Alchemy for the Rest of Us

[Zhongyongdaoist]

Thank you Donald,

 

That book is definitely on my reading list now.

 

The English edition is of two essays which Hinze characterizes as the "most important" from the German edition of the same title, Theseus Verlag, Zurich, 1976.  You may find this, and any other German works he might have, of interest.

[FraterUFA]

In Reality, there is no Alchemy. None. Period.

 

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.

 

There is only Nature.

 

Cool. How do you know that?

 

 

Nature is One 

 

How do you know that?

 

but because of the limitations of the human mind we need to divide it into many different levels and strands, which are in truth all intermingled with each other. Thus we have Alchemy, Astrology, Chemistry, Psychology, and all the other Sciences.

 

They each pertain only to a certain aspect of Nature, moreover only as seen from a certain time and place, in a specific cultural context. Equivalent systems in different cultures naturally overlap. Also, there are no rigid dividing lines between them and other systems (such as between Alchemy and Astrology).

 

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.

 

 

All the valid traditions are indeed describing the same things from different perspectives.

 

How do you know that?

 

Often,  it is valuable to compare and, to a degree, merge different systems with each other because concepts and ideas found in several systems can confirm, reinforce, and supplement each other.

 

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.

 

It should be well noted that all the occult sciences evolved over long periods of time, assimilating knowledge and insights from many sources - and they naturally continue to do so.

 

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. 

 

The earliest references to a system of human energy centers may be seen in the Aurora, written in 1612 by the alchemical mystic Jacob Boehme. Later, Johann Georg Gichtel illustrated Boehme's conception:

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Personally, I prefer the following model which is actually based on Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos and also used in Vedic Astrology:

 

 

 

Instill your regeneration?

 

 

I will explain it in detail on request. Suffice it here to say that it ties in nicely with the thesis of a Lunar and a Solar Snake (Pinangala and Ida) winding themselves around the spine as the central channel (Sushumna) in the Hindu system, with the Chakras as their intersections. A concept that is reflected, btw, in an ancient symbol of utmost importance to Alchemy, the Wand of Hermes.

 

 

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:

 

 

Alchemical symbolism has, in general, been badly served by modern writers. Most people writing on the interpretation of alchemical imagery come to the subject with a pre-existing agenda, and they then proceed to use alchemical symbolism to illustrate their own underlying set of preconceptions rather than trying to reflect what is actually in the material itself.

 

Thus the late 19th century theosophists saw alchemy through a filter of their own eclectic bundling together of ideas and different spiritual traditions. The Golden Dawn savants found in alchemy their own abstract 'magical' ideas. Later the Jungians amplified alchemical symbolism and saw it everywhere that humans experience images. There have been some recent books drawing on the rich vein of alchemical imagery that merely seem to indulge the author. It would be invidious to focus on certain writers, but I must say I have not seen any book in recent years which actually attempts to let alchemical symbolism speak for itself. All authors hack away at alchemy with their own external tools - kabbalah, magic, tarot, new age meditative practices - they don't allow the inner world of alchemical symbolism to speak its own message, but overlay it with their preconceptions.

 

 

Best,

UFA

Edited March 25, 2015 by FraterUFA

[Nungali]

What I liked about your above description of the basis of alchemy  UFA ;

 

"  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. "  

 

 that  is the underlying arrangement of nature , and hence, of everything else.    I have a writing on 3 / 4 (not sure if it is posted here somewhere) that outlines that process (and its reflection) in a whole range of things. 

 

So maybe that is why above it is said  that there is only nature .  However I can not concur that because of this, the 'many' manifestations of the one that exist as extensions of the pattern can be said 'not to exist'. 

 

There is a principle called 'separation of the planes', I am sure you are familiar with it.  Yes, everything is connected (more so within similar fields , vibrations, correspondences, etc ) but if it wasnt also separated into 'essential things' with their own specific 'spirit' (or pattern)  it would all mush together into 'primeval, material  froth'  ... and if it didnt have the central aspect of 'spirit' throughout all of it, non of it would be essentially linked together ... a bit like the tension between the strong and weak forces in physics   (and here, again, with the 4 forces of physics we see the pattern, you outlined, again in motion). 

 

PS. I also liked the way you equated 'circulation' with 'incarnation' ... its one of my habits, that often doesnt go down well. IMO 'circulation'  can be seen in the process of incarnation and 'ascension'  .... in the Tree of Life, I see Malkuth as .... 'the far buoy in a yacht race, a return and a journey 'back up' through the 'crystal spheres' that we passed through to get here , and many more  similar analogies.

 

 

........  that is the wackiest ' Wand of Hermes' I think I have seen yet! 

[FraterUFA]

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.

 

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:

 

[The seal of God is declared to be set on the secret of alchemy] "to conceal the true ground of the same upon pain of eternal punishments, unless a man know for certain it shall not be misused. There is also no power to attain it, no skill or art availeth; unless one give the tincture into the hands of another, he cannot prepare it, except he be certainly in the new birth."

