Alchemy for the Rest of Us

[FraterUFA]

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.  

 

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

[noonespecial]

 

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

 

Oh look he smiles. hahaha

[FraterUFA]

Oh look he smiles. hahaha

 

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

 

UFA

[Nungali]

 

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

 

 

Would you like one .... I can whip one up in my lab for you if you want 

 

 

 

Edited March 26, 2015 by Nungali

[noonespecial]

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

 

UFA

German?

[FraterUFA]

Would you like one .... I can whip one up in my lab for you if you want 

 

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

[noonespecial]

 

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 .

 

Left hemisphere relates to right side of the body and vice versa, there is a lot more flexibility in qabalah in theory, but at the same time when i first started doing the middle pillar a couple of years back, i noticed that the Hindu attributions and extended nadi points mapping were clearly being stimulated with no effort or knowledge of either on my behalf. Also another example, doing a Netzach (Venusian) rite during the appropriate hours, I did not feel any sensations in the body where they were supposed to occur according to the Hermetic attributions, rather my adams apple felt as if it was going to explode...so there seems to be a definite objective reality that defies the wishes and theories of the practioner.

[Michael Sternbach]

One thing that might be worth noting is that in the Middle Pillar Exercise you visualize "energy balls" inside the body, not "lotus flowers" on its surface.

[noonespecial]

One thing that might be worth noting is that in the Middle Pillar Exercise you visualize "energy balls" inside the body, not "lotus flowers" on its surface.

 

I've pretty much left the MP (dont need it anymore  ) but yes I believe that is how it was described, never tried an actual chakra circulation.

[Zhongyongdaoist]

 

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 .

 

Well, that started with the GD, that was the first time the concept was included in 'Hermetic Kabbalah: The attribution of the Sephiroth to the "Body of God" is a relatively early part of Qabalistic symbolism and even if Genesis did not say that Adam was created "in the image and after the likeness" of God, the Microcosm/Macrocosm analogy would have allowed this type of practice at any time in the development of Qabalah or its adaptation to other Western Traditions.

 

I cant find the original GD paper on it at the moment: The document is question is, "On the Work to be undertaken Between Portal and 5-6" that is between the Portal and the Adeptus Minor degree.  The actual name of the practice is "The Tree of LIfe in the Aura", and it is nowhere stated that it has anything to do with chakras or or with physical or psychic anatomy.  It is that "puddin' headed" new ager Aleister Crowley who probably makes the first association in 777, column CXVIII.

 

It is an extremely useful practice, but my own interpretation is too complex to enter into now and off topic.  That is part of the reason I am writing book and need to get back to it.

 

As far as the general direction of this thread, I favor the word of Frater UFA and the spirit of Michael Sternbach.  Alchemy has no need of chemistry per se, to use Kuhn's terminology they are two paradigms that have a common set of experiences, but even this common set is interpreted completely differently, a good example is the phenomena of hygroscopy and deliquescence, these are common to both fields, but they are essential to Alchemy and interpreted in a far more profound way than can ever be conceived of in chemistry, which considers them a relatively interesting, but not essential phenomena.  Aside from some useful knowledge about possibly improved lab equipment, technique and dangers etc., chemistry contributes relatively little to the practice of alchemy and nothing to its understanding.

 

On the other hand I think it quit possible to create a "meta-chemistry" which could unify them both, but it would be necessary to completely rethink chemistry integrating the ideas of formal and final causes, i.e. the chemical elements as being mathematical forms instantiated in chemical phenomena.  This could open up new areas of investigation which might prove useful and reveal a whole set of new phenomena, but would be a very complex process.  The world view of Alchemy would contribute more to this than the present worldview of chemistry would.

 

 

 

 

Edit: Changed "not need" to no need.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Zhongyongdaoist

[noonespecial]

chemistry contributes relatively little to the practice of alchemy and nothing to its understanding.

 

I must say I've reached the same conclusion via this thread - in a day and age where synthesized dmt, lsd, and meth are available for purchase on the internet, things I believe would blow the minds of the likes Paracelsus and his people, there does not seem to be much 'magic' fairy dust, spagryic and elixirs can offer that isnt already out there in a more powerful and dangerous form...another thing I seem to get is that what makes real alchemy so real is that it dangerous, almost a sort of bravado attached to it that seems rather silly, but likewise making butane hash oil is dangerous, likewise plenty of trailer trash have blown themselves up cooking meth.

[Michael Sternbach]

Donald,

 

Thanks for sharing your insights.

 

The Meta-chemistry you outline, covering both Alchemy and Chemistry, seems to have taken at least an embryonic in the research of a few Anthroposophists like Ernst Bindel and Eugen Kolisko. On the more rigorously chemical side, I recommend the books by Jan C. A. Boeyens.

[Michael Sternbach]

I've pretty much left the MP (dont need it anymore  ) but yes I believe that is how it was described, never tried an actual chakra circulation.

 

Another thing probably worth noting is that the MP covers the three Dan-tien rather nicely (even though it may not be a perfect match). Those are also assumed to be inside the body.

 

I do look forward to Donald's book in this regard.

[noonespecial]

Another thing probably worth noting is that the MP covers the three Dan-tien rather nicely (even though it may not be a perfect match). Those are also assumed to be inside the body.

 

I do look forward to Donald's book in this regard.

 

Whats Dan-tien, a Chinese thing? I'm just familiarizing myself with oriental theory.

 

edit* google is my friend.  t

Edited March 27, 2015 by noonespecial

[noonespecial]

This thread actually has me wondering if it is medieval lab based alchemy that is a corruption of what is described in texts such as Pymander, Emerald Tablet, Book of the Dead, etc., not the other way around. Either way, thank you all, I have learned much.

[Michael Sternbach]

Whats Dan-tien, a Chinese thing? I'm just familiarizing myself with oriental theory.

 

Throughout South East Asia you will find that three energy centers are considered to be the primary ones. Defined and experienced by practitioners of Chinese Internal Alchemy/Qigong and other arts as "qi pools" (I can't find a better term right now) inside the body rather than Chakras or meridian points on its surface, even though they are connected with the latter.

 

The Chinese system distinguishes

1. The Lower Dan-tien which on the physical level is the space inside the lower abdomen reaching down to the genitals. - This is a pretty good match with Yesod in the MP, as well as with the Sacral or Sexual Chakra.
2. The Middle Dan-tien as a space in the chest and heart region. - This corresponds with Tiphareth in the MP, and with the Solar Plexus and/or Heart Chakra (Regardie's texts are a little ambiguous in this regard.)
3. The Upper Dan-tien inside the head. This mostly corresponds with Kether in the MP and with the Third Eye and/or Crown Chakra in the Hindu system.

Hope this helps.

[Michael Sternbach]

This thread actually has me wondering if it is medieval lab based alchemy that is a corruption of what is described in texts such as Pymander, Emerald Tablet, Book of the Dead, etc., not the other way around. Either way, thank you all, I have learned much.

 

I would say it's an attempt to apply these teachings practically in a certain area of nature-philosophical enterprise.

[FraterUFA]

As far as the general direction of this thread, I favor the word of Frater UFA and the spirit of Michael Sternbach.  Alchemy has no need of chemistry per se, to use Kuhn's terminology they are two paradigms that have a common set of experiences,

 

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).

 

but even this common set is interpreted completely differently, a good example is the phenomena of hygroscopy and deliquescence, these are common to both fields, but they are essential to Alchemy and interpreted in a far more profound way than can ever be conceived of in chemistry, which considers them a relatively interesting, but not essential phenomena. 

 

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. 

 

 

Aside from some useful knowledge about possibly improved lab equipment, technique and dangers etc., chemistry contributes relatively little to the practice of alchemy and nothing to its understanding.

 

I couldn't have said it better.

 

Good stuff, Donald. I enjoy your contributions.

 

UFA

[FraterUFA]

This thread actually has me wondering if it is medieval lab based alchemy that is a corruption of what is described in texts such as Pymander, Emerald Tablet, Book of the Dead, etc., not the other way around. Either way, thank you all, I have learned much.

 

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

[the1gza]

This is the thing: we can talk about all these ideas, but in the end, how can we talk about them with any sort of real, scientific knowledge, unless we are personally experiencing the shit ourselves? I don't talk about Western alchemy, simply because I don't know what it is. I can talk about certain forms of Yoga, Kabbalah, and Taoist work, because I have worked with it. And so have many others here. But what this conversation has devolved into, and perhaps was based on, was the alleged experiences of people we did not know or meet, and sometimes not even that. Many of the assertions made here are based on interpretations from people who only studied the shit in an academic manner, never once even working with the stuff in an experiential way.

 

If we are calling ourselves practitioners, how can we even remotely say that this system or that system meet up unless we had extensive experience with both? Hell, for those of us practicing Eastern forms of work, we all know that the stressed tenant of action in those systems was simple: Years worth of intellectual study will not measure to even a day of practice. So how is it that we can make these assertions about Alchemy of the West if none of us are actually doing it? Hell, most of us are still beginners in our mode of Eastern practice, even if we have been practicing for decades. So how is it that we can even remotely consider ourselves, or these assertions, innovative, when the primary engine of this innovation, which is practice, is completely absent from these investigations or assertions?

 

This is what I am getting at, that these ideas of amalgamation have very little to do with innovation. This is what the GD suffered from; they had several very powerful forms of work available to them. However, the GD was so wrapped up in intellectualism, that it's tenants barely ever get the chance to dedicate themselves to the practices at hand. So their assertions are largely based on this intellectualism, and not in experience. I mean, Chris Hyatt was writing books on systems of immortality engineering, and this guy had to have been the most unhealthy hypocrites on Earth, using techniques from Reichian Therapy as a means of picking up females. Not saying his stuff was useless, but that the work presented was based on things that were not extensively explored by these people themselves, outside of academic mentation.

 

This scattered way of association is primarily why some traditionalists argue for keeping to one frame of work: it garners focus. Now I would agree that most fall into a pattern in which these traditions wind up becoming religions, however the thing is that that there is a distinct pattern of action that goes on with folks who are trying to amalgamate everything. They spend so much time thinking and studying this stuff in a theorized way, they can't find a way to even practice what their ideas bring forth. Meanwhile, the traditionalist only has to worry about one thing: the traditional way of practice that they have before them. The traditions have a line of people who have taken the route before, and who can give experiential guidance to the aspirant. With these amalgam systems, however, are solely responsible for finding out a mode of practice that will actually satisfy everything they are trying to amalgamate. I have met some people who have done this, and done it pretty well so I am not of the idea that it is impossible. However, these people also abandoned nearly everything normalized way of interpreting things, and thus their practice is highly unorthodox. As for the majority, however, they are not able to do this, so the amalgamation is stuck in theory-land.

 

This is what I am getting at, and primarily why this type of conversation always leads to debates that, at the end of the day, are meaningless. We have assertions made on things that the have not been experienced by the individual positing the idea. It's not the worst thing, but if we are trying to say what things "are" and "aren't", it's kinda foolish, in my opinion, to do that when you don't have experience with these things. However, most of us have been doing this our whole lives; most of us went to school learning about science. Yet, fairly few of us got to even practice the science we were told was "true"; we accept atomic theory without ever actually conducting experiments at the atomic level. So it's not surprising, but honestly I can't say it's sensical, or that it has a track record of ever producing things of value. The ancient shamanic innovators had nothing to draw from but experiential knowledge, so of course they could innovate. That's entirely different from what is going on now with these amalgam theories, some of which are so young that there can't possibly be an extensive experiential basis for it to begin with.

[noonespecial]

I actually think this thread is going rather well, and there does not seem to be any bad blood spilling over.

[noonespecial]

 We have assertions made on things that the have not been experienced by the individual positing the idea. It's not the worst thing, but if we are trying to say what things "are" and "aren't",

 

1. If you are referring to me as the OP, I wouldn't be so quick to make assumptions. I am not the most intellectual guy on the block, I am not a storehouse of book knowledge, nor am I the best writer and I am not intentionally misleading anyone - I could easily have written, look an exact double of myself, but made of light, appears during circulation rites in my room, but what would be the point of that, why believe some random dude on the interwebs.

 

2. I am in no way saying lab alchemy, or using the process with actual substances  is what alchemy isn't - it was actually the reverse. Semantic wars are inevitable on the interwebs.

 

3. I am a generally friendly person, it saddens me that folks approach every conversation on forums as a war to be fought, i dont take myself that seriously

 

Thanks.

Edited March 27, 2015 by noonespecial

[Michael Sternbach]

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

 

For once I agree with you, UFA.

[FraterUFA]

I must say I've reached the same conclusion via this thread - in a day and age where synthesized dmt, lsd, and meth are available for purchase on the internet, things I believe would blow the minds of the likes Paracelsus and his people, there does not seem to be much 'magic' fairy dust, spagryic and elixirs can offer that isnt already out there in a more powerful and dangerous form...another thing I seem to get is that what makes real alchemy so real is that it dangerous, almost a sort of bravado attached to it that seems rather silly, but likewise making butane hash oil is dangerous, likewise plenty of trailer trash have blown themselves up cooking meth.

 

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

[noonespecial]

There is nothing in Pymander which will sound foreign or strange to a practicing alchemist.

 

That is what I am saying, you could take spiritual principles laid forth in the the Hermetica and apply them in the lab, not vice versa. Were the guys that hid the Nag Hammadi scrolls outfitted with medieval alchemical labratory equipment? I dont think so.