ernobe

Practical alchemy apology

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Rubaphilos makes the case for practical, laboratory alchemy, against those who might think there could never be anything of spiritual significance to it:

 

 

His videos are pretty cool for the format: music and nature scenes at the beginning and end, so even if you don't agree with everything he says, you can't fail to get in the mood. :blink:

 

EDITT: Oops I got the videos mixed up.  The one in which he makes the apology for practical alchemy is No. 18:

 

 

Edited by ernobe
wrong video
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don' t have time to watch a video that shows one phrase of a few fords  - every 8 seconds .

 

You should also write text about the vid or the subject to focus your intent or subject .

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nungali If you watch more than few minutes you will get to Rubaphilos speaking.  As for the subject or intent, if you want it in the form of a question for discussion, it could be the following:  Why does Rubaphilos first affirm the validity of a physical process of alchemy, and then say that the alchemists' belief in or rejection of transmutation depends on his own personal motives in making such a claim?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because that  applies to numerous subjects and things people get involved with . 

 

UFOs. a specific scripture, a magical process  - we all have beliefs and rejections that are based on our own personal motives . But sometimes the motives are unknown and unconscious and we are not aware of it .

 

When I worked in agricultural alchemy, I had no investment, I got paid each week regardless, people would ask me if I believed if it worked or not and I would say - maybe , some of our customers seem to think so.  Try it and come to your own conclusions.

 

The CEO of the company however was still paying off a mortgage, wanted to keep the company car, had an ego investment and was part of, if not the head of, an associated 'spiritual group' .   He insisted it worked to a ridiculous level, even against our own directions of preparation !  He had big  motivations to push it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His motives may have been hidden from you at the beginning, but he has no excuse saying that they were unknown to him and that he was unconscious and not aware of them.   Did he become aware of them because you did?   I don't think so.  Likewise with regard to so-called esoteric training: the student doesn't just magically become aware of things about himself because the teacher pointed them out to him.  They were his all along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Wot ?

 

What made you think he said to me they were unknown to him ????  And how and why would someone that was unconscious and unaware of something   say that they were unconscious and unaware of something that they were unconscious and unaware of ?

 

:huh:

 

I dont think he became aware of them at all , and  my observations of his process were not communicated to him. Why did you assume they were ? 

 

Then after these strange postulations you state   "I dont think so ' .   - Well,  neither do  I think so, because that stuff never happened .

 

As far as not being aware of something some teacher point out  becasue they were there all along ....   I havent a clue what you are talking about.

 

You must have read a lot of stuff into my response that was never there in the first place .  :unsure:

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ernobe said:

he has no excuse saying that they were unknown to him

 

By "saying" I meant "thinking".

 

25 minutes ago, ernobe said:

the student doesn't just magically become aware

 

By "become aware" I also meant "think".

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this degenerates into complete nonsense, let me do something that ernobe should have done, but did not, which is tell us who Rubaphilos is and something of his background, according to Occult of Personality:

 

Quote

“Rubaphilos Salfluere began his nine year alchemical apprenticeship in 1988, under the private instruction of Frater Albertus Spagyricus’ last active New Zealand graduate. By 1990, he had founded a small alchemical study group whose aim is the preservation and further development of the knowledge that he inherited from his teacher. Today that group continues to serve as a vehicle for private tuition and collaborative research.”  (Rubaphilos Salfluere and Hermetic Laboratory Alchemy)

 

and has been the author of several books including some published by Salamander and Sons, which while they seem to be out of business also seem to have published some very interesting serious work on Laboratory alchemy.

 

If he studied with a student of Frater Albertus, then he has a legitimate pedigree at least, and for those inclined to look at videos, there may be something to be learned from what he says.  I don't care to watch videos, but for those who do, I don't think that he can be idly dismissed.

 

ZYD

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But he didnt 'think' they were known to him either .

 

I dont know what you are on about       :unsure:

 

and you are responding to yourself  up there   ^

 

Its fine if you do not want a conversation, nor answer any questions  about this I put to you .  I will just vacate .

 

Bye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zhongyongdaoist said:

Before this degenerates into complete nonsense, let me do something that ernobe should have done, but did not, which is tell us who Rubaphilos is and something of his background, according to Occult of Personality:

 

 

and has been the author of several books including some published by Salamander and Sons, which while they seem to be out of business also seem to have published some very interesting serious work on Laboratory alchemy.

