Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Welcome!

Thanks for stopping by to read my blog.

If you’re new, get to know a bit more about what I’m about at the About page. You can also find my definitions for a lot of esoteric technical terminology at my Esoteric, Hermetic & Mystical Glossary, a living document which will likely serve to explain a lot about my own ideas and experiences as well as clarifying my blog posts somewhat.

The most popular posts so far, which may not be bad places to start reading, are: A Commentary Upon the Middle Pillar Exercise and In Defense of the Ego.

I’ve also started to post reviews of books and other media over at Your Daily Hermes. Please take a look! On a related note, I also now have a Librarything account. Check it out and start your own!

Once again, thanks for stopping by! I hope that you enjoy what I have to say, and even decide to say something back. God bless.

In Peace Profound,
Nicholas Graham

I recently went through a very difficult and painful breakup. There were several weeks of intense feelings of loneliness and powerlessness, which is why I’ve been so quiet. I don’t mean to milk my readership for sympathy. I never wanted this blog to be a personal one, and I’m not about to change that. But lessons are learned through experience, and wisdom comes by living through repeated failure.

Breakups, especially when you are truly in love with the person, are always difficult. I worry about anybody who would get involved in romance and not feel hurt when it ends. The pain of this breakup, though, has led me to a most sublime lesson for which I thank God and my ex-fiancé Andrea.

As much as it hurts my ego to admit it, I spent the weeks between then and now in a near-constant emotional up and down, some days barely able to get out of bed. Though I was up and down, the downs were very down while the ups were sub-par and sometimes even angry. I had entirely lost control and felt pretty useless. Still, I continued my spiritual practice. There was nothing to do for it but to push on, I thought, and just permit myself to feel those various emotions until they had run their course.

I stand by that attitude in concept, but I went a bit too far with it, too permissive and undisciplined, and I began to wallow. In the process, I began to hurt Andrea with my emotions. While I was not attacking her, nor even passive-aggressively targeting her, I was still allowing my emotionality to cause suffering in another soul, thus spreading it around like a virus.

A breakthrough came, though. Andrea and I were having a conversation about how we were each doing, and dealing with the situation. It was then that I realized, starkly and with finality, that she was at least as hurt and confused as I. If I truly love her at all, then, it becomes my duty to help her in the alleviation of her pain. There is a higher ideal here that, when realized, brings us far above our own pain to see, as the Buddha pointed out, the suffering which all living things constantly life.

When that conversation ended, I was left with the deep pain of the guilty. I convened to pray this prayer of St. Francis:

Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace; where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, let me sow pardon; where there is doubt, let me sow faith; where there is despair, let me sow hope; where there is darkness, let me sow Light; where there is sadness, let me sow joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love; for it is in giving that we receive. It is in pardoning that we are pardoned. And it is in dying that we are born into Eternal Life.

Praying that prayer and truly meaning it made me come to fuller realization of a simple, but often overlooked, fact: there are things more important than romance. Being in love with somebody must mean that, first and foremost, you both love and respect them. It is natural to want a person to stay with you, but possessive attachment is always harmful to both of you. I came to understand that in order to love Andrea, I had to be her friend. She no longer needs me to be her lover. She needs me to be her friend who truly loves her for her, rather than for the exact parameters of the relationship which we share or any expectations I may have of her.

In the end, there is something more important than romance or friendship or family: love. We cannot know what love is. That is why we say that “God is Love.” We do not know what God is, yet people continue to know God. Similarly, we continue to know love. God and Love, when truly experienced in our depths and at our heights, bring us together and, moreover, unite us.

If I truly love Andrea, and I do… If you truly love somebody, and I’m sure that you do… Just love them. Rejoice in that love, and do not feel the need to grasp at the details.

I can’t promise myself or anybody else that I won’t still have sadness over the situation. In fact, I know that I will. But the sadness has exchanged its contents. Where once it was only a type of senseless pain, now it carries instead the same bitter-sweetness of nostalgia. I will always look upon a photograph of Andrea, or upon her face, or a memory of her face, with intense fondness, and I will always think with a smile upon the twinkle of her eyes.

I know that we will remain friends our whole lives long. I know that we will love one another our whole lives long. Whether we call the shape of our love by one name or by another is ultimately irrelevant. Ever since I prayed that prayer, ever since I was given this realization, I haven’t been able to stop smiling. I miss Andrea, yes, but I no longer abide in the past. Instead, I miss her for who she is.