 

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

Edited March 25, 2015 by FraterUFA

[noonespecial]

PS. I also liked the way you equated 'circulation' with 'incarnation' ... its one of my habits, that often doesnt go down well. IMO 'circulation'  can be seen in the process of incarnation and 'ascension'  .... in the Tree of Life, I see Malkuth as .... 'the far buoy in a yacht race, a return and a journey 'back up' through the 'crystal spheres' that we passed through to get here , and many more  similar analogies.

 

And yet Kether is in Malkuth after another manner, perhaps Kether is Malkuth...I understood this on a praeter-rational level, in the utmost of crystaline clarity one night, language cannot describe what was for the most part a deep knowing/experience, but to the anthropomorphize it, we could say Malkuth and Kether are twins, they emerged at the same time from the unknown, and then the creation process filled in the blanks, so instead of a lightning flash going downards a la Golden Dawn QBL (so static), you have a living Vesica Piscis, and we can go 'up' or 'in' - food for spirit.

Edited March 25, 2015 by noonespecial

[noonespecial]

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

 

According to a former teacher of mine, this is what constitued the oral tradtion, the projecting of energy from the activated psychic centers and energized organs into the 'external' lab setting, I have since left his school for other reasons, but I have no reason to believe he was fibbing or exagerating, who knows.

[FraterUFA]

According to a former teacher of mine, this is what constitued the oral tradtion, the projecting of energy from the activated psychic centers and energized organs into the 'external' lab setting, I have since left his school for other reasons, but I have no reason to believe he was fibbing or exagerating, who knows.

 

Highly doubtful.

 

UFA

[noonespecial]

Highly doubtful.

 

UFA

 

 

indeed one of the reasons i left is it got to new agey, rays and things of that nature as the teaching progressed, still, I've witnessed stranger things.

[Nungali]

And yet Kether is in Malkuth after another manner, perhaps Kether is Malkuth..

 

In a way, but after another manner.  This 'sameness' is the 'spark' or 'point's journey'.  The one contains the potential of the many and the many contain the potential for the one.

 

It seems to be the journey (or the 'circulation')  that makes the 'magical' difference.   

 

What makes 'us' and what is in the flask different from what we were;  evolved, transformed, etc.  seems to be 'experience' - one must be seeking that, otherwise it would stay the one, and there would not be a P.M. to extract it from. ,,, if that makes sense ? 

 

.I understood this on a praeter-rational level, in the utmost of crystaline clarity one night, language cannot describe what was for the most part a deep knowing/experience, but to the anthropomorphize it, we could say Malkuth and Kether are twins, they emerged at the same time from the unknown, and then the creation process filled in the blanks, so instead of a lightning flash going downards a la Golden Dawn QBL (so static), you have a living Vesica Piscis, and we can go 'up' or 'in' - food for spirit.

 

Twins?  Maybe parent and 'daughter'. 

 

Well, the lightning flash and the Tree of Life itself, are mere 2-D concepts on paper, as we look at them.  There is also a 'spherical kabbala' . 

[noonespecial]

In a way, but after another manner.  This 'sameness' is the 'spark' or 'point's journey'.  The one contains the potential of the many and the many contain the potential for the one.

 

It seems to be the journey (or the 'circulation')  that makes the 'magical' difference.   

 

What makes 'us' and what is in the flask different from what we were;  evolved, transformed, etc.  seems to be 'experience' - one must be seeking that, otherwise it would stay the one, and there would not be a P.M. to extract it from. ,,, if that makes sense ? 

 

 

Twins?  Maybe parent and 'daughter'. 

 

Well, the lightning flash and the Tree of Life itself, are mere 2-D concepts on paper, as we look at them.  There is also a 'spherical kabbala' . 

 

Twins as in feminine and male, 0=2 - thats it, on and off, lingam and yoni - . 

 

But it's related to the dark night of the soul, why is it dark, it's because one realizes, that this is it, right here right now, there is nothing to return too, the Point is SMOOTH - hence build up and out, in this sense the Hebrew occultists (and the alchemists i would suppose as well who focused on the evolution of the matter) seem to be a bit more in tune with 'that' when they focus on the 'world to come' (forward) and not 'the path of return' (backward). But that is neither here nor there and probably does not make any sense either way returning and going land you in the same place, seems to be a matter of swimming upstream or downstream,. lol.

 

I still use the usual tree, but that's getting kinda old boring for me...recently came across some pretty convicing arguments for the Sefer Yetzirah describing a rotating Tetrahedron inside a sphere as well, lots of cool stuff out there

 

edit; just found this, good quote by Jean D.

 

"The alchemists always admonish their students, "Know the theory first before attempting the praxis." They say, "You must walk in the Book of Nature to understand our Art."

 

The alchemical concept of life and matter lies at the opposite pole of that of the current scientific community. Science is trying to find out how matter created life. Alchemy states that life created matter.

