Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Cleopatra the Alchemist

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Cleopatra the Alchemist

    Yes, the Arab writers had some people who knew more than the Dark Ages writers who sought to destroy all knowledge.

    Yes, it is well known that Caliph Omar and other religious despots were involved in the destruction of knowledge too.

    The Rosicrucians referred to in the article are almost certainly AMORC. This is not a high level Rosicrucian group - it is more of a Blavatsky Theosophist group. The Theosophists also have a large presence in California.

    I consider their agenda is weak and questionable. Blavatsky is a proven fraud. But I also find her channelling is a cover for real history she learned and said came via occult means.

    I have read Lucy Hughes-Hallett's book on Cleopatra. She makes it clear that historians make up a new Cleopatra almost every century. Seductress to despot and everything in between. It is easy enough to do if you are a person writing about things you do not know (Alchemy) and the paradigm does not want others to learn about - including it's history.

    The Ptolemies had an important member of their family studying this knowledge since Alexander the Great put them in charge of Egypt. Alexander was mentored by an alchemist whose father was the physician in the court of Philip of Macedon. Yes, I have done a book on this too.

    I recently found more support for my theory that the Borgias are the Ptolemies.

    The Cleopatra known most in history - who bore the child of Julius Caesar - was an adept. Cicero wrote about her use of an alchemical art relating to voice (see Thread) Anton Mesmer the father of hypnosis is one source to study. I would say the extant treatise attributed to her on cosmetics is also a scientific insight from alchemy, and this third century AD attribution or source could (I emphasize - it is a weak guess) be Hypatia.

    This era was a dangerous one for people who sought to advance the knowledge of humanity. Just see what happened to Hypatia.

    If you know what you are talking about today you will not be approached by Discovery or Time/Life (Man, Myth and Magic is a farce they produced) except for the purpose of making what you know into a travesty by falsehoods and worse. They will put words in your mouth and design the program to make you look like a fool. I know people who worked for them who said this. I know it from the whole field of academia about alchemy and hermetics. I know why they have to do this as well. The family of Jesus (Yeshua actually) has an alchemist in every generation - Melchizedek and Solomon included. Alchemists are humanists who know the knowledge and wisdom is (as John 10:34 and many Nag Hammadi quotes say) "within". It is there in plain sight inside the word atonement.

    The Borgias and de Medicis intermarried as do the Benjaminites and Merovingians. The translation of the Corpus Hermeticum by Ficino had their extended family name put on it in the middle ages - De Brix. It is one code step different than my own clan name - BRD versus BRX. I am also related to another - who I am named after - BRG or de Bruges. Bragha means Palace and thus Robert de Bruges is from the Royal family of Kelts I can show through archaeology back from the Veneti of Belgium or Brittany (BRT or Brutti) to Dolni Vestonici and the Sidhe of the DNN Ptolemy got Manetho to tie his family in with - in the Kings List which is the basis of the Bible timeline and the lie of history.

    The wife of Yeshua (The Historical Jesus) was a member of a very important family who probably are the Benjaminites and the Hapsburg personal family tree in a book by Emperor Franz Josef says they are Benjaminites as are the Rothschild/de Medicis. At this point we have glossed over ten books of mine with thousands of great sources and science including DNA continues to support. Mary and Jesus learned in Alexandria where her father had a home (along with Bethany, Magdala and Glastonbury) - the knowledge of Pythagoras and his Therapeutae, which you can see Philo says are Essenes in Qumran, even though that word did not exist in that era. The older brother of Jesus is James the Just or Righteous who was the first head of the Christian Church - which did not exist until Jesus left town. He might even have been more adept in these arts than Jesus and Mary. Yes, I put Mary up there with other Mery-tatens and Miriams. It goes back a long way.

    I cannot help but wonder if the requirement to gain advancement in most paradigm institutions is either stupidity or the willingness to maintain commonly voiced lies.

    Clearly people have always had an ability to acquire wisdom. This author gets it right.