Love each other.

I normally try to keep the contents of my review blog separate from this one, so as to avoid cluttering The Magical Messiah with the reviews. At this time, however, I would like to briefly point you toward my review of Karen Armstrong’s The Case for God. More than an argument against the new atheism, Armstrong presents a beautiful and useful view of truly traditional religion. Please take a look at the review and, hopefully, the book.

I use the word “God” a lot as a proper noun. Who, then, am I referring to by that title?

This is definitely an important question. Unfortunately, there’s no real answer. Most skeptics take that as a cop-out, but we’re dealing with a question significantly larger than the minds doing the thinking. That’s the problem with much modern theology: it often doesn’t acknowledge the fact that we’re simply not up to the task of “God-talking” (“theo” “logia”).

There is an axiom of medieval Christian theology that the real purpose of theology, in fact its only valuable function, is to reduce us to awe-filled, even embarrassed, silence. Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, and Dionysius the Areopagite all shared a view of theology as spiritual exercise whereby the individual would inevitably reduce herself to verbal and mental silence, transcending the rational faculties in the same way as contemplative prayer and deep meditation. This practice is known in the old Greek Christian literature as kenosis, “emptying”.

The technique is simple and universal: take one of God’s names, titles, or traits first of all. Dionysius the Areopagite, in his The Names of God, began with the the highest or most abstract of qualities assigned to God, like saying that God is “good” or that He “exists”. Contemplate this trait for a time. If you come to a point at which you think that you understand this trait in relation to God, immediately shift gears and begin to deny that God possesses that trait. You can follow this into a recursion if you choose, and if you find it helpful, by then asserting that trait again, and so on. It shouldn’t take long to come to a point at which the entire series of exercises will look and feel pointless: you have gotten nowhere, except to the real point of understanding: you can’t know God through words or reason. Those familiar with Vedic rituals will recognize a close cousin to the Bramodya competition, in which the two competitors would take turns presenting theological statements until one of them was reduced to silent awe, at which time both competitors and all attendees would turn inward and take the silence with them.

Paul Tillich, one of the best modern theologians, referred to God as “the ground of being”. This is similar to language used to describe Buddha Nature or nirvana, as well as Brahman. Even so, Christians, Buddhists and Hindus are well aware that such phrases can only take us so far: they provide us with an analogous point of reference, but if we stop there, satisfied, thinking that we have made sense of the whole question, we have made a mistake just as big as thinking God a person like ourselves but bigger.

The core of the issue is this: we cannot say that God is a person like ourselves; He clearly is not. We also cannot say that God is not a person, certainly not less than a person. There’s simply no room for ideas of God as “vital energy” or equal to the created universe. That’s just one more limited conception which cannot account for the variety of religious experiences. We cannot even say that God exists, nor that God doesn’t exist! We can’t make statements of this sort because God isn’t “a sort of thing” that we can examine, analyze, and define. Perhaps the wisest path to take is that of the Hindu yogins who have said of God, “neti, neti”: “Not, not!”; or of the Jewish kabbalists who call the highest Godhead “Ain” (Nothing).

Before I close this out, it’s important to make one final point. This conception of God is often inaccessible to people because they think that this God must necessarily be abstract, distant, or cold. Once again, this view is limited. Since we cannot rationally know anything about God with any certainty, it holds that we cannot limit God to being impersonal any more than we can limit Him to being a person. I have found God to be infinitely accessible and perfectly distant, immanent and transcendent. We can’t pin God down no matter how hard we try and, in fact, our attempts to do so are the surest way to keep ourselves from experiencing God in His fullness.

With apologies to Mr. Russell, this article will not be a philosophical examination of why Christianity makes sense, or is reasonable, or anything like that. The first point to make here is that such arguments don’t ultimately matter. The rationality of a religion is not its true measure. That’s not to say that a valid religion will be anti-rational. That’s definitely not true. A religion should instead be morally and spiritually skillful, facilitating reason without being dependent upon it. In other words, religion is ideally trans-rational rather than irrational.

I do not claim Christianity as the only true approach to God. The early Christians didn’t make such a claim, either. That sort of thing didn’t start until the dark ages came along, and even then it didn’t catch on amongst monastics or intelligentsia for quite a long time thereafter.

I do worship Jesus Christ, but that can definitely do with an explanation. I think that the whole idea behind the worship of the Master has been largely forgotten. I’ll be saying more on worship in the next installment of my alchemy series, and a great practical approach to the subject can be found in Mouni Sadhu’s books In Days of Great Peace and Theurgy. For now, it will suffice to say that the worship of a Master is about identifying a perfect person who has become entirely consciously united with God and, thus, can act as a channel for his or her disciples. While it is certainly not impossible to do, it is significantly more difficult for most of us to soar directly to the heights without something of a guide. That is the real meaning of “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.” Sri Ramana Maharishi made similar statements about himself. In Buddhism, it is often stated that the Buddha has become the Way, or “Buddha” is treated not as an individual human who became enlightened, but as the pure consciousness of nirvana Itself. So, when the Christ said that “I and my Father are one,” he was not claiming to be the “person” of God in a human body, but was identifying himself with the Ultimate in culturally relevant language.

Those who worship Jesus as God are no more right or wrong than those who pray to the Buddha for aid in their material lives, or those who pray to the Hindu avatars and enlightened sages. It is a valid religious expression and can aid us when we are ready to move forward in our spirituality. Still, it is not the full truth, but more of a useful myth. Myth, in this case, does not mean untruth or fiction, but a fact on the vertical axis told by way of an analogy. It is only since the Enlightenment of Reason that the term myth has come to mean fiction; our Christian ancestors, especially in monasteries or convents, would have understood this point immediately. Much of the writing of early to immediately pre-Enlightenment Christianity is rife with this theme.

The real answer to the question, then, is that I am a Christian because that is the myth that speaks most to me. It isn’t just a pleasant fiction, but the story of a teacher who became God in order to show God to the people in his world. Whether he’s the only Master is not a question worthy of our attention; instead, it is better to ask yourself, “Who is my Master?”

Some may have included the philosopher’s egg in Part 2: Preparations for Alchemy, but it is important (and difficult) enough to warrant its own entry.

In laboratories, refineries, and the like, retorts are used for the purpose of distilling a liquid substance, or of extracting one substance from the matrix of another (natural gas from coal, for instance). They are bulbous containers, often of glass, with long tubes leading into them. In laboratory alchemy, the retort used is a single piece glass bulb-and-tube, of which the tube narrows toward the end and curls downward to prevent gases from escaping. If a perfect Hermetic seal is required, the tube stem can be heated up and melted closed.

I have read a lot of books and articles on alchemy which have claimed that this retort is, when applied to the alchemist herself, the human aura. This is only partly true. If we consider the aura to be the final barrier between “self” and “other”, it is part of the philosopher’s egg, but certainly not the entire thing. In fact, the egg is the whole personal self of the alchemist. At least, this is potentially so in everybody, but only a few dedicated practitioners ever realize it to any considerable degree.

I’m sure that most of my readership is familiar with the Magician’s Pyramid, otherwise known as the Four Powers of the Wise: to know, to will, to dare, and to keep silent. In case anybody reading this is not familiar with them, let us explore them briefly.

To know is, as one would expect, the power of knowledge. It is also the power of understanding. In everyday speech, we may not starkly differentiate between those two, but they are not always the same. It is possible, for instance, to know that the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but to have no understanding of the intellectual, emotional and moral meanings and implications of those actions on the part of our government in the name of our citizenry. A fact may easily be known, but it takes study, contemplation and dedication to gain insight and understanding. The power “to know” encompasses both. Thus, it is both analytical and synthetic mentation combined in the form of the reflective mind.

To will is not simply “to want”, but instead to have single-pointed focus on a particular goal. Even the focus of a child wishing for that one specific toy or gadget to be waiting under the Christmas tree is too vague for us to call it “will” in the sense of this power.

To dare is the most straight-forward of them all: All the well-focused ideas in the world are rather useless if we don’t actually enact them, and this requires a degree of courage that can sometimes be dangerous for those of us whose egos are entirely bound up in success. There is always a chance of failure in these things, and if we do not have the daring necessary to push on even through failure, even a small slip-up can turn catastrophic.

To keep silent is the most widely misunderstood and, therefore, neglected of the four powers. It is also the main subject of interest in the construction of the philosopher’s egg. The rest of this article will focus on explaining it in both theory and practice.

