Fulcanelli's "great" mystery

[jaylemurph]

There is slightly more to it, you have to remember that the guild of quacks has used "alchemy" for ages to lighten gullible from the burden of their purses. That went to the extent that on the demise of Johann Faust (yep, he existed and was not a pure invention by Goethe...though he called him Heinrich) the count of Zollern had a squadron of soldiers dispatched to impound all books or writings in his possession. Whatever his loot was it was not very impressive, as Faust surely took the quackery of the age to new levels.

Considering there was a rather notable play about Herr Doktor Faustus a good two hundred and twenty-odd years before Goethe, I should say he /wasn't/ Goethe's pure invention! :0)

--Jaylemurph

Edited April 27, 2014 by jaylemurph

[jaylemurph]

You might want to bear in mind that most of the important knowledge is freely available on the internet these days. There's no requirement to cross anyones palms with silver. Attempts to do so is frowned upon and is generally considered to be the mark of the charlatan.

I don't believe you'll find the slightest bit of evidence I've ever suggested I'm anything other than a charlatan and a fool. Certainly not on this site.

--Jaylemurph

[jaylemurph]

One thing I never understood about Alchemy, if the "introduction to the craft" for want of a better phrase is to transmute lead or another base metal into gold, then why aren't there any unaccountably rich people running around? If we assume most adepts are actually in it for the personal enlightenment there's still going to be the greedy soul here and there and yet ... nada. Barring one whose name escapes me, that is, who according to legend funded all sorts of things despite being dirt poor.

Well -- and I'm sure Ergo will volubly rebut if he disagrees -- at least for the Neo-Platonic strain of alchemy that gave rise to the Rosicrucians and take the works of Marsilio Ficino as its base (maybe at one or two removes), alchemy is symbolic on several different levels simultaneously. At its most basic level, yeah, there's the lead into gold schitck, but the same process also stands as a more figurative, spiritual relationship between the soul and god, the soul and the angels/spirits/demons/daemons, the mind and the soul, the body and the mind, individual and government, and god and the government. If your predictions or experiments with one particular aspect don't work, why then, you were probably just paying attention to the wrong symbolism. In fact, there are several tracts they say if you're just doing it for the gold, the experiments won't work (convenient, yes?).

But really, human greed and stupidity being what it is, does there need to me a rumor of more than one person for whom it works to keep the fire going?

--Jaylemurph

[ChrLzs]

Well, all this I-know-more-than-you-do is absolutely riveting stuff, but after reading the thread title and the OP... er .. what is the executive-summarised point of this thread, in words of three syllables or less..?

And was that 'Mystery School' sort of like Hogwart's?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Well, all this I-know-more-than-you-do is absolutely riveting stuff, but after reading the thread title and the OP... er .. what is the executive-summarised point of this thread, in words of three syllables or less..?

And was that 'Mystery School' sort of like Hogwart's?

The usual, academics are hacks because they don't give credence to X, I know better then experts because of Y.

Same old, same old.

[Harte]

I don't believe you'll find the slightest bit of evidence I've ever suggested I'm anything other than a charlatan and a fool. Certainly not on this site.

--Jaylemurph

Don't you believe it, fellers.

A true fool is incapable of defining himself as such.

Harte

[Jargogle Ergo]

One thing I never understood about Alchemy, if the "introduction to the craft" for want of a better phrase is to transmute lead or another base metal into gold, then why aren't there any unaccountably rich people running around? If we assume most adepts are actually in it for the personal enlightenment there's still going to be the greedy soul here and there and yet ... nada. Barring one whose name escapes me, that is, who according to legend funded all sorts of things despite being dirt poor.

Alchemy is not really about transmuting metals but the alchemist himself, as you later say. Very few of the better known alchemists ever attempted the transmutation of metals. Some diligent searching of the internet provide a small number of people who are said to have actually done this and benefited, and there is a story that the US Mint tested and accepted a small amount of metal from such a source. I understand, it can be done at the atomic level these days, but the cost is thought to be prohibitive.