    "Shamanic ecstasy is the real "Old Time Religion," of which modern churches are but pallid evocations. Shamanic, visionary ecstasy, the mysterium tremendum, the unio mystica, the eternally delightful experience of the universe as energy, is a sine qua non of religion, it is what religion is for! There is no need for faith, it is the ecstatic experience itself that gives one faith in the intrinsic unity and integrity of the universe, in ourselves as integral parts of the whole; that reveals to us the sublime majesty of our universe, and the fluctuant, scintillant, alchemical miracle that is quotidian consciousness. Any religion that requires faith and gives none, that defends against religious experiences, that promulgates the bizarre superstition that humankind is in some way separate, divorced from the rest of creation, that heals not the gaping wound between Body and Soul, but would tear them asunder... is no religion at all!" - Jonathan Ott

    Does it not make sense that the Royal House of Judah or David would educate their kids as best they can? Clearly Solomon was a good example (see Keys of Solomon and Ars Goetia). In the time of the best known Cleopatra I found reference for a certain teacher named Comarius in Alexandria who taught Yeshua (Jesus) and Mary as well as Cleopatra and maybe even Apollonius. Of course we always have to consider the possibility that Comarius was one in a long line of people with the same name, the one in my books might be different from this one. I do not feel Cleopatra warrants going into on the alchemical pursuit to the extent of Comarius - so I will start a thread titled Greek Alchemy to cover what is said in the following link.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-12-2016 at 11:31 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    This is one post from the thread on the Corpus. There are many other threads relevant to what the first post here says. As long as I am alive the challenge mentioned here is in force.

    "Man achieves the height of Wisdom when all that he does is as self evident as what Nature does." - I Ching

    Mircae Eliade is a favorite scholar of mine and he was before I even knew he was an Eranos alumnus. I even think he could be associated with an alchemist who used the pen name Flammarion. Here is a good review with quotes from The Forge and The Crucible. If the people of sacred texts wish to have a TV debate with me, I am willing to let the winner take any and all income - if they are going to defend alchemy did not exist before the person they call Jesus.

    Apr 03, 2015 Mary Overton added it · review of another edition

    “Alchemy cannot be reduced to a protochemistry,” states Eliade. He writes as a historian of religion, which means he writes about the human quest to influence and control and shape the physical world of matter. People are also matter. The quest embraces the renewal and the reshaping of the physical person. The great mystery and power generated by this process becomes that which is spiritual.

    “The ‘conquest of matter’ began very early, perhaps in the palaeolithic age, that is, as soon as man had succeeded in making tools from silex and using fire to change the states of matter. In any case certain techniques - mainly agriculture and pottery - were fully developed during the neolithic age. Now these techniques were at the same time mysteries, for, on the one hand, they implied the sacredness of the cosmos and, on the other, were transmitted by initiation (the ‘craft-secrets’). Tilling, or the firing of clay, like, somewhat later, mining and metallurgy, put primitive man into a universe steeped in sacredness. It would be vain to wish to reconstitute his experiences; too much time has elapsed since the cosmos has been desanctified as a result of the triumph of the experimental sciences. Modern man is incapable of experiencing the sacred in his dealings with matter; at most he can achieve an aesthetic experience. He is capable of knowing matter as a ‘natural phenomenon’. But we have only to imagine a communion, no longer limited to the eucharistic elements of bread or wine, but extending to every kind of ‘substance’, in order to measure the distance separating a primitive religious experience from the modern experience of ‘natural phenomena’.

    “Not that man in primitive society was still ‘buried in Nature’, powerless to free himself from the innumerable ‘mystic’ participations in Nature, totally incapable of logical thought or utilitarian labour in the modern sense of the word. Everything we know of our contemporary ‘primitives’ shows up the weakness of these arbitrary judgements. But it is clear that a thinking dominated by cosmological symbolism created an experience of the world vastly different from that accessible to modern man. To symbolic thinking the world is not only ‘alive’ but also ‘open’: an object is never simply itself (as is the case with modern consciousness), it is also a sign of, or a repository for, something else.” pp. 143-144

    “Alchemy cannot be reduced to a protochemistry. In fact, when it became an elementary chemistry, the alchemical world of meaning was on the verge of disappearing. Everywhere we find alchemy, it is always intimately related to a ‘mystical’ tradition: in China with Taoism, in India with Yoga and Tantrism, in Hellenistic Egypt with gnosis, in Islamic countries with hermetic and esoteric mystical schools, in the Western Middle Ages and Renaissance with Hermetism, Christian and sectarian mysticism, and Cabala. Consequently, to understand the meaning and function of alchemy, we must not judge the alchemical texts by the possible chemical insights which they may contain. Such an evaluation would be tantamount to judging - and classifying - great poetical creations by their scientific data or their historical accuracy.