First, theory. To be entirely honest, I have yet to encounter a fully satisfying explanation as to why the enactment of this power is so necessary. I don’t think there’s any clear-cut way of explaining it or understanding it intellectually, yet it always works out in practice.

A common understanding, and one which can serve as a springboard for contemplation, is that we must be very secretive about our alchemical practices. If we are not, the explanation goes, we waste our own energy through idle words. Moreover, the skepticism, jealousy or other negative emotions and thoughts of those whom we have told will set up currents of energy which act as obstacles for our work.

This bit of theory is, based on my experience and the experiences of others with whom I have spoken, basically correct, though not always for the reasons that we would expect. I will take them in reverse order.

The average person, and that includes the vast majority of occultists – let us not fool ourselves, is constantly walking through a field of the thoughts and emotions projected or left behind by others. We are not generally capable of differentiating between our own thoughts and feelings and those of others. They “feel” the same, regardless of their source. This means, among other things, that we are very susceptible to any thoughts and feelings specifically directed at us. A well-meaning friend’s skepticism may not entirely destroy our own belief in the process or goal, but if the doubt happens to pop up at certain specific phases of the operation, all of our work could go down the drain, which will only create more doubt, thus potentially sabotaging the entire process.

This is not to say that we shouldn’t have a healthy degree of doubt, but that it, and all other mental processes, need to be firmly under control. That control is not an easy attainment, so in the meantime we must use some method of insulation from external influences. For that, we have a policy of silence. Do not talk about such things to others, and they will have no opportunity to project doubt or malice your way.

This brings us to the first part of the theory: by some mechanism, we lose energy by talking to others about these things. This mechanism, whatever it is, is a complex one. I have heard it conjectured that it is a literal energy expenditure inherent in the act of speech, but this doesn’t explain anything. The fact is that problems are caused just as much by IMs, text messages and e-mails as by physical speech. It seems instead that energy is transferred through the act of communication itself. Given the symbolism of Hermes/Mercury, that would make sense. This might be a mechanism by which certain Masters have worked upon their disciples, such as Jesus, Shakyamuni Buddha and the Great Rishi Ramana.

Unlike those Masters, however, we have a limited flow of energy at any given time. Ordinary conversations do not make much of an impact, but the more elevated our conversations become, the more of our energy we focus into them. As such, it behooves us to create something of a seal to allow that energy to build up and create pressure. That is the key to much of alchemy: just as in a chemical lab, heat causes expansion, but pressure on the expanding substance creates more heat. Of course we must remember that we are speaking symbolically here, but we unfortunately can’t be any more literal than this due to limitations of language.

We can move nicely from here into another facet of silence: secrecy. Hermetists, Rosicrucians and their ilk have been criticized for a few centuries now for their secrecy. The critics often claim that we are merely trying to construct a false mystery around ourselves for the sake of image alone, or because we don’t really have anything useful to say anyway. That is a fair criticism of a lot of orders and lodges, and certain individuals, but not of the tradition as a whole. Another misunderstanding is that we still fear the inquisition or witch hunters. I know of a few people who live in areas in which they actually do have to keep quiet for fear of their own safety or that of their children. This is a sad state of affairs, but luckily not one that most of us have to worry about anymore. Unfortunately, a lot of budding Hermetists themselves seem to misunderstand the purpose of secrecy. A common belief is that we keep things secret just because our methods can be dangerous to those who are not properly prepared to use them. Again, there is a bit of truth to this, but, generally speaking, the techniques which could be dangerous won’t even work for somebody who isn’t willing to put in the work necessary, and most of the people who do put in that work will learn how to circumvent the dangers. So this is not the core.

An analogy from everyday psychology will help. When you have to keep a secret, perhaps some juicy piece of gossip on which you have been sworn to silence, there is always an attendant feeling of pressure. For most of us, it feels almost as if the secret is trying with all of its might to jump up our windpipes and out of our mouths and we must consciously hold it down. The mental and emotional pressure which we build up by the mere fact of holding something in confidence is actually a useful means of increasing the amount of potential energy we have available for our alchemical processes. This is the point which Aleister Crowley badly missed when he complained of being made to take darksome and dramatic oaths only to be presented with the Hebrew alphabet. Had he not been so impulsive and given it a bit of thought, or perhaps had he actually asked someone the purpose of the exercise, he likely would have come to this conclusion on his own. Crowley was a bit of a tosser, but at least he was a well-learned tosser.

It is utterly true that the Hebrew alphabet itself is no secret, so there would be no reason, even under the Golden Dawn’s oath, to withhold the alphabet itself from anybody who asked. The value of the exercise appears only when we steadfastly refuse to reveal even to our closest friends that upon our initiation we had revealed to us the Hebrew alphabet.

The first detail of practice in the construction of the philosopher’s egg stems from this point. We may openly discuss the principles of alchemy all we wish (as I am doing in these articles), but the specifics of our own personal practice and experience with it must remain strictly confidential. To do otherwise means a severe breach of our all-important seal. I can speak from experience here, as I’m still feeling some of the after-effect from certain years-past revelations. It is very easy to overlook this step, and many others will decide almost immediately that it sounds like baseless occult nonsense and jabber on as they please while moving quickly on to the more “interesting” operations only to find it next to impossible to make any real progress. I suggest long contemplation on the power of silence and actually taking my advice.

Once we have a good start in appropriate secrecy, we must move on to establishing the necessary mindset for work. This mindset has two major advantages: first is that it builds on the insulation we have installed by allowing us more and more to recognize ideas and emotions alien to our own psyches, which gives us the choice of either accepting or rejecting them; second, it makes the primary work of alchemy possible at all.

Preliminary Mind-control Exercise
This exercise should be performed at least daily, and will take about 15 minutes each time. Begin by sitting in a comfortable meditation posture. The standard zazen posture is good: cross-legged, back straight, chin tucked slightly so that the spine is straight at the top, a cushion under the buttocks, hands resting on thighs or in a simple mudra. I also often use the common Western posture of sitting in a chair, back and neck straight as above, hands resting on thighs, feet flat on the floor with thighs parallel to it. It doesn’t really matter, though, as long as you are comfortable and alert.

Once in position, take a few deep breaths and relax your body. Ask yourself a series of questions somewhat like what follows:

  • Am I my body with its aging, inevitable decay, and all of its senses? No, I am not this for I am something more than matter.
  • Am I my personality with its quirks, foibles, constantly shifting identity and confounding emotions? No, I am not this either, for I can observe my emotions and judge them fairly as if from outside.
  • Am I then my mind with its thoughts and ideas? No, I cannot be this either for I observe my thoughts as a beekeeper watches his swarm of bees.

The goal is to conclude that “I and my mind are not one, but two.” Contemplate that point for a while before moving on to the next phase of the exercise. Make sure that you have at least intellectually grasped the idea.

Once you have achieved the appropriate mental state, that you are not your mind but are superior to it, build upon that intellectual foundation by closing your eyes and quietly observing your mental and emotional states, each individual thought and feeling, as if completely separated from them. Watch your thoughts go by as you’d watch migrating birds pass above you; they may be beautiful or interesting, but they are ultimately not any concern to you.

Maintain this state for as long as you are able, or until the end of your allotted time. Repeat this entire process at least once a day for a month or more. Do not move on to other exercises until you are sure that this exercise has “taken”. It is even advisable to abandon other practices, for unfocused attention cannot help this process.

This exercise will gradually have the effect of separating your identity from your lower faculties. With time, you will even gain the ability to distinguish “native” thoughts and emotions from those sent from outside, and will be able to accept or reject them on their merit. It is even possible to gain the capacity to know the source of any given thought or emotion. Still, the goal here is not to gain siddhis, but to transcend the need for them in the first place. This exercise will complete the process of the philosopher’s egg; first, you have sealed it through silence, and then you have lifted your awareness beyond it so that, as a true alchemist, you may work upon its contents.

Defining Orthodoxy

A few weeks ago, I posted a piece from my current book project: A Criticism of Common Approaches to Spirituality. I realize that my use of “orthodoxy” in that excerpt may have caused some confusion or upset. I’d like to approach that now and, hopefully, clarify what I mean by the term.

The word “orthodox” means, literally, sound or correct doctrine. I prefer “sound” over “correct”, as we are not dealing with factual information along scientific lines here. Let us take this as our jumping off point:

Orthodoxy: n. pertaining to sound doctrine.

First of all, what is doctrine? I’ve heard theologians say that “dogma” is that which we must believe in order to gain salvation, while “doctrine” is that which is nonessential to salvation, but on which we can be either right or wrong. This is not a meaningful distinction, however, as belief is not what gains us salvation. I know of no valid religion in which belief alone saves. It is a misconception that in Christianity we are saved by belief in Christ alone. If we read the Gospels carefully, as well as James and Paul’s epistles, we see that what is required of us is not belief, but faith, and that faith necessitates loving action. In other words, belief alone is not enough. Even if it were possible to have faith without action (and it is not), that would also not be enough. Whatever our religion, we must practice and our practice must bear fruit.

With dogma gone, we are left with doctrine. Doctrine can really be thought of as a coherent set of ideas (sometimes known as a “paradigm”). If we are only dealing with ideas, basically opinions, how can they be “sound” or “unsound”?

A doctrine is either sound or unsound depending upon its usefulness in application. There is certainly some subjectivity here. We must always ask, “To what will the ideas be applied?” If we are applying ourselves to the stockpiling of money, the doctrines of Zen Buddhism will be unsound. If, on the other hand, we are applying ourselves to spiritual and moral development, Zen Buddhism’s doctrines are quite sound or orthodox.

Ultimately, we must abandon all limited concepts and ideas in order to attain the highest heights of Spirit. In the meantime, we need ideas. The more hopeful, faith-inspiring and liberating are our doctrines, the more orthodox they are in that they are sound for our purposes.

We must be a bit more specific, though. Some of the beliefs of the New Age, Neopagan and New Thought movements, for example, seem to be quite liberating on the face of them, but tend in fact to anchor us in materiality. This is not to say that the material universe is evil; that, too, is an enslaving doctrine (when taken literally). True liberation, however, means non-attachment regardless of the plane: non-attachment to physical things, non-attachment to emotional (astral) things, non-attachment to mental things. New Thought (Ernest Holmes’ Religious Science, Mary Baker-Eddie’s Christian Science, and the like) are thoroughly attached to things of the mind, while New Age and Neopagan systems tend toward attachment to things of the soul (emotions, images). These attachments can be useful to us at certain levels, but we must eventually be ready and willing to let go; if we are involved in a young tradition without an established orthodoxy, we will not be so ready and willing.

I am not saying that Neopagan, or other, religious traditions are invalid. Instead, I’d say that they are mostly extremely immature. They are artificial religions, meaning that they were intentionally created rather than developed organically. As such, they can not possess the depth of meaning or practice found in religions like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism. They are not as generally or universally useful, nor can they grow up with us as well as the aforementioned traditions or their ilk. Neopagan religions, New Age ideologies and New Thought all surely have their place and can raise certain people up to a certain extent. They can never replace their more firmly-founded, deeply-rooted brethren, however.

Religion is a very personal thing. The more we mull it over in our minds, the more liable we are to making a poor decision. It is true, as some critics have pointed out, that religious faith functions below the level of conscious deliberation. Pure rationalists will see that as a problem; a spiritual seeker, on the other hand, will understand the value of this deeper layer of action. A good seeker will not neglect their mind or their soul, in contrast to rationalists who deny the value of anything that is not apprehensible by the mind, and irrationalists (forgive the made-up term, but “New Age” is not broad enough to serve the context) who cannot see the value of logic or analysis. Ultimately, though, we must transcend both mind and soul and become fully Spirit. Religion is road upon which we travel in search for the ultimate Path; some religions move us more directly, while others require us to meander more or less aimlessly, hoping to stumble upon something useful.

I was not clear in my announcement of this series, so I would like to be clear here before starting the series proper.

I am not, and will not, make the claim that either Christianity as a religion or Hermetics as an occult system are the Direct Path, the Universal Way. Simply put, that’s not the case. The Way is not limited to any one religion or system of symbols or technical methods. If it were, it would not be the Way.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
(Tao Te Ching, Stephen Mitchell, trans.)

The purpose of this series is not to convince you to become a Christian, a Hermetic, or a Christian Hermetic. It is to point out the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of occult and spiritual practice so that an interested reader can honestly evaluate them in relation to their own personal progress and perhaps find out if another one among the numerous side paths is better for their present stage of development.

Perhaps the most important point to be made in this series is this:

The obvious mark of immature teachings will be an evident effort to CONVERT the reader to a particular religion or related conceptions. Originators of such believe themselves to be equal to or higher than the Great Teachers of the past. If we peruse peruse the sayings of the Great Rishi Ramana about other teachers, we will see that He fully recognize Their messages and greatness, and never tried to “convert” anyone to the Hindu religion or form of worship. His famous saying is: “All Masters are One!” (Ways to Self-Realization by Mouni Sadhu, pg 86)

As I work on the ongoing series on alchemy, I realize that it could be helpful for some readers if I were to provide brief analyses of various occult systems and spiritual traditions and their relative merits based on my own experiences and researches.

There is only one true Way, the Direct Path. The fact is that not everybody is ready to enter onto the Direct Path immediately, and many side paths and winding country roads, so to speak, exist to bring us closer to the Way which passes straight and peacefully through the middle. These side paths are often treated as if they were perfect and infallible by their adherents, but as long as they are not the Direct Path, they are neither of these things. Some of these paths are appropriate for certain types of people, aiding them to a greater or lesser degree to come to perfection. Many others tend to serve only as blind alleys, distractions and obstacles.

I will, as far as possible, refrain from mentioning specific teachers and organizations, except where they are especially praiseworthy or harmful, or in case of the various “cults of personality”, centered around a specific individual who must be dealt with individually in order for his or her teachings to be understood.

It is not my intention that anybody should be offended by any of the remarks which I make in this series; all readers are of course free to disagree with me, though I do hope that you take what I say to heart and at least be honest enough to compare it to your own experiences and the experiences of others.

Before getting much further into the study of alchemy, I think that it’s important to discuss the preliminaries. That is, how can a person prepare herself for the study and practice of alchemy so that they will be balanced and safe in the process?

There are a myriad of ways which people have used through the centuries, though certain modern Hermetists have devised some extremely safe and efficient methods which work much better for the majority of people than previous systems. These ware the approaches I favor and are thus the approaches which I will recommend.

First, I recommend a foundation in general Hermetic theory and practice. This is best gained through the careful and disciplined approach of Franz Bardon’s Initiation Into Hermetics (2001, Merkur Publishing). At least the first three steps of Bardon’s training system should be perfectly mastered before moving on to alchemy. I myself waited significantly longer than that, though that was because I was not privy to the arcana of alchemy at the time. It also depends upon which stage of development you are at: that of a magician, or that of a mystic. If you are at the stage of magician, you should work your way through most or all of Initiation Into Hermetics before considering any intensive practice of alchemy.

As you work through the initial stages of IIH, it is a good idea to study some of the finer points of the theory behind sacred magic and alchemy. For this, there is no better book than The Philosophy of Magic by Arthur Versluis (1986, Arkana). Study this book deeply.

Two other books are of primary importance in this preliminary training. These books are of both practical and theoretical import: The Tarot by Mouni Sadhu (2007, Hermetica Press) and Meditations on the Tarot (anonymous; 2002, Jeremy P. Tarcher).

A number of other works are of secondary importance. They can be done without, but they are extremely helpful in clarifying certain points. First among these is the Bhagavad Gita. In addition to being a fascinating look into Hindu mystical cosmology, the material within on the three gunas is quite useful in coming to an understanding of the three principles of alchemy. Next is Mouni Sadhu’s In Days of Great Peace, a beautiful and fascinating book describing Sadhu’s own spiritual quest and especially his time in the ashram of Sri Ramana Maharishi. The Way of Hermes (2004, Inner Traditions), an outstanding translation of the Corpus Hermeticum and the Definitions of Asclepius, is the primary set of Hermetic scriptures and is well worth study and contemplation. Finally, The Kybalion by Three Initiates (1914, Yogi Publication Society) is a modern exploration of Hermetic practical concepts.

Of course, Alchemy Unveiled by Johannes Helmond (2000, Merkur Publishing) is a wonderful guide to alchemy, though it is necessarily quite dense and difficult reading. I suggest it be added to any Hermetic library.

All of this should present years of work, and more than enough for a balanced ascent.

This is the first in a series of articles I’ll be posting here exploring the arcana and art of alchemy. I do not claim to have all the answers on the topic, but through a series of recent miracles, I have been given something of the practical arcana of the Royal Art. I have been given some degree of freedom to share what I have learned. Still, all arcana require practice and application for full understanding. As such, I can only reveal so much, so I will do my best to make it count.

