Originally posted by sign00
TheWalkingFox:
Please read the book before commenting on it. You should read the chapter on Interpretations. The whole idea about alchemy being spiritual was from
the 19th century.
So this book tells you. ever read any texts
besides this one? They're heavily-rooted in mysticism, drawing their roots primarily from Kabbalah
and Gnosticism. Like Eastern Taoist alchemy, western Alchemy is first and foremost about the perfection of one's self. Perfect knowledge, perfect
health, perfect peace. This is gained through time spent in practice and scholarship, essentially learning about yourself and the world around you,
and how best to apply that knowledge to one's own benefit.
The actual alchemists themselves spoke about an actual physical substance.
Indeed they did. And not a single one of them ever agreed what that substance was. That's because the "philosopher's stone," as a tangible object,
is a red herring. Like Dumbo's magic feather, the item itself is not in any way special or powerful. It's your endeavor to produce it and the goals
you outline and the paths you follow that are important. By the time you reach the perfection of substance, you realize that, whatever it is, you
don't actually need it.
This whole thing about alchemy having to hide that it was religious because of the politics is untrue, which we can see because alchemy as it
was written was itself attacked throughout history by the kings and church. England and Holland both made alchemy illegal and punishable as a felony.
So who were they hiding from? No, they were not hiding from the politicians, who were after them even with their obscure words.
Actually given that you just noted that Kings and the church both persecuted alchemy, i'd guess
that's exactly who they were hiding from.
Also, there's the simple fact that if word got out that you were an alchemist, next day there's be a line at your door of people demanding magic
potions for this, that, and the other thing. Another thing alchemists were hiding from?
Other alchemists. it was a pretty competitive field of
study, after all...
Considering that this is a brand new book which has just come out, which is totally different to anything released before, I think it would be
worthwhile to actually read it before announcing your opinion on why it is wrong.
-sign
It could just be a book chunked together by someone who thinks getting a bunch of people to boil pee in the hopes of being able to turn things to gold
as part of a 15th-century get rich quick scheme is funny. You'd think, being a "new" book, we could get a youtube demonstration or something,
right?
Thus book is in no way at all "totally different" from anything previous - greatly because the book is about 2/3 comprised of excerpts from other
works.
I mean hey, if you want to boil a liter of urine for a year and a half... be my guest, really. Just don't expect me to mop