I hope it is not considered bad etiquette to post "articles" on the forum.

I do not
have a blog and have never took to writing diaries etc. (Being a perfectionist I
will almost always throw away any diary/notebook I have started.) Also you cannot
really find people in real life to discuss alchemy with. Therefore I am basically
using forum posts to (1) share and record my ideas in alchemy and (2) hopefully
start a discussion on ideas which I find interesting. Obviously anything I say is
my opinion but this is clear from the text itself which is why I will not keep
saying "in my opinion".

Please, if users do not like this and would like me to start a blog instead or
something, I am happy to be advised. As brethren we should be advising each other
about what we don't like in each other as that is one of the reasons for having
brethren in my opinion. Unfortunately many people today don't like advice and
become offended easily. Please don't think that this is the case. I will happily
except your advice and will be grateful for it without rancour.

I want to use this post to give my definition of alchemy as a spiritual path. There
is a difference between defining alchemy as a science and as a spiritual path and
this post is only concerned with the latter.

It is known that a definition should consist of two things: the genus and the
specific difference. The specific difference is what fully distinguishes the thing
defined from everything else in the genus. For example, a valid definition of human
would be "an animal that is rational". Here, "animal" is the genus and "rational"
is the specific difference because the only animal that is rational is the human
and so it fully distinguishes human from everything else in the genus. If we
defined human as "an animal that has hair" then this would not be a valid
definition because other animals have hair too, thus it is not a valid specific
difference of "human".

Here is my definition of alchemy as a spiritual path:

[b]Alchemy is a spiritual path that uses Dialectic, aided by practical
experimentation on the three principles of nature as defined by the alchemists, ie
salt, sulphur and mercury.[/b]

What follows is an explanation of why I have defined alchemy in this way. This will
require two things:
1. I will need to explain why each part of the definition is necessary, ie why each
part is implied when considering alchemy as a spiritual path.
2. I will need to explain why the definition is sufficient, ie why it fully
distinguishes alchemy, but this will become clear on its own as we go along.

[b]"Alchemy is a spiritual path..."[/b]

A spiritual path is a means of acquiring first hand experience/knowledge of the
Creator of the universe. This is different from faith. Faith is saying that God
exists without knowing it for yourself, but only people of gnosis know it for
themselves.

So why is alchemy a spiritual path? First of all, simply by reading a few

alchemical texts, it is clear that the goal of alchemy is a first hand
understanding of the secret fire of nature. One can read Homer's Golden Chain or
Grummet's Sanguis Naturae, but one will not leave with a true first hand knowledge
and understanding of the secret fire. The goal of alchemy is acquiring this
knowledge.

"Those who read Geber and all other Philosophers shall never come to an
understanding of it though they live one hundred million years; for this fire may
not be discovered but by the sole and profound meditation of the mind, following
which one will understand the books, and not otherwise." (Pontanus, secret fire)
In other words, it seeks an understanding of that universal spirit/fire which
descends from the heavens and produces everything on earth through its active
power. Also, it is only through understanding this secret fire that one can succeed
in the praxis and not otherwise. Thus, people who read practical alchemy books like
a jigsaw puzzle, trying to piece one bit here and another there, are doing it
wrong. One has to first acquire a solid understanding of nature from first
principles by observing how nature produces things in the three kingdoms from the
universal fire (and chiefly in the vegetable kingdom, since it is the most visible,
as the alchemists advise). Only then can one apply this understanding to producing
the stone.

But why is seeking this understanding deemed to be a spiritual path? Because nature
was created by God Most High, and seeking to travel from nature to its source is a
way of seeking the Creator Himself. Sendivogius calls nature a shadow, and this is
true because those of gnosis do not perceive bodies. Instead, they perceive the
ground of being of nature, which Sendivogius calls the "inmost heart of our
magnesia":

"Nature has her own light, which is not visible to the outward eyes. The shadow of
Nature upon our eyes is the body. But where the light of Nature irradiates the
mind, this mist is cleared away from the eyes, all difficulties are overcome, and
things are seen in their very essence, namely, the inmost heart of our Magnesia,
which corresponds to the respective centres of the Sun and Earth. The bodily nature
of things is a concealing outward vesture. If you dressed a boy and a girl of
twelve years of age in exactly the same way, you would be puzzled to tell which was
the boy and which the girl, but when the clothes are removed they may easily be
distinguished. In the same way, our understanding makes a shadow to the shadow of
Nature, for our human nature is concealed by the body in the same way as the body
by the clothes."