 

Alchemy affirms that at the origin, there is consciousness. Consciousness is the need to Be of the Absolute. In order to satisfy this need, consciousness created life, and in order to evolve, life created matter."

 

- Jean Dubuis

Edited March 26, 2015 by noonespecial

[Nungali]

Twins as in feminine and male, 0=2 - thats it, on and off, lingam and yoni - . 

 

Errmmm ...  nah ...   I'd go too kabbalistic to explain my take on it, in an alchemy thread.

 

But it's related to the dark night of the soul, why is it dark, it's because one realizes, that this is it, right here right now, there is nothing to return too, the Point is SMOOTH - hence build up and out, in this sense the Hebrew occultists (and the alchemists i would suppose as well who focused on the evolution of the matter) seem to be a bit more in tune with 'that' when they focus on the 'world to come' (forward) and not 'the path of return' (backward). But that is neither here nor there and probably does not make any sense either way returning and going land you in the same place, seems to be a matter of swimming upstream or downstream,. lol.

 

I still use the usual tree, but that's getting kinda old boring for me...recently came across some pretty convicing arguments for the Sefer Yetzirah describing a rotating Tetrahedron inside a sphere as well, lots of cool stuff out there

 

It sorta started as a cube.

 

I decided the Tree of Life was useful for a few things but not a psychological map .

 

 

 

edit; just found this, good quote by Jean D.

 

"The alchemists always admonish their students, "Know the theory first before attempting the praxis." They say, "You must walk in the Book of Nature to understand our Art."

 

The alchemical concept of life and matter lies at the opposite pole of that of the current scientific community. Science is trying to find out how matter created life. Alchemy states that life created matter.

 

Alchemy affirms that at the origin, there is consciousness. Consciousness is the need to Be of the Absolute. In order to satisfy this need, consciousness created life, and in order to evolve, life created matter."

 

- Jean Dubuis

[noonespecial]

Errmmm ...  nah ...   I'd go too kabbalistic to explain my take on it, in an alchemy thread.

 

 

It sorta started as a cube.

 

I decided the Tree of Life was useful for a few things but not a psychological map .

 

I hear ya. Alchemically you could say celestial niter and celestial salt, that actually matches quite succintly.

[the1gza]

I'd have to agree with a sentiment that UFA brought up briefly, and that is the idea of trying to fuse systems as a means of perhaps validating their existence. I find that modern spiritualism has had a ridiculous proclivity to try and marry concepts from one system to another in a means of "unifying" spirituality. I feel this is not only foolish, but that such attempts have been completely ignorant. 

 

I can't speak for "Western Alchemy" because I simply don't know what it is. However, I do know the other attempts to marry the Kabbalistic tree of life to things like the chakras, and honestly... it's foolish. The TOL is a 10 (sometimes 11) point system, while the chakra system is a 7-point system. While there are general similarities between them, there are even more differences to them, and the connections that people being making are often far-reaching at best. As such, those who attempt to do those things spend all their time theorizing these connections without being able to realize them in practical ways. 

 

Even when Franz Bardon talked of the chakras in IIH, he completely ignored and even discouraged addressing the chakras in his work directly, considering that the chakras and energy centers would be built just fine by sticking with a mode of practice. He felt that if you wanted to work in Indian Yogic terms and practices, then one should do so utilizing that train of thought and work entirely. If one was to practice his form, however, then it should be given equal integrity, instead of trying to have your hands in 2 baskets.

 

I can't say that Yoga and Taoist forms are not alchemy, and there are considerable theories as to why they are. However, if they are as such, we should be willing to understand that these were stand alone alchemies my themselves, and not systems that were married to forms from other places on the planet. I can give an explanation as to how Yoga and Taoist practices are indeed "Internal" alchemy, but I can see why trying to compare it to Western alchemy would just be dumb. 

 

What I also cannot even attempt to try and talk about is what "illumination" is, simply because I am not on that level. I think attempting to understand illumination from an unilluminated space is perhaps the single greatest form of mental masturbation on Earth. Just think, when you were a child, could you even possibly conceive what "adult" life was like? Yea, you may have had dress-up and played house, but all of us who are adults here know that those games don't even come close to allowing a child to know what that is like. The only way the child learned was to grow into an adult, period. The only way we can know what illumination is like is to grow into it through practice of the craft, no book or idea stream is going to allow us to know about that at all. Only the growing into it does, whether you do it in a lab or you do it through meditation, energy work, or whatever else you are doing. But the theorizing... i just don't see why people feel the need to imbibe on it when they can use that time to practice. To each their own.

[Michael Sternbach]

UFA and the1gza,

 

We are once again dealing with the classical conflict between the traditionalist and the innovator here. Every spiritual system was created by an innovator and preserved by traditionalists. The traditionalists are guarding the "original" system and oppose any changes to it. Yes, there are good reasons for preserving things the way they are. There are also good reasons for the widening and renewal of existing systems.

 

Alchemy has not changed much in its practice since the 1200s? You are kidding me - right? First off, whose Alchemy are you referring to? The Alchemists didn't even agree about the meaning of the terminology and symbolism they were using, much less about the practice of pursuing the Philosopher's Stone!

 

How I know that Nature is and acts as One? Simple... I myself am a unity, yet I am very aware that I am at any moment the net result of a highly complex combination of biological, chemical, physical, meteorological, geo-physical, cosmological, psychological, alchemical, astrological, numerological and other factors. I can single out any of these for special study. But I won't arrive at a thorough understanding of myself (and Nature) if I neglect how all these influences are interwoven.

 

Alchemy was never a closed system. You can't even begin to understand, let alone safely reproduce, the recipes of the ancients if you have no knowledge of chemistry - how could this knowledge be a hindrance?

 

The link to metaphysical philosophy is no modern abolition either. Have you read Zosimos, probably the most important of the Hellenistic Alchemists? He writes about a dream in which he meets the very Divine Pymander that initiated Hermes Trismegistos into the secrets of the world.

 

This is just one example to illustrate how alchemy frequently refers to other systems; chemistry, mythology, metaphysics, astrology, physiology etc. To truly understand it, you are supposed to have knowledge of all these fields. This hasn't changed to this day.

 

Why do you think that many of the greatest Alchemists were universalists? Jabir, Rhazes, Albertus Magnus, Arnald of Villanova, Lull, Paracelsus, Newton. (I omit the question here if ALL of these attributions are historically accurate.)

 

These people were scientists and keen researchers. They were not afraid to think out of the box. They never intended Alchemy a religious system to be worshipped and rigidly conserved. Unlike some modern fraternities whose members typically pretend to know the truth about Alchemy but when asked to elaborate, tell you that it's too subtle for you to understand, or too dangerous, or that they are under oath not to give away the secret...

 

I don't have the time and motivation to enter another tedious discussion of that kind here. My take on these matters should be sufficiently clear from the foregoing, and I don't like overly repeating myself, so I may not further comment on Traditionalist views of Alchemy.

 

I am more interested in elaborating on the astrological parallels to the Chakras, as the OP asked me to do.

 

Nungali, glad you like my Hermes wand.

[FraterUFA]

I'd have to agree with a sentiment that UFA brought up briefly, and that is the idea of trying to fuse systems as a means of perhaps validating their existence. I find that modern spiritualism has had a ridiculous proclivity to try and marry concepts from one system to another in a means of "unifying" spirituality. I feel this is not only foolish, but that such attempts have been completely ignorant. 

 

I can't speak for "Western Alchemy" because I simply don't know what it is. However, I do know the other attempts to marry the Kabbalistic tree of life to things like the chakras, and honestly... it's foolish. The TOL is a 10 (sometimes 11) point system, while the chakra system is a 7-point system. While there are general similarities between them, there are even more differences to them, and the connections that people being making are often far-reaching at best. As such, those who attempt to do those things spend all their time theorizing these connections without being able to realize them in practical ways. 

 

Even when Franz Bardon talked of the chakras in IIH, he completely ignored and even discouraged addressing the chakras in his work directly, considering that the chakras and energy centers would be built just fine by sticking with a mode of practice. He felt that if you wanted to work in Indian Yogic terms and practices, then one should do so utilizing that train of thought and work entirely. If one was to practice his form, however, then it should be given equal integrity, instead of trying to have your hands in 2 baskets.

 

I can't say that Yoga and Taoist forms are not alchemy, and there are considerable theories as to why they are. However, if they are as such, we should be willing to understand that these were stand alone alchemies my themselves, and not systems that were married to forms from other places on the planet. I can give an explanation as to how Yoga and Taoist practices are indeed "Internal" alchemy, but I can see why trying to compare it to Western alchemy would just be dumb. 

 

What I also cannot even attempt to try and talk about is what "illumination" is, simply because I am not on that level. I think attempting to understand illumination from an unilluminated space is perhaps the single greatest form of mental masturbation on Earth. Just think, when you were a child, could you even possibly conceive what "adult" life was like? Yea, you may have had dress-up and played house, but all of us who are adults here know that those games don't even come close to allowing a child to know what that is like. The only way the child learned was to grow into an adult, period. The only way we can know what illumination is like is to grow into it through practice of the craft, no book or idea stream is going to allow us to know about that at all. Only the growing into it does, whether you do it in a lab or you do it through meditation, energy work, or whatever else you are doing. But the theorizing... i just don't see why people feel the need to imbibe on it when they can use that time to practice. To each their own.

 

Really nicely stated. All of it.

 

UFA

[noonespecial]

I think it comes down to; "are the sympathies/correspondences used in alchemy purely subjective or are they truly universal and objective."  If they are objective, and there is a universal science behind it, the chakra system, the qabalistic tree, etc would all naturally resonate with any laboratory work simply because the forces involved are real and adhere to XYZ rules of correspondence. I guess this is something for every individual to discover for themselves, no use in arguing over it.