    “That the alchemists DID contribute also to the progress of the natural sciences is certainly true. But they did this indirectly and only as a consequence of their concern with mineral substance and living matter. For they were ‘experimenters,’ not abstract thinkers or erudite scholastics. Their inclination to ‘experiment,’ however, was not limited to the natural realm…. the experiments with mineral or vegetal substances pursued a more ambitious goal: to change the alchemist’s own mode of being.” pp. 182-183 (less)

    There are many codes, I have no doubt
    The meaning certain to freak you out
    But all the visions of anti-Christ
    Are projections there, you pay a price
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-12-2016 at 07:49 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    This is the first page after the introduction to my book on Alchemy, Sages, Peryllats and Humanists. People can read it for free (somewhat garbled) at Docslide. I wrote the book over a decade ago, after having debated the issue with the author Barrett when he came to a research site on my work at that time. Of course, now we have much more proof of the antiquity of human advanced knowledge so my argument or challenge will never be taken up in a public forum for all to see - I have in fact already won the argument for any who care to learn.


    The origins of alchemy and hermetics are hotly contested among scholars. There are
    many non-alchemists who like to regard it as having begun in 200 AD. David V. Barrett
    wrote 'Secret Societies' after his time with the British Secret Service doing a job similar
    to what Aleister Crowley performed for the Allies during WWII. He is one of those
    people who want us to think they are really new to science. He doesn't mention much
    about Crowley's work for MI-6 and certainly doesn't try to rehabilitate Crowley’s image.
    It is important to note that Barrett freely admits he honors the Official Secrets Act in his
    life and the writing of this book.

    "Alchemy, 'the Royal Art', has always been a mixture of the scientific and the
    spiritual. Both the ancient Egyptian alchemists and their Renaissance descendants were
    actually chemists - and physicians, and astronomers, and mathematicians, physicists,
    botanists and biologists - all within the terms of their own day. Those who carelessly
    dismiss them as deluded or fraudulent magicians should remember that they were, in
    effect, the first scientists. They were the first ones to discover that a polished lens of glass
    could focus the light of the Sun to a hot, burning point, or could magnify what is seen
    through it {Which would make them around in La Venta, Mexico a very long time before
    he thinks, according to recent archaeological discoveries.}. They were the ones who
    studied physiology, and who worked out, sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly, how
    the human body worked, and what the various parts of it were for. They were the ones
    who studied plants, and learned which ones were beneficial and which poisonous, and
    which lethal ones could, in tiny doses, heal.

    {I agree, and that would make them around with their shaman brothers in the very
    ancient past long before the Ice Age before the last one. But, he is not saying this except
    through my interpretation.}

    If they also believed in the influence of the planets, and in the four elements, and in
    the humors, which cause modern scientists to smile condescendingly, such beliefs did not
    hold back their quest for scientific knowledge; indeed, there is plenty of evidence to show
    that they actually stimulated this pursuit of knowledge. If the alchemists used
    classification systems which today are seen as invalid, at least they were using
    classification systems - and, within their own terms, these worked.

    In short, they studied the world within their current world-view, which is no different
    from what the great nineteenth-century chemists and physicists did {Or their current soul-
    mates who were called 'atom-mysticists' - the quantum theorists.}, or what scientists of
    today do. A 'difference does' exist, however, in that today's rigid professional
    stratification did not exist in medieval and Renaissance times, except in the craftsmen's
    guilds. Scientists then were also priests, monks, philosophers, poets, artists.

    Two of the greatest teachers of the thirteenth century, Albertus Magnus (1193-1280)
    and Roger Bacon (1214-92) were both monks and scientists {It was safer than being out
    of the church if you wanted to beat the heresy trials and 'staked' your purpose in life to
    something more than fire.}. Albertus was a Dominican who, despite his magical
    researches and his lifetime studying Aristotle {Who is someone he should also regard as
    an alchemist, and few actually do outside of the hermetic circles. More on all of these
    things and people later.}, rose to become a bishop {He didn't have the money to become
    Pope like the de Medicis.}. Bacon, was a Franciscan, is credited with inventing eye-
    glasses and the 'scientific method' (i.e. personal observation of phenomena rather than
    simply accepting the received wisdom of authority), and spent the last fourteen years of
    his life in a dungeon for his supposed heresies. Depending on the source, both are
    credited with owning a speaking brazen head; Thomas Aquinas {The Thomists in the
    Catholic church of today are still the majority, I hear. He incorporated the teaching of
    Aristotle into Catholic dogma and became a Saint.}, who studied under Albertus, is said
    to have smashed the head because it disturbed his studies.

