To answer clearly and respectfully, I’ve broken your message down into separate points so I can respond to each one properly. That way, nothing gets skipped over or misunderstood. Let’s go through them step by step.
🟦 1. “The Work of Nature is the Straight Path”
You say “the work of Nature is a straight path,” and on that point, I completely agree with you. I would even add, as the Cosmopolite says:
“Simplicity is the true seal of Truth.”
Nature indeed follows a straight and ordered path, but in order to walk it, you must first understand the laws that govern it and how they operate within each specific kingdom.
If you truly wish to follow Nature, you must first identify the kingdom you are working in and grasp the rules she applies there. The core issue, and I say this as someone offering a constructive diagnosis, is that you are conflating categories.
When the authors speak of the chaos of Genesis, you interpret it as if it were the same as the chaos of the Work, as though Art could return a body to a purely elemental state.
But only the Creator has the power to create from nothing or reduce something to nothing. Nature, by contrast, only works with the primordial elements she was given in the beginning. She transforms and specifies them according to the laws ordained by the Creator, whose universal Spirit is hidden in every form and in all matter — but she does not invent.
Art, in turn, is a lesser imitation of Nature. It can only combine and arrange what is already specified.
And ironically, this very Reddit post touches on that point when it refers to Novum Lumen Chymicum by Michael Sendivogius, which explicitly explains this idea: that even Nature does not create from nothing but only modifies what already exists.
So let’s return to the root of your confusion:
- The chaos observed in the Work is never a void, nor a return to absolute formlessness.
- It is a specified chaos, not a reduction to pure elements.
🟥 So no, you cannot reduce a body to isolated fire, air, water, and earth.
If you could, what would distinguish you from the Creator?
It is a fundamental error to believe that the fermentation of some vague “living water” could yield the universal prima materia.
When the Philosophers compare their chaos to that of Genesis, they are speaking allegorically, not literally.
This is why, for example:
- The sperm of an animal, even after putrefaction, does not return to its elemental components.
- It remains bound to the nature of its species.
What ensures the order of creation is this very specificity, which never abandons the body throughout its transformation.
This point may seem subtle, but it’s exactly where your entire reasoning falls apart.
Worse still, it leads straight into contradiction:
If, as you claim, urine can be reduced to a state of elemental chaos like the Creator Himself would achieve,
then why wouldn’t this apply to any other substance?
Do you really believe urine is uniquely capable of such a dismantlement?
Based on what? In what operation do you perform this miraculous decomposition?
If it were true, your process would surpass the Philosopher’s Stone itself.
But even then — how do you propose to recompose from that absolute destruction a unified, exalted substance like the Stone?
I suspect you’ve never examined this point with any real rigor. But you should.
Because while your claims might sound simple and convincing on the surface, the moment you evaluate them with scientific clarity, even you would feel uneasy.
I could quote you dozens of passages from true adepts who explain this concept of specified chaos, always by analogy to the biblical one, never in literal terms.
But I am not here to spoon-feed you.
I am here to help you learn how to fish.
Still, if you sincerely want proof beyond my own humble reasoning, I am more than willing to share full excerpts that lay it out plainly.
🟦 2. “Seven Years in the Maze: Why Your Experience Alone Is Not Proof”
You say “I was lost in the maze for 7 yrs reading every available text I could find over and over and over again trying to figure it out what the prime is. But this is not a thing of logic or reason or every great mind would have obtained it. I rejected urine being the prime for 7yrs, and working first on plants then on minerals and metals and solvents and acids, spending untold thousands on equipment and material.”
You say you’ve worked for seven years, read every possible text, spent thousands, rejected urine at first, and found nothing — so now you conclude it must be urine. But that logic doesn’t hold. You're approaching alchemy without any structured reasoning or method, as if it were just a game of trial and error.
But chemistry — whether vulgar or philosophical — is a science. It is rooted in natural law, deep reasoning, and consistent principles. You can’t hope to understand the infinitesimal in mathematics without mastering the foundations of calculus. You can’t derive special relativity without first learning classical physics. Likewise, you cannot create the Philosopher’s Stone simply by selecting a random material and hoping something happens. The Art is built on understanding, not guessing.
Your argument essentially says:
“I searched for seven years and didn’t find it, so it must be this other thing.”
But if we apply that reasoning to any discipline, all progress collapses. Newton and Einstein would never have discovered anything if they had assumed that the absence of results meant the absence of truth. The fact that you searched for years proves effort, not conclusion.
How could you possibly claim to have tested all metallic substances in existence? You speak as if the entire metallic kingdom were a checklist of ingredients you’ve exhausted. But the Philosophers’ Matter does not reveal itself through brute experimentation. It is not about trying everything until “something works”. The problem may not lie in the substances you used, but in the lens through which you approached them.