 

We also have to ask at what point does alchemy simply become antiquated chemistry? Here is San Frnacsico the medical marijuana industry is huge, we have guys pumping out marijuana tinctures, oils and waxes, by the buttload, are they alchemists - did they torture gnomes to release the essence from the plant and then fix it again, in a way, yes - technically these are spagyrgic treatments, the essence of dead plant, matter extracted, purified, transmuted and fixed into a new body, in this case water or alcohol.

 

Without even getting into the Hindu or Jewish systems, it seems the sensory perception and mind have to be in a certain state or able of reaching a certain level of perception to 'see' the work occurring in the lab - hence the difference between a true philosopher and a fool making gold from lead lies in one's capacity to see the processes as they occur. Prayer should be just as efficient in opening the senses, and indeed these guys seemed to pray incessantly. My 2..

 

----

 

Prayer of Paracelsus

You have given us Love as medicine, o Lord, and You want that the doctor is included in this Love, to heal the sick. Like Your Love has no end, our researching and serving should have no end

 

Without Your help the doctor is helpless, but with You he is capable of the highest. You make use of us, because You like to stay in secret. It is Your will that You heal the sick through us. You pour joy of eternal life into the heart, and everyone who believes in You, will rise alive and not taste death.

 

Mysteriously You have united in man the forces of all elements, just like a doctor who draws from the saps of the herbs the power to heal. Let me arrange all for the benefit of the sick to the best of my powers and decision, keep away from them all harm. Let me maintain holy and pure my art and my life.

 

Amen.

Edited March 26, 2015 by noonespecial

[Michael Sternbach]

Twins as in feminine and male, 0=2 - thats it, on and off, lingam and yoni - . 

Right. The full formula is 0 = (+1) + (-1).

 

But it's related to the dark night of the soul, why is it dark, it's because one realizes, that this is it, right here right now, there is nothing to return too, the Point is SMOOTH - hence build up and out, in this sense the Hebrew occultists (and the alchemists i would suppose as well who focused on the evolution of the matter) seem to be a bit more in tune with 'that' when they focus on the 'world to come' (forward) and not 'the path of return' (backward). But that is neither here nor there and probably does not make any sense either way returning and going land you in the same place, seems to be a matter of swimming upstream or downstream,. lol.

 

I still use the usual tree, but that's getting kinda old boring for me...recently came across some pretty convicing arguments for the Sefer Yetzirah describing a rotating Tetrahedron inside a sphere as well, lots of cool stuff out there

That sounds interesting. Sources, links?

 

edit; just found this, good quote by Jean D.

 

"The alchemists always admonish their students, "Know the theory first before attempting the praxis." They say, "You must walk in the Book of Nature to understand our Art."

Well said. That's exactly what I have been trying to do the last couple of decades.

 

The alchemical concept of life and matter lies at the opposite pole of that of the current scientific community. Science is trying to find out how matter created life. Alchemy states that life created matter.

Alchemy affirms that at the origin, there is consciousness. Consciousness is the need to Be of the Absolute. In order to satisfy this need, consciousness created life, and in order to evolve, life created matter."

 

- Jean Dubuis

Yes, exactly. Spirit or mind created matter. It's not the other way around.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I think it comes down to; "are the sympathies/correspondences used in alchemy purely subjective or are they truly universal and objective." If they are objective, and there is a universal science behind it, the chakra system, the qabalistic tree, etc would all naturally resonate with any laboratory work simply because the forces involved are real and adhere to XYZ rules of correspondence. I guess this is something for every individual to discover for themselves, no use in arguing over it. (Emphasis mine, ZYD)

 

They are objective and because they are objective you cannot just mix them up willy-nilly and expect to come up with anything of value. I will point to my post here which begins:

 

I came to the conclusion that I could not deal with the matters under consideration in one post and have chosen to post a series. The best point to begin is with Aristotle's theory of the Four Causes and in particular Formal and Final causes. The reason being that from Hellenistic times until the end of the Seventeenth Century these were fundamental to understanding alchemy and magic.

 

Back in the early 1970s I was trying to understand both Agrippa's First Book of Occult Philosophy, which deals with natural magic and also the literature of alchemy. One work in particular helped me to understand both and that was Bonus of Ferrara's New Pearl of Great Price. I will quote from that in some detail in a subsequent post, for now I am going to quote from posts that I made elucidating and defending Agrippa's doctrine of 'occult virtues' in terms of Aristotle's Formal Causes. (Emphasis added, ZYD)

 

Unfortunately I was not able to post the intended series due to time factors, but the rest of the post outlines the general idea and should be read.  I did however start a series on Formal and Final Causes in Agrippa, which can be found here:

 

Agrippa and Aristotle

 

And which is incomplete, but helpful.

 

The New Pearl of Great Price can be found here:

 

The New Pearl of Great Price on The Alchemy Web Site

 

and in the light of what is said here:

 

10. Alexander the Great, the New Sun

 

A special role within the deck is played, in the guise of the King of Swords, by a character, belonging to the medieval series of Illustrious Men, the Nine Worthies: Alexander the Great. As deified hero, new sun and man who while still alive had reached the heaven; on a chariot led by griffins, Alexander was an extremely popular figure, especially in courts.

 

In Secretum Secretorum, an epistolary exchange between Aristotle and his disciple Alexander on astrology. dietetics, alchemy and ocher matters relevant for those in power, we learn that the great philosopher had introduced his pupil to the mysteries of alchemical lore This information may shed some light on the connection between the figure of the military leader and the most obscure iconography of the deck, that featured on the cards from the suit of coins.

 

What may also be traced back to alchemy is the ancient iconography of the ruler as new sun, this being an old alchemical symbol for gold, the most precious metal produced by the earth, and hence the best material for obtaining the lapis philosophorum. The privileged role of Alexander the Great is further confirmed by the fact that various cards in the deck are devoted to figures connected to his history: Zeus Ammon (AMONE Horse of Swords), the mythical father of Alexander according to the oracle of the Oasis of Siwa; his mother Olympias (OLINPIA), the dreaded lady of the snakes, here featured as the Queen of Swords; and Naptanabus (NATANABO, Horse of cups), the “magician and intendant" who, like Aristotle, was Alexander's teacher.

 

From the PDF which is downloaded by the link which Michael posted here:

 

Il segreto dei segreti (the Secretum Secretorum, i.e., The Secret of Secrets)

 

The discussion of Alchemy and the Hermetic tradition begins with section seven, "Alchemy and the Renaissance" and if taken in light of the discussion here:

 

The Sola-Busca Tarot and Alchemy

 

Sheds new light on the importance of The New Pearl of Great Price, which specifically mentions Aristotle's letters on Alchemy and thus ties in with the worldview which apparently is the background to the Sola-Busca Tarot, and in particular that it was intended as a visual treatise, basically a Memory Palace, on "the Art of Rulership" for the Italian ruling class.

 

Of course the letters attributed to Aristotle are not by the historical Aristotle, but that they were attributed to him should indicate the importance of the ideas which Aristotle introduced, such as formal causes, to the whole Alchemical enterprise.

 

This is all I can say for now.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

I think it comes down to; "are the sympathies/correspondences used in alchemy purely subjective or are they truly universal and objective." If they are objective, and there is a universal science behind it, the chakra system, the qabalistic tree, etc would all naturally resonate with any laboratory work simply because the forces involved are real and adhere to XYZ rules of correspondence. I guess this is something for every individual to discover for themselves, no use in arguing over it.

 

We also have to ask at what point does alchemy simply become antiquated chemistry? Here is San Frnacsico the medical marijuana industry is huge, we have guys pumping out marijuana tinctures, oils and waxes, by the buttload, are they alchemists - did they torture gnomes to release the essence from the plant and then fix it again, in a way, yes - technically these are spagyrgic treatments, the essence of dead plant, matter extracted, purified, transmuted and fixed into a new body, in this case water or alcohol.

 

Without even getting into the Hindu or Jewish systems, it seems the sensory perception and mind have to be in a certain state or able of reaching a certain level of perception to 'see' the work occurring in the lab - hence the difference between a true philosopher and a fool making gold from lead lies in one's capacity to see the processes as they occur. Prayer should be just as efficient in opening the senses, and indeed these guys seemed to pray incessantly. My 2..

 

----

 

Prayer of ParacelsusYou have given us Love as medicine, o Lord, and You want that the doctor is included in this Love, to heal the sick. Like Your Love has no end, our researching and serving should have no end

 

Without Your help the doctor is helpless, but with You he is capable of the highest. You make use of us, because You like to stay in secret. It is Your will that You heal the sick through us. You pour joy of eternal life into the heart, and everyone who believes in You, will rise alive and not taste death.

 

Mysteriously You have united in man the forces of all elements, just like a doctor who draws from the saps of the herbs the power to heal. Let me arrange all for the benefit of the sick to the best of my powers and decision, keep away from them all harm. Let me maintain holy and pure my art and my life.

 

Amen.

You said a number of very good things in this post.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[noonespecial]

Yes absolutely, simply because you cant.

They are objective and because they are objective you cannot just mix them up willy-nilly and expect to come up with anything of value. I will point to my post here which begins:

[FraterUFA]

Hi Michael,

 

UFA and the1gza,

We are once again dealing with the classical conflict between the traditionalist and the innovator here. Every spiritual system was created by an innovator and preserved by traditionalists. The traditionalists are guarding the "original" system and oppose any changes to it. Yes, there are good reasons for preserving things the way they are. There are also good reasons for the widening and renewal of existing systems.

 

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.