Clearly, for the most part, we are dealing with a manufactured allegory. Alchemists of the middles ages developed this rubric because had it been known what they were actually doing, they faced the certainty of torture and being burned at the stake by the then Catholic church.

[Jargogle Ergo]

In Mystere, Fulcanelli provides a further glimpse into the hidden meaning behind the rose windows of the cathedrals. He says this:

In the Middle Ages, the central rose window of the porches was called Rota, the wheel. Now, the wheel is the alchemical hieroglyph of the time necessary for the coction of the philosophical matter, and consequently of the coction itself.

The definition of the word coction is the “act of boiling” and also “digestion”. The word itself derives from the latin coctio, meaning to cook or cooking. So Fulcanelli is clearly speaking of (heating) cooking something that then has to be digested.

Cooking food is alchemical simply because it is transformational in nature. Whereas in cooking food the skilled chef takes a raw ingredient and transforms it into something wonderful and delicious, the alchemist seeks to achieve the same thing by taking the raw ingredient and subject it to the secret or philosophic fire, and in doing so makes the wheel turn.

Alchemists had another name for the turning of the wheel, namely the circulatio - or the circulation. And this practice is not without considerable merit. But what is it that is being circulated?

Below is a picture of a Taoist alchemical circulation of the breath:

This image is accompanied by the description as follows:

“Taoist yogis - practitioners of qigong and inner alchemy - use the lower, middle and upper meridians to gather, refine and circulate qi (Chi)”.

Taoist monks would circulate their breath and chi in certain ways and this resulted in the production of a saliva that is then carefully swallowed. This saliva has been described as “manna”.

Since Taoist practices derived from Indian yoga systems we can see that we are also looking at the Chakra system too. Chi is prana and prana is chi.

Another image might additionally aid us:

The upright sitting position, rather than the usual lotus flower cross-legged position has a long tradition it is said:

In western systems as opposed to those from the east, the technique known as circulating the light is used and probably is the most suitable.

Here one focuses not just on regulating the breath, but requires a degree of concentrated imagination to draw in light and circulate that - in conjunction with the breath - through the body. Israel Regardie, condensed and developed this technique in his brief essay The Art of True Healing.

Regardie believed - as do I - that analytical psychology, namely the psychological school of Carl Gustav Jung, was indispensable to these matters and, indeed he studied for several years to obtain a doctorate in psychology and went on to practice psychotherapy - with a special interest in Reichian psycholoy. Later in his life he spurned magic, but clearly understood that it had greatly contributed to the richness of his life.

The foregoing might provide a glimpse of the hidden meaning that Fulcanelli was said to be “carefully revealing and concealing” at the same time. In his day these things were strictly secret; often because they were taught by schools or adepts who demanded their teaching be kept secret, often for understandable reasons to do with the school egregore - but also because there are dangers involved in these processes.

Tackling the shadow - a prerequisite for any serious student - needs to be handled with great care and attention. It is no easy thing and will take time to achieve too. In all probability it is best done under the guidance of a gifted (not all are) Jungian Analyst, or one who has trod what Jung termed the “path of the hero” and returned sound and well. This is because psychological imbalance can wreck havoc on those unprepared and untutored.

But the circulation of light exercise, if developed slowly and methodically as a daily regimen, is an excellent starting point, and will only be of benefit no matter how much further one wishes to proceed.

For some the associated intonation or vibration of “God” sounds might appear peculiar or even past their sell by date, but we need only bear in mind that this is an aid to achieving the desired result. From the east we hear the sound “Om” being substituted and the Taoists too used sounds and chants to focus their attention. In fact whatever part of the world you wish to explore, sounds and chants are used. It is all to do with harmonizing the mind in the correct way.

These exercises are to be done with care, focus and attention - but most importantly of all with the right attitude of mind - if success is to be acquired. Otherwise failure, or worse, will follow.

[Merc14]

@ Ergo - What is the point here or are you simply preaching now?

