Alchemy and The Philosopher's Stone is Real

reply to post by pepsi78


Look at it again; 1526 AD.

Yes, I do believe that chamber pots were emptied into the streets. And occasionally innocent and naive little tykes that have not yet been taught to fear their own sterile urine have been found to occasionally play in it. Till the folks put a stop to that. Pee is nasty after all.

reply to post by Frater210

Come on, who would empty it in the street.

It is formed and manifested by an excessive thickening of air; as soon as it leaves its body, it is clearly seen, but it
vanishes without a trace as soon as it touches the earth

It just vanishes when it touches the ground, I know I have done this before in nature, peed on the ground and formed
a small lake. It's clear some sort of a substance.


Then it states.....

it must therefore be caught
while it is still in the air.

So the maid throws it and you have to catch it into the air. So how can children play in it if it just vanishes.

It can be from A to Z, any sort of substance.

The philosopher’s stone may be anything that actually transforms a human being from one state to another.

Think about it . . .what actually is the component that makes an ignorant person wise; an angry person full of love; a drunk fully sober; a headless person aware; a sinner a saint. . . .Then the philosophers stone, other than the divine essence—that spiritual entity we have been cut off from since the fall of man—could be anything that serves as the catalyst of change in our inner being from the dross of the pedestrian to the gold of the unique.

Then again on the other hand the highest aspect of the Philosopher’s stone then might be this mysterious essence that the mystics speak about that is lost deep in the consciousness of all humans that if contacted can truly transform the human to the divine.

reply to post by inforeal


You may be right and the whole thing may be just a big metafore, no substance at all, maybe a state of mind, this can also be credible.

Well if we have learnt one thing here on Earth, it is that people manage to ignore evidence, and talk nonsense. This thread is a prime example of humans being spoon-fed the obvious, have it completely spelled out for them, with multiple supporting documents, and still they argue against it with things like "who throws pee onto the street?" When we all know full well that chamber pots were emptied onto the street in medieval Europe (the time of the source) every day. And how many vile waters issue from a spring in a secret place, flowing all over the Earth, and must be caught in the air if they are to be collected? Only one type of water.

The most amusing to me are the people who claim to have read the book and laugh at urine as the ingredient just because they consider it foul... after they supposedly read the alchemists state that the substance "meets all her wooers in foul garments, in order that she may be able to distinguish the worthy from the unworthy", and "if we were to tell the vulgar herd the ordinary name of our substance, they would look upon our assertion as a daring falsehood".

As for this:

For all the while they have Philosophers been,
Yet could they never know what was our Stone,
Some sought it in dung, in urine, some in wine,
Some in star slime (some thing it is but one),
In blood and eggs : some till their thrift was gone,
Dividing elements, and breaking many a pot,
Shards multiplying, but yet they hit it not.

It does not say that urine is not the ingredient, it only says that some people who failed sought it in urine... but knowing the substance does not mean one can make the Stone, as one must also understand Nature. Reading between the lines is a skill that must be learnt in order to successfully interpret an alchemical text... otherwise we'd all end up dying from mercury poisoning like Newton.

As for the spiritual interpretation of alchemy or the Stone:
On the Edge of the Future, by Jeffrey John Kripal and Glenn W. Shuck, 2005 :

The spiritual interpretation of alchemy that was made famous by Jung in fact reflects religious convictions typical of nineteenth-century occultism and is not supported by the antique and medieval alchemical sources.

Newton and Newtonianism, by James E. Force and Sarah Hutton, 2005

Hundreds of books, including adulterated "translations" of alchemical classics, appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century, all but a very few embracing this new "spiritual interpretation" of alchemy.

Man, Myth & Magic, by Richard Cavendish and Brian Innes, 1983

A purely spiritual alchemy would never explain the existence of alchemical laboratories in which physicians honestly and fanatically sought for occult medicines.

reply to post by sign00


I'm not making fun, don't get me wrong it's a great book and who wrote it is a pretty smart guy as I see it, I have red most of the book, I just don't think it's urine.

Thanks for this awesome thread! I have nothing to contribute yet, just making my way through the book. So very intriguing, and the first thing on ATS that has caught my attention in a long while.