 

 

Alchemy has not changed much in its practice since the 1200s? You are kidding me - right? First off, whose Alchemy are you referring to? The Alchemists didn't even agree about the meaning of the terminology and symbolism they were using, much less about the practice of pursuing the Philosopher's Stone!

 

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. 

 

 

How I know that Nature is and acts as One? Simple... I myself am a unity, yet I am very aware that I am at any moment the net result of a highly complex combination of biological, chemical, physical, meteorological, geo-physical, cosmological, psychological, alchemical, astrological, numerological and other factors. I can single out any of these for special study. But I won't arrive at a thorough understanding of myself (and Nature) if I neglect how all these influences are interwoven.

 

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).

 

Alchemy was never a closed system. You can't even begin to understand, let alone safely reproduce, the recipes of the ancients if you have no knowledge of chemistry - how could this knowledge be a hindrance?

 

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.

 

 

The link to metaphysical philosophy is no modern abolition either. Have you read Zosimos, probably the most important of the Hellenistic Alchemists? He writes about a dream in which he meets the very Divine Pymander that initiated Hermes Trismegistos into the secrets of the world.

 

You are confusing outside systems with gnosis.

 

This is just one example to illustrate how alchemy frequently refers to other systems; chemistry, mythology, metaphysics, astrology, physiology etc.

 

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. 

 

To truly understand it, you are supposed to have knowledge of all these fields. This hasn't changed to this day.

 

Says who? Popular consensus among people who don't know?

 

Why do you think that many of the greatest Alchemists were universalists? Jabir, Rhazes, Albertus Magnus, Arnald of Villanova, Lull, Paracelsus, Newton. (I omit the question here if ALL of these attributions are historically accurate.)

 

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. 

 

These people were scientists and keen researchers. They were not afraid to think out of the box. They never intended Alchemy a religious system to be worshipped and rigidly conserved. Unlike some modern fraternities whose members typically pretend to know the truth about Alchemy but when asked to elaborate, tell you that it's too subtle for you to understand, or too dangerous, or that they are under oath not to give away the secret...

 

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.

 

 

I don't have the time and motivation to enter another tedious discussion of that kind here.

 

Too bad... I feel like we are just finally starting to get through to you :-)

 

UFA

[FraterUFA]

We also have to ask at what point does alchemy simply become antiquated chemistry? 

 

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.

 

Here is San Frnacsico the medical marijuana industry is huge, we have guys pumping out marijuana tinctures, oils and waxes, by the buttload,

 

Not alchemy.

 

are they alchemists - did they torture gnomes to release the essence from the plant and then fix it again,

 

Not alchemy.

 

in a way, yes - technically these are spagyrgic treatments, the essence of dead plant, matter extracted, purified, transmuted and fixed into a new body, in this case water or alcohol.

 

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). 

 

Without even getting into the Hindu or Jewish systems, it seems the sensory perception and mind have to be in a certain state or able of reaching a certain level of perception to 'see' the work occurring in the lab - hence the difference between a true philosopher and a fool making gold from lead lies in one's capacity to see the processes as they occur.

 

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.

 

Prayer should be just as efficient in opening the senses, and indeed these guys seemed to pray incessantly. My 2..

 

I think it is a bit more involved than that.

 

UFA

[noonespecial]

Thanks UFA.

[Nungali]

... . However, I do know the other attempts to marry the Kabbalistic tree of life to things like the chakras, and honestly... it's foolish. The TOL is a 10 (sometimes 11) point system, while the chakra system is a 7-point system. While there are general similarities between them, there are even more differences to them, and the connections that people being making are often far-reaching at best. As such, those who attempt to do those things spend all their time theorizing these connections without being able to realize them in practical ways.

 

Well, that started with the GD, that was the first time the concept was included in 'Hermetic Kabbalah;. Then it got picked up by the New Agers - who like to relate chakras to everything - who also become more confused when it is pointed out that there is more than 1 chakra system.

 

But if we look at the original concept. ( which I think is this ... I cant find the original GD paper on it at the moment) ;

 

 

 

It is 'on the body'. Now, we can do some trickery and say chokma & binah are the L & R hemispheres of the brain and they come together to form the 3rd eye ... and so on ... but really it is a map of 'in the body' . I think it best described physically;

eg. Geburah as the strong right arm.

 

The same mistake can be made with their 'Tarot attribution' to the Celestial Sphere ... what a mess people make of that using the GD source ... but that is because the source is actually about the Tree of Life being projected on to the Celestial Sphere, but using Tarot correspondences to the ToL , so it looks, in the diagram, like the Tarot is being matched on to the C.S.

 

As I said earlier, its a worse match when we try to make it on the psychic anatonmy, and and an even worse one on the 'psychological body'.

 

A lot of this is New Age 'eclecticism' ... sometimes it sorta works like a new fusion cuisine and sometimes its like a fish milkshake with gravy.