Those of gnosis constantly see the Creator's hand in everything, literally and not
by imagination; and by seeking to acquire a first hand understanding of the secret
fire, the alchemist seeks God Himself.

One could argue that the secret fire as defined in alchemy is still not God. This
is true, but the point is that the path to it is so obscure and difficult that it
can only be attained by simultaneously attaining true gnosis of God Himself. In
other words, one has to be spiritually prepared to receive this knowledge, which
itself can be achieved through alchemy, since alchemy itself is a form of prayer
and spirituality, and as Michael Maier says, "our chemistry stirs up the artifex to
a meditation of the heavenly good". Thus, it is indeed a spiritual path. A student
once came to a sage and said "teach me alchemy". The sage said "I will, but are you
ready for it?".

[b]"...that uses Dialectic..."[/b]

To see why this is true of alchemy, I simply have to quote a few authors:

"Morienus warns us that whoever would study this Art must know the other sciences,
and especially Logic and Dialectic, as the Sages always express themselves in
veiled and metaphorical phraseology." (New Pearl of Great price)

"Those who read Geber and all other Philosophers shall never come to an
understanding of it though they live one hundred million years; for this fire may
not be discovered but by the sole and profound meditation of the mind, following
which one will understand the books, and not otherwise." (Pontanus, Secret fire)

"Let therefore profound Meditation, accompanied with the Blessing of God, Furnaces,
Coals, Glasses, and indefatigable pains, be thy Interpreters [of alchemical books],
and let them serve for Commentaries upon our Writings." (Philalethes, Ripley
Reviv'd)

"Go to it then, my son, put up thy supplications to God almighty; be diligent in

searching the books of the learned in this science; for one book openeth another;
think and meditate of these things profoundly" (Secret book of Artephius)

"Senior the philosopher says: "An inelligent man who meditates on this art will
soon grasp or understand it, if his mind or heart are illuminated, from the books
of knowledge of this art." Thus the wise man will do, who seeks the wisdom of the
ancient sages; who practices and becomes familiar with the many parables,
definitions, secrecies in which they describe their procedures with enigmatic
words; who is grounded and firm in contemplation. For meditation is a subtle sense:
to those who have understanding in these matters it is quite easy and natural. But
to those who have no understanding of it, as Senior also says, nothing is more
contemptible." " (Trismosin, Splendor Solis, Phanes press translation)

Thus, it is clear that alchemy is a Dialectical art. But while these show that
alchemy involves meditation, I am defining Dialectic in the neoplatonic sense
rather than simply as "intellectual meditation" or "inner dialogue", so I will need
to justify further. Plato says the following (Republic, book VII):

"Then dialectic, and dialectic alone, goes directly to the first principle and is
the only science which does away with hypotheses in order to make her ground
secure; the eye of the soul, which is literally buried in an outlandish slough, is
by her gentle aid lifted upwards"

In other words, in the neoplatonic definition, Dialectic is intimately related with

spirituality and the two cannot be dissevered. Meaning an inner spiritual longing
is needed alongside the meditation, unlike some modern scientists who view their
science as separated from their spirituality for example. It should be clear by now
why this spiritual definition of Dialectic applies to alchemy by considering the
above quotes as well as the commentary on why alchemy is a spiritual path, so I
will not explain further.