Even if, by a chance as slim as winning the lottery, you stumbled upon the right matter, your method would still fail if your reasoning is flawed and not grounded in the true principles. If your understanding of Nature’s laws is shallow, then no matter how much matter you burn, dissolve, ferment, or distill, you will never recognize what you are not prepared to see.
Can anyone just enrich uranium with any method? Of course not. It requires precise knowledge, not just the raw material.
Alchemy is not trial and error. It is a science of causes, of proportions, and of correspondences. Without comprehension, repetition is just noise.
This is why I sincerely doubt your seven years of reading were done with real philosophical penetration. Because if they had been, your conclusions would not be so shallow.
I have seen people who studied only a few months and already grasped the heart of the matter more clearly than you. Not because they were lucky, but because they had the humility to learn, the discipline to think, and the patience to understand what you clearly rushed past.
And you know I say this not to attack you — but because we’ve already spoken privately. And I’ve shown you, many times, that your arguments collapse under scrutiny. But you refuse to let go of your position, not because it’s strong, but because your ego is attached to it.
You would rather trust the taste of urine than the unified voices of the adepts who possessed the Stone and wrote extensively about it — some of them being historically attested and highly respected in their time.
And what do they all say, without exception?
That those who wish to generate a man must begin with a man.
That one cannot make a bull without starting from a bull.
And that the work must never depart from the metallic kingdom.
Yet you reject all that — not based on higher truth, but because of your personal conviction. And that is the real issue.
And finally — if you truly believe that you are manipulating elemental chaos itself, then nothing should stop you from creating not only a Philosopher’s Stone… but also a human, a tree, or even a star. After all, you claim the power to reduce matter to its most primordial state and recreate it at will.
So go ahead. Create something real. Show us a Stone that acts on the metallic realm — as every single adept has clearly described. Show us transmutation. Show us projection.
But let’s be honest. I’ve seen your contradictions. Publicly, you even falsely claimed to possess the white elixir.
Yet in private — when you knew you could not lie to me — you admitted plainly:
“Who told you I have the Stone?”
🟥 You then said you do not have it. You’ve only observed some effects — according to you, limited to colors and tastes.
But even something as mundane as cheese or ketchup, subjected to enough manipulation and sophistry, can yield endless variations of color and flavor. That does not make it the Seed of Metals.
And yet… you still believe it must be urine.
So in the end, this is not about truth. It’s about belief.
Yours is not a science. Not an art. Not even a method. It is a conviction born of failure, and defended by pride.
And if all the evidence from the Adepts, all the logic of Natural Philosophy, and even your own contradictions cannot wake you up…
then nothing will.
🟦 3. “Urine, Allegory, and the Abuse of Language”
You say “The only way to get this is from a master or god enlighten your mind as it is written. One of the primary text I use says in the beginning, it's not urine but that is just a faint, then it goes on to ask multiple times what's in children's urine. What costs nothing, everyone sees and handles it daily, is vile and thrown on the dung hill, comes on you like a thief in the night, is a living water that comes in gold or silver color, the rich cannot have more than the poor, it cries aloud in the ancient streets, at the head of every street, and at the city gates and the cross roads?”
Then you conclude: “Understand the meaning not the words.”
Fine. Let’s start with your own principle: understanding the meaning, not the words. Then tell me clearly:
How can you make a metallic seed out of urine?
You speak of Nature, and you claim to respect her laws and principles? Then show me one single plant, one single animal, one single being whose seed is generated from urine. Go ahead.
🟥 You won’t find a single example in the whole of creation. Why? Because urine is not a generating substance. It is a waste product, expelled from the body. It has no power to generate life in any kingdom: not mineral, not vegetal, not animal. So how could it possibly produce the most exalted of all things — the Philosopher’s Stone?
It’s not just wrong. It’s honestly absurd.
As I’ve explained before, this confusion stems from superficial reasoning and a misreading of Hermetic language. People latch onto the word chaos in the texts and convince themselves that by distilling urine or milk or some other vile fluid, they can extract Mercury and Sulphur, purify them, and recombine them into the Stone.
But take a lesson here.
Water, Air, Fire, and Earth are elemental principles.
Sulphur, Mercury, and Salt are also principles, but they are of a different order, one step below.
And we, at our level, have no power to manipulate the pure elements themselves. Only their derivatives.
The only reason authors mention urine, dung, or filth is to veil the true matter, by comparing it to something universal, despised, and cheap. But if you study their language closely and attentively, you begin to understand why they name things the way they do, and what is actually being hidden behind those names.