    {There are other stories, to be sure. Including a more believable one that has
    Aquinas being inspired enough by the Inquisitor's questions, to claim it was 'the talking-
    head of Jesus'. What Divine Inspiration, it is the equal of Constantine and Augustine,
    almost. This head would be a scryring skull; and others have it that they had built a

    Another important name of the period is that of Ramon Lull (1232-1315) a Spanish
    philosopher who encountered both the Spanish Cabalists {Sephardic Jews that I think are
    more appropriately called Kaballists.} and the mystical Muslims of northern Spain. Lull
    drew together the teachings of the ninth-century Irish scholar John Scotus Erigena
    {Means Irish-born, and he is greatly admired by Bertrand Russell in his book on Western
    Philosophy.}, the concept of the four elements {Even older than Aristotle - by FAR!}
    (earth, water, fire and air) and their qualities (dry and cold, cold and moist, hot and dry,
    and hot and moist), the seven planets and twelve zodiacal signs {We shall see are in
    Bahamas undersea caverns long before Christ - who never claimed to be the 'Chriost'.} of
    astrology, the three spheres (supercelestial, the realm of the angels; celestial, the realm of
    the stars; and material, the realm of man), the Jewish and Muslim emphasis on the Divine
    Names (or Attributes) of God, and much more besides, into one complex system known
    as Lullian Art,…” (1)

    You can easily see why it takes more than an Encyclopaedia to be able to follow what
    is going on from just this little quote. There are many twists and turns to follow in the
    pursuit of knowledge and its power that has been the purpose of many secret agencies
    since 'his'-story began. Even before the records of history that extend (by way of stones
    and symbols) to the beginnings of man's thoughts. These beginnings did not start with
    language due to some God-given gift and they did not need alphabets or other form and
    structure such as Locke's 'tabula rasa' would have us believe. Here we see the Jewish and
    Muslim as well as Catholic myth-makers were involved in cryptic or coded information.
    It is important to remember that the Islamic people didn't have as complete a 'Dark Ages'
    destruction of knowledge despite the efforts of Caliph Omar. Hermes Trismegistus is
    reckoned by many to have been the cause celebré or namesake of Hermetics and yet
    Barrett would have us believe he and his work did not exist until the Catholic Churchians
    had developed Hermeneutics. Talk about 'revisionist history' or Hellenized plagiarization!
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-12-2016 at 08:30 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    I suppose since I have denigrated Theosophy and AMORC again I should present more evidence of their fraud and bad history. They believe (or put words in the mouths of adepts) in some Atlantis and Sanskrit origins - which was the current Nazi type fad when Blavatsky was creating the myths and cult. This is proven wrong even though it was current leading edge Indo-Aryan philosophy. She also promoted Mu and was close to getting a lot correct about the Urumchi Taklamakand Desert area. You could say channelling is not always 100 % accurate and that she was close enough, but there has not been a lost continent - nor Hollow earth, Niburu and all the rest of the crap.

    But in this regard they are absolutely right - (funny how cults are the best source for proving other cults wrong - is it not):

    "It has seldom, if ever, entered the mind of the Western public that their scholars have, until very lately, worked in a narrow pathway obstructed with the ruins of an ecclesiastical, dogmatic Past; that they have been cramped on all sides by limitations of "revealed" events coming from God, "with whom a thousand years are but as one day," and who have thus felt bound to cram millenniums into centuries and hundreds into units, giving at the utmost an age of 1,000 to what is 10,000 years old. All this to save the threatened authority of their religion and their own respectability and good name in cultured society. Even when free themselves from preconceptions, they have had to protect the honor of the Jewish divine chronology assailed by stubborn facts, and thus have become (often unconsciously) the slaves of an artificial history made to fit into the narrow frame of a dogmatic religion."
    Last edited by R_Baird; 04-12-2016 at 10:08 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts