My prayer to the operators of Alchemy

over

Traveller wrote:

Not yet, Sir i'm here. If someone had to lead the forum then other have to become a junior, so that's what I did.

Why does anybody have to lead the forum? Why can't we all contribute as equals?

Why did you erase all your valuable posts?

You are right Pulvis, but if someone going towards the wrong side, then in this case the person has no option left and becomes silent, that's what our religion teaches us, and humanity as well. Because in that case I can't help it.

And about my messages, I saw that nobody rate them, so I have deleted the crap things.

Traveller wrote:

You are right Pulvis, but if someone going towards the wrong side, then other have to be silent, that's what our religion teaches us, and humanity as well. Because in that case I can't help it.

And about my messages, I saw that nobody rate them, so I have deleted the crap things.

I don't believe in being silent. There are always two perspectives until the two perspectives gradually come together through mutual understanding. Keeping silent is like giving full credence to whatever is said.

As for the messages, none are rated. It's not about boosting one's ego with ratings but saying what needs to be said. I've written some of my best words of wisdom without a single response. But someday, someone may come along, read some of the past posts and be moved by it. If not, I just move on.

Pulvis, I think he meant "nobody read them"... but I could be wrong...

skipperthekipper wrote:

Pulvis, I think he meant "nobody read them"... but I could be wrong...

Possibly, but it still applies. Not having read someone's post, or dismissing it, is equivalent to a fairly low rating or a very low degree of interest.

over

hi Traveller
Welcome to your future book about the pratice alchemy
and I hope that your book is clear and explicit as those book of nik
and now I look with interest and curiosity to read it

Welcome to your future book we wait to read it welcome

my best regard alexbr

over

Traveller wrote:

About the possibility of rating or dismissal, we can't say anything, because, someone's interest or dismissal, to anything, is depend on his education in alchemy, whoever is going to read the posts.

The way I see it is, if you know little about alchemy, then it is appropriate to ask questions; if you know a lot, you can either challenge or add to what has been said. In either case, a discussion forum is just that - for discussion purposes. Otherwise the person is not interested in alchemy at all, just possibly curious.

Quote :

In example, you see there are 1000s of peoples who have worked on GW, but nobody ever think that is this the right thing what we are working on.

Well, I for one do not necessarily think that it is the traditional path. Which puts me in the very tiny minority.

Quote :

And my brother about my messages I have not deleted them, I just saved them in my PC, because without see any rating, I have come to know that my style of writing is exactly that of the philosophers, that it is not going to reveal anything. Actually I was checking this, right after posting them on internet.

Yes, true - much of what you wrote were quotes or paraphrases from what has already been written. Thus it is expected that the style would be identical to what the masters wrote.

Quote :

And after this approval what I want, I'm gonna publish my Book on Alchemy, which may enlighten everyone, who worked on GW, or on any other disgusting thing, but again only to them who only deserve it, or who have a right mind and good space of time to spend in Alchemy. And about GW, this is not disgusting i know, but in the way how peoples do the same work, then in that case it becomes disgusting.

I hope the book will provide much more than what the masters wrote. There are many books today that only repeat what they wrote, but in even less understandable language.

Quote :

Actually i have to finish some works, i am doing here in my lab, and then i'm gonna work on my Book. Which will pass the old masters, in their eruditions about Nature. Actually i wasn't like to do such a thing, but i will do, because you see after Paracelsus, i can't rightly take any philosophers name who rightly guide Alchemy towards light. So we need someone, especially in our modern times, who have a mind of just like the ancients but who can also mastered all this science in this our modern era, and can demonstrate the words of alchemy in the terms of our modern chemistry. What do think about it.

There have been several such books. For example, I would recommend the books by Lawrence M. Principe and William R. Newman, such as "Alchemy Tried in the Fire", "Gehennical Fire", George Starkey: Alchemical Laboratory Notebooks", "The Aspiring Adept", and "Promethian Ambitions'.

The major problem with most modern scientific writers, however, is that they take too much of a literal interpretation of what the masters wrote. There are few today who can comprehend the philosophical and theoretical parts of the texts, which explains how Nature works, in terms of generation, through putrefaction and rebirth. Also, how rocks, minerals and metals grow in the earth, and their particular attributes and natures. The Masters were not called "Philosophers" for nothing. If their writings were as literal as most interpret them to be, they would have called themselves "scientists" instead.

I consider the theoretical/philosophical parts of the old texts to be absolutely integral to the understanding of the practical parts, which were written in code, but on the surface, and subsurface and at least one layer deeper, appear to be either almost literal, or sublimely so.

Hi Traveller,
With your book, I just want to say, Man... go for it! You have alot of intricate knowledge. It could be that you will bring peoples Soul on the right track as well. I commend that, and you are the right person for this Job, so... go for it. Tell us when it is out, I will certainly buy a copy!

Hi Pulvis,
Your underlying support for Traveller, makes good sense. This Forum is moving better than I would have expected.

over

over

over

Traveller wrote:

PulvisRubeus wrote:

The way I see it is, if you know little about alchemy, then it is appropriate to ask questions; if you know a lot, you can either challenge or add to what has been said. In either case, a discussion forum is just that - for discussion purposes. Otherwise the person is not interested in alchemy at all, just possibly curious.

Yes I understand, you said these things many times about the discussions, and about the forums, and I didn’t rightly replied that what is the main cause, because in the case of controversy, there is a problem, that in this case I have to go more deeper in the understanding of Alchemy and try to give answers to others, which I can’t be able to do, and in result I leave the spot. Actual reason is, as I told you that it is not my native language, so its somewhere hard for me to give the answers of others questions, or can be said that by doing this, there serves a lot of time, which I don’t need to spend in such a thing, and also in the case of controversy other should have to understand a single word, what I already told him, and he himself need to search on this, in place of asking me again and again, and contradicting my theory. For example if a common person ask a question to Donald Trump, and take him towards a controversy, then is the big man replied him again and again, even the man who is asking question is lack in his knowledge, so the problem is in the person who is asking questions, so he need to understand or widen his mind, when a thing already told him once.

You had mentioned that many of your comments weren't rated (or responded to) so you deleted them, so my comment wasn't directed towards you, but to all the silent people on this forum who do not respond, even if the comment is directed towards a specific individual.

Quote :

And about English, there ain’t a big problem but a little bit, I know Language is only a vehicle to convey meanings. But until a person ain’t perceive anyone speaking a language, uttering the words with a right pronunciation, and accent, he will never be able to expertise in speaking the same language. Anyways I will find someone who could have better modify my writings into an English language.

Your English is good enough to understand most of the time. But if you do decide on writing a book in English, it would be wise to have someone who knows English and your native language well to edit the book to polish the language.

Quote :

And I was talking about perfection, from all the writing of the adepts, even including Paracelsus, some philosophers have worked on single thing, others worked on millions, I don’t think in both conditions it’s a perfect thing. For example if a philosopher is capable to make a medicine from Zinc, then there could be many ways to make it into 20 different styles. But only one leads towards the higher perfection. Then if we exclude all other 19, then the same work on “Zinc”, will get its end after giving us only a single chapter.

Alchemists talk about using a different number of "things". There is always a controversy about how many things are to be used. Part of this depends on what they mean by "things". Do they mean actual physical things like minerals, salts, dew, etc., or do they mean Philosophical "things" or concepts/properties such as wet, cold, hot, dry, earth, air, fire, water, etc.? In my interpretation of reading their texts, they are usually counting the philosophical properties, and so deliberately misleading the reader into thinking they are talking about the number of specific ingredients used in the preparation.

Quote :

So my actual Aim is, that if we exclude all other extra things, when we work on something and only take the one way which is perfect and highest, then it can more shorten our task and our pursuit in Alchemy.

But this is the same as saying that you are trying to find the right process. There are often many processes mentioned in the texts - some of them are simply known as "particulars". They do not lead to the Stone, but are interesting experiments that lead to fuller understanding of the alchemical principles. Other processes are inaccurate interpretations of what the ancients wrote. Just because a text was well known does not mean that the text was legitimate. There were hundreds of fake alchemists who left behind texts of processes that do not represent true alchemy. Then there are at least two legitimate ways to make the Stone - the short dry way and the long wet way. Most texts talk about the long way.

Traveller wrote:

This is what I want to do, which is not like the older philosophers, but actually when we read all of them, then I say, they also always about to achieve that perfect way, but in all their pursuit in finding that best they encounter different methods as when they go to work on one thing, so what they do they also mentioned all of that previous methods in their books which they find during the pursuit of that best one, which create problems and complexity for understanding.

For example Basil Valentine have made many cures but his only last method of “Stone of Fire” was towards the perfection, and about the cures of his “Stone Ignis” you can read there, that it will fulfill and cure, the all other disorders, which Basil Valentine didn’t cure early in his methods which he mentioned in through all over his book.

Again, as mentioned above, many alchemists mention many "particulars" in their text. These particulars were just learning experiments to understand the nature of how different matters reacted with each other. They were not different ways of achieving the Stone. Many of the alchemists were also considered as medical practitioners as well as alchemists. They prepared many different medicines for various ailments. Paracelsus is a perfect example, and included many such preparations in his texts. But that doesn't mean that all these processes led to the Stone. There is only one true way to the Stone, but which can be achieved in two different ways.

You also have to keep in mind that on the way to the Stone, the alchemist prepares a Universal Medicine. This is what cures and heals, not the final Stone. Pure gold or silver is added to the Universal Medicine to make either the white or yellow Stone. This resultant Stone can ONLY be used for the purpose of transmutation. It can then no longer be used for medicinal purposes. So if the interest is in Medicine, one has to stop short before making the actual Philosophers Stone.

Traveller wrote:

About this I just say, that you have to admit it that basic theory never go to be change in anyway. Like Sun, Moon,/ Salt, Sulfur, Mercury,/ Prima Materia,/ Philosophers Stone, and Mercury/ stars, planets their correspondence towards earth,/ Duality / Trinity / Quintessence the Fifth Being/ and all other alchemical stuff.

Now philosophers use these things to prepare their one matter, but I will use these things in my writings for all 9.

I look forward to your book. However, I think that the alchemists of the past did address most of these "things", either directly, or indirectly. Not all of them addressed them all at the same time, but different alchemists addressed different parts of them in different writings. To bring these all together in one philosophical writing would be fascinating and helpful.

over

Hi Traveller,

It is always awesome to witnesses another one's great interest in the work as well adding to your personal quest of compiling an assembled collection of ideas, thoughts and processes. This art requires some modern interpertations to further help those of us who cannot always read through the veiled allegories and hidden meanings.

Of course if we are not aligned with our desired God, then we are not deserving of this Art.

We all wish you much achievement in your journey.

Traveller wrote:

And I think everyone here could understand me, except of you.

What is it that you think I don't understand?

over

over

Traveller wrote:

I am seeing more than that, for example I haven't mention my any method yet, and you are guessing by your mind, that all of them are from the books of the philosophers, that they have already mentioned these methods in their books. What is it.

If this is the case, then please tell me and guide me, that where you have seen my these methods of making 9 Elixirs. Because I also want to broaden my mind.

You said: "Like Sun, Moon,/ Salt, Sulfur, Mercury,/ Prima Materia,/ Philosophers Stone, and Mercury/ stars, planets their correspondence towards earth,/ Duality / Trinity / Quintessence the Fifth Being/ and all other alchemical stuff."

These appear to be your "9 Elixirs". All these are mentioned by the philosophers in various writings. I could provide numerous quotes, but they are so well-known already that I won't waste my time. Why you call them your 9 Elixirs is truly beyond me, so I will wait for your further elaboration. I'm surprised to hear that EVERYBODY else on this forum understands this mystery but me. I must be a real moron.

over

over