You keep repeating that the philosophers speak of child’s urine, of dung, of filth, of “our gold” and “our silver”. And yes — they do. But what you don’t understand is that this language is allegorical.
To take it literally is to betray the most basic principle of the entire Hermetic tradition.
It is the base of the base of the base: every true adept warns us — do not read superficially. When they say “our gold,” they do not mean common gold. They mean the substance prepared by Art, made “ours” because it no longer belongs to the vulgar world.
As Philalethes says:
“And therefore we call it ours, because by our Art we have made it to be ours, which indeed before was not so.”
(Ripley Reviv’d, Gate I)
To make this even clearer, I’ll now give you direct quotes from the adepts themselves. I could bring hundreds, but these alone are sufficient:
Basil Valentine – Azoth (The Second Key):
“The wiser Philosophers, hearing only the name of Mercury, know this treasure and have it before their eyes, although it is invisible and spiritual. Yet it is material and is a very chaste virgin who has not known a man. A fragile substance, which is why it has been called virgin’s milk, mountain honey, milk, children’s urine, and other similar names. And in all these things several Artists have sought it, but they have not found it, because it is prepared from good metallic matter.”
Albert Poisson – Theories and Symbols of the Alchemists:
“This symbolic phrasing has ruined many blowers. Instead of working on metals, taking the words of the philosophers literally, they spent their lives distilling plants, urine, excrement, hair, milk, hoping to find the Matter of the Stone of the Wise.”
Eirenaeus Philalethes – Ripley Reviv’d:
“Nor do we make the simple believe, which is the Trade of Sophisters, that we by our Extractions and Manual Operations upon Vegetables, Minerals, Urines, Hair, or the like, intend to make our so highly prized Elixir; but out of such things in which Nature hath put it, we by Art do make it appear by revealing what was hidden, and hiding what was manifest.”
Eirenaeus Philalethes – Ripley Reviv’d:
“If thou therefore intendest to make Gold or Silver by our Philosophy, take neither Eggs nor Blood, nor Urine, nor Wine, nor mean minerals digged out of the mine. For if profit could be had out of things not metallic, yet must that element be first purified and joined with perfect Bodies.”
Michael Sendivogius – Dialogue of Mercury with the Alchemist and Nature:
“…he learned how to sublimate it, calcine it in marvelous ways, now with salts, now with sulfur, now with metals, then with ores; sometimes with blood, sometimes with hair, strong acids, then herbs, urine, vinegar — but nothing brought him closer to the result he desired.”
Bernard Trevisan – The Chemical Miracle (De Chymico Miraculo):
“I truly believe (so may God love me) that those men who wrote figuratively and parabolically about hair, urine, blood, semen, herbs, vegetables, animals, plants, mineral stones, salts, alums, vitriols, boraxes, magnesia, had never operated on these materials, but described them out of sheer cruelty. And I am very sorry indeed for the miseries of those unfortunate people who have been led into such labyrinths by impostors.”
🟦 4. “Understanding Is Not Invention”
You say “In your defense, you are fun because you've read, but you haven't understood. Pray that God would open your eyes to see the truth.”
You say I’ve read but haven’t understood. But understanding is not about inventing meanings that confirm your own beliefs. It is about submitting to the structure of Nature as it is — not as you wish it to be.
Real comprehension begins with humility. With observing how things are generated in each kingdom, and recognizing that the same laws apply everywhere. I don’t claim to “see the truth” because of a dream or a lab experience. I base my words on the full body of Hermetic philosophy, tested line by line, and weighed against Nature itself.
When the Adepts warn us not to take their words literally, I take that warning seriously. When they say the Matter is metallic, I don’t turn to urine, or milk, or waste products. I examine the statement logically, and I test it against every law that governs generation in all kingdoms. And the conclusion is always the same:
Only a metallic seed can produce metallic fruit.
You tell me to pray that God open my eyes.
But maybe the prayer you need is that He break your attachment to false readings, to superficial interpretations, to the desire to twist every symbol into a shortcut.
It’s not me you’re fighting.
You are resisting the collective voice of those who actually walked the path, and left behind the warnings you now refuse to hear.
◾ I’m not here to promote personal theories. I am holding up the mirror of the texts themselves, so that maybe — just maybe — you will stop mistaking the shadow of your own hand for the light you claim to seek.
🟦 5. “Taste, Statues, and the Death of Reason”
You say “Maybe he will, maybe he won't but nothing and no one will change my mind, I've seen the processes exactly as described many, many times, but I'm supposed to listen to someone who has never seen but they read a book? One taste of mustard will tell you more about the flavor than seeing a train load of it. Read saint Dustin. Look at the fountains of gods and little boys peeing, all over Europe, all made by alchemist. look at their art for gods sake. Yea must be as a little child to enter the kingdom. That means little children can find it better than professors. Humble yourself before God and maybe you will understand.”