Many modern authors claim that alchemy has a special practice of prayer or
meditation. This is false in my opinion and I have not seen it described in any
alchemical works (please enlighten me if I am simply ignorant of this). The
alchemists only prayed like ordinary religious people, but their path was
Dialectical in nature. They also slept like ordinary people, and I do not see
modern alchemists saying otherwise. I feel that the reason for the misunderstanding
by modern alchemists when it comes to how the alchemists prayed in particular is
because they either are ignorant of the fact that a Dialectical spiritual path is
even possible, or if not ignorant, then they do not really subscribe to it as their
main focus. In the former case, they should read the third tractate in book 1 of
Plotinus's Enneads (which explains the metaphysical Dialectical path:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plotinus/enneads.1.first.html ) as well as book VII of
Plato's republic (the mathematical Dialectical path:
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.8.vii.html ), in order to acquire an
understanding of how Dialectic can be a form of prayer. (I have seen enough in
mathematics - and I say "seen" for a reason - to know that this isn't mere
theorizing, and neither am I merely theorizing.) In the latter case, they should
know that they are not true alchemists no matter how much they feel that they are
advancing spiritually by studying alchemy. Truly, this is nothing else but an
illusion, just like those who walk in nature feel they are being purified
spiritually. But this has no permanent spiritual effect of making them reach God
Most High, no matter how much they are convinced of its power in treating their
psychological ailments.
Those who have tasted the sweetness of true Dialectical meditation will feel that
there is nothing sweeter on earth, and will not go seeking other forms of
meditation. I do not deny that alchemical philosophy can be applied in other ways,
even in the realm of spirituality. Gerard Dorn, Boehme, Jung, etc have all proved
this, not to mention the common use of "red sulphur" and "alchemy of happiness" in
sufi literature for example. I do not deny that such a tradition of alchemical
applications also existed in ancient times. However I feel that the true original
nature of alchemy as a spiritual path is Dialectical and this seems to be confirmed
by all the books I have read on the art. In ancient times, perhaps after completing
the Dialectical path students would be initiated into a form of contemplative
meditation in order to consolidate their gnosis. Plotinus hints at this possibility
in book 1 of his Enneads:

"All this accomplished, it [the intellect] gives up its touring of the realm of
sense and settles down in the Intellectual Kosmos and there plies its own peculiar
Act: it has abandoned all the realm of deceit and falsity, and pastures the Soul in
the "Meadows of Truth": it employs the Platonic division to the discernment of the
Ideal-Forms, of the Authentic-Existence and of the First-Kinds [or Categories of
Being]: it establishes, in the light of Intellection, the unity there is in all
that issues from these Firsts, until it has traversed the entire Intellectual
Realm: then, resolving the unity into the particulars once more, it returns to the
point from which it starts.

Now rests: instructed and satisfied as to the Being in that sphere, it is no longer
busy about many things: it has arrived at Unity and it contemplates: it leaves to
another science all that coil of premisses and conclusions called the art of
reasoning, much as it leaves the art of writing: some of the matter of logic, no
doubt, it considers necessary- to clear the ground- but it makes itself the judge,
here as in everything else; where it sees use, it uses; anything it finds
superfluous, it leaves to whatever department of learning or practice may turn that
matter to account. "

I don't know what this means and so I will refrain from commenting further, however
I would appreciate further information on this.

In alchemy, the unity mentioned here by Plotinus corresponds to the universal fire
of nature. (Plotinus's path, like Ibn Sina, Aquinas and others used metaphysics
rather than natural science/alchemy. It is interesting to note that Aristotle said
there are three theoretical sciences: mathematics, natural science and
metaphysics.)

[b]"...aided by practical experimentation..."[/b]

This is needed in the definition because without practical experimentation, one
cannot connect the dots that lead to Dialectical understanding of the secret fire,
so to speak. The way will be blocked because one will not have sufficient
information on which to base their meditations in order for them to be successful.
One will still be able to meditate on nature, as the peripatetics have showed, but
this will not lead to gnosis through nature, but rather through metaphysics,
provided one continues to the higher reaches of such a path, namely metaphysics and
theology.

One could argue that "alchemists need to eat as well, why do you not include eating
in the definition?". But one must understand the difference between primary and
instrumental efficient causes. Eating is an instrumental efficient cause for
alchemy, but experimentation, because it is so bound up to the Dialectical
meditations, may be likened to a primary efficient cause for the alchemical
spiritual path (along with the meditation itself).

[b]"...on the three principles of nature as defined by the alchemists, ie salt,

sulphur and mercury."[/b]
This is important in order to complete the specific difference of alchemy. Modern
physics can also probably be interpreted as a spiritual path that involves
Dialectic and experimentation. Alchemy is distinguished by stating the three
principles. When this is done, it is fully distinguished because there is no other
spiritual path which is Dialectical, experimental and focuses on the three
principles of nature.