I could quote dozens of philosophers condemning the use of urine clearly in a same chapter where they show us the mistake of literalism.
It is simply clear that most people here have not read enough to have found the BoA, revealing, in fact i could spend day and night proving wrong and vain many bold passages of the book, along with quotes that don't have their places. Has anyone seriously read Fulcanelli? Pernety? Limojon de St Didier? and others? before condemning their use of the hermetic language? Have you once asked yourself why you couldn't understand them whereas reading everywhere that they have but one Work, so many ways of telling us the same things..some say what others don't, and reading them over and over one after another, gives birth to a sort of sixth sense, where the essential movements, signs and regimes of the Work, become more palpable to the mind.
Pepsi78 is alert enough to consider that an author giving matter temperaments by such proxy could call out to many other chemical "waters" than pee.
In fact the philosophers do say that when their agent is confected, it is an Aqua Vita, their Air, their Dew, their Urine, their Salt because it is a mineral water, capable to dissolve, putrefy, sublimate, coagulate, the argent vive of metals into different orders of Medicines (three -Geber). Pernety says that this quintessence and Philosophical Mercury, comes from cinders, it used to be held in darkness, its previous body, which after calcination, gave back its Light, Agent, and Salt.
If you read this "Our Philosophical Mercury is volatile, water is volatile", will you go use tap water for the Work, especially what would you do with it? When you firmly believe it is pee, or dew, you start seeing it everywhere, and you lose any sense of real criticism.I would like if possible to speak of the work itself according to BoA..
What does anyone say about its progression..

"Beauty, truth, and rarity,
Grace in all simplicity,
Here enclosed in cinders lie." (Shakespeare quoted in BoA)

Then it states.....

it must therefore be caught
while it is still in the air.

So the maid throws it and you have to catch it into the air.

It's called "catch it in mid-stream", bro.

It's how you collect a sterile sample.

I said my part already. No need to continue if we're just going to go round in circles. It is all in the book afterall, so anyone who is interested can read that. Those who don't like the book, I don't know why they want to shout so loud about it.

The truth remains the same, no matter what anyone says about it.

reply to post by sign00


Thanks so much for posting this, I love books, but free interesting ones are the best!
Will be reading this on our camping trip.

A

Originally posted by sign00

On the Edge of the Future, by Jeffrey John Kripal and Glenn W. Shuck, 2005 :

The spiritual interpretation of alchemy that was made famous by Jung in fact reflects religious convictions typical of nineteenth-century occultism and is not supported by the antique and medieval alchemical sources.

Newton and Newtonianism, by James E. Force and Sarah Hutton, 2005

Hundreds of books, including adulterated "translations" of alchemical classics, appeared in the second half of the nineteenth century, all but a very few embracing this new "spiritual interpretation" of alchemy.

Man, Myth & Magic, by Richard Cavendish and Brian Innes, 1983

A purely spiritual alchemy would never explain the existence of alchemical laboratories in which physicians honestly and fanatically sought for occult medicines.

edit on 20-9-2011 by sign00 because: (no reason given)

It was during the Inquisition after all. Just saying.

What do you think about Fulcanelli's interpretation of Gothic = Goetic?

Like I said earlier, I believe in them both, or maybe three types.

Spiritual, literal invoking of and use of Magick.

My own, being philosophical only and when I can get some equipment together, well, midstream.

Yeah, I'm hooked.

reply to post by AlRub

Pernety says that this quintessence and Philosophical Mercury, comes from cinders, it used to be held in darkness, its previous body, which after calcination, gave back its Light, Agent, and Salt.

If you read this "Our Philosophical Mercury is volatile, water is volatile", will you go use tap water for the Work, especially what would you do with it?

When you firmly believe it is pee, or dew, you start seeing it everywhere, and you lose any sense of real criticism.I would like if possible to speak of the work itself according to BoA.. What does anyone say about its progression..

Hi, Al Rub.

After much searching in the same books you mention, and many more, I would say that the progression offered by Sign00 is cogent and complete. Just to let you know, my bias comes from much work as an amateur spagyricist; I wasn't really concerned about technique, I was after the substance.

( In the spirit of sharing with others so that they don't get confused over terminology here is one of the books that I have dog eared to death learning how to work at the stove...www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1316562526&sr=1-1...

Otherwise I would say what you posted above is fragmentary as the 'alchemists' were fond of only giving little chunks of the work out of order and sometimes out of Kingdom.
I looks to me like what you posted above is the usual recipe for the alkahest needed to make a plant stone.

comes from cinders, it used to be held in darkness, its previous body, which after calcination, gave back its Light, Agent, and Salt.

This totally sounds like Urine to me, in light of the BoA.

P.S. Alkahest = Potassium Carbonate. For all those that are wishing for more clarity.

To each their own philosopher's stone!

My firm conviction is that this ambrosia, elixir or "stone?" (names have absolutely no importance) can only be made/found through mudras. In yoga, the little finger is associated with water, the ring finger with earth, the middle finger with ether, the forefinger with air and the thumb with fire. Symbolically, the little finger can also be associated with mercury, the middle finger with salt, the thumb with sulfur, etc, etc.