Edited April 28, 2014 by Merc14

[Leonardo]

Alchemy is not really about transmuting metals but the alchemist himself, as you later say.

I would venture that, before the Enlightenment and the advent of science to show 'alchemy' for what it is, alchemy was about "transmuting metals". It is only since that has been shown to be impossible by the means suggested that apologists have used the "it's about the alchemist" trope to justify their continued sympathy for the so-called discipline.

[questionmark]

I would venture that, before the Enlightenment and the advent of science to show 'alchemy' for what it is, alchemy was about "transmuting metals". It is only since that has been shown to be impossible by the means suggested that apologists have used the "it's about the alchemist" trope to justify their continued sympathy for the so-called discipline.

quite, quite.... and as far as I remember the first serious proponent of the golden soul version of alchemy was Titus Burckhardt (Principes et Méthodes de l’art sacré. Lyons: Derain, 1958 and Alchimie, Basle: Fondation Keimer, 1974; Milan: Archè, 1979)... who subsequently converted to Islam.... go figure....

[SHaYap]

quite, quite.... and as far as I remember the first serious proponent of the golden soul version of alchemy was Titus Burckhardt (Principes et Méthodes de l’art sacré. Lyons: Derain, 1958 and Alchimie, Basle: Fondation Keimer, 1974; Milan: Archè, 1979)... who subsequently converted to Islam.... go figure....

I don't quite follow ~ if this Titus fella had converted to any other religion then there is nothing to go 'figure' or is it his beliefs would then be regarded as well grounded ?

~

[bendigger0]

Alchemy is not really about transmuting metals but the alchemist himself, as you later say. Very few of the better known alchemists ever attempted the transmutation of metals. Some diligent searching of the internet provide a small number of people who are said to have actually done this and benefited, and there is a story that the US Mint tested and accepted a small amount of metal from such a source. I understand, it can be done at the atomic level these days, but the cost is thought to be prohibitive.

Clearly, for the most part, we are dealing with a manufactured allegory. Alchemists of the middles ages developed this rubric because had it been known what they were actually doing, they faced the certainty of torture and being burned at the stake by the then Catholic church.

Thanks for your work in presenting this fascinating information. The entrenched academics will always castigate the "fringe"; Gallileo, Copernicus, and Tesla come to mind. Then of course there's Sir Isaac Newton's own passionate interest in alchemy >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/newton-alchemy.html << It seems much simpler to aggrandize oneself with a snide critique of another's work, than engage in less self-serving dialogue about the presented material. Rocky Rockford's "trucker" buddy was named Falcon Eddy.

[jaylemurph]

I would venture that, before the Enlightenment and the advent of science to show 'alchemy' for what it is, alchemy was about "transmuting metals". It is only since that has been shown to be impossible by the means suggested that apologists have used the "it's about the alchemist" trope to justify their continued sympathy for the so-called discipline.

I would respectfully disagree. There's a gap of about a century between the rise of modern science (c. 1610 or so, with Harvey, Boyle and Bacon et al) and the Enlightenment (depending on the country, about 1740 or 1750), and it's in the gap that there was a substantial one of the periodic re-flowerings of alchemy, particularly the Rosicrucian variety. Much of the pre-Renaissance material on alchemy is pretty explicitly spiritual: even going back to Zosimus in the 4th Century CE, it's labelled as a spiritual process. Its spiritual basis is also assumed in the Corpum Hermeticum, which is from about the same time as Zosimus (may a touch earlier), but until the 1630s was assumed to be of the earliest antiquity.

That said, even in the works of Ben Jonson -- notably The Alchemist and Eastward Ho!* -- alchemy was assumed to be known even to the stupid in the audience as total bunk and its spiritual trappings a pretty obvious ruse for charlatans. Such as I am.

--Jaylemurph

*One of my favorite Jacobean play names. Pleasingly, there is, in fact, a Ho in it. Named "Sin Defy".

