Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

Aingeal · 01-24-2010, 03:35 PM

Quote:Untrue. This is from my first post on this subject: "For example, it was chemists, not alchemists, who went on to advance human knowledge of chemistry and it will be social leaders who advance humanity, not mystical rabbis." It is mystical rabbis who study the Kabbalah and my point was and is history just does not show mystical rabbis contributing much to the advancement of human knowledge. I threw in Madonna as irony but I guess that didn't register with you. Guess I'll have to fire my writers..Cool

You definitely have to fire whoever "taught" you about alchemy, because all Alchemists worth their salt and sulfur and mercury had to study Kabbalah. All of them were Kabbalists, at least the ones we know of.

[And, the actual alchemist will wipe off her soapbox now and hand it back to Big P.]

biomystic · 01-24-2010, 06:43 PM

(01-24-2010 03:35 PM)Aingeal Wrote:
Quote:Untrue. This is from my first post on this subject: "For example, it was chemists, not alchemists, who went on to advance human knowledge of chemistry and it will be social leaders who advance humanity, not mystical rabbis." It is mystical rabbis who study the Kabbalah and my point was and is history just does not show mystical rabbis contributing much to the advancement of human knowledge. I threw in Madonna as irony but I guess that didn't register with you. Guess I'll have to fire my writers..Cool

You definitely have to fire whoever "taught" you about alchemy, because all Alchemists worth their salt and sulfur and mercury had to study Kabbalah. All of them were Kabbalists, at least the ones we know of.

[And, the actual alchemist will wipe off her soapbox now and hand it back to Big P.]

Where did I say alchemists didn't study Kabbalah? What I did say was that real advancement of human knowledge about chemistry was done by chemists who did this because they were willing to go beyond the narrow goal of alchemists and starting using the scientific method instead of relying on the ideas of ancient men.

Parousia · 01-25-2010, 10:02 AM

(01-24-2010 03:35 PM)Aingeal Wrote: [And, the actual alchemist will wipe off her soapbox now and hand it back to Big P.]

Venedi Sporoi · (This post was last modified: 01-25-2010 02:51 PM by Venedi Sporoi.)

(01-24-2010 06:43 PM)biomystic Wrote:
(01-24-2010 03:35 PM)Aingeal Wrote:
Quote:Untrue. This is from my first post on this subject: "For example, it was chemists, not alchemists, who went on to advance human knowledge of chemistry and it will be social leaders who advance humanity, not mystical rabbis." It is mystical rabbis who study the Kabbalah and my point was and is history just does not show mystical rabbis contributing much to the advancement of human knowledge. I threw in Madonna as irony but I guess that didn't register with you. Guess I'll have to fire my writers..Cool

You definitely have to fire whoever "taught" you about alchemy, because all Alchemists worth their salt and sulfur and mercury had to study Kabbalah. All of them were Kabbalists, at least the ones we know of.

[And, the actual alchemist will wipe off her soapbox now and hand it back to Big P.]

Where did I say alchemists didn't study Kabbalah? What I did say was that real advancement of human knowledge about chemistry was done by chemists who did this because they were willing to go beyond the narrow goal of alchemists and starting using the scientific method instead of relying on the ideas of ancient men.

Where does alchemy end and chemistry begin? Around the point where religion becomes insignificant to it altogether, I would say. Insofar as chemistry through the ages had anything to do with religion or philosophy, it was alchemical. Once you remove the mysticism from it near the modern era, the religious background of those who pioneered the field is no longer very relevant.

Mr Cheese · (This post was last modified: 02-24-2010 02:55 PM by Mr Cheese.)

(12-23-2009 02:34 AM)wisdom007 Wrote: Can any one suggest a book on Kabbalah ? have a list of Kabbalah books ?

http://magdelene.wordpress.com/kabbalah-literature/

enjoy...

(10-15-2009 12:36 AM)Azrael17 Wrote: I'm a complex person when it comes to Alchemy because to me it's a collection of Ideas. You could say my True Religion is Alchemy.

Alchemy = God Created our Souls so that we can Transcend and become one with her. Once united with God we can then proceed to help others.

Alchemy = Logic & Creative Reasoning.
Alchemy = Mind Over Matter
Alchemy = Any thing is Possible but that doesn't mean any thing will happen!
Alchemy = Progress/Change
Alchemy = Rules are not set in stone, but Humanity needs them and our Rules should be adapted to keep us Safe and Happy.

Actual alchemy of course, western, derives from Islam and has roots in ancient china...

visita intreriora terrae rectificando invenies occultum lapidem

(01-25-2010 02:48 PM)Venedi Sporoi Wrote: Where does alchemy end and chemistry begin? Around the point where religion becomes insignificant to it altogether, I would say. Insofar as chemistry through the ages had anything to do with religion or philosophy, it was alchemical. Once you remove the mysticism from it near the modern era, the religious background of those who pioneered the field is no longer very relevant.

This might help if you like...

...........