 

If he studied with a student of Frater Albertus, then he has a legitimate pedigree at least, and for those inclined to look at videos, there may be something to be learned from what he says.  I don't care to watch videos, but for those who do I don't think that he can be idly dismissed.

 

ZYD

 

That makes sense - thanks  ....  I have some works by  Fr. A.     so I now see his validity .

 

What is your view, Donald, on the posters question ;

 

" Why does Rubaphilos first affirm the validity of a physical process of alchemy, and then say that the alchemists' belief in or rejection of transmutation depends on his own personal motives in making such a claim? "

 

( Which i thought was the actual issue here , and which I was trying to answer )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

That makes sense - thanks  ....  I have some works by  Fr. A.     so I now see his validity .

 

What is your view, Donald, on the posters question ;

 

" Why does Rubaphilos first affirm the validity of a physical process of alchemy, and then say that the alchemists' belief in or rejection of transmutation depends on his own personal motives in making such a claim? "

 

( Which i thought was the actual issue here , and which I was trying to answer )

 

After my post it occurred to me that I made the same mistake as ernobe, I didn't say who Albertus was, and very few on the Dao Bums will have any idea.  Frater Albertus was the single minded driving force behind the revival of laboratory alchemy in the mid Twentieth Century.

 

Quote

Frater Albertus Spagyricus (Dr. Albert Richard Riedel) born May 5,(1911–1984); founder of the Paracelsus Research Society in Salt Lake City, which later evolved into the Paracelsus College. Based on the Paracelsian concept of three essentials, Body, Soul and Spirit, Frater Albertus developed a system of teaching alchemical concepts using the spagyric technique of separation and cohobation. The unique graduated courses allowed students to explore aspects of the vegetable, mineral and animal kingdoms in an understandable and accessible way. After his death in 1984, the college ceased operations in the United States but continued to carry on the tradition in Australia. Frater Albertus had a profound effect on the way Alchemy and particularly the Spagyric method was disseminated and understood in the mid to late 20th century. His works were translated into many languages. He was a rosicrucian (an AMORC member).  (Wikipedia Frater Albertus)

 

I can only speculate at what ernobe may have meant by this:

 

" Why does Rubaphilos first affirm the validity of a physical process of alchemy, and then say that the alchemists' belief in or rejection of transmutation depends on his own personal motives in making such a claim? "

But, I would restate one way of taking what he says this way, basically quoting the first part as written:

 

"Why does Rubaphilos first affirm the validity of a physical process of alchemy, and then say that the alchemists' belief in or rejection of transmutation depends on his own personal worldview and reasons which he has for holding that worldview, and whether that worldview allows transmutation as a real possibility or not."

 

For example there are people who holding a rather common view of the world as made up of "spirit" and "matter", each of which obeys its own rules, might very well be open to a notion of "spiritual" alchemy and dismiss the notion of "laboratory" alchemy seeking to transmute "base metals into gold", would be so much stuff and nonsense.  There are a large number of people here on the Dao Bums who would hold just such a view, and precious few who would be willing to seriously entertain the notion of a "physical" philosopher's stone, as past discussions of alchemy here on the Dao Bums has shown.

 

I don't have time for a longer discussion now.

 

ZYD
 

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2018 at 7:06 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

If he studied with a student of Frater Albertus, then he has a legitimate pedigree at least, and for those inclined to look at videos, there may be something to be learned from what he says.  I don't care to watch videos, but for those who do, I don't think that he can be idly dismissed.

 

 

There is no evidence that I am aware of to indicate that Frater Albertus had done anything more than to popularize alchemy. I have yet to come across anything which suggests he had succeeded in achieving a mineral stone and much to indicate that he had badly erred in some fundamental ways. No others who have publicly come forth from his "lineage" have offered any public evidence (or private, though of course I may not be privy to it) that they have succeeded in any significant respect either. 

 

There is no evidence that the student mentioned had succeeded either, though she was certainly a serious student. There is no evidence that she had taught Rubaphilos much of anything other than his own statements that she had mentored him. From personal experience, I can tell you that much of what Rubaphilos claims publicly is intentionally false, and much of what he appears to believe he is mistaken about.

 

As a case in point, Dubuis is reported (by Rubaphilos) to have performed transmutations to silver in private. However, few know that his method was written about by Boerhaave, who reported that the substance resulting from this process could not stand up to metallurgical scrutiny. Dubuis (and the PoN) may have believed their transmutation to silver to be genuine, but both have stated that it could not be used to transmute lesser metals to gold.