EDIT: Spelling

Edited April 29, 2014 by jaylemurph

[questionmark]

I don't quite follow ~ if this Titus fella had converted to any other religion then there is nothing to go 'figure' or is it his beliefs would then be regarded as well grounded ?

~

Well, if he did not find the "transmutation" in alchemy he must have looked somewhere else.... Looks like he found religion.

[Jargogle Ergo]

I would venture that, before the Enlightenment and the advent of science to show 'alchemy' for what it is, alchemy was about "transmuting metals". It is only since that has been shown to be impossible by the means suggested that apologists have used the "it's about the alchemist" trope to justify their continued sympathy for the so-called discipline.

I disagree.

The title of "Philosophers stone", dates back to at least the 3rd century AD (Zosimos) clearly indicates it is a philosophy rather than a metallurgical process. The Emerald Tablet also predates the Enlightenment and the advent of science, as you know. As did Thomas Aquinas and his Aurora Consurgens, amongst numerous other earlier philosophical texts.

Then we have Taoist and Hindu alchemists that clearly are philosophical in nature and who have an equally ancient history.

But I do agree that the subject is complex and that there were examples of metallurgical transmutation amongst some alchemists and associated puffers.

In the last analysis, people see what they wish to see and these dearly held beliefs are very largely based on their own directing psychological dispositions and complexes. Were it ever so.

[Jargogle Ergo]

Thanks for your work in presenting this fascinating information. The entrenched academics will always castigate the "fringe"; Gallileo, Copernicus, and Tesla come to mind. Then of course there's Sir Isaac Newton's own passionate interest in alchemy >> http://www.pbs.org/w...on-alchemy.html << It seems much simpler to aggrandize oneself with a snide critique of another's work, than engage in less self-serving dialogue about the presented material. Rocky Rockford's "trucker" buddy was named Falcon Eddy.

Thank you. I am long enough in the tooth to appreciate that there are those who are able to "see and hear" - and those who, perhaps understandably, shy well clear of either option.

It's the way of the world.

[ChrLzs]

I'll ask again, what was the point of all this exactly? Because, Fulcanell, I'm confused.

I know, I'm probably not worthy...

[questionmark]

I'll ask again, what was the point of all this exactly? Because, Fulcanell, I'm confused.

I know, I'm probably not worthy...

The gospel of the alchemist my friend, the gospel of the alchemist.... and those intend on spreading it. The wrong forum, but hey, can't have everything.

[jaylemurph]

Thank you. I am long enough in the tooth to appreciate that there are those who are able to "see and hear" - and those who, perhaps understandably, shy well clear of either option.

It's the way of the world.

I have to say, those who correctly "see and hear" are never shy about expressing either their special abilities or the unique form of smugness it confers upon them. But just being a common-or-garden charlatan fool, I reckon I'm not fit to pass judgement on the seeing and hearing elect.

--Jaylemurph

[Jargogle Ergo]

I have to say, those who correctly "see and hear" are never shy about expressing either their special abilities or the unique form of smugness it confers upon them. But just being a common-or-garden charlatan fool, I reckon I'm not fit to pass judgement on the seeing and hearing elect.

--Jaylemurph

Pity that you have given up on your Night-Hawk dream diary / posts. I found them interesting. You and your Basset hounds, eh.

[Jargogle Ergo]

I'll ask again, what was the point of all this exactly? Because, Fulcanell, I'm confused.

In reply to your question Confused:

Hic opus, hic labore est.

[Jargogle Ergo]

The wrong forum, but hey, can't have everything.

Please explain Why you think it is the wrong forum?

[ChrLzs]

In reply to your question Confused:

Hic opus, hic labore est.

At last!! Thanks - I now have a full and complete picture of you and the nature of your claims...

I'm no longer confused. Bye.

[Jargogle Ergo]

I'm no longer confused. Bye.

Oh yes you are...

Hopelessly so, imo.

And since you have repeatedly made a point of it, let me go further but in a different and more pointed way.

I have my doubts about you, but it's been a heck of a long time since I asked others to carry my water.

Do you own work.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Jargogle Ergo