🟥 Any sincere reader will immediately see that your argument collapses under its own weight, and that your stance lacks the foundation needed to be taken seriously. You openly admit that nothing and no one will ever change your mind, that your convictions are fixed, and that you rely entirely on what you believe you have “seen” — as if personal impressions carried more weight than centuries of carefully reasoned, transmitted, and verified doctrine.
But our Art is cabalistical. That means it speaks in veils and symbols, both in its texts and in its images. When the Adepts mention urine, excrement, statues of urinating children, fountains, or other grotesque figures, they do not speak of literal substances or operations. They speak in allegories, using outward forms to hide inward truths.
The first degree of comprehension is knowing when the sages speak clearly, when they speak in riddles, and how to reconcile their teachings — not only across authors, but above all with the laws of Nature.
Without this discernment, one is doomed to mistake the symbol for the substance.
And this is precisely the trap you’ve fallen into.
You appeal to taste, to smell, to statues and fountains, thinking that surface impressions and scattered imagery can replace the deep study of Nature, doctrine, and generation. But these impressions are meaningless when weighed against the actual teachings of the philosophers.
🟥 Not a single true adept ever grounded his certitude in such things.
You say I should humble myself. But humility begins with obedience to Natural Law, not with rejecting the entire Hermetic tradition in favor of personal fantasy.
Thank you for your prayers — any sincere prayer is welcome. And as you can see, I have remained respectful and educational throughout, even though you have spent eight years misleading honest seekers, defending ideas not grounded in understanding, but in misread metaphors and an unwillingness to question yourself.
Let me end with three simple points.
First, you began by appealing to Nature, and yet not a single part of your reasoning either mentions it meaningfully or respects its laws.
Second, you speak of statues and symbols left by alchemists, yet you ignore the explicit warnings of the most respected Adepts — Philalethes, Ripley, Artephius, Trevisan, and others — all of whom reject the use of urine, and who clearly teach that Nature is amended only by Nature, just as Pythagoras affirms in the Turba Philosophorum.
Third, you cherry-pick whatever suits your narrative. But isn’t it far more honest and consistent to reconcile the Adepts with one another — and with the principles of Nature — rather than defend an idea that, as I’ve shown with clear logic, cannot withstand even the most basic scrutiny?
đźź© Your view relies on color, smell, and fermentation. These are things one could observe in any decaying fruit, and yet you claim this to be the divine Work. There is not a single point of sound reasoning left in your position.
🟦 6. “The Spirit over the Waters”
You say “Edit: the earth was void and formless, and the spirit of the lord moved on the surface of the waters and caused dry land to appear. So we know the prime is a living water, not metals or minerals which are created in the earth.”
This indeed has a deep and genuine meaning in our Work, drawn directly from the opening lines of Genesis. But unfortunately, I cannot explain it further without profaning something that must remain veiled.
I will simply invite any sincere seeker to read the letter of Sendivogius on this very matter, where he speaks more freely — and with authority.
What I can say is this:
While the concept of a “living water” is absolutely central, attempting to reduce it to urine is not only misguided, but difficult to accept even symbolically.
That being said, I believe everything I have explained above is already more than sufficient to expose the error and redirect the true seeker toward what this “water” actually signifies. And for that, you should be thankful, not to me, but to Providence - for placing in your path someone willing to simplify and debunk misconceptions that could have led you astray for years, perhaps even for life.
But if it is God’s will that you remain stubborn and blind to correction, then so be it. I have done my part. The rest is no longer in my hands.
🟦 7. “Formless Waters, False Primes, and the Error of Decomposition”
You say “How can any metal or mineral be the prime matter when they weren't formed yet? Is the universe made from mercury, stibnite, arsenic silver or gold? What water can you ferment and run retrograde back into the five prime elements? You tell me what you have read and I tell you what I have seen. What test of money (testimony) holds more weight? What water can be found in the hills and mountains and everywhere at all times? That everyone beholds daily? A living water? Our gold, our silver? A bitter water? That was from the beginning, that you have to catch before it touches the ground? The kingdom of heaven is in you.”
Let us, just for a moment, follow your own reasoning.
Was the prime matter urine?
Is the universe made from urine?
Can you decompose urine like the Creator, down to its primal elements, and then recompose it into something perfect?
If so, then congratulations — you possess a power greater than that of the Philosopher’s Stone itself.
More seriously, you ask how any metal or mineral could be the prime matter when they were not yet formed “in the beginning”, and you conclude that the true substance must be a living water, something universal and ever-present — like dew or, implicitly, human urine.
But this question reveals a fundamental confusion between the chaos of Genesis and the chaos of the Work.
And it is precisely this misreading of chaos that has amplified and compounded all your errors.
The primordial chaos of Scripture refers to an undifferentiated matter before Creation, a state which only God can command, from which He brings forth form, order, and life.
But the chaos of the Work is of an entirely different nature.
It is never an absolute void, never a reduction to pure elements — otherwise no regeneration could be guaranteed in the same realm after each putrefaction.
It is a relative chaos, proper to the nature of the subject: a loosening of form, not its annihilation.
We do not — and cannot — return any being to a state of elemental purity.
To believe otherwise is to place oneself in the role of the Creator.
The generation permitted to us operates within a strict and immutable order: agent, patient, and product.
This trinitarian foundation underlies all true generation.
The Artist, if he wishes to follow Nature faithfully, must submit to this law — not attempt to bypass or reinvent it.
You ask:
“What water can be fermented and drawn backward into the five elements?”
But the question is ill-posed.
The generation we perform never reaches the first matter of Creation, but only a localized regeneration proper to the body we are working on. And this is enough — because the Universal Spirit is present in every well-ordained seed, and fulfills its mission completely.
You ask whether the universe was made of mercury, stibnite, arsenic, silver, or gold. No — of course not.
But we are not creating the universe.
We are regenerating a body.
And for that, we must begin with something that already holds the seed of perfection within its kind.
This is where the misunderstanding of many readers begins.
Because the Stone possesses such marvelous virtues — its health-giving properties, its power of transmutation — they imagine its origin must be just as miraculous.
But this is false.
🟥 God does not care about wealth. He does not care about the health benefits of the Stone. The value of gold is only what humans assign to it. If we had mastered metallic generation like we did agriculture, gold would be worth nothing.
Let me explain this by returning to something fundamental: Multiplication.
The multiplication of the Stone appears magical — each rotation increases its strength tenfold.
But take the seed of a tree: plant it, and it gives a thousand more. Leave them unplanted, and they die. That seed was dead, until placed in a proper matrix.
Now it becomes fruitful.
Those thousand seeds can give a million.
This is exactly what happens with the Stone.
Once created, it increases its power through each fermentation, gaining more and more strength to fix and perfect the imperfect. What seems magical is in fact a mirror of Nature.
When the Stone is exalted, its power becomes so subtle, so pure, that when joined to the seed of base metals, it separates impurities and binds itself to the pure.
All these qualities are present already in the corporeal Stone, the Philosopher’s Stone. But when exalted, they are intensified, until they reach the point of transmutation.
Nothing is magical.
And yet every generation, rightly perceived, is clothed in wonder — for all the works of God are miracles in the eyes of those who understand them.
A metal — though imperfect — contains the hidden virtue of gold, obscured by its accidents.
And this shared root among the metals is what makes transmutation possible.
Nature always tends toward perfection. But it is hindered by impurity.
Thus, the seed of gold lies buried within each metal.
And it is only by choosing a noble metallic subject, of homogeneous lineage, composed of a living Sulphur and Mercury — not extracted artificially but joined naturally — that the Artist can hope to awaken that seed and bring it to perfection.
The form is loosened, but not destroyed.
You appeal to fountains, to urine, to bitterness, to dew.
But all this leads you astray.
It breaks the law of Nature:
A thing can only generate according to its own kind.
A dog does not produce an oak tree.
A plant does not give birth to a metal.
And no organic substance, no matter how finely distilled, will ever yield a metallic seed.
The simplicity of the Work is not a poverty of means, but a perfect conformity with the order of Nature.
And that order does not lie in clever analogies or metaphorical fantasies.
It lies in the real, lawful structure of generation.
‼️ If you truly want to understand, meditate deeply on why Trevisan tells us to use resolutive doctrine, not compositive.
Meditate on why Hermes begins the Emerald Tablet with the words:
“It is true, certain, and without a lie, that what is below is as what is above.”
Then reconcile those teachings. Use them to guide your analysis of every material in the Work.
Disassemble the properties of each subject. Trace their qualities to their source. Then, you will begin to see.
But not before.
That is why your interpretation falls apart.
It is not based on Nature, nor on the true doctrine of the sages.
It is built upon misread metaphors and sensory impressions.
You rely on taste, smell, statues, and dew — rather than on the logic of generation, and the testimony of those who truly knew.
The kingdom of heaven may be within us, yes — but so is error. And the difference between the two is discernment.