One can research the historical facts in the Heredom Group origin story and decide for themselves how probable it is to be truthful.

 

The so-called "acetate path" described by Rubaphilos (and others) is similarly founded on errors. Those pursuing it risk self-poisoning.

 

As for the claim that having written a book about alchemy lends one some credibility, I simply note that most alchemical authors were frauds or simply copied their receipts from other books, having never tried them.

 

UFA

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FraterUFA said:
On 8/11/2018 at 5:06 PM, Zhongyongdaoist said:

If he studied with a student of Frater Albertus, then he has a legitimate pedigree at least, and for those inclined to look at videos, there may be something to be learned from what he says.  I don't care to watch videos, but for those who do, I don't think that he can be idly dismissed. (Bold added, ZYD)

 

 

There is no evidence that I am aware of to indicate that Frater Albertus had done anything more than to popularize alchemy. I have yet to come across anything which suggests he had succeeded in achieving a mineral stone and much to indicate that he had badly erred in some fundamental ways. No others who have publicly come forth from his "lineage" have offered any public evidence (or private, though of course I may not be privy to it) that they have succeeded in any significant respect either. 

 

FraterUFA, I was hoping that you would put in an appearance, and as the only person posting on the Dao Bums whose opinion in these matters I would give credence to, I consider your criticism to be anything but an idle dismissal.  My "I don't think that he can be idly dismissed", was intentionally about as lukewarm as I could make it based on my own quick look at him.  As for your observations about Frater Albertus, I had reached similar conclusions by the mid 70s, but where would any of us be without him?  On the other hand when you said in one of your posts years ago, that alcohol was not the mercury of the vegetable kingdom as many moderns maintain, I knew that you had thought deeply about the matter and read the sages carefully.  While alcohol is a "spirit" and a menstruum it cannot be "the Mercury" because it lacks the generative virtue which "the Mercury" must have.  The fact that you knew that, and other things that you have said, are to my mind convincing evidence that you have gone far deeper into the matter than many others.

 

I don't have time to say much more than what I have, though I did think about writing my own defense of laboratory alchemy, as I was not impressed with what I read about his speculations about quantum mechanics etc, but on thinking about it, I decided it would be way to time consuming at this time.

 

ZYD

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@FraterUFA

If I remember correctly, Heredom was a group created by Rubaphilos based on what he calls a third generation Rosicrucian model, both of which however are nowadays equally defunct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If I remember correctly, Heredom was a group created by Rubaphilos based on what he calls a third generation Rosicrucian model, both of which however are nowadays equally defunct.

 

I don't know how to judge if an organizational model is defunct or not. It is whatever he chooses it to be and there are merits in tiered systems that some are quick to dismiss.

 

One should give credit to Rubaphilos for avoiding the most common errors of explaining away alchemy in terms of some completely unrelated system (Taoism, Yoga, meditation, etc). He rightly champions a physical interpretation of alchemy. Yet he does so in parallel with a psychological model. The Heredom system is deeply rooted in Jungian psychology and Jung's interpretation of alchemy was his own creation, uninformed by the alchemical tradition.

 

So the fundamental error is still there, once removed. In other words, if Jung was wrong about alchemy (and he was), then a system based on Jungian psychology necessarily incorporates mistaken assumptions about alchemy.

 

If we wish to understand alchemy, we must meet it on its own terms. Not with preconceptions that we wish to be true. Pre-Enlightenment alchemists did not conceive the world in a purely material manner as we are taught. Nor did they - as far as I can tell - always seek out God or external intelligences to grant them secret knowledge. It appears to me that those who came across their knowledge did so either by the generosity of a teacher or by their own hard work. Yes, many prayed. But as the Dali Lama wrote, the effects of prayer are invisible - if indeed, prayer works at all.

 

And even if they had sought out intelligences to teach them, what would they find? I do not deny that there are entities that can be contacted (either in our own personal sphere or beyond). But they are just as ignorant as anyone else. And most delight in deception. Why bother?

 

Quote

 As for your observations about Frater Albertus, I had reached similar conclusions by the mid 70s, but where would any of us

be without him? 

 

Hopefully I did not come across as discrediting him. There would be far fewer people exploring alchemy without Albertus. To me, his achievements in that regard surpass any accomplishment he may or may not have had with the actual work itself. He was an inspiring and tireless worker.