Specific mudras can cure all maladies, regenerate the entire body, halt the aging process, etc...

Unfortunately, nobody cares about this extraordinary science.

People have been too profoundly dumbed down.

Nosce te ipsum.

reply to post by timewalker

What do you think about Fulcanelli's interpretation of Gothic = Goetic?

I would love to try my hand at his one if you are down for that.

reply to post by Frater210
By all means.

This is the learning room after all.

reply to post by timewalker

Some discerning and less superficail authors, struck by the similarity of gothic (gothique) and goetic (goetique) have thought that there must be a close connection between gothic art and goetic art, i.e. magic.

For, me gothic art, art gothique, is simply a corruption of the word argotique (cant), which sounds exactly the same.

This is in conformity with the phonetic law, which governs the traditional cabala in every language and does not pay attention to spelling.

Fulcanelli, Le Mystere des Cathedrales

So, although he gives a nod to 'some authors' he goes on to explain that it is a corruption of Argotique or cant. Further along he connects it all to The Language of The Birds.

Here is the take away: The cant is in the architecture. By showing us the meaning of argotique he shows us how it is possible for the Cathedrals to be 'Books of Stone'.

Here, we can't post pictures but I will go ahead and set up this video. It is of Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland which is of late gothic architecture...

If it weren't for the stunning video I would not have used this one. Please turn the volume down. You do not need it


So the idea is that the masonry and stone carving itself is cant, or a secret language, that is there to be read.

Personally, I find it a little strange that F would use 'goetic' but it makes sense for the times. In 1904 MacGregor Mathers compiled and published The Lesser Key of Solomon, or The Goetia and I am sure that F was aware of what was happening in the occult community. I am just guessing on this but I bet that Mathers and others were the 'some authors' that F is referring to. It is also interesting in that it shows that debate, however subtle, concerning this type of stuff was really popular back then too.

Edit: By the by, for those that might not know it, Fulcanelli was French.

reply to post by Frater210

Going out on a limb here.

In Le Mystère des Cathédrales I kind of got the impression that maybe with the "work" in the bas-reliefs and the term goetic - goetia, that they might have been using ceremonial magick in the cathedral's. I men with the Black Isis statues in the underground chambers and all, very Hermetic.

Cant - Language of the Birds - Enochian

Just trying to emphasize that old "spiritual alchemy" might be just that.

Great video, I did turn the volume down too.

reply to post by timewalker

In Le Mystère des Cathédrales I kind of got the impression that maybe with the "work" in the bas-reliefs and the term goetic - goetia, that they might have been using ceremonial magick in the cathedral's. I men with the Black Isis statues in the underground chambers and all, very Hermetic.

Vell, this is where it gets really cool, as far as I am concerned. Yeah, the Black Madonnas and all. OK, it is possible that since F liked to leave no word unused to its fullest that he may have been referring to those pesky statuettes under all those places of Christian worship. If he did then he must have meant to use the word so as to connotate its Greek origins.

It is the Greek origins stuff ( by this I mean the origins of Western thought ) that makes Alchemy such a rad thing to pursue. I wanted to do my own thread on this but let me mull it over; maybe I can practice my thoughts here. You have probably already surmised that what was and is going on with the Black Madonnas is much, much older than what we would think of as ceremonial magick and it is older than Jesus, by a long shot.

Cant - Language of the Birds - Enochian

Meh, definitely not Enochian. may I ask where you got that idea? Was it something you read or did you come to this yourself? I could see how you would considering the word goetia and Dee's insistance upon Enochian coming from Angels.

Just trying to emphasize that old "spiritual alchemy" might be just that.

That's the really cool Greek stuff I am talking about. Platonic Mysticism; a seeking after more and more rarefied and singular forms as one seeks after goodness. I would say that I don't know how they ever got separated (the lab part and the spiritual part) but that would be silly.

reply to post by Frater210

You have probably already surmised that what was and is going on with the Black Madonnas is much, much older than what we would think of as ceremonial magick and it is older than Jesus, by a long shot.

Well my understanding is that is actually Isis ans is sometimes depicted with Horus, older than Greek I would presume? What's going on? I don't know. Like I said I was going out on a limb. Crack..

Meh, definitely not Enochian. may I ask where you got that idea? Was it something you read or did you come to this yourself? I could see how you would considering the word goetia and Dee's insistance upon Enochian coming from Angels.

This is where my "greenness" is going to show. Yeah read it on Wiki under the Language of the Birds entry and put that together with the goetia, Ninja! Haven't read much on Dee.

I would say that I don't know how they ever got separated (the lab part and the spiritual part) but that would be silly.

Yeah we covered that in Feb. on the Voynich thread.