Despite the insistence of historians of science, alchemy was never, except in its degenerate aspects, a primitive chemistry. It was a "sacramental" science in which material phenomena were not autonomous, but represented only the "condensation" of psychic and spiritual realities. When the spontaneity and mystery of nature is penetrated, it becomes transparent. On the one hand it is transfigured under the lightning-flashes of divine energies, and on the other it incorporates and symbolizes those "angelic" states that fallen man can only glimpse for brief moments, when listening to music or when contemplating a human face. Symbols are not meant to be "stuck onto" things: they are the very structure, the presence, and the beauty of things such as they are in the process of perfection in God. For alchemy, which is the science of symbol, there was no question, as has sometimes been said, of a "material" unity of nature, but of a spiritual unity – one could almost say a spiritual Assumption of nature. For nature, ultimately, is none other than the place of a metaphysical principle: through man it becomes the body of the Word and, as it were, the bride of God.

This Assumption of matter is the key to the alchemical work, which simply helps substances "to plunge into the Father-nature," that is, to incorporate, according to their mode of being, the greatest possible spiritual light. "Creatures must plunge into this Father-nature and become Unity and the only Son, "for nature, which is God, seeks only the image of God." "Copper, because of its nature, can become silver, and silver, by its nature, can become gold: so neither one nor the other stops or pauses until this identity is realized." For gold is the most perfect of metals, the one whose luminous density best expresses the divine presence in the mineral realm: through spiritual continuity each metal is virtually gold and each stone becomes precious in God. This transfiguration of nature – memory of Eden and expectation of the second coming (Parousia) – can at present only take effect in the heart of man, the central and conscious being of the creation. Indeed, that being so, "the eye of the heart" can see gold in lead and crystal in the mountain, because it can see the world in God.

Alchemy, like all the ancient sciences, was therefore an immense effort to awaken man to the divine omnipresence. Its importance is to have emphasized this omnipresence in the darkest heaviness: there where the pseudo-mystical, "idealistic" perspective would be least likely to look for it; there, on the contrary, where, according to the analogical inversion of a "sacramental" vision, the divine omnipresence "contracts” and most strongly withdraws into itself. If the production of metallic gold has sometimes been achieved, then it was simply a sign. It was no more of a miracle than that of a saint whose look transforms a sinner. Just as the saint sees in the sinner the possibility of sanctity, so the alchemist-sage saw in the lead the possibility of metallic sanctity, that is, of gold. And this vision was "operative."

But the alchemist did not seek to make metallic gold. That was not the true meaning of his work. His purpose was to unite his soul so intimately with that of the metals that he could remind them that they are in God, that is, that they are gold. The medieval alchemist actualized the Word of Christ to the letter: he proclaimed the good news to all creatures. "The stone is the Christ," all the Hermetic texts of the Middle Ages hopefully repeat. Through his vision of Christic Gold, the alchemist could transmute every "imperfect metal." But he did it only rarely, for as a saint, he knew that the time for cosmic transfiguration had not yet come.

Extract from Alchemy: the Cosmological Yoga (by Maurice Aniane)

If anyone wants to discuss Kabbalah...I'd be happy to, I ahve been "participating" on and off for about ten years now.... although I wouldn't call myself an expert, I know enough top hold a conversation.
......................................................................

In Hebrew, a prophet is called a navi. Practioner Ayeh Kaplan pointed out that this word has three etymologies. One is navach (to cry out), another is nava (to gush, to flow forth) and the last is navuv (to be hollow). All three etymologies help us understand biblical meditation and its relationship to prophecy and enlightenment. For the prophet was as one hollow, his or her ego stripped away. The prophet was the flute through which flowed the Infinite One’s wind and melody.

–Avram Davis

Venedi Sporoi · 02-24-2010, 11:05 PM

None of which fails to make Alchemy a stepping stone for chemistry responsible for familiarizing people with certain basic compounds. If you look at my post, I acknowledged that it was a spiritual art- in fact, that was part of my point. You can argue that this Maurice is right and that historians of science are wrong, and that science in alchemy was "degenerate" alchemy, but I am familiar enough with alchemical texts to know that it had some pertinence to early chemistry despite being very mystified.

Mr Cheese · 02-25-2010, 09:10 AM

(02-24-2010 11:05 PM)Venedi Sporoi Wrote: None of which fails to make Alchemy a stepping stone for chemistry responsible for familiarizing people with certain basic compounds. If you look at my post, I acknowledged that it was a spiritual art- in fact, that was part of my point. You can argue that this Maurice is right and that historians of science are wrong, and that science in alchemy was "degenerate" alchemy, but I am familiar enough with alchemical texts to know that it had some pertinence to early chemistry despite being very mystified.

Oh of course, one merely had to look to the likes of Newton for example..or to some extent Paracelcus. However arguably the "chemistry" was secondary...as alchemy is "operational" Hermeticism..

I severely doubt the likes of Robert Fludd for example was actively seeking chemistry though. The degenerate really is assuming alchemy was JUST an exercise in changing compounds and elements. Which of course it was and is not.