 

Still there are some (myself included) who discovered alchemy long before ever having heard of him. I was introduced to it by Paul Foster Case, who may have reached even more people than Albertus himself. That said, PFC's views on alchemy were amazingly off base so I have no doubt that Albertus pointed more people in the proper direction than anyone else in the 20th century.

 

Quote

On the other hand when you said in one of your posts years ago, that alcohol was not the mercury of the vegetable kingdom as many moderns maintain, I knew that you had thought deeply about the matter and read the sages carefully.  While alcohol is a "spirit" and a menstruum it cannot be "the Mercury" because it lacks the generative virtue which "the Mercury" must have. 

 

That is really the critical insight. Ethanol does not possess the requisite properties of a philosophical mentruum. 

 

Quote

I don't have time to say much more than what I have, though I did think about writing my own defense of laboratory alchemy, as I was not impressed with what I read about his speculations about quantum mechanics etc, but on thinking about it, I decided it would be way to time consuming at this time.

 

The idea of defending alchemy is a little weird to me. Defend it from who? From what? It is what it is and we can simply point most people towards the writings of modern day academics such as Jennifer Rampling and Adam McLean and be done with it.

 

Anyone who has studied a decent sampling of old texts cannot avoid the inescapable conclusion that they were speaking of physical processes. Practicing alchemists and academics are at a consensus here. I should probably say "physico-spiritual" processes to distinguish alchemy from mere chemistry, but my point stands either way.

 

What I know as alchemy is not based on the human mind (how egocentric), nor on intelligences. We can try to be clever and co-opt alchemical symbolism for other purposes, but what is the point other than to further degrade an already muddled symbolism and hopelessly mislead countless others who will come after us?

 

I believe that the alchemical world view was agnostic when it came to a transcendent vs imminent spiritual reality. Many alchemical authors did speak of God or Jesus and I'm sure many of them believed in that, though some surely didn't. What some find hard to reconcile when challenged with what alchemy actually is, is that the alchemists may not have been seeking some meditational or devotional goal. Similarly, they may not have been seeking the common base goal of material wealth for its own sake.

 

In my years of practice, I have slowly begun to relinquish the chains of modern thinking and have sought alchemy for what it can teach me, rather than how it can justify what I already believe. One thing I have learned throughout this process is that alchemy does not require modern "crutches"... Not Qabalah, Tarot, astrology, magic, meditation, yoga, and especially not Jungian psychology. For me, alchemy has provided a direct insight into the nature of Nature and pushed back some of the limitations which modern education has imposed on my mind. True, alchemy offers some things which gold cannot buy but those things are not generally advertised.

 

UFA

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few days ago I posted a link to this thread at Rubaphilos' Yahoo group, offering to relay any message he may have.  So, we may be certain that not all the intelligences, but at least those concerned have been contacted.   ^_^ 

One aspect of Rubas' video presentations that seems to be absent is that pertaining to magic, considering how fundamental magic is to his hermetic world view.  For him magic and alchemy are like the two opposite poles, or yin-yang of Hermetism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Secrecy - is there any need in todays world? For a beginner the basics of alchemy are impossible to acquire without joining a group run by non alchemists having no basic knowledge. 

 

I suspect it is merely a sign of the times yet I cannot help believing that a new age is dawning where occult gives way to transparency. 

 

My current view is that if one where to talk openly only those with the required quality of consciousness would notice while the majority would continue on their spiritual way.

 

Appreciate any feedback

Sticky
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe alchemy is a metaphor for meditation, mysticism or some other inner practice, then secrecy doesn't make much sense.

 

If on the other hand, you take the old masters at their words, then secrecy is indeed very much called for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi UFA
 
Thanks for the reply. Over the years I have worked hard to acquire useful information concerning alchemy, not just the laboratory side but also it purpose, application and meaning. With the assistance of Weidenfeldt and RC Secrets I have had to privately dig everything out of the ground. I do not think it should be so hard and am willing to declare the basics ie the basic salt to make an ens, the circulated salt and the vegetable virgins milk to interested parties.
 
It is doubtful that many people are interested these days however I thought it prudent to investigate secrecy. My current thinking is that so few if any know the basics - secrecy would conceal their ignorance - an oft used technique in government.
 
If you can spare the time Mr UFA please elaborate :-
"If on the other hand, you take the old masters at their words, then secrecy is indeed very much called for."
 
