Alchemy and Tantra

In his final blog, Giles Oatley reveals the secret to the philosopher's stone...

Throughout the writings of Samael Aun Weor you will find many of the key elements of the formulas of Highest Yoga Tantra, otherwise known as Alchemy.

The Two Trees of the Garden of Eden are the two essential branches of all knowledge. The Tree of Life is the science of Kabbalah. The Tree of Knowledge is the science of Tantra, or as it is known in the West, Alchemy.

Alchemy: Al (Arabic, as in Allah) means "God." Also El (Hebrew) for "God." Chem or Khem is from kimia (Greek) which means "to fuse or cast a metal." Also from Khem, the ancient name of Egypt. The synthesis is therefore Al-Kimia: "to fuse with God."

Tantra: Sanskrit for "continuum" or "unbroken stream." This refers to the continuum of vital energy that sustains all existence, and also to the class of knowledge and practices that harnesses that vital energy, thereby transforming the practitioner.

The Tree of Knowledge (Alchemy/Tantra) is Daath (Hebrew for knowledge), which is the same as Gnosis (Greek for knowledge).

This science was known and practiced by the ancient Egyptians, Aztecs, Mayans, Chaldeans, Greeks, Tibetans, Indians, Zen and Chan Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Sufis, and many, many more. The understanding of the Tree of Knowledge (Daath) is fundamental in order to understand any religion or mysticism.

Books and classes on Alchemy and Tantra are becoming as common as weeds. There is a growing fascination with this subject, and yet, what of it is genuine and pure?

“If you feel that the view and practice of Dzogchen (Tantrism) is quite simple, it is a sign that you have not understood it properly. It would be quite ironic if the highest of the nine vehicles, the Great Perfection, were the most simple. That would be very ironic indeed.” (The Fourteenth Dalai Lama)

The ancient and long-revered tradition of Tantrism is synonymous with the true heart of Western Alchemy. Both seek to transform the initiated student into the ultimate fulfillment of human existence: a purified soul, an angel, a Buddha, a Master, free of suffering and marked by the spontaneous expression of pure and selfless compassion.

While Alchemy is best known for greedy gold-seeking "chemists," there were a handful of real alchemists, men and women who learned how to conquer death, spontaneously generate precious metals and gems, and cure incurable diseases; most of all, they were known for creating the Philosopher's Stone: a magical item which could work miracles and bestow eternal life.

These stories are identical to the tales of yogis and monks of the East who walked upon the winds and performed all manner of miraculous acts.

The Philosopher's Stone is related with the foundation stone mentioned repeatedly in the Christian Gospels.

“The stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence.” (1 Peter 2: 7-8)

The Philosopher's Stone is created by perfecting our own rough and unworked stone, the Brute Stone of the primeval Masons. The secret wisdom of the Tree of Knowledge reveals the science to develop the Philosopher's Stone, or in other words, the Intimate Christ re-vested with the bodies of gold, working with the human soul.

Giles Oatley lectures in forensic statistics, data mining and decision support systems for crime detection and prevention. He has also worked in the care sector for several years with adults with challenging behaviour and severe learning difficulties. He chairs the Gnostic Institute of Anthropology.
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Theresa May gambles that the EU will blink first

In her Brexit speech, the Prime Minister raised the stakes by declaring that "no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain". 

It was at Lancaster House in 1988 that Margaret Thatcher delivered a speech heralding British membership of the single market. Twenty eight years later, at the same venue, Theresa May confirmed the UK’s retreat.

As had been clear ever since her Brexit speech in October, May recognises that her primary objective of controlling immigration is incompatible with continued membership. Inside the single market, she noted, the UK would still have to accept free movement and the rulings of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). “It would to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all,” May surmised.

The Prime Minister also confirmed, as anticipated, that the UK would no longer remain a full member of the Customs Union. “We want to get out into the wider world, to trade and do business all around the globe,” May declared.

But she also recognises that a substantial proportion of this will continue to be with Europe (the destination for half of current UK exports). Her ambition, she declared, was “a new, comprehensive, bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement”. May added that she wanted either “a completely new customs agreement” or associate membership of the Customs Union.

Though the Prime Minister has long ruled out free movement and the acceptance of ECJ jurisdiction, she has not pledged to end budget contributions. But in her speech she diminished this potential concession, warning that the days when the UK provided “vast” amounts were over.

Having signalled what she wanted to take from the EU, what did May have to give? She struck a notably more conciliatory tone, emphasising that it was “overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed”. The day after Donald Trump gleefully predicted the institution’s demise, her words were in marked contrast to those of the president-elect.

In an age of Isis and Russian revanchism, May also emphasised the UK’s “unique intelligence capabilities” which would help to keep “people in Europe safe from terrorism”. She added: “At a time when there is growing concern about European security, Britain’s servicemen and women, based in European countries including Estonia, Poland and Romania, will continue to do their duty. We are leaving the European Union, but we are not leaving Europe.”

The EU’s defining political objective is to ensure that others do not follow the UK out of the club. The rise of nationalists such as Marine Le Pen, Alternative für Deutschland and the Dutch Partij voor de Vrijheid (Party for Freedom) has made Europe less, rather than more, amenable to British demands. In this hazardous climate, the UK cannot be seen to enjoy a cost-free Brexit.

May’s wager is that the price will not be excessive. She warned that a “punitive deal that punishes Britain” would be “an act of calamitous self-harm”. But as Greece can testify, economic self-interest does not always trump politics.

Unlike David Cameron, however, who merely stated that he “ruled nothing out” during his EU renegotiation, May signalled that she was prepared to walk away. “No deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain,” she declared. Such an outcome would prove economically calamitous for the UK, forcing it to accept punitively high tariffs. But in this face-off, May’s gamble is that Brussels will blink first.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.