 

But it ( the projection of ToL on the body) can be 'realised in practical ways' - I am thinking of the benefits of such things as Regardie's ' Middle Pillar ' or the 'Kabbalistic Cross' 'ritual / visualisation .

Edited March 26, 2015 by Nungali

[Nungali]

I think it comes down to; "are the sympathies/correspondences used in alchemy purely subjective or are they truly universal and objective." If they are objective, and there is a universal science behind it, the chakra system, the qabalistic tree, etc would all naturally resonate with any laboratory work simply because the forces involved are real and adhere to XYZ rules of correspondence. I guess this is something for every individual to discover for themselves, no use in arguing over it.

Both views are partially right ( hence it could be an endless argument )

 

The underlying principle is truly universal and objective but the expressions in forms of those principles may not be. It depends how similar one form is to another, if they arent then they become more subjective ( yeah .... Dhur! )

 

I see it like mythological themes; there are 'components ; in the theme and they can be arranged in different ways, we recognise 'similarity' by the components , some 'patterns' of components match and some dont.

 

One basic pattern is the 3 / 4 ; its everywhere! * When we can detect something 'everywhere' we start to think it has some validity and/or underlying importance as an 'objective and universal' ;

 

 

* Elemental theory, Kabbalah ( in the Tree and four worlds, four 'parts' of the soul), the perception of colour (brilliant example ! ) , the '4 psychological truths', the 3 Gunas, the 4 Buddhist principles of divine living, 4 DNA letters, 4 systems in the body, the 3 'emergency drives' in psychology, the three 'psychic divisions' of Freud with a 4th added by Jung, within vegetative life and agriculture

 

[ I will give an example here: " A plant needs four elements plus the ‘fifth element’ to grow; ‘Spirit’– light. Fire – temperature. Water – moisture. Air – CO₂ and O₂. Earth – ‘growing medium’. Most consist of 5 basic components; seed, fruit (or seed container), flowers (or their equivalent), leaves and stems and roots.

Primary nutrients for good plant growth; N, P & K. Further to this we can construct another triangle of nutrients with N, P & K at one point, secondary nutrients at another ( Ca, S & Mg) and micro-nutrients ( B, Cl, Mn, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mo & Se) at the third.

Four principles for agricultural consideration; cosmic forces, earthly forces, location and type of plant." ]

 

Astrology, the four forces of physics, ..... looks at own fingers .... 4 with three divisions (and a 'quintessential' 'spirit' thumb.

 

.... oh I forgot, of all things; sulphur salt and mercury ( the 4th principle is usually a result of the other 3 ... some type of 'earth' ... or the other 3 are extracted from the first.

 

It starts of course with unity 1 , that divides into a polarity, this also creates a 3rd principle, now a 4th can be generated from it ; like we have 3 primary colours and 4 natural colours ... the whole mechanism of colour perception outlines it:

 

" There are 3 ‘primary’ colours; red, blue, yellow. There are 4 ‘natural’ colours; red, blue, yellow green : fire, water, air, earth.

 

We have 3 sets of colour receptors; black and white, blue and yellow and red and green. These three combine to give hundreds of possible hues like purple and magenta.

 

Within the eye the retina has two types of light sensitive cells called rods and cones. Cones absorb red blue and yellow but do not work well in detecting colour in low light. Rods have ‘sacrificed’ colour reception to work as ‘night vision’ and detect black and white.

 

Signals travel from the retina along the optic nerves to the visual cortex for sorting and sending to the three relevant parts of the brain to analyse the signals in respect to three qualities; movement, colour, distance. These three parts of the brain send their processed information back to the visual cortex where it integrates the information.

 

Light – singularity, passes through two types of receptors to make three dimensions of colour, in a duality (or polarity) black / white, blue / yellow, red green, to process through the visual cortex to three parts of the brain and back again to make it possible to observe the four ‘natural colours’ and their combinations. "

 

 

The point is; the principle underlying might be the same but the 'pattern' appears differently for different applications.

We also have to ask at what point does alchemy simply become antiquated chemistry? Here is San Frnacsico the medical marijuana industry is huge, we have guys pumping out marijuana tinctures, oils and waxes, by the buttload, are they alchemists - did they torture gnomes to release the essence from the plant and then fix it again, in a way, yes - technically these are spagyrgic treatments, the essence of dead plant, matter extracted, purified, transmuted and fixed into a new body, in this case water or alcohol.

Not sure if that is alchemy ... perhaps their psychotropic actions in the consciousness could be considered alchemy ... well some of them ?

 

 

 

Without even getting into the Hindu or Jewish systems, it seems the sensory perception and mind have to be in a certain state or able of reaching a certain level of perception to 'see' the work occurring in the lab - hence the difference between a true philosopher and a fool making gold from lead lies in one's capacity to see the processes as they occur.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here? A type of psychic vision? Or something else?

 

If it is psychic vision, being able to observe the changes beyond the physical, I am reminded of Steiner's 'chemical' drawings of substances and interactions;

Edited March 26, 2015 by Nungali