Who are these Masters (excluding Gen 3) and what are they hiding?
Stinky
 
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Stinky

I think you would agree that there would be no secrecy if the original Qabala, as distinct from the traditional orthodox Jewish Kabbalah, were known to us.  The secret has to some extent been unveiled by the Golden Dawns' assigning of planets to the Sephirot, relating them to astrology and alchemy.  These subjects are at the foundation of Hermetism as expressed in the Tree of Life, which is what those in the tradition of Rubaphilos are attempting to elucidate for us.  In the video posted above, at minute 28, Rubaphilos says that in the next podcasts he will elucidate the spiritual significance of the alchemical processes.  Yet, 8 videos later, he has yet to correlate any of the physical processes mentioned with anything spiritual.  I don't think we can expect much more from him, seeing that he himself expresses his own ignorance in one of his essays:

 

Quote

There can be no argument that astrology has been a part of Hermetism as far back as historic record reaches. Therefore, there can likewise be no argument that astrology is a valuable part of the Hermetic tradition. The question that arises, though, is just how was astrology of value to the ancient Adepts? That much, today, we do not know. Whatever the true value of astrology was to the ancients that understanding has been virtually entirely lost to us today. I also have no doubt that whoever it is that rediscovers the real value of astrology will contribute an understanding of the greatest aid to modern Hermetism.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse me for barging into this discussion as a newcomer on this forums, but I found some parts interesting, enough to make a registration here.

 

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the following statement:

 

Physical transmutation should be possible given the principles at play are the same, but as processes require the largest amount of energy on the physical plane, it would be impractically difficult - but that doesn't mean that physical experimentation could not yield knowledge applicable on all planes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mr Unicorn,
 
Transmutation is no big deal, just another tool to extract salt from pure metals.
 
Much of an alchemist's work entails making tools for preparation of salts. Broadly these salts are then joined with vegetable oils to heal the limbic & cerebral cortex, silver for the lower and gold the upper conscious. Each has its own garden on the tree of knowledge. NB Gen 3 forbids mortals like myself from understanding this tree (model of reality).
 
If this has any bearing you may accept that alchemy has little to do with metallic transmutation.
 
Stinky
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/18/2018 at 10:09 AM, ernobe said:

 

 These subjects are at the foundation of Hermetism as expressed in the Tree of Life

 

 

 

Hermetism (and for that matter, alchemy) existed before the popular version of the tree of life we are all familiar with came to be (unless we count the much older Sumerian versions). Personally, I find Hermetic concepts much simpler and more effective in their pure, neo-platonic form (as presented in the Corpus Hermeticum and the ET), rather than with all the Jewish stuff grafted on to it. That is, the principles presented in the above mentioned works, taught by an effective guide, can stand (that is to say, they work) on their own without Qabalah or Tarot, etc.

 

With all that being said I think the stripped down version of qabalistic initiation presented by the GD is incredibly powerful in the right hands, and the qabalah presented by the founders of the GD is quite unlike any modern Jewish incarnations which I find to be rather 'fluffy'.  Turns out the Qabalah practiced by the R+C might be an offshoot of a 'lost' oriental/continental Sabbatean Kabbalah, I'm sure you will enjoy the read at the following link which explains the connections there. Enjoy!


The Origins of the Qabalistic Tradition of the Golden Dawn

 

Edited by noonespecial
Insert Links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 1:55 PM, Unicorn said:

Please excuse me for barging into this discussion as a newcomer on this forums, but I found some parts interesting, enough to make a registration here.

 

I would be interested to hear your opinion on the following statement:

 

Physical transmutation should be possible given the principles at play are the same, but as processes require the largest amount of energy on the physical plane, it would be impractically difficult - but that doesn't mean that physical experimentation could not yield knowledge applicable on all planes.

 

That is a familiar concept in the circle of Rubaphilos and I'm sure you'll fit right in.  You can apply to his Yahoo group at the link I posted previously on this thread.  Their basic idea is that the secrets should not be revealed because it would be like setting the pressure in your kitchen faucet too high.   High pressure faucets have their own proper place, which only your assigned teacher can reveal to you.   I think the true reason for not revealing the secrets is more akin to not overloading a donkey with more books than he can carry.   However, the revealer is not to be held responsible for unloading the books which prospective students are carrying.   He is responsible for providing the books to those who have freed themselves from their own baggage, and have asked for them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites