FraterUFA

You talk as if there is actually a value in inventing some new system but such a thing is only possible on the level of the intellect. This is but a dog chewing on its bone. It is of no importance. These endless discussions and comparisons of chakras, planets, and sephiroth are being met with wry smiles. The words are not the reality. When you stand face to face with the living darkness, which seeks to corrupt and destroy you, infinitely outgunned by its cunning, these games won't seem very important. Best, UFA

The placebo effect includes both perceived and actual changes to physiological condition which cannot be attributed to known chemical or medicinal causes. So I do not merely think it is placebo, it is the definition of placebo. Though the placebo effect is usually positioned in a negative light by the medical establishment (they often associate it with dishonesty or deception), the reality is that encompasses a neuro/biophysical or spiritual mechanism that science cannot explain. One that occurs so commonly that it cannot be ignored or written off as statistical error. In other words, "placebo" is right up there with "coincidence" as one of the superstitious dogmas of science. It is a label they prefer to "ignorance". UFA

This is actually a very valid point. Skepticism is very healthy IMO. In my favor, I will point out the following: First, I have made it clear a number of times that I do not claim to be an adept and that one should not take my words as gospel. Second, I do not offer instruction, teach anyone, have students, etc. Third, I do not sell anything and I strongly advise everyone to steer clear of anyone who sells any alchemical product or instruction. Fourth, my sole purpose in being here is not to instruct but rather to gently discourage people from pursuing particular avenues which I personally know to be destructive or unproductive. Fifth, my opinions will hardly make me very popular here. Finally, lest anyone think that I am not active in the lab, here is a photo I took a few minutes ago of a pipette which I exposed to the aqua ardens for a few seconds. UFA

One of the three attainments in the vegetable work is to prove the reality of initiatory effect of an alchemically prepared product. Properly prepared, this product consists chiefly of ethanol and potassium carbonate. Chemically, there is no known reason it should have any effect whatsoever on the physical organism. Yet a mere drop or two induces effects such as intense dreams, out of body experiences, profound spiritual experiences, and highly unusual effects on the physical body (which vary but in my case include healing of a three-year nerve injury and long periods of complete immunity from cold and flu). Interesting question. The intersection of alchemy and genetic expression would require the services of someone much smarter than me to answer. UFA

Give it a minute. :-) UFA

For future readers, this is a point where I feel I must throw in the obligatory caution that the products of lab alchemy are not psychedelics. Thujones in particular are especially toxic and can kill you. I shouldn't have to say this but this is what comes of the mindset that alchemy is just "medieval chemistry"... most people don't have the mental framework to explain the so-called effects as anything other than hallucinogenics. Alchemical products do not operate in a conventional chemical manner. In a sense, they upload new information to the organism and rewrite the operating system. The delivery mechanism consists of harmless organic molecules (C-O-H), even when working with metals. Alchemy is about as dangerous as wiring your house. If you are trained, it's pretty safe. But stick your fingers in a socket like a dumbass and bad things will happen. UFA

Who says there is any difference whatsoever? There is nothing in Pymander which will sound foreign or strange to a practicing alchemist.

There are a couple of instances I can think of where chemistry does become useful: * Recognizing situations when one may inadvertently be risking toxicity * Avoidance of extreme exothermic reactions (explosions) * Proper lab procedures are pretty invaluable, actually But the ancients did not have access to these, so they really can be considered inessential. Alchemy is more concerned with the energy and information components of matter and how they can be purified and transmuted. For instance, a key challenge in alchemy is how the mineral energy can be amalgamated with vegetable or animal information to shorten its evolution from millions of years to something much shorter. That is not something the framework of chemistry is either prepared to accept nor deal with effectively (and to be transparent, something I can only discuss at a superficial and rudimentary level). Nothing I've stated before in this thread has really been that controversial, but this will be: I currently believe that hygroscopy and deliquescence has no place in alchemy and its use amounts to no more than superstition. I have personally produced a product which calls for angel water using distilled water bought at the store and it worked perfectly. I did this based on the advice of someone who has done it both ways many times and claimed there was no difference. He may be right, though I intend to perform this experiment both ways myself in the future to investigate further. If you consider that it was not all that easy to come across purified water until relatively recently, then the process of making angel water (which is really nothing more than a very pure and strong base or lye) through deliquescence makes a lot of sense. It may be a process which lives on only through tradition. I couldn't have said it better. Good stuff, Donald. I enjoy your contributions. UFA

No thanks, I regularly whip up much worse...

It was the first funny thing anyone said. :-) UFA

I have to admit that gave me a chuckle :-)

The reality is that this is never the case. There is very little overlap between chemistry and alchemy. This is one of the first things which a practicing alchemist proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt. I don't understand why those who try to explain alchemy as mere chemistry even bother. If they truly believe that to be the case, then they should stick with chemistry... it is infinitely better at doing what it is intended to do. Not alchemy. Not alchemy. Spagyric products as typically prepared do not have any alchemical value. These are herbal extracts with dubious medicinal value at best (I will let the medical literature deal with that one). I can make a true alchemical product without being able to see the work occurring in the lab. Though I don't rule out the possibility that some alchemists do indeed see it, as there are some people I trust who have made this claim. But I can't. I think it is a bit more involved than that. UFA

Hi Michael, What you describe above is a very reasonable conclusion, derived from what sounds like a very thoughtful and broad study of religion and philosophy. But it is incorrect in that it is based upon a false assumption of the origin of spiritual systems. Unilluminated individuals cannot create genuine spiritual systems. Genuine spiritual traditions are transmitted, not created (oh, the arrogance!). This transmission depends in no small part upon the student's willingness to give up the illusion that he brings anything to the table that can further his own progress towards illumination. I can't speak for other paths, but in alchemy the teachings are rediscovered by each individual student and expressed in accordance with their times and culture. The teacher doesn't tell the student very much at all, he guides the student to the place where that knowledge can be rediscovered first hand. This is the only way to prevent dogma and misconceptions such as the kind you've mentioned above from creeping in. So though alchemists in different times and places may wear different clothes (so to speak), they do speak of largely of the same things. I exclude from this statement false alchemists, of which there are many widely held in high regard by the public. I believe what may be tripping you up is a slavish reliance on symbolism and terminology. Different adepts do indeed employ the terminology and symbolism differently from other adepts and even within their own works. You can see an example of this in my earlier post this thread when I mentioned the two fractions of the matter, first referring to purification of the earth, and then referring to it as Sulphur. Words and symbols are descriptions of truth, not truth itself. If you understand the underlying process, then it is possible to get at what the writer is communicating and to reconcile wildly varying descriptions of the identical process by different authors. Once the central secret is discovered, then the symbolism begins to unravel and more and more is made clear over time. Discounting the various minor methods and practices - 99% of which have no alchemical value whatsoever, such as Albertus' seven planetary tinctures, cell-salt theory, German spagyrics, etc. - I am aware of two widely recognized paths to the Stone (and many minor variations on these). One of these, I am convinced is a dangerous (and maybe false, though I admit that is my speculation) path which has resulted in the death of more than a few practicing alchemists, including a rather famous one a few years ago. The other is less well-known and dates back virtually unchanged to at least 1200AD. This method was described by the Arabs and likely dates back to at least 100 BC or so though tradition holds that it dates back even further. My understanding is that this latter practice is basically constant throughout, though there have been improvements and many variations on techniques. To illustrate how this could be so, consider the three vegetable paths described by Hollandus, all seemingly different on the surface. But careful study shows that all of them are essentially the same technique with skillful variations to accommodate different starting materials. So skillful in fact, that these three techniques on the surface appear to be three wildly different procedures. Yet the core of all three is virtually identical to those techniques described by Lully, St. Dunstan, Bonus, Philalethes, and many others. This is analogous to say, iron working, which despite many improvements and modifications over the last 3,000 years, relies on the same fundamental principle now as it did then. So to argue that alchemical technique could have fundamentally changed in the last eight centuries will require a lot more work on your part, not the least of which involves justifying why and how the core alchemical process could change so much, if it is indeed a real thing and not just some sugarcoated psychological system or pseudo-chemistry. Yet you continue to refer to yourself as "I" and tell all of us how "you" are the product of outside factors. You have described yourself as a complex system which is the product of at least ten external forces. You have, in fact, described yourself as anything *but* a Unity. You also haven't allowed for the possibility that you, Michael Sternbach, don't know everything there is to know about Michael Sternbach. Isn't it possible there are parts lying hidden within you that you have absolutely no knowledge about? And if so, isn't it possible that some of those parts don't necessarily like "Michael Sternbach" and perhaps have their own ideas about the way things should run? If you allow for this possibility of the unknown, then you are again admitting that you are anything but a Unity. If you don't allow for this possibility, then clearly you can prove to me right here and now that you understand the totality of Michael Sternbach and what he is capable of (I will settle for something simple, such as causing my phone to levitate in front of me). Chemistry began to take form in the 18th century. Alchemy goes back thousands of years. The ancients had no access to chemistry for the most part. So you are arguing here that the ancients could not have practiced alchemy. Chemistry is useful in alchemy insofar as it allows us to avoid unfortunate toxic byproducts and explosions. However, there are a lot of would-be alchemists who can't penetrate the mystery because they are stuck trying to interpret it as chemistry. It is in that sense it is harmful. Or to state it otherwise, it is not so much that knowledge of a certain subject is a hindrance, it is the lack of understanding of the limitations of that knowledge which is. You are confusing outside systems with gnosis. None of that is required to practice alchemy. I can teach my ten year old daughter how to make a very powerful alchemical product by rote. It will work better than anything I'm willing to bet you've ever experienced. Even to learn alchemy, none of those are really necessary save one, which I am surprised you didn't mention: History. Says who? Popular consensus among people who don't know? That generalist inclination is IMO the hallmark of someone who will be naturally drawn to alchemy and curiosity is a necessary trait to study the Art. But that doesn't mean you need outside systems to explain alchemy. I get the feeling you equate the need for secrecy with religious dogma. While I agree that most modern fraternities know next to nothing about alchemy (and some claim they do), the reality is that no group who does know anything of value will share it openly. Too bad... I feel like we are just finally starting to get through to you :-) UFA

Really nicely stated. All of it. UFA

Highly doubtful. UFA

Some additional detail. Boehme's illumination is said to have took place in 1598. Twelve years later, he wrote Aurora. He had picked up some chemistry as an apprentice (~1590), which is where his Hermetic terminology is said to have come from. He is most definitely considered to be a Christian Mystic, despite his use of alchemical terminology. I have been unable to discover if there is any evidence for his having a teacher in alchemy. Quite an important point, given this quote from him: So unless someone cares to offer reasons otherwise, I continue to stand by my original belief that Boehme was not actually an alchemist, but rather a Christian mystic who borrowed alchemical terminology (wouldn't be the only one). Being illuminated, he could have indeed been in a position to observe energy centers within the body - which would be pretty remarkable - but that in no way supports the assertion that these energy centers play a role in alchemical practice. UFA

That is going to make it difficult to explain the existence of my lab, not to mention all of those conversations I have on a daily basis with other practicing alchemists. Cool. How do you know that? How do you know that? Reductio ad absurdum, then all sciences could be explained in terms of any other one. By the logic which starts with that faulty premise, one could take chemistry and explain it in terms of sociology, or explain alchemy through Taoism. Back to the bit of reading rocket science into Tarot. The problem with this - it should be patently obvious - is that the world does not work like that. You would be laughed out of just about any practical profession if you brought your Tarot cards to the workplace and attempted to solve your daily problems with them. Now I will be the first to admit that there are interesting overlaps between certain practices (psychology, chemistry, alchemy). But to view one through the lens of any of the others is to draw imperfect - and often blatantly incorrect - conclusions. Chemistry explains only a very small portion of alchemy. In fact, one can be an alchemist without having any understanding whatsoever of chemistry. But having a PhD level of understanding of chemistry will not make one an alchemist. Similarly, there are elements of alchemy which are discussed openly in psychology. But a psychologist is not an alchemist. Chemistry and psychology are not only utterly superfluous to the study of alchemy, they will actually handicap one in trying to learn it. And these are the two closest sciences there are to it. Alchemy makes use of very specific means and outcomes. That these means and outcomes are almost completely unknown to mainstream occultists tells you just about everything you need to know about the value of the "everything is one" school of syncretism. How do you know that? They can, but it is far more likely that they will introduce considerable error and land one in an intellectual morass which one cannot be easily extricated from. This is, in fact, one of the mechanisms which alchemists use to guard their works. Alchemy which is practiced today (that is, alchemy which works) is largely identical to the way it was practiced in the 1200s, and I personally believe even further back. There have been some new techniques and equipment introduced since then but the core principles are the same. I've seen this diagram before but my attempts to find an English translation of the appropriate sections of the Aurora were unsuccessful. Gichtel broke away from Boehme's teachings later in life and it is entirely possible that the diagram above does not reflect Boehme's teachings. But Boehme is an interesting cat. Having studied his works, I am on the fence about whether I would truly call him an alchemist or not (back in those days, many people claimed to be and like now, there was no basis in reality for most of them). He stated that he did not practice the outer work. That he was a legitimate Christian mystic I have not the slightest doubt. I am unsure on what basis he can be claimed to be an alchemist, other than the fact that he has co-opted some of their symbolism. I could be wrong, I am open to correction on this. Instill your regeneration? Why stop there? DNA is also a concept that is reflected in the Wand of Hermes. So the ancients must have known about it, right? Not everything we see reflected in symbols is true, not even if we want it to be. I can not do better than what Adam MacLean had to say about it: Best, UFA

It's not about trapping the life force at all. It is about accelerating the evolution of a being to manifest its Higher Genius. It is about the bringing forth of the white earth or paradise, here on earth ("hell", some would say). An alchemist is an agent of evolution, working on behalf of the universe. An entity brought to this state will have a powerful evolutionary effect on those of the same kingdom. Man himself consists of the mineral, vegetable, and animal kingdoms. And so the consumption of a material brought to a higher state of perfection will have some impact on man's own body. This may indeed have a physical effect but that is really not the point. As an example, the nervous system is essentially an evolutionary outcome of the vegetable kingdom, so one would expect a vegetable elixir to have some effect in this area. And indeed, it does. I had a sports injury which severely affected my left leg for almost three years. This injury did not respond to massage or other therapy. Yet a few drops of the Primum Ens healed this injury in a very short time. That is nice, of course, but it is nothing in comparison to the spiritual effects of the same, which were immediate and obvious. Yes, now you're getting it. Alchemy != Psychology. That confusion has its roots in the sickness which has overtaken modern man and has disconnected him from his roots. He sees the world as a machine, dismisses genuine spiritual phenomena as either psychology or that most superstitious of beliefs, "coincidence". The alchemist ultimately has no such false division and he works simultaneously with spirit and matter. Hence his practices sometimes deal with actual substances, things which can be held in the hand. This may shed some light on an earlier thread in which I stated that the serpent in Genesis is an actual being, not mere symbolism. Though I caution you, that you should judge what I say for yourself and take my words as a statement of what I currently believe and nothing more. Best, UFA

So I am going to comment in a bit more detail as the confusion of traditional western alchemical concepts with eastern ones irks me. If I can convince even one person to stop wasting their time trying to fuse the two, it will be time well spent. Note that nothing in this post violates any oath I may have taken and all of this can be readily found by studying the classic alchemical texts. From a western perspective, circulation does not refer to a flow of energy but rather the extraction of information from substance through the release of energy, followed by the union of those three in a new form (AKA, "solve et coagula"). Stated another way, it is akin to a spin around the wheel, eg: a cycle of life and death. We look to see how nature operates and we try to not only accelerate it, but to bring it to greater perfection than is possible without Art. To do that, we must first return the life form to its First Matter, the Prima Materia... the Primal Mother. In other words, we subject the substance to death, under very controlled conditions. When a creature dies, the old alchemists noted that something left it and escaped to the atmosphere. So when this process is contained within a flask, hermetically sealed, the death of that creature manifested as a separation into its components: a heavy impure material and a volatile impure material. Depending on the process and the material, the grosser material may contain what is typically known as earth, while the volatile fraction contains fire, air, and water (gross, corporeal water). The water is discarded. The fire is already pure. The air however, is impure. The air and fire purified together then are "spirit" and they are a medicine. The word, "medicine", should be taken literally. It is a spirit which will melt various things (including your equipment), yet doesn't harm your skin. Even in its impure state, it has very strong psychic effects which experienced even once put an end to much speculation about what alchemy is and is not. The earth is likewise purified and through various processes, becomes the salt of the spirit, or Sal Ammoniac, the pure, white volatilized salts. The Mercury and Sulphur are joined and "circulated"... that is, they are evolved through thousands of "lifetimes", all within the flask. This circulation further penetrates and purifies the substances, marrying them into a homogeneous substance which can withstand any fire and magnifying their effect. Though I have described the outer work (in a general manner), note that there are no chakras, no energy routes, no Taoism, no yoga. Not even in the Inner work. None. Period. UFA

Start with AE Waite, "The Lives of the Alchemystical Philosophers". "The Fulcanelli Phenomenon" is also quite good. Both books are accurate and Waite's in particular will repay careful study as he buries important clues in long passages of text where most will miss them. UFA

You think they were. But they weren't. You are mistaken. The only way you could possibly come to such a conclusion is if your conception of alchemy came exclusively from modern authors. There is nothing in the old texts which supports such a view. This notion stems from the misguided efforts to decipher alchemy by overlaying Eastern practices upon it. Alchemy does not require the introduction of any outside system to explain it. This includes not only all Eastern systems, but also all Western ones as well (Tarot, Qabalah, Chemistry, etc). There are texts which incorporate astrological symbolism but from a practical standpoint, that appears to be largely unnecessary and seems to me to be largely confined to the later German schools. Alchemy stands alone. Best, UFA

This is not alchemy. There are no chakras in alchemy.

I am not a fan. I am intimately familiar with one of the works described in this book and the author made several statements that indicates he hasn't done it himself (or he intentionally inserted these errors). The fact that he sells alchemy courses on his website should tell you something as well. UFA

I never said anything about Masons. UFA

Ave, The deck wouldn't be the source of that knowledge. Not through divination, nor meditation. That is precisely what I mean by stretching the Tarot beyond recognition. People say the same thing about the Bible code and Nostradamus. Intellectual masturbation has limited value beyond entertainment. I did not say that Tarot was a system transmitted for centuries from teacher to pupil. I stated that it hints at such a system. The system predates Tarot... and that is the key which explains Levi's quote. That's true in the sense of a metaphysical system as an amalgam of symbolism, philosophy, cosmology and magical working (perhaps among other things). I am referring to something different however. That is, that Tarot is in sense an instruction book, which largely describes a craft practiced by craftsmen. Its practitioners and their tools do indeed change over time but the heart of their craft and their aim is the same. Tarot is pointing to the existence of these craftsmen, their plans, their tools, their methods and the aim of their work. For me, this is where the value of Tarot lies. I doubt probabilities would have satisfied Levi :-) UFA