f34v

[RenegadeHealer]

I don't know much about alchemy, but is it possible that a "concept" of the plant existed in alchemy - related traditions that was separate from the actual plant?

I don't know much about alchemy either. Since most alchemical concepts (like the Stone or the Elixir) appear to be symbolical, it could be that the alchemical Lunaria is similarly removed from objective existence.

 

Hi guys. I've just gotten into reading a bit about alchemy, and both of your observations seem to be on the right track, from what I can tell.  The thing is, there are two alchemies:

1. The transformation of base materials into refined materials — an objective and external transformation
   
2. The transformation of oneself as a base animal into a refined sentient being — a subjective and internal transformation
   

What is beyond question from a historical and literary perspective, is that meaning number one predated and gave rise to meaning number two, by way of analogy. What is a matter of perennial spirited debate, and may never be settled to everyone's satisfaction, is when meaning number two first arose, and which one (or both) of these meanings were intended in each surviving alchemical work from that point on. It's quite likely that after a certain point in history, both meanings of "alchemy" were intended at once in many, maybe most, essays on alchemy. The thing to understand is, this relationship between the two meanings was more than merely analogy. It was a sense of Natural Law that governed and connected all entities, regardless of their apparent dissimilarities. I think not a small number of alchemists in the olden days — and modern alchemists who strive to read old texts with the mindset of the author's intended audience — would argue that distinguishing clearly between written references to external alchemy and written references to internal alchemy, is not of crucial importance to the praxis and appreciation of alchemy.

I don't fully agree. The praxis of external alchemy has led to the development of the modern science of chemistry, which has completely replaced it for all of our transformation-of-matter goals. The praxis of internal alchemy, meanwhile, has led to many vibrant and effective traditions of mysticism, inner transformation, and modern psychotherapy. To me, the value of historical alchemical texts is their application to inner alchemical work. This is because inner alchemists have had to adjust their goals based on new understandings of what's possible, less than outer alchemists have. No one with an up to date understanding of chemistry is trying to turn lead into gold anymore. But many, many people with an understanding of the human condition still see much value in changing one's attitude and mindset as a way to change how one affects the outer world, and to be more at peace with both inner and outer worlds. So if I know a pre-modern alchemical author was thinking, writing, and doing exclusively external alchemy, I won't waste my time plumbing his words for metaphors that apply to my own work.