than I have distracted from it. Best, UFA