I have chosen to name this series after one of the books which I have found to be most helpful to me in my study of alchemy: Alchemy Unveiled by Johannes Helmond (English translation copyright 1991 Gerhard Hanswille and Deborah Brumlich). The publishers, Merkur Publishing, have kindly permitted me to quote extensively from the text, so these articles will largely take the form of commentaries upon portions of Helmond’s work. I pray that my own writing does honor to the work of the Order of the Hermetic Initiated Gold- and Rosicrucians, and all other Hermetic adepts who have opened the way for me.

All that said, let’s begin.

What is alchemy? It is not a simple thing to define, like horticulture or cooking. We may say that alchemy is the Hermetic art of transmutation, but that still leaves us with many questions. What do we mean by “Hermetic”? Transmutation of what? And to what end? What are the methods used? And so on. So let us begin with these and see where they lead.

What do we mean by “Hermetic”? There are multiple ways to answer this, each useful in its way. First, we have the common use of the word: hermetically sealed. This point will become more clear in later articles, but for now it is enough to know that the principle work of alchemy is performed within the alchemist, who must make of himself an athanor, a sealed vessel wherein the transmutations take place. There are many techniques used to establish and maintain this seal. One of the most famous, but also most often neglected, is to keep silent. This refers specifically to silence concerning your alchemical practices and interests. The more detail you reveal to others, the more gaps you create in the seal; each one may be relatively small, or temporary and easily fixed, but if you keep creating those small gaps, they add up and the seal is never perfect. Good general advice along these lines is to only tell those very close to you about your interest in alchemy, and do not share any details with any but your most trusted friends who also share an interest in the topic.

Alchemy is also Hermetic in that it is based on the teachings of Hermes Trismegistos, that great semi-mythical adept of ages long past who left for us the Emerald Tablet. In fact, study of the Emerald Tablet of Hermes can alone reveal much about alchemy, though I personally have found that there is always more to coax out of it.

Next, alchemy is an art insofar as it cannot be performed according to unchanging formulae like a chemistry experiment. It has often been believed that alchemy is simply a primitive form of chemistry. The fact is, they are not even terribly closely related disciplines. It has been said, not without some truth, that chemistry and alchemy are not even family, they just live in the same house. Alchemy requires discipline and study like a science, but it also requires creativity, inspiration, and revelation.

Johannes Helmond says it well: ”True alchemy, in reality, is a Kabbalistic art which requires a patient examination of the genuine Hermetic writings and a deep-founded study of Nature. It also requires a revelation, either through an initiated adept or through an inner divine illumination.” (Helmond, pp 13-14) Alchemy is “Kabbalistic” in the sense that it is transmitted “from mouth to ear”, personally from teacher to student. The teacher need not be a living human being, though that is an obvious possibility. It is founded upon the study and observation of nature, certainly, but without illumination all the study in the world cannot make an alchemist.

Transmutation is perhaps more difficult to explain. Obviously, transmutation is the changing of one substance into another. The important thing to understand here is that there must be the seed of the desired substance within the original substance in order for the transmutation to take place. If there were not the essence of gold in the lead, it could not be changed into gold and all effort would be wasted. Luckily for us, the essence of the gold we truly desire lies at the core of all other substances with which we might begin.

What substances are those, then? There can be no pat answer to this question, but the most important substance, the one which must be transmuted before any other transmutation can have full effect, the materia must be the total human being:

“The subjectum artis of the alchemists is therefore the human being — not the human being in the common external sense, but as an internal Paracelsic microcosm and a small worldly astral firmament.” (Helmond pg 22)

The precise meaning of this “internal Paracelsic microcosm” will be made clearer in later parts of this series. For now, we must be content with the knowledge that it is, indeed, the human being that we are trying to transmute and perfect, transforming it utterly.

What, then, of the laboratory side of the art, with its transformation of plant, mineral and animal substances into medicines, precious metals and gems, and so on? This is the romance of alchemy in the popular mind, but it is truthfully a relatively small part of it. Not to say that it is totally unimportant, but it is not the essence. Something of the “practical” applications of alchemy will be said in conclusion of this series of articles.

So, that is all that can really be said by way of a short introduction to the Royal Art of Alchemy. Details will have to await future installments. For now, we at least have something like a definition which can provide a basic intellectual foundation as we move forward.

Older Posts »