I Read The Corpus Hermeticum So You Don't Have To (Hermeticism)

PLEASE NOTE: This is not my first holy rodeo. Thus far, I have absorbed the teachings of  The Quran (Islam - 2016), The Satanic Bible (LaVeyan Satanism - 2017), Dianetics (Scientology - 2018), The Bible (Christianity - 2019), The Book Of The Law (Thelema - 2020), and the Tao Te Ching (Taoism - 2021).
2022 is my seventh consecutive year of analysing a religious scripture. I chose the Corpus Hermeticum because I ran out of time to complete my Secret Doctrine (Theosophy) studies, and I leapt towards something shorter yet equally mystical. Hermeticism fit the criteria perfectly.

If you enjoy your religio-philosophical systems to be led by an unforgettable legendary figure, then Hermeticism may be the most impressive teachings to fall into your palms. For our tale begins with Hermes Trismegistus, an entity whose hotly debated origins rival the finest legends ever told.

Some general agreement forms around the Ancient Egyptian god, Thoth. This abstract ibis-headed deity supervised many human practices, notably wisdom, writing, science, and magic. Meanwhile, the Ancient Greeks had Hermes (or the Roman Mercury), a once-mortal then-Olympian deity who (among numerous tasks) assisted communication between the gods and people. When the Greeks and Egyptians traded cultural ideas, the nations recognised these personalities as identical, and a merger occurred. Civilians effortlessly worshipped Thoth and Hermes as one, now recognised as the Thrice-Greatest Hermes Trismegistus, the "scribe of the gods", a spiritual aid who blessed his followers with esoteric knowledge from the divine.

Depending on who you speak to, the myth bleeds over every other spiritual timeline available. Certain scholars place Hermes as a contemporary of the Biblical Abraham or even a teacher of Moses. At the same time, Islamic and Baháʼí researchers equate him with the Quran's third prophet Idris. And as the ages have rolled onward, his texts have influenced every occult sect to date, most directly Thelema, Rosicrucianism, and Freemasonry, plus some fascinating Kabbalah offshoots. And even if none of this prods your memory sacks, you surely recognise Hermes' Caduceus logo of two snakes embracing a staff, aptly used as a symbol for commerce (Hermes was also the god of merchants) and later erroneously appropriated as a symbol for medicine.

For me, the most exciting element of this myth is that Hermes left us with an extensive body of work, collectively referred to as the Hermetica. I mean, how often do you read a book that was supposedly written by an authentic deity? Never have I ever? Of course, there are naysayer explanations. There always is, and they have merit. You see, back in the day, when inspiration knocked, a writer may believe some supernatural source of wisdom was speaking through them, and they'd prefer to gift credit to those powers above. It's a decent theory, but the content is so visionary in its information yet convincingly coherent in execution that attributing the effort to an all-knowing being almost feels more logical. Almost.

Now, when assessing the Hermetica texts themselves, you'll find quite a large selection, recorded between the third century BCE and the third century CE. They deal with an array of topics but are commonly split into two categories.

The first is the "technical" writings, which include astrology, alchemy, and magic. Within these is the influential Emerald Tablet, a brief but cryptic teaching which famously coined the phrase "as above, so below". This tablet is freely available online, so you can read it yourself in less than a minute.

The second is the "religio-philosophical" writings, focusing on anthropology, cosmology, and theology. And here we hold the most famous compilation of Hermes Trismegistus content, called the Corpus Hermeticum, woven together around the 15th century and translated into Latin. Due to this adaptation process, one must exercise a degree of caution, as per usual. We must recognise the vulnerabilities of authenticity. What we read is plausibly far removed from the original intentions, where language rephrasing and cultural pressures unmistakably made an impact.

Be that as it may, Hermeticism faired much better than the majority of theologies during the periods of religious suppression because Christianity shared some fascinating associations with Hermeticism. They both emerged in popularity in the late antiquity period, and many consider Hermes Trismegistus as a great sage who helped build the foundations of Christianity itself. In fact, debates persist today about which faith influenced the other the most. This observation opens a comparative conversation between specific terminologies, for example, where both doctrines seek answers inward while receiving revelations from a "God" figure. Still, Hermeticism was ultimately forced into underground cult status by Christianity, and religious authorities surely revised the surviving texts through the Biblical lens until editors were granted approval. So we take what we can get.

And, as it turns out, what we can get is quite a lot!

When a reported deity offers sacred information from the ether, the pressure is on to deliver. And Hermes does so despite the millennia that have since passed. Using the teacher-student format, Hermes engages in conversations, occasionally with the Greater Intelligence, but usually with his son, Tat, or another Greek god, Asclepius. And here, the secrets of the Universe are handed over verbally, eventually written, decoded a hundred times, and now in our grasp. It blows my mind that every human on the planet isn't scrambling to read these, because the premise is otherworldly! But we all have our priorities.

Regardless, I assume you are one of those who are keen to learn the code of the Universe? That's why you're here? Ok, I'll tell you.

But a FOREWARNING that everything from this point will be riddled with interpretations via the studies of Janthopoyism. For those who don't know, my beliefs have developed to be 100% Janthopoyistic, and I can no longer separate my cemented philosophies from other spiritual notions. I will ensure to explain myself each step of the way, but if you find yourself overcome by curiosity, please lean back into those texts here.

Hermeticism is an idealistic faith whereby the entirety of reality is a construct of perception and does not persist outside the mind. Even deeper is that this Mind is One, everything an extension of "God", essentially living within the thoughts of the Supreme Being. Already we can relate this to a spectrum of other ideas, from the Eastern understanding of an illusionary existence (Maya) to the scientific evidence that matter is primarily electrical currents that behave differently when observed or measured (quantum mechanics). Janthopoyism agrees.

Once you arrive at the "God is the All" perspective, many alternate notions automatically fall into place. Hermeticism alludes to deterministic mechanics, where free will is largely a false impression. It is also a prisca theologia belief that states one true theology exists through all religions (which is the only reasonable conclusion when everything is hugged into the same circle anyway). Again, this is in tune with Janthopoyism completely.

So far so good! But that is not to say I easily swallow everything Hermes Trismegistus bestowed upon us. On the contrary, I take issue with plenty of its core ideas.

The interchangeable terminology between "Mind" and "God" is problematic. From a Janthopoyism standpoint, the mind is simply the electricity of Life meeting an otherwise useless fleshy organ. Thinking is akin to the function of the heartbeat or drawing air into the lungs. There is an energy source that keeps the body running, and then it leaves after death, the brain remaining with the corpse.

Hermeticism speaks of the mind as a divine quality tied to God. What's more, only some humans have a "mind", some humans don't, and no other species is so lucky. This bold statement creates a spiritual hierarchy that is wildly unprovable and dangerous. Ask anyone if they have a mind, and they will respond with a resounding yes. Ask anyone who has read the Corpus Hermeticum if they have a mind, and they will scoff from an even higher pedestal of egotism, believing they are privy to the genuine God-mind but, again, without a provable comparison point. And don't get me started on animals. I have stared into the eyes of creatures and fallen into God's depths. At times, more than that of any person.

Please note that I am not stating Hermes Trismegistus was incorrect, but I believe layers of interpretation have distorted the vocabulary. It is also possible that what Hermes attempted to convey was too advanced for a BCE crowd, and he submitted the closest comprehendible hypothesis he could at that period. That is why I appreciate translators such as Clement Salaman, who carefully sidestepped the "mind" to favour the word "Nous" instead. Conceptually, the two are not miles apart, but Nous is a deeper part of our intellect that deals with rational thinking required to perceive reality in a certain way. In occult conversations, this understanding applies to the underlying vibrational principle. That the All is all and all we are.

In a Janthopoyistic sense, there is a big difference between the mind and the observer. We have a spiritual essence (Soul? Atman?) that records data, perhaps even on an atomic level. A lot of this may be filtered through the brain organ as an instrument of perception, sure, but the mind itself is hardly something to worship as it's a mad flurry of radio gaga at the best of times. That is why I feel most comfortable replacing "mind" with "Nous" myself. Plus, if you ask someone whether they possess "Nous" or not, you will encourage far more deliciously complex answers (or blank stares).

To consider consciousness as some apex of divine awareness exposes nothing but the arrogance of humans. We struggle to fathom platforms above the ones we've reached; therefore, our peak becomes the peak of everything. If we are able to describe God's inner workings using our mental achievements alone, then I will be so disappointed that I am no longer interested whatsoever. Thankfully, I am more inclined to blame man's ego for such restraints on our imagination.

The "man-worship" of Hermeticism does not end there either. No, we are only just tapping the shell.

One clear Hermetic schooling is that we are an extension of divinity. Such a proposal predates everything. We can find it in the holy Hindu Vedas or even the conception of animism/shamanism devotion. However, Hermeticism clearly distinguishes between "God" and "nature", whereas humans lie in some middle ground. We are trapped in the mortal sense of materialism, but our eternal soul is nearer to that of a deity. There is enlightenment to unlock here, and we cannot deny our species' inherited desire to identify spiritual purpose, a drive seemingly exclusive to our DNA. But how do we know that certain animals haven't already achieved that zen quality we crave? Or, from an infinite Universe standpoint, what makes us think there is no race out there which has advanced much further than us? Again, it is a shortsighted ego-driven curse of the human being, where we have convinced ourselves that we are the best, and whatever else vibrates on a lower plain.

Janthopoyism teaches that everything is equally holy, using the electron as a base unit for sacred electricity while recognising a field of power that permeates each person, creature, and object, as well as the space between. That noted, I am open to softening my resistance as leeway for the times. Subatomic chitter and extraterrestrial chatter would not compute thousands of years ago. So even if an Egyptian god had access to such knowledge, relaying it could have been counterproductive. Or perhaps "God" itself did not comprehend these ideas back then, the Universe learning through perceptions like ours. Or maybe atoms didn't exist at that point, the minute details of science evolving as they were noticed, creating further data only as the growing wisdom called for it. These proposals are harmonious with Janthopoyism's scripture.

There are other nitpicky hiccups that have dated badly too, such as unforgivable astrological inaccuracies or the demand that every human must procreate as a cosmic order. But perhaps what resonated with me the least was the conviction that God is pure good. According to Hermes, strictly nothing else is good. Only God is good, and anything not-good is only that way because it is removed from God.

It's a common discussion where the murky side of life is explained via demons or at least an absence of God. On an emotional level, certain associations connect for me. Bad things feel bad because they are bad, and vice versa. But even in this acceptance, it contradicts the idea of God and The All as The One. How can an overarching process claim to encompass everything and then not include the entire spectrum of every topic? I get the "darkness is merely the lack of light" argument, but there is still a procedure in place where the light can come and go. Whatever that higher field may be, it transcends the God of Hermeticism, for that force is built into it. When speaking of a bulletproof Pantheistic God, we are referring to the realm where the physics of light and darkness apply, a system that was developed to contain every component of the program.

Therefore, despite claiming "The All", there is an advanced "God" found in many doctrines above that of Hermeticism. One where good and evil are a necessary balance and coexist by loving "design". We can find beauty in the whole package.

Following that groan is a similar groan against the ongoing need for esoteric and exoteric beliefs alike to compartmentalise concepts and then name each along the way. Janthopoyism finds considerable comfort in viewing the Universe as a singular entity. Breaking it down into nondualistic bits is of no interest to us. We view that practice as unnecessary and wholly unprovable. When a document claims God consists of x and y parts, it is but the renaming of the Cosmos' pieces that have been defined previously. Or they are introducing something brand new while lacking any evidence to support the suggestion. By default, I question why we must trust the words of some aged scripture as the blessed fact. I refuse to accept anything I cannot state without hypothesis. The absolute collection of everything under one name is unfathomable, but it undeniably exists on some infinite upper level. Beyond that is speculation or opinion.

I also have concerns that deal with mystical education in general. For starters, mysticism forever sells itself as something we can't logically understand but rather must be felt through personal experiences. I can grasp such sensible wisdom, for as soon as a theory provides globally accepted proof, it shifts into a science. Mysticism is an imperative category in our experimental studies of reality, but the loose criteria provide an abundance of wiggle room for self-appointed actualities.

And herein lies another sticky point that Hermeticism does so well: refashioning simple truths into slightly obscure presentations. By creating a cryptic puzzle for the reader to interpret, a resounding "Oh, I get it!" follows, delivering a false hit of accomplishment dopamine one could misconstrue as an epiphany. You feel you have cracked the code into something profound, whereas you merely unwound a web built for you so you can find a relatively uncomplicated centre. Even worse, the prize you uncover may only be a cheap mirror, vague enough to reflect and amplify preexisting assertions in your mind, offering a different answer to whoever stumbles upon it. Here is the greatest trick occult books have ever pulled. Crowley was a master of it. I can spot it everywhere.

Those objections aside, I readily admit that Hermeticism got more right than wrong through my eyes, altering my spiritual path for the better. So here comes the good stuff!

Arguably its most beneficial encouragement was to focus on the spirit and not the physical. One of its strongest warnings was against the materialistic world where our vices live. Our indulgences in sex, porn, food, sleep, drugs, or any other such body-based pleasures work to trap us deeper into the illusion. I have researched many Eastern traditions that teach similar practices (the dedication of Jainism stands out), and something inside me resonates with this as the most promising path. Possessions are a commonly discussed aspect, but even luxuries like homes and human relationships apply. By completely ridding oneself of everything material and then devoting your focus to the metaphysical being within, the God for you will grow. I know my spiritual future eventually moves this way.

Another essential education found in Hermeticism (and everywhere!) is that of ethical purity. Even the contemplations of living a virtuous life muster an awareness of divine purpose, and it makes practical sense too. Harnessing ugly emotions that scrape contrary to your principles will torture your days and hinder the world around you. But while ample faiths exploit after-life fears to morally herd society, Hermeticism's bait is one of powerful enlightenment or godlike abilities. That is a more enticing prize, and it has inspired me to gradually shift away from my mischievous pleasures. We should always strive to be better people, and Hermeticism offers attractive tools to achieve such goals.

On a side note, I also devoured the 1908 publication The Kybalion by the "Three Initiates" to easier grasp Hermes Trismegistus' teachings. These texts are far from canon (if anything, a New Thought interpretation of Hermeticism), but they blasted my mind forward on a track I never expected. These modern educations are more coherent and applicable than the Corpus Hermeticum itself, so I'd recommend starting here if you're into what I am saying. It's a speedy read, yet its information about influencing the laws of the Universe will impact my thoughts forever. For further study, I've included the Kybalion's Seven Hermetic Principles at the bottom of this article, and you can check out my separate review for that publication on Goodreads

In the end, the Corpus Hermeticum lived up to the hype and motivated me in much the same way as the Tao Te Ching or The Book of the Law. After heavy analyses, I came out the other side convinced I am interpreting the material slightly differently than the others and would love to offer my own translation one day. Additionally, there is something extra special when "Western" esoterics are not tangled in Abrahamics. It's a mysticism that feels deeply connected to a method that will really work if you work it. And that is something I love a lot.

Ok! So that's above, here's below: I've included the FULL Corpus Hermeticum (Mead translation) with my comments sliced between. It's a messy and rushed undertaking that you should fairly consider as nothing more than a study on public display. Once again, please forgive any spelling errors, any misinterpretations, and my tendency to digest everything through a Janthopoyism filter.

Read This Next Maybe

I Read the Tao Te Ching So You Don't Have To

But First, We Need to Talk About Translations

Unlocking the Corpus Hermeticum is a complex task. Only by reading multiple translations can you forge the necessary keys. I decided on the following five editions based on varying reasons which I shall detail as we go.

The Corpus Hermeticum by G. R. S. Mead (published 1905)
When considering the options, primarily focusing on Mead's translation was the obvious choice. Not only is it available in the public domain (meaning I could include it here without breaking any laws), but it was also the first printed copy I purchased. Furthermore, it was the golden standard for many years. While other translations are quite similar to each other in their interpretations, Mead's stands out as its own thing, a much more original piece of work while the alternatives can become almost interchangeable, meaning redundant.
However, with those advantages came issues. George Robert Stow Mead was a dedicated Theosophist, so his biased understanding leaned more towards those ideologies. Furthermore (and like anything Theosophy correlated), Mead was not shy of complex educations and favoured dated poetics over coherency or faithfulness to the originals. I feel he wanted to sound clever while maintaining an aura of esoterics simply for the sake of it. For these reasons, Mead's version has slipped down in hierarchy, now considered a dirtier choice in Hermetic circles. No matter! Because when merged with the rest of them, it still fits as a valuable piece of the puzzle.
It's easy to find free online if you're interested.

Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius in English Translation, with Notes and Introduction by Brian P. Copenhaver (published 1991)
It is my understanding that Copenhaver's version has since overtaken Mead's as the academic go-to Corpus Hermeticum. It's easy to see why, as it is uncomplicated to understand and has a decent reputation for standing true to the original Latin translations. There are also pages upon pages of additional notes if you want to fall nice and deep into the thing.

The Way of Hermes: New Translations of The Corpus Hermeticum and The Definitions of Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius by Clement Salaman (published 2004)
Salaman's translation is cut from the same cloth as Copenhaver, so much so that I wouldn't be surprised if he simply ran through Copenhaver's copy and changed words that suited him. However, it is written in an even easier-to-grasp language while boasting all the selling points Copenhaver had in the first place. Thus, I'd consider this my favourite and the first I'd recommend to you. My only major complaint is that his chapter titles are terribly bland and indistinguishable!
Please note that my copy was fully credited to Clement Salaman, Dorine van Oyen, William D. Wharton, and Jean-Pierre Mahe.

Corpus Hermeticum: The Divine Pymander of Hermes Trismegistus by John Everard (published 1650)
Reportedly the first English translation ever, what Everard achieved was incredibly impressive. Unfortunately, Everard's source material wasn't as well organised back in the 1600s, and he is missing some standard treatises while seemingly replacing them with different Hermetica texts (known as the Stobaean Fragments). The numbering of sections and the ordering of chapters differs from the previous examples, which turned into a cross-referencing nightmare. I have a lot of respect for the man and his work, his contribution to my understanding was priceless, but it suffers from a lack of modern perspective (through no fault of its own).

Corpus Hermeticum: The Divine Pymander by Tarl Warwick (published 2015)
Talk about cheating off the wrong paper, Warwick is a line-by-line rewrite of Everard's jumbled output. In fairness, it was an easy read with some chosen words that I preferred above any other. But for the most part, it was the least essential Corpus Hermeticum that I read by quite a while.

Walter Scott's translation fell on my radar too, but I haven't come across the most glowing reviews for it (some calling it "unreliable"); hence I did not include it in my research. Sorry, Walter!

Shout out to both Let's Talk Religion and ESOTERICA YouTube channels, not only for their knowledge on Hermeticism, but honestly, on every religion. I constantly come back to these dudes, and you should too!
I also spent a little bit of clicks on Sacred Texts. Less than I thought I would, but when I fell stuck, sometimes the push was provided by them. Great site regardless. I have a small dream that they host the Janthopoyism Bible there one day.
Finally, huge respect to Polyphanes on Reddit for helping me out with some questions. Whenever scouring the Hermeticism subreddit, his name was always there, providing answers to the masses. I bow to your superior knowledge!


Alright, here goes everything:

I. PŒMANDRES, THE SHEPHERD OF MEN

Alt titles: Poimandres to Hermes Trismegistus (Copenhaver); (Discourse) of Hermes Trismegistus: Poimandres (Salaman); Poemander (Everard/Warwick)

Quite fittingly, here is where Hermes gains his insights, blessed to him by Poimandres, who is some manifestation of The All. A deity, if you will. Following this chapter, the rest of the book is about Hermes passing that info down to others.

To make matters more confusing right off the starting line, Warwick and Everard have a different first chapter not found in the others, this chapter falling at number 2. I will deal with these inconsistencies at the end.

1. It chanced once on a time my mind was meditating on the things that are, 2 my thought was raised to a great height, the senses of my body being held back—just as men are who are weighed down with sleep after a fill of food, or from fatigue of body.

Methought a Being more than vast, in size beyond all bounds, called out my name and saith: What wouldst thou hear and see, and what hast thou in mind to learn and know?

Hermes "meets" Poemandres/Poemander during a strange state compared to sleepiness or when you've overeaten. Something about this messes with its credibility like he's dreaming or delirious. No translation sounded confident here; it always revolved around thinking he saw something. But whatever it was, the "epiphany" led to these unfathomable texts, so it was legit.

2. And I do say: Who art thou?

He saith: I am Man-Shepherd (Poemandres), Mind of all-masterhood; I know what thou desirest and I am with thee everywhere.

"Mind of all-masterhood" has various interpretations such as "the mind of the Great Lord" (Everard), "Nous of the Supreme" (Salaman), and "The Mind of the Great Lord"(Warwick).
I also learned that the accepted English "Man-Shepherd" came from the Greek words ποιμήν and ἀνήρ, but latter-day scholars believe it is actually Peime-nte-rê, which means "Knowledge of Re" or "Understanding of Re". That would equate Poimandres with the ancient Egyptian sun deity Ra (or a least some fusion of them). Wheee!

3. [And] I reply: I long to learn the things that are, and comprehend their nature, and know God. This is, I said, what I desire to hear.

He answered back to me: Hold in thy mind all thou wouldst know, and I will teach thee.

I love how Hermes is like, "I wanna know!" and Poimandres is like, "Cool, I'll tell you".
I also want to emphasise how Salaman uses the word Nous instead of mind in just about every example. This is far more congruent with my understanding of the Universe and my preferred terminology. I'll stop going on about it from here, though!

4. Even with these words His aspect changed, and straightway, in the twinkling of an eye, all things were opened to me, and I see a Vision limitless, all things turned into Light - sweet, joyous [Light]. And I became transported as I gazed.

But in a little while Darkness came settling down on part [of it], awesome and gloomy, coiling in sinuous folds, so that methought it like unto a snake.

And then the Darkness changed into some sort of a Moist Nature, tossed about beyond all power of words, belching out smoke as from a fire, and groaning forth a wailing sound that beggars all description.

[And] after that an outcry inarticulate came forth from it, as though it were a Voice of Fire.

Hermes witnesses the creation of the Universe and there's a buttload to unpack here.
First, all things turn to light, which ties very neatly into Genesis ("Let there be light!") but also ties into the rudimental field of energy particles, the infinite vibration manifesting into existence. It's the formless substance or the Tao transitioning into something tangible. Please also value the various examples of sound dotted about, which is another vibrational property, perhaps even more fundamental than the visual (which the Hindu Vedas teach as Sabda Brahman).
The darkness follows (absence of God/good?), which abides by the Hermetic Principles of Rhythm (5) and Cause and Effect (6), which we shall discuss right at the end of this page. And through this, the nature of the reality we perceive was born.
It's fun noting the translation differences for "awesome and gloomy". We have "fearful and loathsome" (Salaman), "fearful and gloomy" (Copenhaver), and "fearful and hideous" (Warwick/Everard).
I must call attention to the snake, which reptilian theorists love to support their narrative, I'm sure. I'm not going to spend too much time picking this apart other than to say the symbol of Hermeticism is two serpents wrapped around a staff with wings (Caduceus) which comes with several mythological backstories. One tale tells that Hermes (or Mercury) separated two fighting snakes with a staff, hence an image of peace. Other meanings of snakes in Greek history include rebirth (inspired by the shedding of its skin) and healing (due to the medicinal properties of their venom).

5. [Thereon] out of the Light [...] a Holy Word (Logos) descended on that Nature. And upwards to the height from the Moist Nature leaped forth pure Fire; light was it, swift and active too.

The Air, too, being light, followed after the Fire; from out of the Earthand-Water rising up to Fire so that it seemed to hang therefrom.

But Earth-and-Water stayed so mingled with each other, that Earth from Water no one could discern. Yet were they moved to hear by reason of the Spirit-Word (Logos) pervading them.

Mead's theosophical background is easiest exposed by his Logos terminology, as he is the only translation that does so.
Logos (λόγος) is Greek for "word," "speech," "reason" or "account". However, in more esoteric terms, it is used as the principle of order and knowledge. Theosophy co-founder Madame Blavatsky defined it as, "The manifested deity with every nation and people; the outward expression, or the effect of the cause which is ever concealed."
The "Holy Word" is a concept that makes more sense as we go on and will be better explained then. More on the meaning of fire later too!

6. Then saith to me Man-Shepherd: Didst understand this Vision what it means?

Nay; that shall I know, said I.

That Light, He said, am I, thy God, Mind, prior to Moist Nature which appeared from Darkness; the Light-Word (Logos) [that appeared] from Mind is Son of God.

What then? - say I.

Know that what sees in thee and hears is the Lord's Word (Logos); but Mind is Father-God. Not separate are they the one from other; just in their union [rather] is it Life consists.

Thanks be to Thee, I said.

So, understand the Light [He answered], and make friends with it.

I liked Salaman's version here. For example, both he and Copenhaver use "the watery substance" instead of "moist nature" which connects better to the flow of the formless substance of the Tao. It is the unmanifested becoming manifested, where the light is the God that precedes it.
Salaman also says, "That which sees and hears within you is the Word of the Lord, and Nous is God the Father. They are not separate from each other, for their union is life". I interpret that as the "Word" being an extension of God and a component of The All. It's comparable to the soul in you (Atman), which itself is a portion of Brahman divinity.
Everything is the same, as above, so below. That what came before and then the "mind" of God, thinking Life into life, and by our thoughts, we too are perceiving creation into creation, a godlike activity.
Only Mead instructs us to make friends with the light, which is rad.

7. And speaking thus He gazed for long into my eyes, so that I trembled at the look of him.
But when He raised His head, I see in Mind the Light, [but] now in Powers no man could number, and Cosmos grown beyond all bounds, and that the Fire was compassed round about by a most mighty Power, and [now] subdued had come unto a stand.
And when I saw these things I understood by reason of Man-Shepherd's Word (Logos).

Instead of "at the look of him", Everard uses the terms "idea" or "form" to describe Poimandres. I like idea more; it shifts from the physical to metaphysical, a mental construct.
Again, fire is important throughout these texts (as with all esoteric writings), and we shall continue to point this out.
For now, I'd like to propose this "fire" as an outdated way to describe the energy (electron) field of the All. Warwick says the fire is "comprehended or contained" by a "great moist power". This clicks for me. There is this insane electricity within and passed between our every atom, yet there is a wet power of nature that holds it into solidified, tangible material. It makes biological sense!

8. But as I was in great astonishment, He saith to me again: Thou didst behold in Mind the Archetypal Form whose being is before beginning without end. Thus spake to me Man-Shepherd.

And I say: Whence then have Nature's elements their being?

To this He answer gives: From Will of God. [Nature] received the Word (Logos), and gazing upon the Cosmos Beautiful did copy it, making herself into a cosmos, by means of her own elements and by the births of souls.

This gets tricky, but essentially there is the archetypical form (raw unmanifested mind) which is genderless. But then there was The Will of God, a male force (see Hermetic Principle #7 at the end of this article) that used its "vital seed" (Warwick) to initiate the female force to create/birth nature. Nature itself is an "imitation" (Copenhaver) of the Cosmos.

9. And God-the-Mind, being male and female both, as Light and Life subsisting, brought forth another Mind to give things form, who, God as he was of Fire and Spirit, formed Seven Rulers who enclose the cosmos that the sense perceives. Men call their ruling Fate.

So essentially, the Nous brought about a lower mind to create our reality, like vibrational frequencies reaching lower levels to manifest into what we know now.

10. Straightway from out the downward elements God's Reason (Logos) leaped up to Nature's pure formation, and was at-oned with the Formative Mind; for it was co-essential with it. And Nature's downward elements were thus left reason-less, so as to be pure matter.

It's just different layers of creation, specifically moving in a downward path. This terminology makes a lot of sense as I see it like a drop of water, finding the path of least resistance to race further, connecting with a hard deterministic trajectory of creation predefined by the grooves of the land. And eventually, matter is formed. But as Salaman said, God was "united with the Creator Nous (for he was of the same substance)". Again, it's all vibrational.
The only part I'm unsure of is the pure matter being "reason-less" or "without the Word" (Salaman). At what point does something lose that God Juice? It brings into question the genuine difference between something that carries a live soul and an inanimate object. Are we not all simply made of identical vibrational markup? Where do we draw the line?

11. Then the Formative Mind ([at-oned] with Reason), he who surrounds the spheres and spins them with his whorl, set turning his formations, and let them turn from a beginning boundless unto an endless end. For that the circulation of these [spheres] begins where it doth end, as Mind doth will.

And from the downward elements Nature brought forth lives reasonless; for He did not extend the Reason (Logos) [to them]. The Air brought forth things winged; the Water things that swim, and Earthand-Water one from another parted, as Mind willed. And from her bosom Earth produced what lives she had, four-footed things and reptiles, beasts wild and tame.

Rotating spheres are surely planets, but other translations (such as Copenhaver) use the word "circles", which could allude to the cyclic understandings of the Universe's lifespan from various other (usually Eastern) scriptures. I also like how Warwick and Everard use the term "creeping beasts" for animals, which is very Biblical. Which came first?
So what's interesting is that all things that (the female) Earth brought forth lack "reason" or "speech" (Salaman) for they do not possess the Word in them. It is an interesting teaching of Hermeticism, one that devalues all of life while placing humans on a much higher pedestal, as we'll see in the next verse.

12. But All-Father Mind, being Life and Light, did bring forth Man coequal to Himself, with whom He fell in love, as being His own child; for he was beautiful beyond compare, the Image of his Sire. In very truth, God fell in love with his own Form; and on him did bestow all of His own formations.

"God fell in love with his own Form" is hilarious. He basically loved himself so much that he made us in his own image. Obviously, we have to marvel of the eerie similarities between Hermeticism and Abrahamic understandings, or we must be concerned about how much editing took place by the Christian hand. Either way, Mother Nature brought creatures up through her physical formations, but Father God brought some of himself down to create man. We are the best of the best, the pinnacle of creation in all the universe, an amalgamtion of divine and nature, better than the animals and everything. It's not exactly where Janthopoyism sits.

13. And when he gazed upon what the Enformer had created in the Father, [Man] too wished to enform; and [so] assent was given him by the Father.

Changing his state to the formative sphere, in that he was to have his whole authority, he gazed upon his Brother's creatures. They fell in love with him, and gave him each a share of his own ordering.

And after that he had well learned their essence and had become a sharer in their nature, he had a mind to break right through the Boundary of their spheres, and to subdue the might of that which pressed upon the Fire.

Copenhaver and Salaman talk about controlling the fire in a way that sounds literal, but Mead is more about controlling the pressure against the fire, which is holding the spirit in the physical plain? Either way, man wanted to join the ranks of the creator to connect better with God and influence his reality more. It makes sense if you note humans as part of nature but also the only Earthly creatures striving for some spiritual enlightenment (as far as we know). Although perhaps that's backwards, our minds have robbed us of an innate spiritual energy that other animals already exist in, and we are fighting to just get some of that back? Again, I don't fully agree with Hermeticism in that human divinity is closer to God than animals or plants. Janthopoyism doesn't worship the mind like that.

14. So he who hath the whole authority over [all] the mortals in the cosmos and over its lives irrational, bent his face downwards through the Harmony, breaking right through its strength, and showed to downward Nature God's fair form.

And when she saw that Form of beauty which can never satiate, and him who [now] possessed within himself each single energy of [all seven] Rulers as well as God's own Form, she smiled with love; for it was as though she had seen the image of Man's fairest form upon her Water, his shadow on her Earth.

He in turn beholding the form like to himself, existing in her, in her Water, loved it and willed to live in it; and with the will came act, and [so] he vivified the form devoid of reason.

And Nature took the object of her love and wound herself completely around him, and they were intermingled, for they were lovers.

I'm still grappling with this, but I think what happened is that God and Nature saw a reflection of one another in the "water" and became lovers. And in that way, man was created, a lovechild of those two entities, humans somewhere between a god and monkey. But then what is everything else???
Again, it's the stupid segregation of everything that is not only unprovable but also unnecessary. Janthopoyism starts and ends with The All, the environment whereby this God and Nature are somehow falling in love. For whatever that is which contains these ideas is surely even bigger than this event. Whatever holds the content is the Jantho All.
Furthermore, what is man without the ecosystem that sustains it? Every component is essential, and even more importantly, completely insignificant in any universal understanding. It's this back-patting of humans where Hermeticism exposes certain ancient irrelevances. And how can we believe these texts to be the words of a deity when it is no longer flawless?

I do like the water thing, though. We are majority water.

15. And this is why beyond all creatures on the earth man is twofold; mortal because of body, but because of the essential man immortal.

Though deathless and possessed of sway over all, yet doth he suffer as amortal doth, subject to Fate.

Thus though above the Harmony, within the Harmony he hath become a slave. Though male-female, as from a Father male-female, and though he is sleepless from a sleepless [Sire], yet is he overcome [by sleep].

Copenhaver's translation was clearer: "Even though he is immortal and has authority over all things, mankind is affected by mortality because he is subject to fate; thus, although man is above the cosmic framework, he became a slave within it."
Like before, it's an ego-driven text where man has a two-fold essence, unlike any other creature. We are mortal and die like anything in nature, yet we are also spiritually godlike. We are the sole creatures with souls, I guess. Regardless, the Kybalion was proficient at describing this in ways that nature has laws, but with our intellect, we can bend or even transcend these laws once we know how to play them against one another. It's one of the benefits of being human, but then again, we don't know what the animals are performing with their mental capacities.

16. Thereon [I say: Teach on], O Mind of me, for I myself as well am amorous of the Word (Logos).

The Shepherd said: This is the mystery kept hid until this day. Nature embraced by Man brought forth a wonder, oh so wonderful. For as he had the nature of the Concord of the Seven, who, as I said to thee, [were made] of Fire and Spirit - Nature delayed not, but immediately brought forth seven "men", in correspondence with the natures of the Seven, male-female and moving in the air.

Thereon [I said]: O Shepherd, ..., for now I am filled with great desire and long to hear; do not run off.

The Shepherd said: Keep silence, for not as yet have I unrolled for thee the first discourse (logoi).

Lo! I am still, I said.

Bit of an argument there. I'm still not sure who these seven "men" are supposed to be, besides personifications of the classical planets?

17. In such wise than, as I have said, the generation of these seven came to pass. Earth was as woman, her Water filled with longing; ripeness she took from Fire, spirit from Aether. Nature thus brought forth frames to suit the form of Man.

And Man from Light and Life changed into soul and mind - from Life to soul, from Light to mind.

And thus continued all the sense-world's parts until the period of their end and new beginnings.

The male spirit impregnated the female nature, and she was galvanised to create the human, which contains both soul and mind, which are godlike qualities separate from the rest of Nature's manifestations.

18. Now listen to the rest of the discourse (Logos) which thou dost long to hear.

The period being ended, the bond that bound them all was loosened by God's Will. For all the animals being male-female, at the same time with Man were loosed apart; some became partly male, some in like fashion [partly] female. And straightway God spake by His Holy Word (Logos):

"Increase ye in increasing, and multiply in multitude, ye creatures and creations all; and man that hath Mind in him, let him learn to know that he himself is deathless, and that the cause of death is love, though Love is all."

Here creatures are given the ability to breed and multiply independently through the split sexual manifestation of the Gender Principle (even though we each have both masculine and feminine properties).

Mead's translation above where the "cause of death is love" is senseless. What's more widespread is the "cause of death is love of the body", while Salaman moves closer to the Buddhist/Jainist route with "desire is the cause of death". Either way, we receive an essential component of Hermetic teachings here, whereby the physical world (aka everything material) is the downfall of human spirituality.

19. When He said this, His Forethought did by means of Fate and Harmony effect their couplings and their generations founded. And so all things were multiplied according to their kind.

And he who thus hath learned to know himself, hath reached that Good which doth transcend abundance; but he who through a love that leads astray, expends his love upon his body - he stays in Darkness wandering, and suffering through his senses things of Death.

The Nature/God thing is the split between divinity and physical reality. Whatever you focus on will be what you lean towards, and by facing the spirit, you'll find immortality, for only the body dies but the soul never does.

20. What is the so great fault, said I, the ignorant commit, that they should be deprived of deathlessness?

Thou seemest, He said, O thou, not to have given heed to what thou heardest. Did I not bid thee think?

Yea do I think, and I remember, and therefore give Thee thanks.

If thou didst think [thereon], [said He], tell me: Why do they merit death who are in Death?

It is because the gloomy Darkness is the root and base of the material frame; from it came the Moist Nature; from this the body in the senseworld was composed; and from this [body] Death doth the Water drain.

Cryptic, but the "gloomy darkness" is the root of the material frame that came after the light which we read earlier (4). So darkness is perhaps metaphorical as an absence of God's goodness? I love the phrase "Death doth the Water drain", so metal and also scientifically sound.

21. Right was thy thought, O thou! But how doth "he who knows himself, go unto Him", as God's Word (Logos) hath declared?

And I reply: the Father of the universals doth consist of Light and Life, from Him Man was born.

Thou sayest well, [thus] speaking. Light and Life is Father-God, and from Him Man was born.

If then thou learnest that thou art thyself of Life and Light, and that thou [happenest] to be out of them, thou shalt return again to Life. Thus did Man-Shepherd speak.

But tell me further, Mind of me, I cried, how shall I come to Life again...for God doth say: "The man who hath Mind in him, let him learn to know that he himself [is deathless]."

As opposed to nature, God is "light and life, " an eternal electricity.

22. Have not all men then Mind?

Thou sayest well, O thou, thus speaking. I, Mind, myself am present with holy men and good, the pure and merciful, men who live piously.

[To such] my presence doth become an aid, and straightway they gain gnosis of all things, and win the Father's love by their pure lives, and give Him thanks, invoking on Him blessings, and chanting hymns, intent on Him with ardent love.

And ere they give up the body unto its proper death, they turn them with disgust from its sensations, from knowledge of what things they operate. Nay, it is I, the Mind, that will not let the operations which befall the body, work to their [natural] end. For being door-keeper I will close up [all] the entrances, and cut the mental actions off which base and evil energies induce.

This is profoundly important, as I understand it. Those who are more spiritually inclined will shut off the body after death by turning away from the physical sensations. In fact, it appears God intervenes during this process, disallowing the evil in? I'm unsure what evidence we have of that, but there you go. It's still an excellent attitude, for it can beneficially realign your thinking.
The trick to getting closer to this outcome is to live "piously" (Salaman) and "hate your senses" (Everard). You rebel against the physical realm, which I have some experience with in regard to various vices damaging my spirituality. My only gripe is that some people have fucked minds distorted by external factors, so how do we segregate such things? Especially when All is in the All and free will is largely subjective? It's another conflict point between Hermeticism and Janthopoyism.

23. But to the Mind-less ones, the wicked and depraved, the envious and covetous, and those who mured do and love impiety, I am far off, yielding my place to the Avenging Daimon, who sharpening the fire, tormenteth him and addeth fire to fire upon him, and rusheth upon him through his senses, thus rendering him readier for transgressions of the law, so that he meets with greater torment; nor doth he ever cease to have desire for appetites inordinate, insatiately striving in the dark.

Verses such as this one assist my case against the term "mind". There are two separate concepts here: the mind that we all have (electricity powering the brain) and the Nous (Salaman) that we can embrace or cut off at varying degrees. It's more of a spiritual thing that you can throttle with amoral behaviour.
Salaman's examples: evil, worthless, envious, greedy, murderers, ungodly.
Copenhaver's examples: thoughtless, evil, wicked, envious, greedy, violent, irreverent.
Everard/Warwick examples: foolish, evil, wicked, envious, covetous, murderous, profane.
These actions use your physical senses to pull you away from God and cause you to suffer while you only crave for more. This is the work of a demon, btw, which I must assume is metaphorical.

24. Well hast thou taught me all, as I desired, O Mind. And now, pray, tell me further of the nature of the Way Above as now it is [for me].

To this Man-Shepherd said: When the material body is to be dissolved, first thou surrenderest the body by itself unto the work of change, and thus the form thou hadst doth vanish, and thou surrenderest thy way of life, void of its energy, unto the Daimon. The body's senses next pass back into their sources, becoming separate, and resurrect as energies; and passion and desire withdraw unto that nature which is void of reason.

Surrender the material body to the demon??

25. And thus it is that man doth speed his way thereafter upwards through the Harmony.

To the first zone he gives the Energy of Growth and Waning; unto the second [zone], Device of Evils [now] de-energised; unto the third, the Guile of the Desires de-energised; unto the fourth, his Domineering Arrogance, [also] de-energised; unto the fifth, unholy Daring and the Rashness of Audacity, de-energised; unto the sixth, Striving for Wealth by evil means, deprived of its aggrandisement; and to the seventh zone, Ensnaring Falsehood, de-energised.

Ok, so here are the seven plains/zones of liberation, which are perhaps comparable to the Hermetic 10 Commandments:

1. Surrendering the energy of increase and decrease. Allow life to go up and down. This is the Hermetic Principle of Rhythm (Kybalion).
2. The means of evil and trickery now being inactive. Everard says, "no plotting evils".
3. No covetous deceit of the illusion of longing? Warwick uses the word "concupiscence", which is sexual longing specifically. "Desires" is the best term I can think of.
4. No ruler superiority. Mead's "Domieering Arrogance" said it best.
5. No daring and reckless audacity. No unholy presumptions. No profane pride. No headlong rashness of confidence.
6. No evil impulses that come from wealth (gluttony comes to mind).
7. No deceit that lies in ambush.

It's about living a sinless life, really.

26. And then, with all the energisings of the harmony stript from him, clothed in his proper Power, he cometh to that Nature which belongs unto the Eighth, and there with those-that-are hymneth the Father.

They who are there welcome his coming there with joy; and he, made like to them that sojourn there, doth further hear the Powers who are above the Nature that belongs unto the Eighth, singing their songs of praise to God in language of their own.

And then they, in a band, go to the Father home; of their own selves they make surrender of themselves to Powers, and [thus] becoming Powers they are in God. This the good end for those who have gained Gnosis - to be made one with God.

Why shouldst thou then delay? Must it not be, since thou hast all received, that thou shouldst to the worthy point the way, in order that through thee the race of mortal kind may by [thy] God be saved?

Once you've mastered the previous seven, you hit the 8th plain of freedom? And that's where God is?

27. This when He had said, Man-Shepherd mingled with the Powers.

But I, with thanks and blessings unto the Father of the universal [Powers], was freed, full of the power he had poured into me, and full of what He had taught me of the nature of the All and of the loftiest Vision.

And I began to preach unto men the Beauty of Devotion and of Gnosis:
O ye people, earth-born folk, ye who have given yourselves to drunkenness and sleep and ignorance of God, be sober now, cease from your surfeit, cease to be glamoured by irrational sleep!

So Poimandres leaves here, and Hermes goes on his quest to liberate those willing to listen. I'm assuming "drunkenness and sleep" is metaphorical. We have to sleep. And I must drink.

28. And when they heard, they came with one accord. Whereon I say:

Ye earth-born folk, why have ye given yourselves up to Death, while yet ye have the power of sharing Deathlessness? Repent, O ye, who walk with Error arm in arm and make of Ignorance the sharer of your board; get ye out from the light of Darkness, and take your part in Deathlessness, forsake Destruction!

The immortality promises are a complicated topic. Yes, the spirit lives on but does it have the awareness to even grasp that fact? I'm not sure I buy these life-after-death promises. It's dated and not Jantho.

29. And some of them with jests upon their lips departed [from me], abandoning themselves unto the Way of Death; others entreated to be taught, casting themselves before my feet.

But I made them arise, and I became a leader of the Race towards home, teaching the words (logoi), how and in what way they shall be saved. I sowed in them the words (logoi) of wisdom; of Deathless Water were they given to drink.

And when even was come and all sun's beams began to set, I bade them all give thanks to God. And when they had brought to an end the giving of their thanks, each man returned to his own resting place.

Jesus parallels, although one could state the same for any prophetic figure. On that token, Hermes is crazy overlooked in the bigger scheme of religious evolution.

30. But I recorded in my heart Man-Shepherd's benefaction, and with my every hope fulfilled more than rejoiced. For body's sleep became the soul's awakening, and closing of the eyes - true vision, pregnant with Good my silence, and the utterance of my word (logos) begetting of good things.

All this befell me from my Mind, that is Man-Shepherd, Word (Logos) of all masterhood, by whom being God-inspired I came unto the Plain of Truth. Wherefore with all my soul and strength thanksgiving give I unto Father-God.

What's suspicious here and at the end is where he talks about certain sleep connecting with his visions. It's called dreams, bro. I have those visions every night too.

31. Holy art Thou, O God, the universals' Father.
Holy art Thou, O God, whose Will perfects itself by means of its own Powers.
Holy art Thou, O God, who willeth to be known and art known by Thine own.
Holy art Thou,who didst by Word (Logos) make to consist the things that are.
Holy art Thou, of whom All-nature hath been made an image.
Holy art Thou, whose Form Nature hath never made.
Holy art Thou, more powerful than all power.
Holy art Thou, transcending all pre-eminence.
Holy Thou art, Thou better than all praise.
Accept my reason's offerings pure, from soul and heart for aye stretched up to Thee, O Thou unutterable, unspeakable, Whose Name naught but the Silence can express.

Here is a good place to muse again that "God" might be nothing but an alien race that bred with monkeys. Hence, we are not from nature or at least not entirely of this world. Was Poimandres an alien who bestowed this knowledge down? It's a theory like all theories.

32. Give ear to me who pray that I may never of Gnosis fail, [Gnosis] which is our common being's nature; and fill me with Thy Power, and with this Grace [of Thine], that I may give the Light to those in ignorance of the Race, my Brethren, and Thy Sons.

For this cause I believe, and I bear witness; I go to Life and Light. Blessed art Thou, O Father. Thy Man would holy be as Thou art holy, even as Thou gave him Thy full authority [to be].

And thus ends the first treatise, at least according to Mead, Copenhaver, and Salaman.

II. THE GENERAL SERMON

Doing us no favours, this section only exists in Mead's translation, knocking everyone out of line. Copenhaver and Salaman's II become Mead's III and continued on from there. Furthermore, what Mead provides is hardly scripture whatsoever, leaving us with only this line:

(The title only is preserved in our Corpus, the text having disappeared with the loss of a quire or quires before the parent copy came into the hands of Psellus.)

Michael Psellos was a monk who helped preserve many of these texts.
So in some ways, you can ignore this treatise, but in other ways, I respect that Mead did not. Props to Copenhaver too, for he does acknowledge the existence of something or other in a footnote.

III. TO ASCLEPIUS

Alt titles: Hermes to Asclepius (Copenhaver); Untitled (Salaman); The Universal Sermon to Asclepius (Everard/Warwick)

In this dialogue-driven treatise, Hermes educates his student, Asclepius.
Asclepius is an ancient Greek hero and god of medicine. There is no agreement that Hermes is speaking to that Asclepius here, but how many Asclepiuses could there truly be? Otherwise, nobody really has a clue.
It's also worth noting that the Rod of Asclepius is the correct symbol of medicine which has frequently been (incorrectly!) replaced with Hermes' Caduceus.
Parts of this tie into the Hermetic Principle of Vibration (Kybalion), which I'll detail at the very end.

1. Hermes: All that is moved, Asclepius, is it not moved in something and by something?
Asclepius: Assuredly.
H: And must not that in which it's moved be greater than the moved?
A: It must.
H: Mover, again, has greater power than moved?
A: It has, of course.
H: The nature, furthermore, of that in which it's moved must be quite other from the nature of the moved?
A: It must completely.

For something to move there requires a relative thing standing still. That's what is meant by different in nature. Instead of "other", Copenhaver says "contrary" and Salaman says "opposite". I feel like there must be exceptions to bring to this debate.

2. H: Is not, again, this cosmos vast, [so vast] that than it there exists no body greater?
A: Assuredly.
H: And massive, too, for it is crammed with multitudes of other mighty frames, nay, rather all the other bodies that there are?
A: It is.
H: And yet the cosmos is a body?
A: It is a body.
H: And one that's moved?

Objection, your honour, leading the witness.
The Cosmos is a body; that's my vibe. The overall physical manifestation of the Absolute. They say here that the Cosmos is as large a body as it gets, which syncs with me too. Everard refers to the Cosmos as the "Great World".

3. A: Assuredly.
H: Of what size, then, must be the space in which it's moved, and of what kind [must be] the nature [of that space]? Must it not be far vaster [than the cosmos], in order that it may be able to find room for its continued course, so that the moved may not be cramped for want of room and lose its motion?
A: Something, Thrice-greatest one, it needs must be, immensely vast.

Foiled again by the limitations of the human mind, I struggle to figure out how this works. The Cosmos is the physical manifestation of the underlying formless substance and exists in a space, certainly. But does it move? Within itself, sure, but does it move as a unit too, like a planet around something else? I'm unsure how to place that without resorting to hypotheticals. Those are interesting thoughts, though.

4. H: And of what nature? Must it not be, Asclepius, of just the contrary? And is not contrary to body bodiless?
A: Agreed.
H: Space, then, is bodiless. But bodiless must either be some godlike thing or God [Himself]. And by "some godlike thing" I mean no more the generable [i.e., that which is generated] but the ingenerable.

Space is God is close to how I feel. The "nothingness" is the closest we can conceptually grasp of the unmanifested. The formless substance, the electron field between, still buzzing with life.
Salaman agrees with Mead on the "bodiless" term, while Copenhaver goes with "incorporeal" and Everard goes with "unbodily". However, it is the least likely candidate, Warwick, who says it best to me, with "intangible".

5. If, then, space be some godlike thing, it is substantial; but if 'tis God [Himself], it transcends substance. But it is to be thought of otherwise [than God], and in this way.

God is first "thinkable" <or "intelligible" > for us, not for Himself, for that the thing that's thought doth fall beneath the thinker's sense. God then cannot be "thinkable" unto Himself, in that He's thought of by Himself as being nothing else but what He thinks. But he is "something else" for us, and so He's thought of by us.

Copenhaver does this better: "for us, god is the foremost intelligible entity, but not so for god himself; what is intelligible falls within the awareness of one who thinks of it; thus, for himself god is not intelligible because he is not something distinct from the object of his thought"
We think God into existence because we need to define it. But God does not think of itself, for it is its thoughts. It doesn't function on the tangible level we require just to understand it. In a very roundabout way, God doesn't exist, for existence itself is our problem, and The All is beyond such a realm. Than again, we have to put it in a box to work with it, so it's justified.

6. If space is, therefore, to be thought, [it should] not, [then, be thought as] God, but space. If God is also to be thought, [He should] not [be conceived] as space, but as energy that can contain [all space].

Further, all that is moved is moved not in the moved but in the stable. And that which moves [another] is of course stationary, for 'tis impossible that it should move with it.

A: How is it, then, that things down here, Thrice-greatest one, are moved with those that are [already] moved? For thou hast said the errant spheres were moved by the inerrant one.

H: This is not, O Asclepius, a moving with, but one against; they are not moved with one another, but one against the other. It is this contrariety which turneth the resistance of their motion into rest. For that resistance is the rest of motion.

"But if the space in which the cosmos is moved is perceived, it is not God but simply space" - Salaman.
This is like the naming of the Tao, which is actually the name of the name, a placeholder for that which cannot be named. Similarly, one cannot name a thing God, otherwise it becomes something else, and God is that thing but also everything that is not that thing as well.
Meanwhile, stars are fixed in context of our planetary system, but they are not fixed in their own movement? I'm not sure if that's exactly what was meant here, but it's true all the same.

7. Hence, too, the errant spheres, being moved contrarily to the inerrant one, are moved by one another by mutual contrariety, [and also] by the spable one through contrariety itself. And this can otherwise not be.
The Bears up there <i.e., Ursa Major and Minor>, which neither set nor rise, think'st thou they rest or move?
A: They move, Thrice-greatest one.
H: And what their motion, my Asclepius?
A: Motion that turns for ever round the same.
H: But revolution - motion around same - is fixed by rest. For "roundthe-same" doth stop "beyond-same". "Beyond-same" then, being stopped, if it be steadied in "round-same" - the contrary stands firm, being rendered ever stable by its contrariety.

The "bears" are constellations. I repeat myself, but I'm fairly certain this is just a convoluted way of saying, "stars are fixed in context of our planetary system, but they are not fixed in their own movement".

8. Of this I'll give thee here on earth an instance, which the eye can see. Regard the animals down here - a man, for instance, swimming! The water moves, yet the resistance of his hands and feet give him stability, so that he is not borne along with it, nor sunk thereby.
A: Thou hast, Thrice-greatest one, adduced a most clear instance.
H: All motion, then, is caused in station and by station.
The motion, therefore, of the cosmos (and of every other hylic <i.e., material> animal) will not be caused by things exterior to the cosmos, but by things interior [outward] to the exterior - such [things] as soul, or spirit, or some such other thing incorporeal.
'Tis not the body that doth move the living thing in it; nay, not even the whole [body of the universe a lesser] body e'en though there be no life in it.

The swimmer analogy is about swimming upstream, how the water is moving and the swimmer is counter-moving, and in that way, remaining in one position. Can you apply this illustration to the stars, for example? Are they moving just to stay still in context to those orbiting around it?
The World-Soul is forever moving. The body itself is not. It's the electricity that powers our physical motion, and this applies to the Universe as a whole.

9. A: What meanest thou by this, Thrice-greatest one? Is it not bodies, then, that move the stock and stone and all the other things inanimate?
H: By no means, O Asclepius. The something-in-the-body, the that-which-moves the thing inanimate, this surely's not a body, for that it moves the two of them - both body of the lifter and the lifted? So that a thing that's lifeless will not move a lifeless thing. That which doth move [another thing] is animate, in that it is the mover.
Thou seest, then, how heavy laden is the soul, for it alone doth lift two bodies. That things, moreover, moved are moved in something as well as moved by something is clear.

The soul moves the body to move other things. Nothing moves that is not alive. Although is not everything alive on an electron level? Are the tectonic plates moved by the Earth's spirit? Is the gravitational pull an effect of the Sun's spirit? I'm gonna say yes!

10. A: Yea, O Thrice-greatest one, things moved must needs be moved in something void.
H: Thou sayest well, O [my] Asclepius! For naught of things that are is void. Alone the "is-not" is void [and] stranger to subsistence. For that which is subsistent can never change to void.
A: Are there, then, O Thrice-greatest one, no such things as an empty cask, for instance, and an empty jar, a cup and vat, and other things like unto them?
H: Alack, Asclepius, for thy far-wandering from the truth! Think'st thou that things most full and most replete are void?

More on this up next, but for now, I'd like to commend Warwick for using the term "full of existence" to explain emptiness which is grand!

11. A: How meanest thou, Thrice-greatest one?
H: Is not air body?
A: It is.
H: And doth this body not pervade all things, and so, pervading, fill them? And "body"; doth body not consist from blending of the "four" <elements>? Full, then, of air are all thou callest void; and if of air, then of the "four".
Further, of this the converse follows, that all thou callest full are void - of air; for that they have their space filled out with other bodies, and, therefore, are not able to receive the air therein. These, then, which thou dost say are void, they should be hollow named, not void; for they not only are, but they are full of air and spirit.

Air (breath) and Spirit are fairly interchangeable in Greek, so much so that "air and spirit" is "breath of life", according to Salaman. And if we remember the Janthopoyism hypothosis of "spirit" being an electron field, it's crazy how advanced this all is. The electron was only discovered in the late 1800s, yet these ancient texts tell us that even empty space is never empty!

12. A: Thy argument (logos), Thrice-greatest one, is not to be gainsaid; air is a body. Further, it is this body which doth pervade all things, and so, pervading, fill them. What are we, then, to call that space in which the all doth move?
H: The bodiless, Asclepius.
A: What, then, is Bodiless?
H: 'Tis Mind and Reason (logos), whole out of whole, all self-embracing, free from all body, from all error free, unsensible to body and untouchable, self stayed in self, containing all, preserving those that are, whose rays, to use a likeness, are Good, Truth, Light beyond light, the Archetype of soul.
A: What, then, is God?

Running on from what I was saying just previous, air itself is full of mind (Nous), which is more directly referring to an energetic "bodiless" entity. Furthermore, Everard and Warwick say the mind is "comprehending itself" which ties into the quantum mechanics idea that the observer creates reality itself. There isn't anything at all but this field of electrons behaving in ways dependent on measurements!

13. H: Not any one of these is He; for He it is that causeth them to be, both all and each and every thing of all that are. Nor hath He left a thing beside that is-not; but they are all from things-that-are and not from things-that-are-not. For that the things-that-are-not have naturally no power of being anything, but naturally have the power of the inability-tobe. And, conversely, the things-that-are have not the nature of some time not-being.

This grates slightly against the idea of encompassing absolutely everything, no?

14. A: What say'st thou ever, then, God is?
H: God, therefore, is not Mind, but Cause that the Mind is; God is not Spirit, but Cause that Spirit is; God is not Light, but Cause that the Light is. Hence one should honor God with these two names [the Good and Father] - names which pertain to Him alone and no one else.
For no one of the other so-called gods, no one of men, or daimones, can be in any measure Good, but God alone; and He is Good alone and nothing else. The rest of things are separable all from the Good's nature; for [all the rest] are soul and body, which have no place that can contain the Good.

Definitions and distinctions run wild.
God is known by two terms here: all that is Good and the Father. Salaman tightens these up with Nous and the cause of existence. This splits the two roles of God as the pervading spirit and the Creator. So for me, the Big Bang is a part of the Creator definition, but I see that as a result of the formless spirit evolving towards a more perceivable self.
The "all that is Good" aspect is a huge part of Hermeticism. It doesn't quite resonate with me that we as humans have no way to contain this goodness. I butt heads with his topic more as we move on.

15. For that as mighty is the Greatness of the Good as is the Being of all things that are - both bodies and things bodiless, things sensible and intelligible things. Call thou not, therefore, aught else Good, for thou would'st imious be; nor anything at all at any time call God but Good alone, for so thou would'st again be impious.

In Hermeticism Land, it is blasphemous to call anything "good" except for God. It's a big ask, and I refuse limitations of vocabulary.

16. Though, then, the Good is spoken of by all, it is not understood by all, what thing it is. Not only, then, is God not understood by all, but both unto the gods and some of the men they out of ignorance do give the name of Good, though they can never either be or become Good. For they are very different from God, while Good can never be distinguished from Him, for that God is the same as Good.
The rest of the immortal ones are nonetheless honored with the name of God, and spoken of as gods; but God is Good not out of courtesy but out of nature. For that God's nature and the Good is one; one os the kind of both, from which all other kinds [proceed].
The Good is he who gives all things and naught receives. God, then, doth give all things and receive naught. God, then, is Good, and Good is God.

"God is good, not by being honoured, but by his nature." - Salaman

17. The other name of God is Father, again because He is the that-whichmaketh-all. The part of father is to make.
Wherefore child-making is a very great and a most pious thing in life for them who think aright, and to leave life on earth without a child a very great misfortune and impiety; and he who hath no child is punished by the daimones after death. And this is the punishment: that that man's soul who hath no child, shall be condemned unto a body with neither man's nor woman's nature, a thing accursed beneath the sun.
Wherefore, Asclepius, let not your sympathies be with the man who hath no child, but rather pity his mishap, knowing what punishment abides for him.
Let all that has been said then, be to thee, Asclepius, an introduction to the gnosis of the nature of all things.

It is fascinating that a religion said to predate Judaism uses the word "Father" for God.
Still, I could not disagree with a passage more. Not having a child is a huge no-no in Hermeticism, but I'm sure it was of its time, an instruction for each civilisation to grow. Back in the day, it was a good idea. Now with our environmental awareness, it's no longer the way.

IV. THE SACRED SERMON

Alt titles: A Sacred Discourse of Hermes (Copenhaver); Untitled (Salaman); The Holy Sermon (Everard/Warwick)

This is a famously disjointed chapter. Some scholars even express their opinion that it's incomplete.

1. The Glory of all things is God, Godhead and Godly Nature. Source of the things that are is God, who is both Mind and Nature - yea Matter, the Wisdom that reveals all things. Source [too] is Godhead - yea Nature, Energy, Necessity, and End, and Making-new-again.

Darkness that knew no bounds was in Abyss, and Water [too] and subtle Breath intelligent; these were by Power of God in Chaos.

Then Holy Light arose; and there collected 'neath Dry Space <literally: "sand" > from out Moist Essence Elements; and all the Gods do separate things out from fecund Nature.

Mead's "Dry Space" as sand is interesting but not widespread, more commonly written as some combination of liquid and earth. I take this to mean that everything was made from dirt and water? Stardust functioning primarily on hydration? It makes sense to me!

2. All things being undefined and yet unwrought, the light things were assigned unto the height, the heavy ones had their foundations laid down underneath the moist part of Dry Space, the universal things being bounded off by Fire and hanged in Breath to keep them up.

And Heaven was seen in seven circles; its Gods were visible in forms of stars with all their signs; while Nature had her members made articulate together with the Gods in her. And [Heaven's] periphery revolved in cyclic course, borne on by Breath of God.

Seven planets again. Fire again.
The idea that gods show themselves as stars works for me on some level (Sun worship is star worship, after all), but I'm unsure of constellations. Maybe, maybe not.
That's why I prefer Warwick's translations here, where he says "gods were seen in their ideas of the stars" and "the stars were numbered with the gods in them". I feel we are the ones looking for shapes, and the alignment of stars are either random or for a purpose far greater than we are capable of hypothesising. Of course, I don't know what Hermes may have known.
I also keep one foot on the theory that there was an alien intervention here, the stars being the worlds where the gods came from. It's interesting. But I am more inclined to believe it was just the course of the age, staring into the infinity of the night, capturing the imagination without any scientific clue.

3. And every God by his own proper power brought forth what was appointed him. Thus there arose four-footed beasts, and creeping things, and those that in the water dwell, and things with wings, and everything that beareth seed, and grass, and shoot of every flower, all having in themselves seed of again-becoming.

And they selected out the births of men for gnosis of the works of God and attestation of the energy of Nature; the multitude of men for lordship over all beneath the heaven and gnosis of its blessings, that they might increase in increasing and multiply in multitude, and every soul infleshed by revolution of the Cyclic Gods, for observation of the marvels of Heaven and Heaven's Gods' revolution, and of the works of God and energy of Nature, for tokens of its blessings, for gnosis of the power of God, that they might know the fates that follow good and evil [deeds] and learn the cunning work of all good arts.

As per usual, Salaman helps us to understand easier: "The gods sent forth the generations of men, so that they should know the word of God, be the active witness of nature, and that they should multiply, rule over all under heaven, and know what is good; and so that they should increase and continue to increase, multiply and continue to multiply. Through their own wonder-working course the gods sent forth every soul clothed in flesh, so that men should survey heaven, the paths of the heavenly gods, the works of God and the activity of nature; so that they should know the signs of what is good, the power of God, and the turning fate of good and evil things and discover all the marvellous works of good men."
Some decent life summary here. Work out what is good and then be good while reproducing. I do wonder how Hermeticism fits in with evolution though.

4. [Thus] there begins their living and their growing wise, according to the fate appointed by the revolution of the Cyclic Gods, and their deceasing for this end.

And there shall be memorials mighty of their handiworks upon the earth, leaving dim trace behind when cycles are renewed.

For every birth of flesh ensouled, and of the fruit of seed, and every handiwork, though it decay, shall of necessity renew itself, both by the renovation of the Gods and by the turning-round of Nature's rhythmic wheel.

For that whereas the Godhead is Nature's ever-making-new-again the cosmic mixture, Nature herself is also co-established in that Godhead.

Everard: "So it beginneth to live in them, and to be wise according to the operation of the course of the circular gods; and to be resolved into that which shall be great monuments and the memory of the cunning works done upon earth, leaving them to be read by the darkness of times."
I love this closer. All things must end, the cycle goes around, but there will forever be traces of us. You can take that on an archaeological sense or you can go deeper. And if so, it's the first Occult text I've found (besides Janthopoyism) that alludes to a learning effect, whereby everything done is part of a process and shall weave its presence into the fabric of forever. God lives in everything, we are God, we are contributing to a forward motion, us building upon what was before while what we provide is continued for infinity.

V. THE CUP OR MONAD

Alt titles: A Discourse of Hermes to Tat: The Mixing Bowl or the Monad (Copenhaver); Hermes to Tat (Salaman); His Crater or Monas (Everard/Warwick)

Did you know Hermes has a son? His name is Tat, and this treatise is part of his education. And what an education it is! A very powerful chapter that really made a profound impact on me in a practical sense. The concept of turning the "mind" away from the physical flipped my brain around a bit, and (according to my notes) I "actually felt high, legit insane feelings" which is always what we seek!
Scholars have also spent much time musing over the connection between the cup and other similar mystical documentations, such as Holy Communion and the Holy Grail. It's fun, but it's all speculation, and I couldn't find anything solid on the matter.

1. Hermes: With Reason (Logos), not with hands, did the World-maker make the universal World; so that thou shouldst think of him as everywhere and ever-being, the Author of all things, and One and Only, who by His Will all beings hath created.

This Body of Him is a thing no man can touch, or see, or measure, a body inextensible, like to no other frame. 'Tis neither Fire nor Water, Air nor Breath; yet all of them come from it. Now being Good he willed to consecrate this [Body] to Himself alone, and set its Earth in order and adorn it.

The Universe created by reasoned speech (according to Copenhaver plus the meaning of Logos) or "the Word" (Salaman, Everard/Warwick) ties into everything I've learned about cosmogony. It's a sound, a root vibrational understanding which is scientific fact via electrons. To add the word "reasoned" adds a nice spice. It was intentional.

2. So down [to Earth] He sent the Cosmos of this Frame Divine - man, a life that cannot die, and yet a life that dies. And o'er [all other] lives and over Cosmos [too], did man excel by reason of the Reason (Logos) and the Mind. For contemplator of God's works did man become; he marvelled and did strive to know their Author.

Copenhaver: "The man became a spectator of god's work. He looked at it in astonishment and recognised its maker". I can digest this. As far as we know, we're the only creatures who actively seek God, right?
Hence, man is the midpoint between nature and God. The Cosmos itself is the Universal Energy in a physical form, which has an expiry date. But the human consciousness/awareness is a spiritual component which brings immortality, making us godlike and superior to even the Cosmos itself. This is not congruent with my definitions but only due to a lack of any certainty. I can't just accept and have an aversion to the ego-driven mentality that humans have, one of such self-importance. Hermeticism is full of it.

3. Reason (Logos) indeed, O Tat, among all men hath He distributed, but Mind not yet; not that He grudgeth any, for grudging cometh not from Him, but hath its place below, within the souls of men who have no Mind.
Tat: Why then did God, O father, not on all bestow a share of Mind?
H: He willed, my son, to have it set up in the midst for souls, just as it were a prize.

This dialogue further supports my notion that "mind" is the incorrect word, simply the best they had at the time. For it claims not all men have a mind, only some are granted the mind like a prize. But then how do we define that? Is it a level of awareness? And would not every human claim they have mind? So how can we trust who says they do or don't? And how do I know I have that?
Hence I (again) consider Salaman's use of the word Nous here (and everywhere) to be essential and the only accurate interpretation. It's a different thing. It's more of a godlike energy that underlies everything, and the closer you get to it, the better you see through the Maya.

4. T: And where hath He set it up?
H: He filled a mighty Cup with it, and sent it down, joining a Herald [to it], to whom He gave command to make this proclamation to the hearts of men:
Baptise thyself with this Cup's baptism, what heart can do so, thou that hast faith thou canst ascend to him that hath sent down the Cup, thou that dost know for what thoudidst come into being!
As many then as understood the Herald's tidings and doused themselves in Mind, became partakers in the Gnosis; and when they had "received the Mind" they were made "perfect men".
But they who do not understand the tidings, these, since they possess the aid of Reason [only] and not Mind, are ignorant wherefor they have come into being and whereby.

According to Salaman, if you have this Nous, you feel complete. So confirmed I don't have it then. Does anyone?
The cup (or mixing bowl or perhaps even Holy Grail) comes in here, spoken in terms of baptism. Everard/Warwick refer to being "dowsed into the mind" of God, which is a mad angle. Surely metaphorical in that standpoint which makes sense to me even in terms of Abrahamic literature.

5. The senses of such men are like irrational creatures'; and as their [whole] make-up is in their feelings and their impulses, they fail in all appreciation of <lit.: "they do not wonder at" > those things which really are worth contemplation. These center all their thought upon the pleasures of the body and its appetites, in the belief that for its sake man hath come into being.

But they who have received some portion of God's gift, these, Tat, if we judge by their deeds, have from Death's bonds won their release; for they embrace in their own Mind all things, things on the earth, things in the heaven, and things above the heaven - if there be aught. And having raised themselves so far they sight the Good; and having sighted it, they look upon their sojourn here as a mischance; and in disdain of all, both things in body and the bodiless, they speed their way unto that One and Only One.

There's an epiphany egg in here, and if I can just think about it in the right way, then I'm going to crack reality right open.
It's materialism as the root of all problems. The more you take the Universe at physical value, the deeper into the illusion you get stuck, which is the opposite of spiritual liberation. This includes possessions, relationships, sexual desires, etc. This has been written about forever in Eastern religions, most notably Jainism, and I can feel there is truth here in my heart.
"But wholly addicted to the pleasures and desires of the body, they believe that man was made for them" - Everard

6. This is, O Tat, the Gnosis of the Mind, Vision of things Divine; Godknowledge is it, for the Cup is God's.
T: Father, I, too, would be baptised.
H: Unless thou first shall hate thy Body, son, thou canst not love thy Self. But if thou lov'st thy Self thou shalt have Mind, and having Mind thou shalt share in the Gnosis.
T: Father, what dost thou mean?
H: It is not possible, my son, to give thyself to both - I mean to things that perish and to things divine. For seeing that existing things are twain, Body and Bodiless, in which the perishing and the divine are understood, the man who hath the will to choose is left the choice of one or the other; for it can never be the twain should meet. And in those souls to whom the choice is left, the waning of the one causes the other's growth to show itself.

You cannot love yourself unless you hate your body. It's a big ask, but I don't think it's literal, more like a rejection of your own personal representation of the physical world. The difference between mortality and divinity is purely physical. Instead of falling slave to Earthly desires, lean into the background spiritual essence. The more you focus on The One, the others will shrink. That's the greatest lesson I've learned from all my occult studies.

7. Now the choosing of the Better not only proves a lot most fair for him who makes the choice, seeing it makes the man a God, but also shows his piety to God. Whereas the [choosing] of the Worse, although it doth destroy the "man", it doth only disturb God's harmony to this extent, that as processions pass by in the middle of the way, without being able to do anything but take the road from others, so do such men move in procession through the world led by their bodies' pleasures.

By following the physical, you not only destroy yourself but may also hinder the path of others. This offends God, which seems weird to me. How could we offend God? Did it not create this? But whatever.
Meanwhile, those who seek enlightenment not only unite with God (become godlike) but also please God as the correct pursuit.

Here's Copenhaver to better grasp it: "Thus this power, the choice of the better, not only happens to be the most glorious for him who chooses, in that it unites man with God, but it also shows reverence to God. The inferior choice has destroyed man. Nothing offends God but this : as processions passing in the road cannot achieve anything themselves, yet still obstruct others, so these men merely process through the universe, led by the pleasures of the body."

8. This being so, O Tat, what comes from God hath been and will be ours; but that which is dependent on ourselves, let this press onward and have no delay, for 'tis not God, 'tis we who are the cause of evil things, preferring them to good.

Thou see'st, son, how many are the bodies through which we have to pass, how many are the choirs of daimones, how vast the system of the star-courses [through which our Path doth lie], to hasten to the One and Only God.

For to the Good there is no other shore; It hath no bounds; It is without an end; and for Itself It is without beginning, too, though unto us it seemeth to have one - the Gnosis.

Gnosis is Knowledge in other translations.
There is a conundrum when it comes to Hermeticism, "God", and "Good". According to the Corpus Hermeticum, God is only good, nothing else is good, and God does not make bad things. Therefore, when something good happens, praise be to God, but when something bad takes place, it is purely the fault of the human. That is a cop-out and far from Janthopoyism's teachings.
The problem comes with the concept of The All, a pantheistic/panenthestic understanding of how everything exists within and emenates from "God". This is a notion Hermeticism preaches loudly, and yet if we are here and a bad thing happens, then this is surely part of (or made by) this God, meaning it cannot be all good.
Some Hermetic scholars have tried to tackle this. Salaman later states, "It is only God (in the sense of the nous, not in the sense of the All) who is completely free of evil." which differentiates The All (Father?) and the Nous. It's yet another example of how convoluted Occult teaching becomes, and it's wholly unnecessary. One could even accuse it of moral herding, equating good deeds as "godly" when the true God is in the balance of both good and evil. The simplicity is where Janthopoyism excels, but in all fairness, we have had millennia of educated texts to help us get there.

9. Therefore to It Gnosis is no beginning; rather is it [that Gnosis doth afford] to us the first beginning of its being known.

Let us lay hold, therefore, of the beginning. and quickly speed through all [we have to pass].
`Tis very hard, to leave the things we have grown used to, which meet our gaze on every side, and turn ourselves back to the Old Old [Path].
Appearances delight us, whereas things which appear not make their believing hard.
Now evils are the more apparent things, whereas the Good can never show Itself unto the eyes, for It hath neither form nor figure.
Therefore the Good is like Itself alone, and unlike all things else; or 'tis impossible that That which hath no body should make Itself apparent to a body.

Essentially we must seize "the origin" (premanifested God?) and run with it without being distracted by the material world. It also fully recognises that it's a difficult thing to achieve, because ("evil") material appears readily before the eyes, whereas the Nous is invisible. As says Everard, "for things that appear, delightful us, but make the things that appear not, hard to believe, or the things that appear not, are hard to believe".
There is a lot of science to this. We get stuck in a logic-based world which is so tied to the physical that it makes unmeasurable things seem untrue. It's a flaw in our current ways of thinking, and well reported in the Janthopoyism Bible.
I do wonder how Hermeticism gels with the "present moment" mindfulness of so many other teachings. Being here in the moment without paying any mind to the material traits might actually smash the walls down pretty hard!

I've added Salaman's full translation because it's easier: "Knowledge then is not the origin of the Supreme Good, but for us it provides the origin of what is to be known. Let us therefore take hold of the origin, and pass over everything else with speed; for it is a path full of tangles, when leaving the familiar and present, to return to the ancient and original. For what appears to the eyes delights us, and what is unseen makes us mistrust. To those who have eyes, evil is most evident and the Supreme Good is hidden. For the Supreme Good has no form and leaves no mark. Thus it is like to itself, but unlike all else. What is unembodied, can never be seen by a body."

10. The "Like's" superiority to the "Unlike" and the "Unlike's" inferiority unto the "Like" consists in this:

The Oneness being Source and Root of all, is in all things as Root and Source. Without [this] Source is naught; whereas the Source [Itself] is from naught but itself, since it is Source of all the rest. It is Itself Its Source, since It may have no other Source.

The Oneness then being Source, containeth every number, but is contained by none; engendereth every number, but is engendered by no other one.

Instead of The Oneness, Copenhaver uses the Monad (as he does in the title) i.e. the most basic or original substance.
In justification to the whole "God is good" notion, it's worth noting that materialistic people crave spirituality, and never the other way round. This does place some defence in the "like wants always somewhat of the like" as Everard/Warwick put it.

Around here of reading my notes shot off onto a tangent about "The Breath of God", that we are emanating away from that original source the further we manifest into this tangible reality. The process is beautiful in its own self, as we are experiencing something or other. And if not that, then what? We retreat back into the inhale of source, reality itself collapsing? Is that what esoteric knowledge will ultimately provide? How many minds does it take to unscrew the lightbulb? And is that even the goal? Or should we just enjoy what we've built here more? It is all divinity, the fact that we are here was obviously the point.

11. Now all that is engendered is imperfect, it is divisible, to increase subject and to decrease; but with the Perfect [One] none of these things doth hold. Now that which is increasable increases from the Oneness, but succumbs through its own feebleness when it no longer can contain the One.

And now, O Tat, God's Image hath been sketched for thee, as far as it can be; and if thou wilt attentively dwell on it and observe it with thine heart's eyes, believe me, son, thou'lt find the Path that leads above; nay, that Image shall become thy Guide itself, because the Sight [Divine] hath this peculiar [charm], it holdeth fast and draweth unto it those who succeed in opening their eyes, just as, they say, the magnet [draweth] iron.

"But everything generated is imperfect and divisible, subject to increase and decrease. None of this happens to what is perfect. And what can be increased takes its increase from the monad, but it is defeated by its own weakness, no longer able to make room for the monad." says Copenhaver. It tells you exactly what God is and isn't. It's the perfect indivisible whole, for as soon as you break it into pieces, those separations can increase or decrease, meaning they are no longer perfect. And, most importantly of all, if you concentrate on it, it will guide you.

Everard/Warwick use "Unity" instead of Monad/The One, which has its benefits.

VI. THOUGH UNMANIFEST GOD IS MOST MANIFEST

Alt titles: A Discourse of Hermes to Tat, His Son: That God is Invisible and Entirely Visible (Copenhaver); Hermes to Tat (Salaman); That God is Not Manifest And Yet is Most Manifest (Everard/Warwick)

Hermes continues chatting with his son, hence Salaman's title for this chapter is identical to the previous. Copenhaver's title is the best here, especially the "God is Invisible and Entirely Visible" part. It fits this chapter perfectly. Mead's title reminds me of the Dao again, as from the unmanifested the manifest comes; an extension of God.

1. I will recount to thee this sermon (logos) too, O Tat, that thou may'st cease to be without the mysteries of the God beyond all name. And mark thou well how that which to the many seems unmanifest, will grow most manifest for thee.

Now were it manifest, it would not be. For all that is made manifest is subject to becoming, for it hath been made manifest. But the Unmanifest for ever is, for It doth not desire to be made manifest. It ever is, and maketh manifest all other things.

Being Himself unmanifest, as ever being and ever making-manifest, Himself is not made manifest. God is not made Himself; by thinkingmanifest <i.e., thinking into manifestation>, He thinketh all things manifest.

Now "thinking-manifest" deals with things made alone, for thinkingmanifest is nothing else than making.

There are multiple layers here from my perspective.
God is the unmanifested from where all things manifest. Once something manifests, it is still in God, but it has taken on other qualities. It is definable, and is now at the mercy of other laws. Therefore, nothing we know can be God as a whole, for God itself is undefinable, unknowable, and intangible.
God is not manifested because nothing manifested it, it is before the manifestation. And it is only this God that manifests the stuff via its thoughts. I believe we can apply this to ourselves too, whereby it is our observing that creates reality (quantum mechanics) and the conscious thoughts that align us with what happens (LOA). We are God perceiving God through us.

2. He, then, alone who is not made, 'tis clear, is both beyond all power of thinking-manifest, and is unmanifest.

And as He thinketh all things manifest, He manifests through all things and in all, and most of all in whatsoever things He wills to manifest.

Do thou, then, Tat, my son, pray first unto our Lord and Father, the One-and-Only One, from whom the One doth come, to show His mercy unto thee, in order that thou mayest have the power to catch a thought of this so mighty God, one single beam of Him to shine into thy thinking. For thought alone "sees" the Unmanifest, in that it is itself unmanifest.

If, then, thou hast the power, He will, Tat, manifest to thy mind's eyes. The Lord begrudgeth not Himself to anything, but manifests Himself through the whole world.

Thou hast the power of taking thought, of seeing it and grasping it in thy own "hands", and gazing face to face upon God's Image. But if what is within thee even is unmanifest to thee, how, then, shall He Himself who is within thy self be manifest for thee by means of [outer] eyes?

Mental activity is godliness because it too is unmanifested material. But you can still see God deeply stitched into the core of the manifested.

3. But if thou wouldst "see" him, bethink thee of the sun, bethink thee of moon's course, bethink thee of the order of the stars. Who is the One who watcheth o'er that order? For every order hath its boundaries marked out by place and number.

The sun's the greatest god of gods in heaven; to whom all of the heavenly gods give place as unto king and master. And he, this so-great one, he greater than the earth and sea, endures to have above him circling smaller stars than him. Out of respect to Whom, or out of fear of Whom, my son, [doth he do this]?
Nor like nor equal is the course each of these stars describes in heaven. Who [then] is He who marketh out the manner of their course and its extent?

Copenhaver: "Does not each of these stars in heaven make the same circuit or a similar one? Who determined the direction and the size of the circuit for each of them?"
The above (more modern) interpretation is better than Mead's, because Mead is more directly Sun-worshipping. I get that we're talking from an Earthly perspective, in which the Sun is the best, but it's still one of the most gaping flaws in Hermeticism, claiming to be otherwordly knowledge that has no regard to the infinities of the universe and what else might be there. Is there a limit to God? One just for us? If we think in the sense of an actual universal absolute, then no.
And of course, scientific-leaning atheists will be quick to argue against something mystical about the solar system, using simple evolution. Still, this is a cop-out. It's such an intricate configuration, and while perhaps random events led us here, it's a puny human-ego thing to do, to rule out something despite the size and unknowns.

4. The Bear up there that turneth round itself, and carries round the whole cosmos with it - Who is the owner of this instrument? Who He who hath set round the sea its bounds? Who He who hath set on its seat the earth?

For, Tat, there is someone who is the Maker and the Lord of all these things. It cound not be that number, place and measure could be kept without someone to make them. No order whatsoever could be made by that which lacketh place and lacketh measure; nay, even this is not without a lord, my son. For if the orderless lacks something, in that it is not lord of order's path, it also is beneath a lord - the one who hath not yet ordained it order.

Salaman: "This Great Bear turns around itself, and carries the whole universe along with itself." So poetic, such a visual.
The bear is a constellation, which Everard/Warwick refer to as female.
Obviously people will take issues with the creationism side of these texts, but it's the pedantic order of the Cosmos that is difficult to argue against. It's so ordered!

5. Would that it were possible for thee to get thee wings, and soar into the air, and, poised midway 'tween earth and heaven, behold the earth's solidity, the sea's fluidity (the flowings of its streams), the spaciousness of air, fire's swiftness, [and] the coursing of the stars, the swiftness of heaven's circuit round them [all]!

Most blessed sight were it, my son, to see all these beneath one sway -the motionless in motion, and the unmanifest made manifest; whereby is made this order of the cosmos and the cosmos which we see of order.

What's great is that we do this all the time now.

6. If thou would'st see Him too through things that suffer death, both on the earth and in the deep, think of a man's being fashioned in the womb, my son, and strictly scrutinise the art of Him who fashions him, and learn who fashioneth this fair and godly image of the Man.

Who [then] is He who traceth out the circles of the eyes; who He who boreth out the nostrils and the ears; who He who openeth [the portal of] the mouth; who He who doth stretch out and tie the nerves; who He who channels out the veins; who He who hardeneth the bones; who He who covereth the flesh with skin; who He who separates the fingers and the joints; who He who widens out a treading for the feet; who He who diggeth out the ducts; who He who spreadeth out the spleen; who he who shapeth heart like to a pyramid; who He who setteth ribs together; who He who wideneth the liver out; who He who maketh lungs like to a sponge; who He who maketh belly stretch so much; who he who doth make prominent the parts most honorable, so that they may be seen, while hiding out of sight those of least honor?

A lot of evolutionary debate could resist this, but for me, I still feel like the creation of a human inside of another human is the most godlike shit I can fathom. It's insane.
And even if you wish to disregard these miracles as evolution, ask yourself why did specific senses develop to interpret certain vibrations (audio, visual, etc.)? That's weird to be random. Why not something else? Why not less or more? The reason I would lean more towards a Godlike guidance theory is because practical evolutionary steps would have been more mathematical and methodical. Instead, it's kinda shoddy what we've ended up with hence its easier to blame an overarching force just oozing along, hahaha.
The last line refers to genitalia or, at very least, the butthole.
"Portal of the mouth" is exclusive to Mead and appreciated!

7. Behold how many arts [employed] on one material, how many labors on one single sketch; and all exceeding fair, and all in perfect measure, yet all diversified! Who made them all? What mother, or what sire, save God alone, unmanifest, who hath made all things by His Will?

And yeah, babies are made from the same atomic substance just like everything yet somehow it does this? And atheists think science has the answer for it? It doesn't, you know. It never will. Not saying it's a "God" per se, just that it could be something comparable rather than just the stock unimaginative atheistic answers.

8. And no one saith a statue or a picture comes to be without a sculptor or [without] a painter; doth [then] such workmanship as this exist without a Worker? What depth of blindness, what deep impiety, what depth of ignorance! See, [then] thou ne'er, son Tat, deprivest works of Worker!
Nay, rather is He greater than all names, so great is He, the Father of them all. For verily He is the Only One, and this is His work, to be a father.

Also a valid point! When someone makes art, do you say, "Oh yeah, science and evolution!". There is always a creator. I think peope get hooked up on the personification aspect, brainwashed by Abharamic definitions as to what God is, not what it could conceivably mean.

9. So, if thou forcest me somewhat too bold, to speak, His being is conceiving of all things and making [them].

And as without its maker its is impossible that anything should be, so ever is He not unless He ever makes all things, in heaven, in air, in earth, in deep, in all of cosmos, in every part that is and that is not of everything. For there is naught in all the world that is not He.

He is Himself, both things that are and things that are not. The things that are He hath made manifest, He keepeth things that are not in Himself.

This ties in nicely with my Pantheistic understanding. God is everything as a unit, including that which is behind the scenes as the unmanifested. He is everything and the nothing between everything, so tells the Dao.
Copenhaver and Everard/Warwick use the term "pregnant" for this conceiving business, which is interesting considering how firm Hermeticism stands that "God" is male and nature is female (something I do not blindly agree with).

10. He is the God beyond all name; He the unmanifest, He the most manifest; He whom the mind [alone] can contemplate, He visible to the eyes [as well]; He is the one of no body, the one of many bodies, nay, rather He of every body.

Naught is there which he is not. For all are He and He is all. And for this cause hath He all names, in that they are one Father's. And for this cause hath He Himself no nome, in that He's Father of [them] all.

Who, then, may sing Thee praise of Thee, or [praise] to Thee?

Whither, again, am I to turn my eyes to sing Thy praise; above, below, within, without?

There is no way, no place [is there] about Thee, nor any other thing of things that are.

All [are] in Thee; all [are] from Thee, O Thou who givest all and takest naught, for Thou hast all and naught is there Thou hast not.

As above, so below. Bodiless yet ALL bodies. All names yet with no name. You can only see god in the mind, except that you can see god everywhere in the physical too. Weirdly it makes complete sense.
I also love the "giving all but taking nothing" idea, because it is everything so it needs nothing, but it gives everything we see. Appreciate life!

11. And when, O Father, shall I hymn Thee? For none can seize Thy hour or time.

For what, again, shall I sing hymn? For things that Thou hast made, or things Thou hast not? For things Thou hast made manifest, or things Thou hast concealed?

How, further, shall I hymn Thee? As being of myself? As having something of mine own? As being other?

For that Thou art whatever I may be; Thou art whatever I may do; Thou art whatever I may speak.

For Thou art all, and there is nothing else which Thou art not. Thou art all that which doth exist, and Thou art what doth not exist - Mind when Thou thinkest, and Father when Thou makest, and God when Thou dost energise, and Good and Maker of all things.

For that the subtler part of matter is the air, of air the soul, of soul the mind, and of mind God.

When we praise God, are we not just pieces of God praising a projected aspect of ourselves? Are we not just God praising God? It's weird.
Last line is great too. This energetic soul essence is like air because it is "unmanifested". The soul powers the brain to create our understanding of the human mind, at least that's what Janthopoyism says.

VII. IN GOD ALONE IS GOOD AND ELSEWHERE NOWHERE

Alt titles: That the Good Is in God Alone and Nowhere Else (Copenhaver); Hermes to Asclepius (Salaman); That in God Alone is Good (Everard/Warwick)

Here we go, deeper into the Hermetic statement that God and only God is good, while everything bad is not God. Janthopoyism wholeheartedly disagrees. Our terminology for God is The All, the Highest Collective Power which must encapsulate everything including the bad. Hermeticism has taken an aspect of the Absolute and chosen to worship it, and that's fine, but it still exists within an extended system of balance between good and bad. That is the higher plain that Jantho calls God. Our God is bigger than your God.

1. Good, O Asclepius, is in none else save in God alone; nay, rather, Good is God Himself eternally.

If it be so, [Good] must be essence, from every kind of motion and becoming free (though naught is free from It), possessed of stable energy around Itself, never too little, nor too much, an ever-full supply. [Though] one, yet [is It] source of all; for what supplieth all is Good. When I, moreover, say [supplieth] altogether [all], it is for ever Good. But this belongs to no one else save God alone.

For He stands not in need of any thing, so that desiring it He should be bad; nor can a single thing of things that are be lost to him, on losing which He should be pained; for pain is part of bad.

Nor is there aught superior to Him, that He should be subdued by it; nor any peer to Him to do Him wrong, or [so that] He should fall in love on its account; nor aught that gives no ear to Him, whereat He should grow angry; nor wiser aught, for Him to envy.

"No being is disobedient to Him which would provoke His anger, nor is any being wiser which would provoke His jealousy." - Salaman. It's refreshingly different from Abrahamic teachings.
The absence of God being bad is a worthy education, considering the time of writing. It's the moral herding of religion that perhaps had its place once upon an age. It's also probably why these texts survived the mighty sweep of Christian oppression.

2. Now as all these are non-existent in His being, what is there left but Good alone?

For just as naught of bad is to be found in such transcendent Being, so too in no one of the rest will Good be found.

For in them are all of the other things <i.e., those things which are not Good> - both in the little and the great, both in each severally and in this living one that's greater than them all and the mightiest [of them] <i.e., the cosmos>.

For things subject to birth abound in passions, birth in itself being passible. But where there's passion, nowhere is there Good; and where is Good, nowhere a single passion. For where is day, nowhere is night; and where is night, day is nowhere.

Wherefore in genesis the Good can never be, but only be in the ingenerate.

But seeing that the sharing in all things hath been bestowed on matter, so doth it share in Good.

In this way is the Cosmos Good; that, in so far as it doth make all things, as far as making goes it's Good, but in all other things it is not Good. For it's both passible and subject unto motion, and maker of things passible.

Another issue I take is this invincible blanket where if something is good, it's God, when something is bad, he's nowhere near it. It's too easy.
The word "passion" used as a negative trait is tricky here and I was ready to fight it but I have since found some claims that it is an old-timey phrase to mean "passive". While that disagrees with the Tao Te Ching, I am more comfortable with it. Everard uses "will" instead, which is far more Dao-related. Curiously, Salaman uses "suffering".
It also alludes to how making things is good, perhaps only in a God (Creator) sense, but surely that trickles down? Copenhaver, Everard, and Warwick use the word "participation" instead of "making".

Side note: I love how Copenhaver uses the word "substance" to refer to the supreme "being", it coincides with my understandings 100%.

3. Whereas in man by greater or less of bad is good determined. For what is not too bad down here, is good, and good down here is the least part of bad.

It cannot, therefore, be that good down here should be quite clean of bad, for down here good is fouled with bad; and being fouled, it stays no longer good, and staying not it changes into bad.

In God alone, is, therefore, Good, or rather Good is God Himself. So then, Asclepius, the name alone of Good is found in men, the thing itself nowhere [in them], for this can never be.

For no material body doth contain It - a thing bound on all sides by bad, by labors, pains, desires and passions, by error and by foolish thoughts.

And greatest ill of all, Asclepius, is that each of these things that have been said above, is thought down here to be the greatest good.

And what is still an even greater ill, is belly-lust, the error that doth lead the band of all the other ills - the thing that makes us turn down here from Good.

There is no way for humans to be good, so don't worry about it. The entire thing is a diss on nature, for this is where the separation between God and man lies.
Copenhaver: "Here below, the evil that is not excessive is the good, and the good is the least amount of evil here below". Our definition of good is not pure good, it's just the lessening of evil.
Finally, "Belly-Lust" lol! What a term! Which obviously means gluttony (Copenhaver/Warwick) or greed (Salaman) or "pleasures of the belly" (Everard). It's strange that this is considered the "ringleader of all evils", no? I can think of worse.

4. And I, for my part, give thanks to God, that He hath cast it in my mind about the Gnosis of the Good, that it can never be It should be in the world. For that the world is "fullness" of the bad, but God of Good, and Good of God.

The excellencies of the Beautiful are round the very essence [of the Good]; nay, they do seem too pure, too unalloyed; perchance 'tis they that are themselves Its essences.

For one may dare to say, Asclepius - if essence, sooth, He have - God's essence is the Beautiful; the Beautiful is further also Good.

There is no Good that can be got from objects in the world. For all the things that fall beneath the eye are image-things and pictures as it were; while those that do not meet [the eye are the realities], especially the [essence] of the Beautiful and Good.

Just as the eye cannot see God, so can it not behold the Beautiful and Good. For that they are integral parts of God, wedded to Him alone, inseparate familiars, most beloved, with whom God is Himself in love, or they with God.

Salaman: "For the world is the sum total of evil" - what a terrible perspective!
I do like how the essence of God is questioned, because they don't know. That's the only actual way to speak of God.
Where Mead says "pictures", Salaman says "paintings" while Everard/Warwick say "idols and shadows". This is important; it's the Maya thing again. Everything we see is an illusion, so even while it is a manifestation of God, it's not genuinely anything but a facade before the truth.

5. If thou canst God conceive, thou shalt conceive the Beautiful and Good, transcending Light, made lighter than the Light by God. That Beauty is beyond compare, inimitate that Good, e'en as God is Himself.

As, then, thou dost conceive of God, conceive the Beautiful and Good. For they cannot be joined with aught of other things that live, since they can never be divorced from God.

Seek'st thou for God, thou seekest for the Beautiful. One is the Path that leadeth unto It - Devotion joined with Gnosis.

It's simple and makes sense. You find God through "Devotion joined with Gnosis" (reverence/piety with knowledge) as well as by seeking beautiful things. But is not beauty in the eye of the beholder? And that is exactly what I resonate with. It's an inner state, one which differs from person to person.
"If you seek after God, you also seek after beauty." - Salaman.

6. And thus it is that they who do not know and do not tread Devotion's Path, do dare to call man beautiful and good, though he have ne'er e'en in his visions seen a whit that's Good, but is enveloped with every kind of bad, and thinks the bad is good, and thus doth make unceasing use of it, and even feareth that it should be ta'en from him, so straining every nerve not only to preserve but even to increase it.

Such are the things that men call good and beautiful, Asclepius - things which we cannot flee or hate; for hardest thing of all is that we've need of them and cannot live without them.

I like this: it's not good if it's not quenching you and only leaves bigger cravings. It's also not good if you're afraid of losing it. Again, this is Daoism through and through, while I keep getting flashes that Jainism might be the final path out of here. To truly connect with that world, you must rid yourself of ALL material possessions, including places and people.
The last line is difficult. We've grown dependent on this reality, I guess?

VIII. THE GREATEST ILL AMONG MEN IS IGNORANCE OF GOD

Alt titles: That the Greatest Evil in Mankind is Ignorance Concerning God (Copenhaver); no title (Salaman); That the Greatest Evil in Man is Not Knowing God (Everard/Warwick)

From my perspective, this treatise is about breaking free from the Maya by realising it is what we see as physical.

1. Whither stumble ye, sots, who have sopped up the wine of ignorance and can so far not carry it that ye already even spew it forth?

Stay ye, be sober, gaze upwards with the [true] eyes of the heart! And if ye cannot all, yet ye at least who can!

For that the ill of ignorance doth pour o'er all the earth and overwhelm the soul that's battened down within the body, preventing it from fetching port within Salvation's harbors.

Salaman: "Whither are you being carried, 0 men, drunk as you are, having swallowed neat, the word of ignorance, which you cannot keep down, but are already vomiting up? Stop, be sober." - relatable. Of course, the drunkness it speaks of can in every way lend itself to intoxication but may also be applied to any Earthly indulgences. And the more your trap your soul in the material, the more you damage it, and the more difficult it will be to connect to the larger being.

2. Be ye then not carried off by the fierce flood, but using the shorecurrent <lit., "back-current" or "up-current" >, ye who can, make for Salvation's port, and, harboring there, seek ye for one to take you by the hand and lead you unto Gnosis' gates.

Where shines clear Light, of every darkness clean; where not a single soul is drunk, but sober all they gaze with their hearts' eyes on Him who willeth to be seen.

No ear can hear Him, nor can eye see Him, nor tongue speak of Him, but [only] mind and heart.

But first thou must tear off from thee the cloak which thou dost wear - the web of ignorance, the ground of bad, corruption's chain, the carapace of darkness, the living death, sensation's corpse, the tomb thou carriest with thee, the robber in thy house, who through the things he loveth, hateth thee, and through the things he hateth, bears thee malice.

I love Copenhaver's poetics. To know God, "first you must rip off the tunic that you wear, the garment of ignorance, the foundation of vice, the bonds of corruption, the dark cage, the living death, the sentient corpse, the portable tomb, the resident thief, the one who hates through what he loves and envies through what he hates."

Basically, you can't perceive God, a metaphysical concept, via physical senses. You can only experience God through Nous and the heart. I wish there was more of a direct instruction manual on how to do this though.

3. Such is the hateful cloak thou wearest - that throttles thee [and holds thee] down to it, in order that thou may'st not gaze above, and having seen the Beauty of the Truth, and Good that dwells therein, detest the bad of it; having found out the plot that it hath schemed against thee, by making void of sense those seeming things which men think senses.

For that it hath with mass of matter blocked them up and crammed them full of loathsome lust, so that thou may'st not hear about the things that thou should'st hear, nor see the things thou should'st see.

I loooove this, how the physical Maya world plays tricks on us by making itself "pleasurable". It pulls us on its level, so we do not even realise the viciousness of it. That's some good stuff.

IX. THAT NO ONE OF EXISTING THINGS DOTH PERISH, BUT MEN IN ERROR SPEAK OF THEIR CHANGES AS DESTRUCTIONS AND AS DEATHS

Alt titles: That None of the Things That Are Is Destroyed, and They Are Mistaken Who Say That Changes Are Deaths and Destructions (Copenhaver); Hermes to Tat (Salaman); That None of the Things That Are Can Perish (Everard/Warwick)

This chapter revolves around DEATH.

1. [Hermes:] Concerning Soul and Body, son, we now must speak; in what way Soul is deathless, and whence comes the activity in composing and dissolving Body.

For there's no death for aught of things [that are]; the thought this word conveys, is either void of fact, or [simply] by the knocking off a syllable what is called "death", doth stand for "deathless".

For death is of destruction, and nothing in the Cosmos is destroyed. For if Cosmos is second God, a life <or living creature> that cannot die, it cannot be that any part of this immortal life should die. All things in Cosmos are parts of Cosmos, and most of all is man, the rational animal.

Death doesn't exist. We are immortal. This is actually scientific in context. The atoms of you will last for eternity. The Cosmos is "second God" which is a new way of putting it. The way I understand it, the cosmos is God, except a manifested version, the perceived Universe, not necessarily excluding the unmanifested, but more in a body sense.

2. For truly first of all, eternal and transcending birth, is God the universals' Maker. Second is he "after His image", Cosmos, brought into being by Him, sustained and fed by Him, made deathless, as by his own Sire, living for aye, as ever free from death.

Now that which ever-liveth, differs from the Eternal; for He hath not been brought to being by another, and even if He have been brought to being, He hath not been brought to being by Himself, but ever is brought into being.

For the Eternal, in that It is eternal, is the all. The Father is Himself eternal of Himself, but Cosmos hath become eternal and immortal by the Father.

I loathe the layering of so many beliefs, and occulty texts are often the most guilty. The All God made the Creator God made the Cosmos God, ad nauseous nauseam. It's not only unprovable but unnecessary too. Why can't we just be happy that God encompasses everything and the innerworkings are unknown?
I do like the differentiation between immortal and eternal. Eternal has no beginning.

3. And of the matter stored beneath it <i.e., beneath the cosmos>, the Father made of it a universal body, and packing it together made it spherical - wrapping it round the life - [a sphere] which is immortal in itself, and that doth make materiality eternal.

But He, the Father, full-filled with His ideas, did sow the lives <or living creatures> into the sphere, and shut them in as in a cave, willing to order forth the life with every kind of living.

So He with deathlessness enclosed the universal body, that matter might not wish to separate itself from body's composition, and so dissolve into its own [original] unorder.

For matter, son, when it was yet incorporate <i.e., not yet formed into bodies>, was in unorder. And it doth still retain down here this [nature of unorder] enveloping the rest of the small lives <or living creatures> - that increase-and-decrease which men call death.

The illustration of Life itself being a sphere gels so well with me. I don't know why. God is a circle in my mind.
Anyway, so the unmanifested disorder falls into order as manifested material (as we are) and then eventually it falls back into disorder again, but the substance is still there, just part of something undefinable. That's what we call death, but it's not true death in one sense. Although, let's be honest, it is death in another sense.
I'm confused though. Does Mead say that lesser-than-human creatures do die, though??? I do not compute if so.

4. It is round earthly lives that this unorder doth exist. For that the bodies of the heavenly ones preserve one order allotted to them by the Father as their rule; and it is by the restoration of each one [of them] this order is preserved indissolute.

The "restoration" of bodies on the earth is thus their composition, whereas their dissolution restores them to those bodies which can never be dissolved, that is to say, which know no death. Privation, thus, of sense is brought about, not loss of bodies.

"Thus there is deprivation of the senses but no destruction of bodies. "- Salaman.
That is a good angle to view death from. It's loss of senses. I view it like alchemy in a way, like the melting of metal or ice down into a fluid state to rejoin the bigger body. It's not actually gone.
Instead of "senses" Copenhaver uses the word "awareness" which is ballsy and I prefer. I have grown apart from the idea that there is any afterlife awareness, either in reincarnation or some paradise/hell consequcne. I believe awareness to be a brain function, and the brain, like the body, is dissolved, as the texts say.

5. Now the third life - Man, after the image of the Cosmos made, [and] having mind, after the Father's will, beyond all earthly lives - not only doth have feeling with the second God <i.e., the Cosmos>, but also hath conception of the first; for of the one 'tis sensible as of a body, while of the other it conceives as bodiless and the Good Mind.

Tat: Doth then this life not perish?

Hermes: Hush, son! and understand what God, what Cosmos [is], what is a life that cannot die, and what a life subject to dissolution.

Yea, understand the Cosmos is by God and in God; but Man by Cosmos and in Cosmos.

The source and limit and the constitution of all things is God.

Again, this layering. Like the Cosmos to God (in God from God) as is man to the Cosmos (in Cosmos from Cosmos). But we are also beyond nature as we are godlike ourselves, a divine connection between the Cosmos and the Father. We are physical and therefore part of the Cosmos, but in the "mind" sense, we transcend that plain to reach godliness. Just the fact we are aware of these two separated modes (physical and divine metaphysical) proves our superiority.
I personally cannot stomach this. Sure, it's easy to look upon animals and call them names, but who knows what other species are in the Universe in which our self-appointed ego-driven godlike status is laughable. No, I won't take your word for it.

X. ON THOUGHT AND SENSE

Alt titles: Hermes to Asclepius (Copenhaver); On Understanding and Sensation: [That the Beautiful and Good Are in God Alone and Nowhere Else] (Salaman); Of Sense and Understanding (Everard/Warwick)

This is a direct continuation of the last chapter.

1. I gave the Perfect Sermon (Logos) yesterday, Asclepius; today I think it right, as sequel thereunto, to go through point by point the Sermon about Sense.

Now sense and thought do seem to differ, in that the former has to do with matter, the latter has to do with substance. But unto me both seem to be at-one and not to differ - in men I mean. In other lives <or living creatures> sense is at-oned with Nature, but in men thought.

Now mind doth differ just as much from thought as God doth from divinity. For that divinity by God doth come to be, and by mind thought, the sister of the word (logos) and instruments of one another. For neither doth the word (logos) find utterance without thought, nor is thought manifested without word.

This could be seen as a decent argument against my aversion towards using the "mind" word. For as God is not divinity but an instrument for divinity, the mind is not thought/senses, but a vehicle for it to exist within. However, I stand by the fact "mind" is either a wonky mistranslation designed to spoonfeed minds of yesteryear, or a simplification for the same reason.

2. So sense and thought both flow together into man, as though they were entwined with one another. For neither without sensing can one think, nor without thinking sense.

But it is possible [they say] to think a thing apart from sense, as those who fancy sights in dreams. But unto me it seems that both of these activities occur in dream-sight, and sense doth pass out of the sleeping to the waking state.

For man is separated into soul and body, and only when the two sides of his sense agree together, does utterance of its thought conceived by mind take place.

You can separate sense and thought, for example, in a dream state. It's all mental. Although, so is reality, it is perceived only in mind. Come to think of it, dreams are one of the greatest pieces of evidence we have that the waking world could exclusively be a cerebral construct. We do it all the time.

3. For it is mind that doth conceive all thoughts - good thoughts when it receives the seeds from God, their contraries when [it receiveth them] from the daimonials; no part of Cosmos being free of daimon, who stealthily doth creep into the daimon who's illumined by God's light <i.e., the human soul>, and sow in him the seed of its own energy.

And mind conceives the seed thus sown, adultery, murder, parricide, [and] sacrilege, impiety, [and] strangling, casting down precipices, and all such other deeds as are the work of evil daimons.

Every good thought comes from God, but every bad from demons? That is a difficult one to work out. Is it a personification? Of what, though? I'm all for hard deterministic lack of free will, but at what point can we give up because everything is a consequence of external force?
Nice list of bad energies though. Copenhaver and Salaman include "violence to one's father" which is concerningly gender-specific. Ok to beat your mom, then? Only Everard states "parents".

4. The seeds of God, 'tis true, are few, but vast and fair, and good - virtue and self-control, devotion. Devotion is God-gnosis; and he who knoweth God, being filled with all good things, thinks godly thoughts and not thoughts like the many [think].

For this cause they who Gnostic are, please not the many, nor the many them. They are thought mad and laughted at; they're hated and despised, and sometimes even put to death.

For we did say that bad must needs dwell on earth, where 'tis in its own place. Its place is earth, and not Cosmos, as some will sometimes say with impious tongue.

But he who is a devotee of God, will bear with all - once he has sensed the Gnosis. For such an one all things, e'en though they be for others bad, are for him good; deliberately he doth refer them all unto the Gnosis. And, thing most marvelous, 'tis he alone who maketh bad things good.

"Few seeds come from God" - (CopenhaverSalaman). I get this and it was touched on before. There are many little devil things in life, but they are small, not profound realisations like that of a higher divinity. The only issue is that the evil is often material and obvious, whereas godliness is trickier to access.
I am wondering, however, about the statements that evil is purely an Earthly curse and not the Cosmos. How did anyone come to that conclusion? How many planets have you visited?
These last lines are some of the most powerful and practical advice in the entire book. You can turn evil into good by devoting yourself to that process and understanding that all is good. Everything is an extension of divinity, which is clear in Janthopoyism via branches of Hinduism.

5. But I return once more to the Discourse (Logos) on Sense. That sense doth share with thought in man, doth constitute him man. But 'tis not [every] man, as I have said, who benefits by thought; for this man is material, that other one substantial.

For the material man, as I have said, [consorting] with the bad, doth have his seed of thought from daimons; while the substantial men [consorting] with the Good, are saved by God.

Now God is Maker of all things, and in His making, He maketh all [at last] like to Himself; but they, while they're becoming good by exercise of their activity, are unproductive things.

It is the working of the Cosmic Course that maketh their becomings what they are, befouling some of them with bad and others of them making clean with good.

For Cosmos, too, Asclepius, possesseth sense-and-thought peculiar to itself, not like that of man; 'tis not so manifold, but as it were a better and a simpler one.

Again, not all men are equal. Some are plagued by demon seeds stuck in the material, while others find God and rise above. I like the idea of separating from the material world as some path to higher development but I do think the hierarchy rating is dangerous. Everyone thinks they are doing the right thing, so how do we gauge this? Must I trust my brain to be honest with me?
"The friction of the cosmos produces different kinds of generations" - Salaman. Is this referring to the evolutionary conflict which works as the foundation for Janthopoyism?

6. The single sense-and-thought of Cosmos is to make all things, and make them back into itself again, as Organ of the Will of God, so organised that it, receiving all the seeds into itself from God, and keeping them within itself, may make all manifest, and [then] dissolving them, make them all new again; and thus, like a Good Gardener of Life, things that have been dissolved, it taketh to itself, and giveth them renewal once again.

There is no thing to which it gives not life; but taking all unto itself it makes them live, and is at the same time the Place of Life and its Creator.

The last bit of the previous stanza states that the sense-and-thought differentiation is a process that runs for the Cosmos too, albeit in a better way. Here, that's elaborated as a reincarnation deal, except more emanation in-and-out breath of life manner, not fully cyclic? Manifest and unmanifest. Repeat.

7. Now bodies matter [-made] are in diversity. Some are of earth, of water some, some are of air, and some of fire.

But they are all composed; some are more [composite], and some are simpler. The heavier ones are more [composed], the lighter less so.

It is the speed of Cosmos' Course that works the manifoldness of the kinds of births. For being a most swift Breath, it doth bestow their qualities on bodies together with the One Pleroma - that of Life.

The periodic table of the elements? And evolution moves so fast that it keep refining? That's what I got anyway.

8. God, then, is Sire of Cosmos; Cosmos, of all in Cosmos. And Cosmos is God's Son; but things in Cosmos are by Cosmos.

And properly hath it been called Cosmos [Order]; for that it orders all with their diversity of birth, with its not leaving aught without its life, with the unweariedness of its activity, the speed of its necessity, the composition of its elements, and order of its creatures.

The same, then, of necessity and propriety should have the name of Order.

The sense-and-thought, then, of all lives doth come into them from without, inbreathed by what contains [them all]; whereas Cosmos receives them once for all together with its coming into being, and keeps them as a gift from God.

My notes here were just bitching about the multilayering, how we're separating God and the Cosmos when these are just words. In a Panentheistic view, they are one and the same or at least of each other. Breaking everything into smaller components is an infinite practice, for where do you stop? So why even start?

9. But God is not, as some suppose, beyond the reach of sense-andthought. It is through superstition men thus impiously speak.

For all the things that are, Asclepius, all are in God, are brought by God to be, and do depend on Him - both things that act through bodies, and things that through soul-substance make [other things] to move, and things that make things live by means of spirit, and things that take unto themselves the things that are worn out.

And rightly so; nay, I would rather say, He doth not have these things; but I speak forth the truth, He is them all Himself. He doth not get them from without, but gives them out [from Him].

This is God's sense-and-thought, ever to move all things. And never time shall be when e'en a whit of things that are shall cease; and when I say "a whit of things that are", I mean a whit of God. For thigs that are, God hath; nor aught [is there] without Him, nor [is] He without aught.

And then, following on from my previous whine, this here is so Pantheistic. Are we differentiating the Cosmos and God just for explanation's sake? I can get that as long as you say that.
I also appreciate how it says that God is beyond simple superstition and can be reached via thought and understanding. That's been my experience and my ONLY experience. I rejected God until it made more sense than the alternative.

10. These things should seem to thee, Asclepius, if thou dost understand them, true; but if thou dost not understand, things not to be believed.

To understand is to believe, to not believe is not to understand.

My word (logos) doth go before [thee] to the truth. But mighty is the mind, and when it hath been led by word up to a certain point, it hath the power to come before [thee] to the truth.

And having thought o'er all these things, and found them consonant with those which have already been translated by the reason, it hath [e'en now] believed, and found its rest in that Fair Faith.

To those, then, who by God['s good aid] do understand the things that have been said [by us] above, they're credible; but unto those who understand them not, incredible.

Let so much, then, suffice on thought-and-sense.

And thus ends another chapter!

XI. THE KEY

Alt titles: [Discourse] of Hermes Trismegistus: The Key (Copenhaver); Hermes to Tat (Salaman); The Key (Everard/Warwick)

Another long chat to Tat coming up! It's a goodie.

1. Hermes: My yesterday's discourse (logos) I did devote to thee, Asclepius, and so 'tis [only] right I should devote toafy's to Tat; and this the more because 'tis the abridgement of the General Sermons (Logoi) which he has had addressed to him.

"God, Father and the Good", then, Tat, hath the same nature, or more exactly, energy.

For nature is a predicate of growth, and used of things that change, both mobile and immobile, that is to say, both human and divine, each one of which He willeth into being.

But energy consists in something else, as we have shown in treating of the rest, both things divine and human things; which thing we ought to have in mind when treating of the Good.

In a way, the Hermes, Tat, and Asclepius trio is like their own Holy Trinity? Or his disciples, at least.
Everything is energy, so says literally every text ever.

2. God's energy is then His Will; further His essence is to will the being of all things. For what is "God and Father and the Good" but the "to be" of all that are not yet? Nay, subsistence self of everything that is; this, then, is God, this Father, this the Good; to Him is added naught of all the rest.

And though the Cosmos, that is to say the Sun, is also sire himself to them that share in him; yet so far is he not the cause of good unto the lives, he is not even of their living.

So that e'en if he be a sire, he is entirely so by compulsion of the Good's Good-will, apart from which nor being nor becoming could e'er be.

Teachings such as this are the fastest way into my heart, where you can bend it either which way to vibe with Pantheism or Taoism or even science. God is the energy (electron?) that forms the fundamental substance of (and therefore evolves into) all things.
My only gripe is why we split the growth of nature and the will of God? It seems so obvious to me that it's an evolutionary desire in both worlds?

3. Again, the parent is the children's cause, both on the father's and the mother's side, only by sharing in the Good's desire [that doth pour] through the Sun. It is the Good which doeth the creating.

And such a power can be possessed by no one else than Him alone who taketh naught, but wills all things to be; I will not, Tat, say "makes".

For that the maker is defective for long periods (in which he sometimes makes, and sometimes doth not make) both in the quality and in the quantity [of what he makes]; in that he sometimes maketh them so many and such like, and sometimes the reverse.

But "God and Father and the Good" is [cause] for all to be. So are at least these things for those who can see.

Here is another differentiation made between God/The One and the Maker/Creator. If you're stating that God is all that is Good, then I guess you require such a loophole, one where things go wrong, babies are born with physical abnormalities or natural disaster wreck lives of the innocent. For how could God be the Creator if the Creator gets it wrong? I get the effort, but it's not my spiritual understanding.
I also appreciate how the sun gets its dues in Hermeticism. As Everard puts it, the Sun is "father by participation" which is very nice. None of us would be here without that ball or plasma.

4. For It doth will to be, and It is both Itself and most of all by reason of Itself. Indeed, all other things beside are just bacause of It; for the distinctive feature of the Good is "that it should be known". Such is the Good, O Tat.

Tat: Thou hast, O father, filled us so full of this so good and fairest sight, that thereby my mind's eye hath now become for me almost a thing to worship.

For that the vision of the Good doth not, like the sun's beam, firelike blaze on the eyes and make them close; nay, on the contrary, it shineth forth and maketh to increase the seeing of the eye, as far as e'er a man hath the capacity to hold the inflow of the radiance that the mind alone can see.

Not only does it come more swiftly down to us, but it does us no harm, and is instinct with all immortal life.

Mead's "that it should be known" is Copenhaver's "For being recognised is characteristic of the good". We must get to know God, yes, but I can't help but draw parallels between that and the Observer Effect. I'm probably just looking for it, though.
I do like the Sun comparisons. The vision of God is often compared to the star, except it doesn't hurt our eyes, it actually does the opposite and helps us see more clearly. And in that way, connecting with God is a mind thing, hence we worship that part of our perception.
Salaman: "These things are so for the man who is able to see; God wills this and so it is; indeed it is for this man's sake."That's not where I'm at. Janthopoyism teaches that everything happens is for God's sake, it is evolving through us. Again, the ego of man drives so much of this scripture. Perhaps that was the only way to teach back in the day?

5. They who are able to drink in a somewhat more than others of this Sight, ofttimes from out the body fall asleep in this fairest Spectacle, as was the case with Uranus and Cronus, our forebears. may this be out lot too, O father mine!

Hermes: Yea, may it be, my son! But as it is, we are not yet strung to the Vision, and not as yet have we the power our mind's eye to unfold and gaze upon the Beauty of the Good - Beauty that naught can e'er corrupt or any comprehend.

For only then wilt thou upon It gaze when thou canst say no word concerning It. For Gnosis of the Good is holy silence and a giving holiday to every sense.

So fascinating to name-drop Uranus and Cronus here, both Greek deities, although notes abound that these were probably replacements for Egyptian equivalents. Even more curious is how Everard/Warwick refer to Celius(?) and Saturn (Roman) instead.
Salaman's closing lines include "When you have nothing to say about it, then you will see it" which is well-put and very important. I sound like a stuck record, but this echoes Daoism too. The moment you define God, you lose it completely.

6. For neither can he who perceiveth It, perceive aught else; nor he who gazeth on It, gaze on aught else; nor hear aught else, nor stir his body any way. Staying his body's every sense and every motion he stayeth still.

And shining then all round his mond, It shines through his whole soul, and draws it out of body, transforming all of him to essence.

For it is possible, my son, that a man's soul should be made like to God, e'en while it still is in a body, if it doth contemplate the Beauty of the Good.

Astral travel? Either way, there's a bit of a debate here. Mead, Everard, and Warwick use the word "possible", while Copenhaver and Salaman state the opposite, using the word "impossible". Three against two though? It's possible!

7. Tat: Made like to God? What dost thou, father, mean?

Hermes: Of every soul apart are transformations, son.

Tat: What meanest thou? Apart?

Hermes: Didst thou not, in the General Sermons, hear that from one Soul - the All-soul - come all these souls which are made to revolve in all the cosmos, as though divided off?

Of these souls, then, it is that there are many changes, some to a happier lot and some to [just] the contrary of this.

Thus some that were creeping things change into things that in the water dwell, the souls of water things change to earth-dwellers, those that live on earth change to things with wings, and souls that live in air change to men, while human souls reach the first step of deathlessness changed into daimones.

And so they circle to the choir of the Inerrant Gods; for of the Gods there are two choirs, the one Inerrant, and the other Errant. And this is the most perfect glory of the soul.

I prefer Mead's (and Everard/Warwick's) "creeping things" because it's Biblical, but it's interesting to point out that Salaman says "reptiles" and Copenhaver says "snake-like". I know this type of stuff is delicious info for the Reptilian believers, how they came first before man perhaps even to make man.
But a more rational interpretation would be a separate pocket from the overall energy, an evolutionary system coming into being as the different species of our past and today. But are some souls superior? Does the quality of energy affect the manifestation? And why would such a system exist? It throws me.

8. But if a soul on entering the body of a man persisteth in its vice, it neither tasteth deathlessness nor shareth in the Good; but speeding back again it turns into the path that leads to creeping things. This is the sentence of the vicious soul.

And the soul's vice is ignorance. For that the soul who hath no knowledge of the things that are, or knowledge of their nature, or of Good, is blinded by the body's passions and tossed about.

This wretched soul, not knowing what she is, becomes the slave of bodies of strange form in sorry plight, bearing the body as a load; not as the ruler, but the ruled. This [ignorance] is the soul's vice.

Just to go on about the reptile thing a little more, it's only Salaman who uses such terminology, while Copenhaver focuses more specifically on snakes. I'm not sure if it's significant, but the snake symbology always made sense to me, not only as a metaphor for rejuvenation (shedding the skin) but also as an animal we know to avoid due to its venom. It's what makes it the perfect choice for the Biblical Lucifer interpretation as it strikes fear, even by today's standard.
Anyway, again here we speak about the material world cursing the soul to some sort of a trapped cycle, which resonates with me. However, the idea that knowledge frees us can be complicated. Where is the knowledge found? Is this it? Now that I have read these texts, am I knowledgeable? Can I walk around like a big holy man now? Some people will study these texts and then do just that, an aura of self-appointed spiritual supremacy, which is so wrong in my understanding.

9. But on the other hand the virtue of the soul is Gnosis. For he who knows, he good and pious is, and still while on the earth divine.

Tat: But who is such an one, O father mine?

Hermes: He who doth not say much or lend his ear to much. For he who spendeth time in arguing and hearing arguments, doth shadow-fight. For "God, the Father and the Good", is not to be obtained by speech or hearing.

And yet though this is so, there are in all the beings senses, in that they cannot without senses be.

But Gnosis is far different from sense. For sense is brought about by that which hath the mastery o'er us, while Gnosis is the end <i.e., goal> of science, and science is God's gift.

Sacred-Texts.com hilariously pointed out the irony of how the "speak less" ethos doesn't seem to apply to Hermes' teachings, especially this chapter which is very long.
Either way, we can apply it easily to our lives. The answer is not via the sensory perception of this Maya reality. The answer is an understanding within oneself. Then again, how can we not see the danger in this? How many people believe crazy things simply because it clicks inside of their convictions, and they use texts like these to justify unruly conclusions?

Mead's "science" becomes "knowledge" for Salaman, Everard, and Warwick, while Copenhaver prefers "learning". Me, I consider science to remain the best we've got. It's important for us to use that term as much as possible in context of divinity so that the bridges become clearer for those who have developed mental barriers.

10. All science is incorporeal, the instrument it uses being the mind, just as the mind employs the body.

Both then come into bodies, [I mean] both things that are cognisable by mond alone and things material. For all things must consist out of antithesis and contrariety; and this can otherwise not be.

Tat: Who then is this material God of whom thou speakest?

Hermes: Cosmos is beautiful, but is not good - for that it is material and freely passible; and though it is the first of all things passible, yet is it in the second rank of being and wanting in itself.

And though it never hath itself its birth in time, but ever is, yet is its being in becoming, becoming for all time the genesis of qualities and quantities; for it is mobile and all material motion's genesis.

The Cosmos is the material manifestation of the Universe/God and therefore subject to bad stuff. It makes some sense if you're willing to suspend other theories.

11. It is intelligible rest that moves material motion in this way, since Cosmos is a sphere - that is to say, a head. And naught of head above's material, as naught of feet below's intelligible, but all material.

And head itself is moved in a sphere-like way - that is to say, as head should move, is mind.

All then that are united to the "tissue" of this "head" (in which is soul) are in their nature free from death - just as when body hath been made in soul, are things that hath more soul than body.

Whereas those things which are at greater distance from this "tissue" - there, where are things which have a greater share of body than of soul - are by their nature subject unto death.

The whole, however, is a life; so that the universe consists of both the hylic and of the intelligible.

The most difficult aspect of this undertaking is to decipher whether I'm reading what I want to read or not. A lot of this feels incredibly close to what Janthopoyism teaches, where the meeting of the soul "electricity" and the brain tissue that makes the mind. So perhaps there is some lenience with this whole "mind" worship. It's not the mind per se, but the "Nous" type of energy that has the capability to observe? Which again alludes strongly to the observer effect in my eyes, where this mind is creating the material through us. Warwick even uses the term "film" in the head, which Jantho does too.
"Every living being, like the cosmos, is composed of matter and Nous." - Salaman. Copen uses "material" and "mental". The power that animates the physical, but what about on an atomic electron level?
The idea of the Cosmos being a sphere is so common I have to wonder about it. Reminds me of Xenophanes, who said "all things are one, that this is unchanging, and is god, that this never came into being and is eternal, and has a spherical shape." which was back in 570-478 BCE!

12. Again, the Cosmos is the first of living things, while man is second after it, though first of things subject to death.

Man hath the same ensouling power in him as all the rest of living things; yet is he not only not good, but even evil, for that he's subject unto death.

For though the Cosmos also is not good in that it suffers motion, it is not evil, in that it is not subject to death. But man, in that he's subject both to motion and to death, is evil.

Another example of man worship. No cares about the animals here. Also interesting to note that the prerequisite of evil is being subject to death. I guess it's a material thing? Immortality means you're not corruptible, maybe?

13. Now then the principles of man are this-wise vehicled: mind in the reason (logos), the reason in the soul, soul in the spirit <or, rather, vital spirits>, and spirit in the body.

Spirit pervading [body] by means of veins and arteries and blood, bestows upon the living creature motion, and as it were doth bear it in a way.

For this cause some do think the soul is blood, in that they do mistake its nature, not knowing that [at death] it is iteh spirit that must first withdraw into the soul, whereon the blood congeals and veins and arteries are emptied, and then the living creature <or life> is withdrawn; and this is body's death.

I suppose that's why spirit means breath, because it's the first way to tell the soul is gone.
I've never heard that the soul was considered blood before, I guess science ruined that argument.
The mind is in the reason; the reason is in the soul; the soul is in the spirit in the body. That's the pecking order of things. I'm not sure I quite subscribe to the differentiation of the soul and the spirit. It's all Atman to me!

14. Now from one Source all things depend; while Source [dependeth] from the One and Only [One]. Source is, moreover, moved to become Source again; whereas the One standeth perpetually and is not moved.

Three then are they: "God, the Father and the Good", Cosmos and man.

God doth contain Cosmos; Cosmos [containeth] man. Cosmos is e'er God's Son, man as it were Cosmos' child.

Levels within levels, systems upon systems. Jantho agrees to a degree, even if we don't concern ourselves with any level other than the uppermost. We don't believe there's an agreed-upon terminology for what all the levels are anyway!

15. Not that, however, God ignoreth man; nay, right well doth He know him, and willeth to be known.

This is the sole salvation for a man - God's Gnosis. This is the Way Up to the Mount.

By Him alone the soul becometh good, not whiles is good, whiles evil, but [good] out of necessity.

Tat: What dost thou mean, Thrice-greatest one?

Hermes: Behold an infant's soul, my son, that is not yet cut off, because its body is still small and not as yet come unto its full bulk.

Tat: How?

Hermes: A thing of beauty altogether is [such a soul] to see, not yet befouled by body's passions, still all but hanging from the Cosmic Soul!

But when the body grows in bulk and draweth down the soul into its mass, then doth the soul cut off itself and bring upon itself forgetfulness, and no more shareth in the Beautiful and the Good. And this forgetfulness becometh vice.

Babies are holy. Again, the Jantho scripture says the same thing. This chapter is quite congruent with those teachings.
"The body's passions" good way of putting it.

16. It is the same for them who go out from the body.

For when the soul withdraws into itself, the spirit doth contract itself within the blood, and the soul within the spirit. And then the mind, stripped of its wrappings, and naturally divine, taking unto itself a fiery body, doth traverse every space, after abandoning the soul unto its judgement and whatever chastisement it hath deserved.

Tat: What dost thou, father, mean by this? The mind is parted from soul and soul from spirit? Whereas thou said'st the soul was the mind's vesture, and the soul's the spirit.

The soul gets judged on how corrupt it was. Maybe like a quality control converter belt afterlife process? Ha! I don't buy it. Is a soul not divine? How are we corrupting these things? If God is everything good, why is there a process that undermines that whatsoever?

This line is new info:
"When the soul returns to itself, the breath withdraws into the blood and the soul into the breath; but Nous, being freed from covers and being godlike by nature , takes on a body of fire and ranging everywhere leaves the soul to the judgement and justice it deserves." - Salaman
"When the soul rises up to itself, the spirit is drawn into the blood, the soul into the spirit, but the mind, since it is divine by nature, becomes purified of its garments and takes on a fiery body, ranging about everywhere, leaving the soul to judgment and the justice it deserves." - Copenhaver

17. Hermes: The hearer, son, should think with him who speaks and breathe with him; nay, he should have a hearing subtler than the voice of him who speaks.

It is, son, in a body made of earth that this arrangement of the vestures comes to pass. For in a body made of earth it is impossible the mind should take its seat itself by its own self in nakedness.

For neither is it possible on the one hand the earthly body should contain so much immortality, nor on the other that so great a virtue should endure a body passible in such close contact with it. It taketh, then, the soul for as it were an envelope.

And soul itself, being too and thing divine, doth use the spirit as its envelope, while spirit doth pervade the living creature.

More separations. The soul is like a shell (envelope is the better word) to hold the Nous because it'd be too potent to hold otherwise. This does help explain some of my questions, but again, it's only a theory, I don't quite subscribe to it nor do I like these constant divisions where it might be even simpler. Why can't a body support a spirit? How can it support a soul?
I am realising the importance of the dynamic between teacher and listener in Hermeticism. Your ears need to be ready to hear, or quicker than the speaker in this example?

18. When then the mind doth free itself from the earth-body, it straightway putteth on its proper robe of fire, with which it could not dwell in an earth-body.

For earth doth not bear fire; for it is all set in a blaze even by a small spark. And for this cause is water poured around earth, to be a guard and wall, to keep the blazing of the fire away.

But mind, the swiftest thing of all divine outthinkings, and swifter than all elements, hath for its body fire.

For mind being builder doth use the fire as tool for the construction of all things - the Mind of all [for the construction] of all things, but that of man only for things on earth.

Stript of its fire the mind on earth cannot make things divine, for it is human in its dispensation.

This verse actually inspired me to write an entire essay about how we can start fires with our minds, which I did.
I do appreciate how fire is holy in all these occult religions. Hey, I get it, man. Fire is crazy. It's some otherworldy substance because we can hardly handle it. Even nature is ruined by it.
If you take all of this literally though (and I'm not sure you should), it's interesting how God uses fire to spread himself fast, and that's why we have oceans, to prevent it from wrecking the entire planet. I'm unsure if that's scientifically sound. Is spirit actual fire?
And here's the biggest problem, in that if one tiny inaccuracy comes into this scripture, it all falls down. Hermes must be infallible; otherwise, what? Then again, in Jantho terms, even the mysteries of the universe are evolving, so what may very well have been true then has evolved into lesser truths now. And everything could have been dumbed down using terminology that an audience thousands of years ago would understand. Personally, I equate "fire" with electrons at this point of my comprehension.
But props to the "robe of fire" (or "Fiery Coat", according to Everard) is such a great concept.

19. The soul in man, however - not every soul, but one that pious is - is a daimonic something and divine.

And such a soul when from the body freed, if it have fought the fight of piety - the fight of piety is to know God and to do wrong to no man - such a soul becomes entirely mind.

Whereas the impious soul remains in its own essence, chastised by its own self, and seeking for an earthly body where to enter, if only it be human.

For that no other body can contain a human soul; nor is it right that any human soul should fall into the body of a thing that doth possess no reason. For that the law of God is this: to guard the human soul from such tremendous outrage.

A very Eastern dharmic understanding of reincarnation. Get off the wheel! By the way, only humans get souls, animals are not punished in that way. Idk, so many details disagree across various religions that I can't just accept Hermeticism's proposals.
Humans are "demonic and divine" (Copenhaver), which I get.
More Copenhaver: "Knowing the divine and doing wrong to no person is the fight of reverence." This is the way you save your soul. Although I'm not 100% sure, it does resonate with me that this is the simplest way to get closer to "God".

20. Tat: How father, then, is a man's soul chastised?

Hermes: What greater chastisement of any human soul can there be, son, than lack of piety? What fire has so fierce a flame as lack of piety? What ravenous beast so mauls the body as lack of piety the very soul?

Dost thou not see what hosts of ills the impious soul doth bear?

It shrieks and screams: I burn; I am ablaze; I know not what to cry or do; ah, wretched me, I am devoured by all the ills that compass me about; alack, poor me, I neither see nor hear!

Such are the cries wrung from a soul chastised; not, as the many think, and thou, son, dost suppose, that a [man's] soul, passing from body, is changed into a beast.

Such is a very grave mistake, for that the way a soul doth suffer chastisement is this:

This is Hell: it's not a place but a condition. I wonder where the crossovers come in. The whole "on fire" thing is interesting in a comparative religious sense. Hermeticists would have you believe they inspired the Abrahamic narrative.

21. When mind becomes a daimon, the law requires that it should take a fiery body to execute the services of God; and entering in the soul most impious it scourgeth it with whips made of its sins.

And then the impious soul, scourged with its sins, is plunged in murders, outrage, blasphemy, in violence of all kinds, and all the other things whereby mankind is wronged.

But on the pious soul the mind doth mount and guide it to the Gnosis' Light. And such a soul doth never tire in songs of praise [to God] and pouring blessing on all men, and doing good in word and deed to all, in imitation of its Sire.

There are differences between Jantho and this. The manifestation of God is all things, and everything is a natural evolution following a somewhat hard deterministic order. How cruel would it be, then, if humans were formed simply to damage their souls and get shoved into a reincarnated human who is equally as horrid. A damaged soul finds a human and continues its rampage of evil deeds, such a terrible system which by very definition must be created by God, a being that is, according to Hermeticism, wholly good? It doesn't work, or at very least indicates a greater system exists above even the "All is Good" God whereby it is absent from certain areas. If there is space for something to not exist, then that very container is greater than the thing that may or may not be in there.
But I do not completely disregard that soul energy can be dirtied by amoral activities. It surely feels like it does. But it's about balance to me. Every person has both sides to them at differing degrees, in my observations.
I do love how Everett uses female pronouns "In Imitation of HER father".

22. Wherefore, my son, thou shouldst give praise to God and pray that thou mayst have thy mind Good Mind. It is, then, to a better state the soul doth pass; it cannot to a worse.

Further there is an intercourse of souls; those of the gods have intercourse with those of men, and those of men with souls of creatures which possess no reason.

The higher, further, have in charge the lower; the gods look after men,n men after animals irrational, while God hath charge of all; for He is higher than them all and all are less than He.

Cosmos is subject, then, to God, man to the Cosmos, and irrationals to man. But God is o'er them all, and God contains them all.

God's rays, to use a figure, are His energies; the Cosmos's are natures, the arts and sciences are man's.

The energies act through the Cosmos, thence through the nature-rays of Cosmos upon man; the nature-rays [act] through the elements, man [acteth] through the sciences and arts.

Gods have intercourse with men, which reminds me of The Book of Enoch. ALIENS????
Art and sciences are man's acts of divinity. I knew it! Those are our holy beams, to create and to learn, that's Jantho too. What's closer to the creator than creativity?
It does say that soul can pass into a better realm but never a worse one, so in that theory, the general soul is getting better as more and more go up but never down? There's something beautiful about that version of the reincarnation process.

23. This is the dispensation of the universe, depending from the nature of the One, pervading [all things] through the Mind, than which is naught diviner nor of greater energy; and naught a greater means for the at-oning men to gods and gods to men.

He, [Mind,] is the Good Daimon. Blessed the soul that is most filled with Him, and wretched is the soul that's empty of the Mind.

Tat: Father, what dost thou mean, again?

Hermes: Dost think then, son, that every soul hath the Good [Mind]? For 'tis of Him we speak, not of the mind in service of which we were just speaking, the mind sent down for [the soul's] chastisement

Actually, I do think every soul hath the Good "Mind". The soul is pure, it's the warped grooves of the brain that causes the problems. Is the abused child who becomes the abuser really to blame on a spiritual level? Is the anti-social man with a blood clot in the brain fundamentally bad? For some souls to have Nous (mind) and some not is problematic because obviously anyone reading this will be like I HAVE IT and look down on people they perceive not to. Some of us are True Humans, others are animals? No good can come of that.

24. For soul without the mind "can neither speak nor act". For oftentimes the mind doth leave the soul, and at that time the soul neither sees nor understands, but is just like a thing that hath no reason. Such is the power of mind.

Yet doth it not endure a sluggish soul, but leaveth such a soul tied to the body and bound tight down by it. Such soul, my son, doth not have Mind; and therefore such an one should not be called a man. For that man is a thing-of-life <or animal> divine; man is not measured with the rest of lives of things upon the earth, but with the lives above in heaven, who are called gods.

Nay more, if we must boldly speak the truth, the true "man" is e'en higher than the gods, or at the [very] least the gods and men are very whit in power each with the other equal.

This is interesting and weirdly makes sense. For men to be of nature and gods, in a way, makes us higher than both, for "gods" do not have access to this material world. Although are we not just gods experiencing the world through us? There are fundamental ideas that I simply cannot gel with.

25. For no one of the gods in heaven shall come down to the earth, o'erstepping heaven's limit; whereas man doth mount up to heaven and measure it; he knows what things of it are high, what things are low, and learns precisely all things else besides. And greater thing than all; without e'en quitting earth, he doth ascend above. So vast a sweep doth he possess of ecstasy.

For this cause can a man dare say that man on earth is god subject to death, while god in heaven is man from death immune.

Wherefore the dispensation of all things is brought about by means of there, the twain - Cosmos and Man - but by the One.

Kinda cool that "gods" won't come down onto our level but we can ascend to theirs. It's that emanation concept, whereby the more we manifest into material awareness, the further away from God we go, giving us an experience further than what "God" can reach. It's an interesting angle.
"But all is from the One." - Salaman. Here is the primary issue, for it's still a game that God is playing, creating all things, some made lesser than just to watch it like a sicko? How Old Testament of you! And yet even in that process means we are equal, pieces of the same display, each required for the show to be the show. And then we need to bring into the free will conversation again...

The way I see it is that these teaching are DESIGNED to push you in a certain direction. Perhaps words are mindfully chosen to do this (or perhaps not) but either way, it's a good perspective to have. Don't get clogged up with the details, just follow its advice in hopes of achieving some sort of enlightenment, and then you might just do so.

Read This Next Maybe

I Read the The Book Of The Law So You Don't Have To

XII. MIND UNTO HERMES

Alt titles: Nous to Hermes (Salaman)

This chapter is more scripture-like and, much like the first treatise, it is the actual Nous speaking to Hermes. Crazy times! It's an interesting dynamic shift, from Hermes standing as an all-knowing figure to then swapping back down to the disciple role.
As you'll note, my clarifications and opinions start to dwindle around here. This is not for reasons of disinterest, laziness, or misunderstanding but because much of the text is familiar themes we've covered before. I found my thoughts repeating themselves, and instead of forcing out my stance for the sake of it, I reserved the space for new information. However, I continue to include the Corpus Hermeticum in its entirety so you can keep reading it if you wish.

1. Mind: Master this sermon (logos), then, Thrice-greatest Hermes, and bear in mind the spoken words; and as it hath come unto Me to speak, I will no more delay.

Hermes: As many men say many things, and these diverse, about the All and Good, I have not learned the truth. Make it, then, clear to me, O Master mine! For I can trust the explanation of these things, which comes from Thee alone.

This was the first section of many that I did not take any notes.

2. Mind: Hear [then], My son, how standeth God and All. God; Aeon; Cosmos; Time; Becoming.

God maketh Aeon; Aeon, Cosmos; Cosmos, Time; and Time, Becoming <or Genesis>.

The Good - the Beautiful, Wisdom, Blessedness - is <the> essence, as it were, of God; of Aeon, <the essence is> Sameness; of Cosmos, Order; of Time, Change; and of Becoming, Life and Death.

The energies of God are Mind and Soul; of Aeon, lastingness and deathlessness; of Cosmos, restoration and the opposite thereof; of Time, increase and decrease; and of Becoming, quality.

Aeon is, then, in God; Cosmos, in Aeon; in Cosmos; Time; in Time, Becoming.

Aeon stands firm round God; Cosmos is moved in Aeon; Time hath its limits <or is accomplished> in the Cosmos; Becoming doth become in Time.

Salaman makes this easier: "eternity is in God, the cosmos in eternity, time in the cosmos, generation in time". It's logical.
In a way, it's like, God made eternity which gave everything an infinite amount opportunities for the cosmos to develop, and within that came order and the measurements of time, which then creates beginnings and ends, life and death. But God is still the source energy that lives in all of it, for eternity.
I also adore how eternity stands still in front of God, because for that upper concept, it means nothing. We are the finite minds, not God.

3. The source, therfore, of all is God; their essence, Aeon; their matter, Cosmos.

God's power is Aeon; Aeon's work is Cosmos - which never hath become, yet ever doth become by Aeon.

Therefore will Cosmos never be destroyed, for Aeon's indestructible; nor doth a whit of things in Cosmos perish, for Cosmos is enwrapped by Aeon round on every side.

Hermes: But God's Wisdom - what is that?

Mind: The Good and Beautiful, and Blessedness, and Virtue's all, and Aeon.

Aeon, then, ordereth [Cosmos], imparting deathlessness and lastingness to matter.

Aeon means timeless/spaceless/eternity.

4. For its beginning doth depend on Aeon, as Aeon doth on God.

Now Genesis <or Becoming> and Time, in Heaven and upon the Earth, are of two natures.

In Heaven they are unchangeable and indestructible, but on the Earth they're subject unto change and to destruction.

Further, the Aeon's soul is God; the Cosmos' soul is Aeon; the Earth's soul, Heaven.

And God <is> in Mind; and Mind, in Soul; and Soul, in Matter; and all of them through Aeon.

But all this Body, in which are all the bodies, is full of Soul; and Soul is full of Mind, and Mind of God.

It <i.e., Soul> fills it <i.e., the Body of the Cosmos> from within, and from without encircles it, making the All to live.

Without, this vast and perfect Life [encircles] Cosmos; within, it fills [it with] all lives; above, in Heaven, continuing in sameness; below, on Earth, changing becoming.

I don't have many new arguments. Again, it's quite Pantheistic or rather Panenthiestic because "God" transcends the universe as a single living "body" creature, which is fine. I still draw the line because it's hypothetical by any standard of measurement. You either just accept these texts as truth or you question it. I don't accept anything ever out of principle.
It's interesting how we perceive God as this huge force and then Nous as a level down then to the human, soul etc, whereas that's backwards. We're talking about root substance, so matter is actually at the end, broken down into soul, then Nous, then God. Again, it's less about expanding out into space to find answers, and more about breaking it into subatomic/vibrational particles to truly pull back the curtain.

5. And Aeon doth preserve this [Cosmos], or by Necessity, or by Foreknowledge, or by Nature, or by whatever else a man supposes or shall suppose. And all is this - God energizing.

The Energy of God is Power that naught can e'er surpass, a Power with which no one can make comparison of any human thing at all, or any thing divine.

Wherefore, O Hermes, never think that aught of things above or things below is like to God, for thou wilt fall from truth. For naught is like to That which hath no like, and is Alone and One.

And do not ever think that any other can possibly possess His power; for what apart from Him is there of life, and deathlessness and change of quality? For what else should He make?

God's not inactive, since all things [then] would lack activity; for all are full of God.

But neither in the Cosmos anywhere, nor in aught else, is there inaction. For that "inaction" is a name that cannot be applied to either what doth make or what is made.

Again, I do enjoy the whole "don't define god, you idiot". It indirectly backhands almost every modern-day practices/scripture.

6. But all things must be made; both ever made, and also in accordance with the influence of every space.

For He who makes, is in them all; not stablished in some one of them, nor making one thing only, but making all.

For being Power, He energizeth in the things He makes and is not independent of them - although the things He makes are subject to Him.

Now gaze through Me upon the Cosmos that's now subject to thy sight; regard its Beauty carefully - Body in pure perfection, though one than which there's no more ancient one, ever in prime of life, and ever-young, nay, rather, in even fuller and yet fuller prime!

No notes.

7. Behold, again, the seven subject Worlds; ordered by Aeon's order, and with their varied course full-filling Aeon!

[See how] all things [are] full of light, and nowhere [is there] fire; for 'tis the love and the blending of the contraries and the dissimilars that doth give birth to light down shining by the energy of God, the Father of all good, the Leader of all order, and Ruler of the seven world-orderings!

[Behold] the Moon, forerunner of them all, the instrument of nature, and the transmuter of its lower matter!

[Look at] the Earth set in the midst of All, foundation of the Cosmos Beautiful, feeder and nurse of things on Earth!

And contemplate the multitude of deathless lives, how great it is, and that of lives subject to death; and midway, between both, immortal [lives] and mortal, [see thou] the circling Moon.

Running over the same concepts again: the seven planets, love for the moon, mention of fire.
Unfortunately, this all-knowing Nous exposes its miseducation here, claiming the Earth is the centre of it all; astrologically incorrect, Earth as the centre, HOW EMBARRASSING.

8. And all are full of soul, and all are moved by it, each in its proper way; some round the Heaven, others around the Earth; [see] how the right [move] not unto the left, nor yet the left unto the right; nor the above below, nor the below above.

And that all there are subject unto Genesis, My dearest Hermes, thou hast no longer need to learn of Me. For that they bodies are, have souls, and they are moved.

But 'tis impossible for them to come together into one without some one to bring them [all] together. It must, then, be that such a one as this must be some one who's wholly One.

No notes.

9. For as the many motions of them [all] are different, and as their bodies are not like, yet has one speed been ordered for them all, it is impossible that there should be two or more makers for them.

For that one single order is not kept among "the many"; but rivalry will follow of the weaker with the stronger, and they will strive.

And if the maker of the lives that suffer change and death, should be another <from the maker of the immortals>, he would desire to make the deathless ones as well; just as the maker of the deathless ones, [to make the lives] that suffer death.

But come! if there be two - if matter's one, and Soul is one, in whose hands would there be the distribution for the making? Again, if both of them have some of it, in whose hands may be the greater part?

A weak effort at explaining why God is a singular entity. If there were two, there would be a rivalry, apparently. But does not every single collaborative project on Earth prove this does not have to be the case? Does a band not still write a coherent song even when they may disagree on details?

10. But thus conceive it, then; that every living body doth consist of soul and matter, whether [that body be] of an immortal, or a mortal, or an irrational [life].

For that all living bodies are ensouled; whereas, upon the other hand, those that live not, are matter by itself.

And, in like fashion, Soul when in its self is, after its own maker, cause of life; but the cause of all life is He who makes the things that cannot die.

Hermes: How, then, is it that, first, lives subject to death are other than the deathless ones? And, next, how is it that Life which knows no death, and maketh deathlessness, doth not make animals immortal?

Literally says every living thing has a soul, whereas I'm sure you said something different before? Although the distinction between soul and Nous is probably the explanation. But if soul is the shell to Nous, why would animals have one and not the other? Pretty certain there's a contradiction here. I'm of the school of thought that every atom has Nous myself.

11. Mind: First, that there is some one who does these things, is clear; and, next, that He is also One, is very manifest. For, also, Soul is one, and Life is one, and Matter one.

Hermes: But who is He?

Mind: Who may it other be than the One God? Whom else should it beseem to put Soul into lives but God alone? One, then, is God.

It would indeed be most ridiculous, if when thou dost confess the Cosmos to be one, Sun one, Moon one, and Godhead one, thou shouldst wish God Himself to be some one or other of a number!

Patriarchal, so typical. I know we've explained this before, Nature female, God male, blah blah, doesn't gel with me.

12. All things, therefore, He makes, in many [ways]. And what great thing is it for God to make life, soul, and deathlessness, and change, when thou [thyself] dost do so many things?

For thou dost see, and speak, and hear, and smell, and taste, and touch, and walk, and think, and breathe. And it is not one man who smells, another one who walks, another one who thinks, and [yet] another one who breathes. But one is he who doth all these.

And yet no one of these could be apart from God. For just as, should thou cease from these, thou wouldst no longer be a living thing, so also, should God cease from them (a thing not law to say), no longer is He God.

Problematic. If I cease to see, do I becomes less human? Obviously, it didn't mean that, but these justifications that God "works alone" are weak. I find it more convincing to simply state it's the overall system. At some point, you'll find the uppermost entity that contains everything wholly and of course, there is only a fathomable one of those? Any others would be an exercise in imagination.

13. For if it hath been shown that no thing can [inactive] be, how much less God? For if there's aught he doth not make (if it be law to say), He is imperfect. But if He is not only not inactive, but perfect [God], then He doth make all things.

Give thou thyself to Me, My Hermes, for a little while, and thou shalt understand more easily how that God's work is one, in order that all things may be - that are being made, or once have been, or that are going to be made. And this is, My beloved, Life; this is the Beautiful; this is the Good; this, God.

The desperation to convince Hermes of this one thing exposes insecurity.

14. And if thou wouldst in practice understand [this work], behold what taketh place with thee desiring to beget. Yet this is not like unto that, for He doth not enjoy.

For that indeed He hath no other one to share in what He works, for working by Himself, He ever is at work, Himself being what He doth. For did He separate Himself from it, all things would [then] collapse, and all must die, Life ceasing.

But if all things are lives, and also Life is one; then, one is God. And, furthermore, if all are lives, both those in Heaven and those on Earth, and One Life in them all is made to be by God, and God is it <i.e., God is the One Life> - then, all are made by God.

Life is the making-one of Mind and Soul; accordingly Death is not the destruction of those that are at-oned, but the dissolving of their union.

That second part describes me perfectly!
God does not create using sexy time, the Universe is basically a massive wank.
"Death is not the destruction of what has been put together but the dissolution of the union." - Salaman.

15. Aeon, moreover, is God's image; Cosmos [is] Aeon's; the Sun, of Cosmos; and Man, [the image] of the Sun.

The people call change death, because the body is dissolved, and life, when it's dissolved, withdraws to the unmanifest. But in this sermon (logos), Hermes, My beloved, as thou dost hear, I say the Cosmos also suffers change - for that a part of it each day is made to be in the unmanifest - yet it is ne'er dissolved.

These are the passions of the Cosmos - revolvings and concealments; revolving is conversion and concealment renovation.

Life withdraws into the unmanifest is exactly what I believe.

17. For it is like the form of reason (logos) and mountain-tops in pictures. For they appear to stand out strongly from the rest, but really are quite smooth and flat.

And now consider what is said more boldly, but more truly!

Just as man cannot live apart from Life, so neither can God live without [His] doing good. For this is as it were the life and motion as it were of God - to move all things and make them live.

Maya! Look at a photo. It seems 3D, but it's a 2D object, a complete lie. Now realise how reality could be an illusion! Actually one of the best analogies I've heard for it, so much so that I added this stanza to the Janthopoyism Bible.
Also, like the structure of a word. A word makes sense but isn't actually anything. It's a placeholder, illusionary squiggles or sounds that connect to create something that isn't there. Maya is a communication!! This bit had a profound impact on my articulation of reality.

18. Now some of the things said should bear a sense peculiar to themselves. So understand, for instance, what I'm going to say.

All are in God, [but] not as lying in a place. For place is both a body and immovable, and things that lie do not have motion.

Now things lie one way in the bodiless, another way in being made manifest.

Think, [then,] of Him who doth contain them all; and think, that than the bodiless naught is more comprehensive, or swifter, or more potent, but it is the most comprehensive, the swiftest, and most potent of them all.

Salaman: "For a place is not only a body, but an immovable body, and what lies in a place has no motion." A place itself does not ever move. I've never thought about that. On that note, the place you were when you started reading this sentence is about 40 miles different due to the movement on the Earth. You were in a place, and that place stayed there as you moved.

19. And, thus, think from thyself, and bid thy soul go unto any land, and there more quickly than thy bidding will it be. And bid it journey oceanwards; and there, again, immediately 'twill be, not as if passing on from place to place, but as if being there.

And bid it also mount to heaven; and it will need no wings, not will aught hinder it, nor fire of sun, nor auther, nor vortex-swirl, nor bodies of the other stars; but, cutting through them all, it will soar up to the last Body [of them all]. And shouldst thou will to break through this as well, and contemplate what is beyond - if there be aught beyond the Cosmos; it is permitted thee.

This is called imagination and is the biggest tool used in Scientology.
Salaman, Everard, and Warwick all specifically mention India, where to bid thy soul go. It's by no means the agreed-upon translation but fascinating all the same. India is, of course, the most spiritually rich regions in history (and today!), so there is a gleeful connection to be made where Ancient Egypt recognised this. From what I understand, the mention of this country may have been under the influence of Apollonius of Tyana, a Greek Neopythagorean philosopher who was heavily influenced by Hermeticism and probably dabbled his fingers in interpretations as it went along. Philostratus wrote many texts about his trips to India, hence there is a connection. I openly accept that I could have this all wrong.

20. Behold what power, what swiftness, thou dost have! And canst thou do all of these things, and God not [do them]?

Then, in this way know God; as having all things in Himself as thoughts, the whole Cosmos itself.

If, then, thou dost not make thyself like unto God, thou canst not know Him. For like is knowable unto like [alone].

Make, [then,] thyself to grow to the same stature as the Greatness which transcends all measure; leap forth from every body; transcend all time; become Eternity <literally, Aeon> and [thus] shalt thou know God.

Conceiving nothing is impossible unto thyself, think thyself deathless and able to know all - all arts, all sciences, the way of every life.

Become more lofty than all height, and lower than all depth. Collect into thyself all senses of [all] creatures - of fire, [and] water, dry and moist. Think that thou art at the same time in every place - in earth, in sea, in sky; not yet begotten, in the womb, young, old, [and] dead, in after-death conditions.

And if thou knowest all these things at once - times, places, doings, qualities, and quantities; thou canst know God.

Wanna be god? Fake it until you make it!

21. But if thou lockest up thy soul within thy body, and dost debase it, saying: I nothing know; I nothing can; I fear the sea; I cannot scale the sky; I know not who I was, who I shall be - what is there [then] between [thy] God and thee?

For thou canst know naught of things beautiful and good so long as thou dost love thy body and art bad.

The greatest bad there is, is not to know God's Good; but to be able to know [Good], and will, and hope, is a Straight Way, the Good's own [Path], both leading there and easy.

If thou but settest thy foot thereon, 'twill meet thee everywhere, 'twill everywhere be seen, both where and when thou dost expect it not - waking, sleeping, sailing, journeying, by night, by day, speaking, [and] saying naught. For there is naught that is not image of the Good.

Seek the good, though. I really take that on board.

22. Hermes: Is God unseen?

Mind: Hush! Who is more manifest than He? For this one reason hath He made all things, that through them all thou mayest see Him.

This is the Good of God, this [is] His Virtue - that He may be manifest through all.

For naught's unseen, even of things that are without a body. Mind sees itself in thinking, God in making.

So far these things have been made manifest to thee, Thrice-greatest one! Reflect on all the rest in the same way with thyself, and thou shalt not be led astray.

THAT'S EXACTLY IT. People say you can't see God. I say, fuck, dude, you can see God literally EVERYWHERE.

XIII. ABOUT THE COMMON MIND

Alt titles: Discourse of Hermes Trismegistus: On the mind shared in common, to Tat (Copenhaver); Hermes to Tat (Salaman); Of The Common Mind, to tat (Everard/Warwick)

This was not my favourite section as it rubbed raw many glaring dissimilarities between Hermeticism and Janthopoyism, which I highlight in antagonistic detail below.

1. Hermes: The Mind, O Tat, is of God's very essence - (if such a thing as essence of God there be) - and what that is, it and it only knows precisely.

The Mind, then, is not separated off from God's essentiality, but is united to it, as light to sun.

This Mind in men is God, and for this cause some of mankind are gods, and their humanity is nigh unto divinity.

For the Good Daimon said: "Gods are immortal men, and men are mortal gods."

Nous is God, which ties into pantheistic understandings. I like the "light of the sun" analogy.>
The Good Daimon (or "Demon", according to Copenhaver) is a new character throughout this treatise. This is accepted to be a personification of the "common mind". Salaman refers to it as "Agathos Daimon", and we are led to the Greek spirit Agathodaemon, a supernatural being representing luck, fertility, health, protection and wisdom. I like his quote anyway.

2. But in irrational lives Mind is their nature. For where is Soul, there too is Mind; just as where Life, there is there also Soul.

But in irrational lives their soul is life devoid of mind; for Mind is the inworker of the souls of men for good - He works on them for their own good.

In lives irrational He doth co-operate with each one's nature; but in the souls of men He counteracteth them.

For every soul, when it becomes embodied, is instantly depraved by pleasure and by pain.

For in a compound body, just like juices, pain and pleasure seethe, and into them the soul, on entering in, is plunged.

I've said this all before but one of my biggest issues with Hermeticism is this idea that some humans/souls have Nous while others do not. Every person would argue they have "mind", so how do we know who does and who doesn't? Where does the ego come into play? And what about dogs? I've met dogs with more soul than any human has.

3. O'er whatsoever souls the Mind doth, then, preside, to these it showeth its own light, by acting counter to their prepossessions, just as a good physician doth upon the body prepossessed by sickness, pain inflict, burning or lancing it for sake of health.

In just the selfsame way the Mind inflicteth pain on the soul, to rescue it from pleasure, whence comes its every ill.

The great ill of the soul is godlessness; then followeth fancy for all evil things and nothing good.

So, then, Mind counteracting it doth work good on the soul, as the physician health upon the body.

The great disease of the soul is "atheism" according to Everard, hehe, I like that.
So anyway, every disease of the soul is born through pleasure, hence Nous causes pain to rescue it. I could take this to mean the cravings of separation from material vices? Like quitting smoking is torture but you know it's ultimately good for you.

4. But whatsoever human souls have not the Mind as pilot, they share in the same fate as souls of lives irrational.

For [Mind] becomes co-worker with them, giving full play to the desires toward which [such souls] are borne - [desires] that from the rush of lust strain after the irrational; [so that such human souls,] just like irrational animals, cease not irrationally to rage and lust, nor are they ever satiate of ills.

For passions and irrational desires are ills exceeding great; and over these God hath set up the Mind to play the part of judge and executioner.

Desires are limitless, true. But why does this system even exist? Why is God testing or punishing us when we are an extension of that? It reminds me of the cruel Old Testament Yahweh, playing a sick game with all of us. I cannot.

5. Tat: In that case, father mine, the teaching (logos) as to Fate, which previously thou didst explain to me, risks to be overset.

For that if it be absolutely fated for a man to fornicate, or commit sacrilege, or do some other evil deed, why is he punished - when he hath done the deed from Fate's necessity?

Hermes: All works, my son, are Fate's; and without Fate naught of things corporal - or <i.e., either> good, or ill - can come to pass.

But it is fated, too, that he who doeth ill, shall suffer. And for this cause he doth it - that he may suffer what he suffereth, because he did it.

Props to Tat for asking my previous question exactly. I don't feel it was answered in any satisfactory manner.

6. But for the moment, [Tat,] let be the teaching as to vice and Fate, for we have spoken of these things in other [of our sermons]; but now our teaching (logos) is about the Mind: - what Mind can do, and how it is [so] different - in men being such and such, and in irrational lives [so] changed; and [then] again that in irrational lives it is not of a beneficial nature, while that in men it quencheth out the wrathful and the lustful elements.

Of men, again, we must class some as led by reason, and others as unreasoning.

It's tricky this "destiny" business, which Jantho repackages as a hard deterministic system. But it's terrible to have a "god" that is supposedly all "good" yet some men are to be born as lesser-than simply to be punished for it. It makes zero sense and is a considerable flaw in most religions, one I've never seen appropriately explained—except for Janthopoyism, wherein God is not entirely good, rather it encompasses all of life and we are merely extensions of that, learning via our unique pockets of perspective, good or bad not clearly defined yet essential to the illusion of free will.
"In each man, as it quells passion and desire, it acts differently and it is necessary to realise that there are some men who possess reason (logos) and others who do not." - Salaman uses the word logos here too.

7. But all men are subject to Fate, and genesis and change, for these are the beginning and the end of Fate.
And though all men do suffer fated things, those led by reason (those whom we said Mind doth guide) do not endure <a> like suffering with the rest; but, since they've freed themselves from viciousness, not being bad, they do not suffer bad.

Tat: How meanest thou again, my father? Is not the fornicator bad; the murderer bad; and [so with] all the rest?

Hermes: [I meant not that;] but that the Mind-led man, my son, though not a fornicator, will suffer just as though he had committed fornication, and though he be no murderer, as though he had committed murder.
The quality of change he can no more escape than that of genesis.
But it is possible for one who hath the Mind, to free himself from vice.

Nous is reason. Everard/Warwick were far clearer with this bit. Whereas the person without Nous will suffer for murdering someone, a person with Nous will suffer because they are a murderer. It's about being the thing rather than having done it.

8. Wherefore I've ever heard, my son, Good Daimon also say - (and had He set it down in written words, He would have greatly helped the race of men; for He alone, my son, doth truly, as the Firstborn God, gazing on all things, give voice to words (logoi) divine) - yea, once I heard Him say:

"All things are one, and most of all the bodies which the mind alone perceives. Our life is owing to [God's] Energy and Power and Aeon. His Mind is good, so is His Soul as well. And this being so, intelligible things know naught of separation. So, then, Mind, being Ruler of all things, and being Soul of God, can do whate'er it wills."

In the words of Salaman, the Good Demon did say: "all is one, and especially spiritual beings". This is a slight contradiction, for if all is one then why is anything more "one" than another? That last part also sounds like Thelema, no?

9. So do thou understand, and carry back this word (logos) unto the question thou didst ask before - I mean about Mind's Fate.

For if thou dost with accuracy, son, eliminate [all] captious arguments (logoi), thou wilt discover that of very truth the Mind, the Soul of God, doth rule o'er all - o'er Fate, and Law, and all things else; and nothing is impossible to it - neither o'er Fate to set a human soul, nor under Fate to set [a soul] neglectful of what comes to pass. Let this so far suffice from the Good Daimon's most good [words].

Tat: Yea, [words] divinely spoken, father mine, truly and helpfully. But further still explain me this.

So here's the answer: Nous can rise above destiny. If you're properly in tune with reason, you can break free of destiny. I am willing to accept this explanation within a Hermetic context, at least.

10. Thou said'st that Mind in lives irrational worked in them as [their] nature, co-working with their impulses.
But impulses of lives irrational, as I do think, are passions.
Now if the Mind co-worketh with [these] impulses, and if the impulses of [lives] irrational be passions, then is Mind also passion, taking its color from the passions.

Hermes: Well put, my son! Thou questionest right nobly, and it is just that I as well should answer [nobly].

No notes, as this leads onto the next section.

11. All things incorporeal when in a body are subject unto passion, and in the proper sense they are [themselves] all passions.
For every thing that moves itself is incorporeal; while every thing that's moved is body.
Incorporeals are further moved by Mind, and movement's <i.e., movement is> passion.
Both, then, are subject unto passion - both mover and the moved, the former being ruler and the latter ruled.
But when a man hath freed himself from body, then is he also freed from passion.
But, more precisely, son, naught is impassible, but all are passible.
Yet passion differeth from passibility; for that the one is active, while the other's passive.
Incorporeals moreover act upon themselves, for either they are motionless or they are moved; but whichsoe'er it be, it's passion.
But bodies are invaribly acted on, and therefore they are passible.
Do not, then, let terms trouble thee; action and passion are both the selfsame thing. To use the fairer sounding term, however, does no harm.

While most texts agree with the word "passion", I can't help but feel it's a mistranslation. Salaman says "experience of change" which is confusing, but at least it doesn't conflict with my perspectives lol. I feel like passion is more about movement. It moves things, things are moved by it. Therefore, Nous is also moved by this force and is subject to change? I'm really unsure. Passion is one of the holiest of emotions, according to Janthopoyism.

12. Tat: Most clearly hast thou, father mine, set forth the teaching (logos).

Hermes: Consider this as well, my son; that these two things God hath bestowed on man beyond all mortal lives - both mind and speech (logos) equal to immortality. He hath the mind for knowing God and uttered speech (logos) for eulogy of Him.

And if one useth these for what he ought, he'll differ not a whit from the immortals. Nay, rather, on departing from the body, he will be guided by the twain unto the Choir of Gods and Blessed Ones.

Speech is revered as godlike. Communication is moreso, surely. But within language, Maya persists, according to Jantho. We don't realise the differences of our realities because we have developed a communicative system where we can agree on information via language alone, without any certainty that we are perceiving the same thing.
There is also some indication of a heavenly afterlife with that last line.

13. Tat: Why, father mine! - do not the other lives make use of speech (logos)?

Hermes: Nay, son; but <i.e., only> use of voice; speech is far different from voice. For speech is general among all men, while voice doth differ in each class of living thing.

Tat: But with men also, father mine, according to each race, speech differs.

Hermes: Yea, son, but man is one; so also speech is one and is interpreted, and it is found the same in Egypt, and in Persia, and in Greece.
Thou seemest, son, to be in ignorance of Reason's (Logos) worth and greatness. For that the Blessed God, Good Daimon, hath declared:
"Soul is in Body, Mind in Soul; but Reason (Logos) is in Mind, and Mind in God; and God is Father of [all] these."

All languages are the same. I can understand that. When translated, we generally have different words for the same things.
"The Word in Nous" - they speak about the word (logos) a lot but is word perhaps just meaning literal "word" as in speech itself? So in our ability to vocally communicate, that is where the Nous manifests? Or something?

14. The Reason, then, is the Mind's image, and Mind God's [image]; while Body is [the image] of the Form; and Form [the image] of the Soul.
The subtlest part of Matter is, then, Air <or vital spirit>; of Air, Soul; of Soul, Mind; and of Mind, God.
And God surroundeth all and permeateth all; while Mind Surroundeth Soul, Soul Air, Air Matter.
Necessity and Providence and Nature are instruments of Cosmos and of Matter's ordering; while of intelligible things each is Essence, and Sameness is their Essence.
But of the bodies of the Cosmos each is many; for through possessiong Sameness, [these] composed bodies, though they do change from one into another of themselves, do natheless keep the incorruption of their Sameness.

No notes.

15. Whereas in all the rest of composed bodies, of each there is a certain number; for without number structure cannot be, or composition, or decomposition.
Now it is units that give birth to number and increase it, and, being decomposed, are taken back again into themselves.
Matter is one; and this whole Cosmos - the mighty God and image of the mightier One, both with Him unified, and the conserver of the Will and Order of the Father - is filled full of Life.
Naught is there in it throughout the whole of Aeon, the Father's [everlasting] Re-establishment - nor of the whole, nor of the parts - which doth not live.
For not a single thing that's dead, hath been, or is, or shall be in [this] Cosmos.
For that the Father willed it should have Life as long as it should be.
Wherefore it needs must be a God.

There's a division of the number One to make more, but it's still never more than one. When we die, numbers may shrink, when born, they grow, but the collective unit One remains.

16. How then, O son, could there be in the God, the image of the Father, in the plenitude of Life - dead things?
For that death is corruption, and corruption destruction.
How then could any part of that which knoweth no corruption be corrupted, or any whit of him the God destroyed?

Tat: Do they not, then, my father, die - the lives in it, that are its parts?

Hermes: Hush, son! - led into error by the term in use for what takes place.
They do not die, my son, but are dissolved as compound bodies.
Now dissolution is not death, but dissolution of a compound; it is dissolved not so that it may be destroyed, but that it may become renewed.
For what is the activity of life? Is it not motion? What then in Cosmos is there that hath no motion? Naught is there, son!

Only bodies die, we've got that now. Although on an atomic level, they don't. I also love how often Hermes will "Hush!" someone, like, "Don't say that, God will hear you!".

17. Tat: Doth not Earth even, father, seem to thee to have no motion?

Hermes: Nay, son; but rather that she is the only thing which, though in very rapid motion, is also stable.
For how would it not be a thing to laugh at, that the Nurse of all should have no motion, when she engenders and brings forth all things?
For 'tis impossible that without motion one who doth engender, should do so.
That thou should ask if the fourth part <or element> is not inert, is most ridiculous; for the body which doth have no motion, gives sign of nothing but inertia.

Of course, the question whether the planet has motion or not is ludicrous.

18. Know, therefore, generally, my son, that all that is in Cosmos is being moved for increase or for decrease.
Now that which is kept moving, also lives; but there is no necessity that that which lives, should be all same.
For being simultaneous, the Cosmos, as a whole, is not subject to change, my son, but all its parts are subject unto it; yet naught [of it] is subject to corruption, or destroyed.
It is the terms employed that confuse men. For 'tis not genesis that constituteth life, but 'tis sensation; it is not change that constituteth death, but 'tis forgetfulness.
Since, then, these things are so, they are immortal all - Matter, [and] Life, [and] Spirit, Mind [and] Soul, of which whatever liveth, is composed.

The manifested components change but the underlying source does not. Electrons, babez!

Salaman: "for life is not birth, but perception; and death is not change, but forgetting."
Copenhaver: "Life is not birth but awareness, and change is forgetting, not death."
Warwick: "Generation is not life, it's sense. Change is not death but forgetfulness or occultation/lying hid"
Everard has the fullest: "For Generation is not a creation of Life, but a product of things to Sense, and making them manifest. Neither is Change Death, but Occultation of hiding that which was."

I like it. In reincarnation, you forget your life, past life memories are not a thing according to Hermeticism and Janthopoyism.

19. Whatever then doth live, oweth its immortality unto the Mind, and most of all doth man, he who is both recipient of God, and co-essential with Him.
For with this life alone doth God consort; by visions in the night, by tokens in the day, and by all things doth He foretell the future unto him - by birds, by inward parts, by wind, by tree.
Wherefore doth man lay claim to know things past, things present and to come.

Everard/Warwick claim that God speaks through symbols, signs, and dreams.

20. Observe this too, my son; that each one of the other lives inhabiteth one portion of the Cosmos - aquatic creatures water, terrene earth, and aery creatures air; while man doth use all these - earth, water air [and] fire; he seeth Heaven, too, and doth contact it with [his] sense.
But God surroundeth all, and permeateth all, for He is energy and power; and it is nothing difficult, my son, to conceive God.

Reincarnation will always take place in same environment? I'm not sure if it says that.
But, again, man is all, go us. Then again, what about ducks? They chill on land and water and air. Ducks are as good as humans? I'm gonna say... yes!

21. But if thou wouldst Him also contemplate, behold the ordering of the Cosmos, and [see] the orderly behavior of its ordering <this is a play on the word "cosmos", which means "order, arrangement" >; behold thou the Necessity of things made manifest, and [see] the Providence of things become and things becoming; behold how Matter is all-full of Life; [behold] this so great God in movement, with all the good and noble [ones] - gods, daimones and men!

Tat: But these are purely energies, O father mine!

Hermes: If, then, they're purely energies, my son - by whom, then, are they energized except by God?
Or art thou ignorant, that just as Heaven, Earth, Water, Air, are parts of Cosmos, in just the selfsame way God's parts are Life and Immortality, [and] Energy, and Spirit, and Necessity, and Providence, and Nature, Soul, and Mind, and the Duration <that is, Aeon or Eternity> of all these that is called Good?
And there are naught of things that have become, or are becoming, in which God is not.

No notes.

22. Tat: Is He in Matter, father, then?

Hermes: Matter, my son, is separate from God, in order that thou may'st attribute to it the quality of space. But what thing else than mass think'st thou it is, if it's not energized? Whereas if it be energized, by whom is it made so? For energies, we said, are parts of God.
By whom are, then, all lives enlivened? By whom are things immortal made immortal? By whom changed things made changeable?
And whether thou dost speak of Matter, of Body, or of Essence, know that these too are energies of God; and that materiality is Matter's energy, that corporeality is Bodies' energy, and that essentiality doth constituteth the energy of Essence; and this is God - the All.

Matter itself is the activities of God. I agree! So why are we pacing humans on a pedestal if it's all the same substance and process? Why is some combination of matter superior? If this is true and God is all, it created things to be unequal therefore, the inferiority of some things is imperative to make the superiority of others, and thus, just as important to balance one higher than the other.
I'd also like to know why matter is separate from God? How so? Is it because of emanation, where the more we manifest physically, the furhter away from the divine source we go? Or is it because of Maya, where the matter-based reality is an illusion we need to see through to reconnect with that same source? Whichever way, the process is divine.

23. And in the All is naught that is not God. Wherefore nor <i.e., neither> size, nor space, nor quality, nor form, nor time, surroundethGod; for He is All, and All surroundeth all, and permeateth all.
Unto this Reason (Logos), son, thy adoration and thy worship pay. There is one way alone to worship God; [it is] not to be bad.

"Don't be evil", Google's motto though, right? Like anyone should be, and like the vast majority of spiritual philosophies agree, I am 100% on board with that closing statement.

XIV. THE SECRET SERMON ON THE MOUNTAIN

Alt titles: A secret dialogue of Hermes Trismegistus on the mountain to his son Tat: On being born again, and on the promise to be silent (Copenhaver); Hermes to Tat (Salaman); His Secret Sermon in the Mount of Regeneration, and the Profession of Silence (Everard/Warwick)

This is like a summary chapter.

1. Tat: [Now] in the General Sermons, father, thou didst speak in riddles most unclear, conversing on Divinity; and when thou saidst no man could e'er be saved before Rebirth, thy meaning thou didst hide.

Further, when I became thy Suppliant, in Wending up the Mount, after thou hadst conversed with me, and when I longed to learn the Sermon (Logos) on Rebirth (for this beyond all other things is just the thing I know not), thou saidst, that thou wouldst give it me - "when thou shalt have become a stranger to the world".

Wherefore I got me ready and made the thought in me a stranger to the world-illusion.
And now do thou fill up the things that fall short in me with what thou saidst would give me the tradition of Rebirth, setting it forth in speech or in the secret way.

I know not, O Thrice-greatest one, from out what matter and what womb Man comes to birth, or of what seed.

The big ask. No more fucking around. Tat wants answers!

2. Hermes: Wisdom that understands in silence [such is the matter and the womb from out which Man is born], and the True Good the seed.

Tat: Who is the sower, father? For I am altogether at a loss.

Hermes: It is the Will of God, my son.

Tat: And of what kind is he that is begotten, father? For I have no share of that essence in me, which doth transcend the senses. The one that is begot will be another one from God, God's Son?

Hermes: All in all, out of all powers composed.

Tat: Thou tellest me a riddle, father, and dost not speak as father unto son.

Hermes: This Race, my son, is never taught; but when He willeth it, its memory is restored by God.

I do love Tat's frustration. Stop talking in riddles, speak to me like a son! But I am impressed with Hermes' response too. The power of silence is agreed upon by all spiritual texts, a medatitive mind a constant. And, even more importantly, that knowledge is not taught but remembered. I find that very exciting.

3. Tat: Thou sayest things impossible, O father, things that are forced. Hence answers would I have direct unto these things. Am I a son strange to my father's race?

Keep it not, father, back from me. I am a true-born son; explain to me the manner of Rebirth.

Hermes: What may I say, my son? I can but tell thee this. Whene'er I see within myself the Simple Vision brought to birth out of God's mercy, I have passed through myself into a Body that can never die. And now i am not as I was before; but I am born in Mind.

The way to do this is not taught, and it cannot be seen by the compounded element by means of which thou seest.

Yea, I have had my former composed form dismembered for me. I am no longer touched, but I have touch; I have dimension too; and [yet] am I a stranger to them now.

Thou seest me with eyes, my son; but what I am thou dost not understand [even] with fullest strain of body and of sight.

No notes just yet.

4. Tat: Into fierce frenzy and mind-fury hast thou plunged me, father, for now no longer do I see myself.

Hermes: I would, my son, that thou hadst e'en passed right through thyself, as they who dream in sleep yet sleepless.

Tat: Tell me this too! Who is the author of Rebirth?

Hermes: The Son of God, the One Man, by God's Will.

I am enjoying the back and forth here. It gives it a certain authenticity.
Weirdly, Warwick says the complete opposite, with Tat encouraging riddles, not straight answers.

5. Tat: Now hast thou brought me, father, unto pure stupefaction.
Arrested from the senses which I had before,...<lacuna in original text>; for [now] I see thy Greatness identical with thy distinctive form.

Hermes: Even in this thou art untrue; the mortal form doth change with every day. 'Tis turned by time to growth and waning, as being an untrue thing.

Tat is calling Hermes out, like, "You look the same", and he's like, "No, I don't".
The difference between translations here is quite vast. Everard and Warwick use this moment to say Tat is finally seeing the world as a falsehood, while the others interpret it as Tat arguing with Hermes that he does not see Hermes the way he described. Maybe I'm just reading into it wrong. Everard/Warwick's narrative does appear more logical in context.

6. Tat: What then is true, Thrice-greatest One?

Hermes: That which is never troubled, son, which cannot be defined; that which no color hath, nor any figure, which is not turned, which hath no garment, which giveth light; that which is comprehensible unto itself [alone], which doth not suffer change; that which no body can contain.

Tat: In very truth I lose my reason, father. Just when I thought to be made wise by thee, I find the senses of this mind of mine blocked up.

Hermes: Thus is it, son: That which is upward borne like fire, yet is borne down like earth, that which is moist like water, yet blows like air, how shalt thou this perceive with sense - the that which is not solid nor yet moist, which naught can bind or loose, of which in power and energy alone can man have any notion - and even then it wants a man who can perceive the Way of Birth in God?

Formless substance, the God of Jantho.

7. Tat: I am incapable of this, O father, then?

Hermes: Nay, God forbid, my son! Withdraw into thyself, and it will come; will, and it comes to pass; throw out of work the body's senses, and thy Divinity shall come to birth; purge from thyself the brutish torments - things of matter.

Tat: I have tormentors then in me, O father?

Hermes: Ay, no few, my son; nay, fearful ones and manifold.

Tat: I do not know them, father.

Hermes: Torment the first is this Not-knowing, son; the second one is Grief; the third, Intemperance; the fourth, Concupiscence; the fifth, Unrighteousness; the sixth is Avarice; the seventh, Error; the eighth is Envy; the ninth, Guile; the tenth is Anger; eleventh, Rashness; the twelfth is Malice.

These are in number twelve; but under them are many more, my son; and creeping through the prison of the body they force the man that's placed therein to suffer in his senses. But they depart (though not all at once) from him who hath been taken pity on by God; and this it is which constitutes the manner of Rebirth. And... <lacuna in the original text> the Reason (Logos).

I do like the whole "wish it to come and it will come". There's a key in there.
The 12 "tormentors", could be important. Seems pretty specific although it does say there are more.

8. And now, my son, be still and solemn silence keep! Thus shall the mercy that flows on us from God not cease.

Henceforth rejoice, O son, for by the Powers of God thou art being purified for the articulation of the Reason (Logos).

Gnosis of God hath come to us, and when this comes, my son, Notknowing is cast out.
Gnosis of Joy hath come to us, and on its coming, son, Sorrow will flee away to them who give it room. The Power that follows Joy do I invoke, thy Self-control. O Power most sweet! Let us most gladly bid it welcome, son! How with its coming doth it chase Intemperance away!

No notes.

9. Now fourth, on Continence I call, the Power against Desire. <lacuna in the original text> This step, my son, is Righteousness' firm seat. For without judgement <other translators read this "without effort" > see how she hath chased Unrighteousness away. We are made righteous, son, by the departure of Unrighteousness.

Power sixth I call to us - that against Avarice, Sharing-with-all.

And now that Avarice is gone, I call on Truth. And Error flees, and Truth is with us.

See how [the measure of] the Good is full, my son, upon Truth's coming.

For Envy is gone from us; and unto Truth is joined the Good as well, with Life and Light.

And now no more doth any torment of the Darkness venture nigh, but vanquished [all] have fled with whirring wings.

A guide on beating the tormentors. Useful.

10. Thou knowest [now], my son, the manner of Rebirth. And when the Ten is come, my son, that driveth out the Twelve, the Birth in understanding <literally "intellectual birth", noera genesis> is complete, and by this birth we are made into Gods.

Who then doth by His mercy gain this Birth in God, abandoning the body's senses, knows himself [to be of Light and Life] and that he doth consist of these, and [thus] is filled with bliss.

A step-by-step process to reach divinity, that's very kind.
I feel like if you really study these parts, you'll make immense progress.

11. Tat: By God made steadfast, father, no longer with the sight my eyes afford I look on things, but with the energy the Mind doth give me through the Powers.

In Heaven am I, in earth, in water, air; I am in animals, in plants; I'm in the womb, before the womb, after the womb; I'm everywhere!

But further tell me this: How are the torments of the Darkness, when they are twelve in number, driven out by the ten Powers? What is the way of it, Thrice-greatest one?

Tat reaches enlightenment. I wish he said "I AM the womb". Either way, the pantheistic understanding rings strong. How does 10 powers defeat 12 things, that's a good question though. Respect to Tat.

12. Hermes: This dwelling-place through which we have just passed <i.e., the human body>, my son, is constituted from the circle of the twelve types-of-life, this being composed of elements, twelve in number, but of one nature, an omniform idea. For man's delusion there are disunions in them, son, while in their action they are one. Not only can we never part Rashness from Wrath; they cannot even be distinguished.

According to right reason (logos), then, they <the Twelve> naturally withdraw once and for all, in as much as they are chased out by no less than ten powers, that is, the Ten.

For, son, the Ten is that which giveth birth to souls. And Life and Light are unified there, where the One hath being from the Spirit. According then to reason (logos) the One contains the Ten, the Ten the One.

A lot of cool stuff to unpack here.
I have read that wherever the 12 tormentors/types-of-life are mentioned, it's the zodiac. But, again, in terms of the pantheistic unification, there are still but one. They work together and naturally beget into each other, negative vibes leading to negative vibes and are terms for indistinguishable entities.
Regardless, they can be banished by the 10-step plan, which is perfect for me, because Janthopoyism worships the number 10 higher than any number! Yay!
Also note how this is the 12th section too.

13. Tat: Father, I see the All, I see myself in Mind.

Hermes: This is, my son, Rebirth - no more to look on things from body's view-point (a thing three ways in space extended)... <lacuna in text>, though this Sermon (Logos) on Rebirth, on which I did not comment - in order that we may not be calumniators of the All unto the multitude, to whom indeed God Himself doth will we should not.

I've felt this on ketamine. But I'm confused. If you become one with Nous and are no longer manifested physically, how are you communicating? Is there still not a separation here between Hermes and Tat, and therefore, a degree of Maya still active? Nondualism sounds great but what is the end result?
I do like how Warwick uses the word "imagination" to describe reality, spinning it around, that this physical reality is the imaginary one, the ones in our head far closer to breaking through to the real world. Could be!

14. Tat: Tell me, O father: This Body which is made up of the Powers, is it at any time dissolved?

Hermes: Hush, [son]! Speak not of things impossible, else wilt thou sin and thy Mind's eye be quenched.

The natural body which our sense perceives is far removed from this essential birth.

The first must be dissolved, the last can never be; the first must die, the last death cannot touch.

Dost thou not know thou hast been born a God, Son of the One, even as I myself?

Questions like that will pull you out of the Nous! I keep going back to "remembering" we are divinity. Abraham Hicks always said that (as did others, including Alanis Morissette) but it's sinking in deeper and deeper for me.

15. Tat: I would, O father, hear the Praise-giving with hymn which thou didst say thou heardest then when thou wert at the Eight [the Ogdoad] of Powers

Hermes: Just as the Shepherd did foretell [I should], my son, [when I came to] the Eight.

Well dost thou haste to "strike thy tent" <i.e., be free from the physical body>, for thou hast been made pure.

The Shepherd, Mind of all masterhood, hath not passed on to me more than hath been written down, for full well did he know that I should of myself be able to learn all, and hear what I should wish, and see all things.

He left to me the making of fair things; wherefore the Powers within me.
e'en as they are in all, break into song.

The eighth "Sphere" (Salaman) is the Ogdoad. In Christian Gnosticism, it is the stage above the seventh "heaven", where absolute freedom is attained. Something else I came across is the Ogdoad in Egyptian mythology, the term for the eight primordial deities (Nu, Naunet, Ḥeḥu, Ḥeḥut, Kekui, Kekuit, Qerḥ, and Qerḥet). Wheeee!
I also like the analogy to "strike thy tent" to describe the physical Maya we need to escape. Reminds me of Buddha comparing our world to a burning house from which we must escape, or the Biblical Isaiah 40:22, where the heavens "that stretcheth out [...] as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in".

16. Tat: Father, I wish to hear; I long to know these things.

Hermes: Be still, my son; hear the Praise-giving now that keeps [the soul] in tune, Hymn of Re-birth - a hymn I would not have thought fit so readily to tell, had'st thou not reached the end of all.

Wherefore this is not taught, but is kept hid in silence.

Thus then, my son, stand in a place uncovered to the sky, facing the southern wind, about the sinking of the setting sun, and make thy worship; so in like manner too when he doth rise, with face to the east wind.

Now, son, be still!

The Secret Hymnody

No notes.

17. Let every nature of the World receive the utterance of my hymn!

Open thou Earth! Let every bolt of the Abyss be drawn for me. Stir not, ye Trees!

I am about to hymn creation's Lord, both All and One.

Ye Heavens open and ye Winds stay still; [and] let God's deathless Sphere receive my word (logos)!

For I will sing the praise of Him who founded all; who fixed the Earth, and hung up Heaven, and gave command that Ocean should afford sweet water [to the Earth], to both those parts that are inhabited and those that are not, for the support and use of every man; who made the Fire to shine for gods and men for every act.

Let us together all give praise to Him, sublime above the Heavens, of every nature Lord!

'Tis He who is the Eye of Mind; may He accept the praise of these my Powers!

Secret Hymn! Not so secret anymore!

18. Ye powers that are within me, hymn the One and All; sing with my Will, Powers all that are within me!

O blessed Gnosis, by thee illumined, hymning through thee the Light that mond alone can see, I joy in Joy of Mind.

Sing with me praises all ye Powers!

Sing praise, my Self-control; sing thou through me, my Righteousness, the praises of the Righteous; sing thou, my Sharing-all, the praises of the All; through me sing, Truth, Truth's praises!

Sing thou, O Good, the Good! O Life and Light, from us to you our praises flow!

Father, I give Thee thanks, to Thee Thou Energy of all my Powers; I give Thee thanks, O God, Thou Power of all my Energies!

No notes.

19. Thy Reason (Logos) sings through me Thy praises. Take back through me the All into [Thy] Reason - [my] reasonable oblation!

Thus cry the Powers in me. They sing Thy praise, Thou All; they do Thy Will.

From Thee Thy Will; to Thee the All. Receive from all their reasonable oblation. The All that is in us, O Life, preserve; O Light<,> illumine it; O God<,> in-spirit it.

It it Thy Mind that plays the shepherd to Thy Word, O Thou Creator, Bestower of the Spirit [upon all].

No notes.

20. [For] Thou art God, Thy Man thus cries to Thee through Fire, through Air, through Earth, through Water, [and] through Spirit, through Thy creatures.

'Tis from Thy Aeon I have found praise-giving; and in thy Will, the object of my search, have I found rest.

Tat: By thy good pleasure have I seen this praise-giving being sung, O father; I have set it in my Cosmos too.

Hermes: Say in the Cosmos that thy mind alone can see, my son.

Tat: Yea, father, in the Cosmos that the mind alone can see; for I have been made able by thy Hymn, and by thy Praise-giving my mind hath been illumined. But further I myself as well would from my natural mind send praise-giving to God.

I expected more. I've read better poems. Although who knows what the centuries of translations have spoiled.

21. Hermes: But not unheedfully, my son.

Tat: Aye. What I behold in mind, that do I say.

To thee, thou Parent of my Bringing into Birth, as unto God I, Tat, send reasonable offerings. o God and Father, thou art the Lord, thou art the Mind. Receive from me oblations reasonable as thou would'st wish; for by thy Will all things have been perfected.

Hermes: Send thou oblation, son, acceptable to God, the Sire of all; but add, my son, too, "through the Word" (Logos).

Tat: I give thee, father, thanks for showing me to sing such hymns

No notes.

22. Hermes: Happy am I, my son, that though hast brought the good fruits forth of Truth, products that cannot die.

And now that thou hast learnt this lesson from me, make promise to keep silence on thy virtue, and to no soul, my son, make known the handing on to thee the manner of Rebirth, that we may not be thought to be calumniators.

And now we both of us have given heed sufficiently, both I the speaker and the hearer thou.

In Mind hast thou become a Knower of thyself and our [common] Sire.

Keep these teachings a secret!
Ok!
*writes teachings in a book*

XV. [A LETTER] OF THRICE-GREATEST HERMES TO ASCLEPIUS

Alt titles: From Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius, health of mind (Copenhaver); Hermes to Asclepius (Salaman); To Asclepius, To Be Truly Wise (Everard/Warwick)

Continuing directly on from the previous chapter, Hermes chats to Asclepius, who is far more versed with the teachings than Tat was, hence this education is far shorter, and most of it covered before. As a result, my commentary is sparse and mostly useless.
This is the final book in the ordering by Everard/Warwick.

UNTO ASCLEPIUS GOOD HEALTH OF SOUL!

1. Since in thy absence my son Tat desired to learn the nature of the things that are, and would not let me hold it over, as [natural to] a younger son fresh come to gnosis of the [teachings] on each single point,—I was compelled to tell [him] more, in order that the contemplation [of them] might be the easier for him to follow.

I would, then, choosing out the chiefest heads of what was said, write them in brief to thee, explaining them more mystic-ly, as unto one of greater age and one well versed in Nature.

Family dynamics.

2. If all things manifest have been and are being made, and made things are not made by their own selves but by another; [if] made things are the many,—nay more, are all things manifest and all things different and not alike; and things that are being made are being made by other [than themselves];—there is some one who makes these things; and He cannot be made, but is more ancient than the things that can.

For things that can be made, I say, are made by other [than themselves]; but of the things that owe their being to their being made, it is impossible that anything should be more ancient than them all, save only That which is not able to be made.

Speaking about the maker. We are all creators, though. Even AI.

3. So He is both Supreme, and One, and Only, the truly wise in all, as having naught more ancient [than Himself].

For He doth rule o'er both the number, size and difference of things that are being made, and o'er the continuity of their making [too].

Again, things makeable are seeable; but He cannot be seen.

For for this cause He maketh,—that He may not be able to be seen.

He, therefore, ever maketh; and therefore can He ne'er be seen.

To comprehend Him thus is meet; and comprehending, [it is meet] to marvel; and marvelling, to count oneself as blessed, as having learnt to know one's Sire.

Standard info at this point.

4. For what is sweeter than one's own true Sire? Who, then, is He; and how shall we learn how to know Him?

Is it not right to dedicate to Him alone the name of God, or that of Maker, or of Father, or rather [all] the three;—God for His Power, and Maker for His Energy, and Father for His Good?

Now Power doth differ from the things which are being made; while Energy consisteth in all things being made.

Wherefore we ought to put away verbosity and foolish talk, and understand these two—the made and Maker. For that of them there is no middle [term]; there is no third.

Salaman's summary is easier: "He is God because of his power Creator because of his activity and Father because of the Supreme Good."

5. Wherefore in all that thou conceivest, in all thou nearest, these two recall to mind; and think all things are they, reckoning as doubtful naught, nor of the things above, nor of the things below, neither of things divine, nor things that suffer change or things that are in obscuration.

For all things are [these] twain, Maker and made, and 'tis impossible that one should be without the other; for neither is it possible that "Maker" should exist without the "made," for each of them is one and the same thing.

Wherefore 'tis no more possible for one from other to be parted, than self from self.

The creator is not the creator unless it has created. Sounds obvious, but I had never really thought about that. The two depend on one another to exist, the act makes the actee.

6. Now if the Maker is naught else but That which makes, Alone, Simple, Uncompound, it needs must do this [making] to Itself,—to Which its Maker's making is "its being made."

And as to all that's being made,—it cannot be [so made] by being made by its own self; but it must needs be made by being made by other. Without the "Maker" "made" is neither made nor is; for that the one without the other doth lose its proper nature by deprivation of that other.

If, then, all things have been admitted to be two,—the "that which is being made" and "that which makes,"—[all then] are one in union of these,—the "that which leadeth" and the "that which followeth."

The making God is "that which leadeth"; the "that which is being made," whatever it be, the "that which followeth."

Tongue twister mindfuck.

7. And do not thou be chary of things made because of their variety, from fear of attribution of a low estate and lack of glory unto God.

For that His Glory's one,—to make all things; and this is as it were God's Body, the making [of them].

But by the Maker's self naught is there thought or bad or base.

These things are passions which accompany the making process, as rust doth brass and filth doth body; but neither doth the brass-smith make the rust, nor the begetters of the body filth, nor God [make] evil.

It is continuance in the state of being made that makes them lose, as though it were, their bloom; and 'tis because of this God hath made change, as though it were the making clean of genesis.

Time creates evil? Did God not make ulcers or dirt, though? Hermes' "God" has a ceiling, there is a greater system above it at work.
Everard/Warwick say "as excrement does the body" which suggests that poop is not natural and we do not make it??

8. Is it, then, possible for one and the same painter man to make both heaven, and gods, and earth, and sea, and men, and all the animals, and lifeless things, and trees, and yet impossible for God to make all things?

What monstraus lack of understanding; what want of knowledge as to God!

For such the strangest lot of all do suffer; for though they say they worship piously and sing the praise of God, yet by their not ascribing unto Him the making of all things, they know not God; and, added unto this not-knowing, they're guilty even of the worst impiety to Him—passions to Him attributing, or arrogance, or impotency.

For if He doth not make all things, from arrogance He doth not make, or not being able,—which is impiety [to think].

No notes.

9. One Passion hath God only—Good; and He who's Good, is neither arrogant nor impotent.

For this is God—the Good, which hath all power of making all.

And all that can be made is made by God,—that is, by [Him who is] the Good and who can make all things.

But would'st thou learn how He doth make, and how things made are made, thou may'st do so.

No notes.

10. Behold a very fair and most resemblant image—a husbandman casting the seed into the ground; here wheat, there barley, and there [again] some other of the seeds!

Behold one and the same man planting the vine, the apple, and [all] other trees!

In just the selfsame way doth God sow Immortality in Heaven, and Change on Earth, and Life and Motion in the universe.

These are not many, but few and easy to be numbered; for four in all are they,—and God Himself and Genesis, in whom are all that are.

There's only four things? In total? "Immortality in Heaven, and Change on Earth, and Life and Motion in the universe"? Weirdly, that feels satisfactory.

XVI. THE DEFINITIONS OF ASCLEPIUS UNTO KING AMMON

Alt titles: Definitions of Asclepius to King Ammon on god, matter, vice, fate, the sun, intellectual essence, divine essence, mankind, the arrangement of the plenitude, the seven stars, and mankind according to the image (Copenhaver); Asclepius to King Ammon (Salaman)

For reasons beyond any reasoning, Copenhaver and Salaman skip any sign of a 15th chapter, moving from 14 to 16 in one leap. This finally syncs the texts up with Mead, due to Mead's lost treatise "II. THE GENERAL SERMON". Small win?
As previously stated, Everard and Warwick are missing all of these final sections, yet have some bonus ones of their own, which I'll address after the classic ordering is complete.

Researching (Googling lol) King Ammon leads to Amon of Judah, but I don't think there's any agreed figure here. Either way, it's Asclepius' voice, which does feel removed from Hermes as somewhat easier to understand but a little trickier to argue for in terms of divine content.

1. Great is the sermon (logos) which I send to thee, O King—the summing up and digest, as it were, of all the rest.

For it is not composed to suit the many's prejudice, since it contains much that refuteth them.

Nay, it will seem to thee as well to contradict sometimes my sermons too.

Hermes, my master, in many a conversation, both when alone, and sometimes, too, when Tat was there, has said, that unto those who come across my books, their composition will seem most simple and [most] clear; but, on the contrary, as 'tis unclear, and has the [inner] meaning of its words concealed, it will be still unclearer, when, afterwards, the Greeks will want to turn our tongue into their own,—for this will be a very great distorting and obscuring of [even] what has been [already] written.

As promised, Asclepius is writing a letter to the King of the time, and this opener really appeals to me. Asclepius admits that Hermes' teachings may contradict his own, but wants to highlight its simplicity which hides obscure meanings. He also utilises incredible foresight that inevitable translations will distort the messages further, mentioning the Greeks specifically.

2. Turned into our own native tongue, the sermon (logos) keepeth clear the meaning of the words (logoi) [at any rate]. For that its very quality of sound, the [very] power of the Egyptian names, have in themselves the bringing into act of what is said.

As far as, then, thou canst, O King—(and thou canst [do] all things)—keep [this] our sermon from translation; in order that such mighty mysteries may not come to the Greeks, and the disdainful speech of Greece, with [all] its looseness, and its surface beauty, so to speak, take all the strength out of the solemn and the strong—the energetic speech of Names.

The Greeks, O King, have novel words, energic of "argumentation" [only]; and thus is the philosophizing of the Greeks—the noise of words.

But we do not use words; but we use sounds full-filled with deeds

The way the words are read/spoken in their original tongue (Egyptian Arabic?) is significant, which I think is often the case with holy texts (The Quran, famously).
I do love how Asclepius disses the Greek language here, "a noise of words" haha.
Basically, this version we are reading is completely fucked and is adding insult by informing us so.

3. Thus, then, will I begin the sermon by invocation unto God, the universals' Lord and Maker, [their] Sire, and [their] Encompasser; who though being All is One, and though being One is All; for that the Fullness of all things is One, and [is] in One, this latter One not coming as a second [One], but both being One.

And this is the idea that I would have thee keep, through the whole study of our sermon, Sire!

For should one try to separate what seems to be both All and One and Same from One,—he will be found to take his epithet of "All" from [the idea of] multitude, and not from [that of) fullness—which is impossible; for if he part All from the One, he will destroy the All.

For all things must be One—if they indeed are One. Yea, they are One; and they shall never cease being One—in order that the Fullness may not be destroyed.

Pantheism all the way.

4. See then in Earth a host of founts of Water and of Fire forth-spirting in its midmost parts; in one and the same [space all] the three natures visible—of Fire, and Water, and of Earth, depending from one Root.

Whence, too, it is believed to be the Treasury of every matter. It sendeth forth of its abundance, and in the place [of what it sendeth forth] receiveth the subsistence from above.

For thus the Demiurge—I mean the Sun—eternally doth order Heaven and Earth, pouring down Essence, and taking Matter up, drawing both round Himself and to Himself all things, and from Himself giving all things to all.

For He it is whose goodly energies extend not only through the Heaven and the Air, but also onto Earth, right down unto the lowest Depth and the Abyss.

The Demiurge ("the being responsible for the creation of the universe") is the Sun. The Sun is the link between heaven and earth. That's the perfect way to put it, in my opinion. All of Life is a result of its force, it's scientific if you're willing. That said, sun-worship so boldly stated in these texts is not common, and even suspicious when spoken by someone other than Hermes.

Annoying: Mead skips treatise #5. Copenhaver and Salaman place the "For thus the Demiurge..." part at that number.

6. And if there be an Essence which the mind alone can grasp, this is his Substance, the reservoir of which would be His Light.

But whence this [Substance] doth arise, or floweth forth, He, [and He] only, knows.

* * * * *

Or rather, in space and nature, He is near unto Himself . . . though as He is not seen by us, . . . understand [Him] by conjecture.

Salaman: "If there is a spiritual substance, then it is the body of the Sun, which his light contains." I'm a big fan of sun-worship myself. Massive source of energy, imperative to our existence, a tangible entity.

7. The spectacle of Him, however, is not left unto conjecture; nay [for] His very rays, in greatest splendour, shine all round on all the Cosmos that doth lie above and lie below.

For He is stablished in the midst, wreathed with the Cosmos, and just as a good charioteer, He safely drives the cosmic team, and holds them in unto Himself, lest they should run away in dire disorder.

The reins are Life, and Soul, and Spirit, Deathlessness, and Genesis.

He lets it, then, drive [round] not far off from Himself—nay, if the truth be said, together with Himself.

"For the sun is situated in the center of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown." - Copenhaver. Poetic but LOL.
Salaman is beautiful here: "Like a skilled driver he safely guides the chariot of the cosmos binding the reins to himself, so that it does not run amok. His reins are life, soul, breath, immortality and generation. He slackens the reins so that the chariot can run freely, but not too far from himself; in fact it stays with him."

8. And in this way He operates all things. To the immortals He distributeth perpetual permanence; and with the upper hemisphere of His own Light—all that he sends above from out His other side, [the side of him] which looks to Heaven—He nourisheth the deathless parts of Cosmos.

But with that side that sendeth down [its Light], and shineth round all of the hemisphere of Water, and of Earth, and Air, He vivifieth, and by births and changes keepeth in movement to and fro the animals in these [the lower] parts of Cosmos. . . .

The scientific leeway goes downhill from here.

9. He changes them in spiral fashion, and doth transform them into one another, genus to genus, species into species, their mutual changes into one another being balanced—just as He does when He doth deal with the Great Bodies.

For in the case of every body, [its] permanence [consists in] transformation.

In case of an immortal one, there is no dissolution; but when it is a mortal one, it is accompanied with dissolution.

And this is how the deathless body doth differ from the mortal, and how the mortal one doth differ from the deathless.

No notes.

10. Moreover, as His Light's continuous, so is His Power of giving Life to lives continuous, and not to be brought to an end in space or in abundance.

For there are many choirs of daimons round Him, like unto hosts of very various kinds; who though they dwell with mortals, yet are not far from the immortals; but having as their lot from here unto the spaces of the Gods, they watch o'er the affairs of men, and work out things appointed by the Gods—by means of storms, whirlwinds and hurricanes, by transmutations wrought by fire and shakings of the earth, with famines also and with wars requiting [man's] impiety,—for this is in man's case the greatest ill against the Gods.

The daimons (or demons, Copenhaver) are more logically called "choirs of spiritual powers" by Salaman. As per any ancient tradition, the gods communicate via means of the weather. Lol dumb.

11. For that the duty of the Gods is to give benefits; the duty of mankind is to give worship; the duty of the daimons is to give requital.

For as to all the other things men do, through error, or foolhardiness, or by necessity, which they call Fate, or ignorance—these are not held requitable among the Gods; impiety alone is guilty at their bar.

Disrespecting God is the only sin. Men must worship, and then the gods will give benefits, or conversely, the demons will punish. It's a gigantic flaw in all religions that humans are rewarded or penalised for their behaviour when the evidence indicates something far more circumstantial (or random). Bad people thrive all the time, while many good suffer. Hence "spiritual texts" rely on unprovable afterlife promises. It's smart but its days are limited.

12. The Sun is the preserver and the nurse of every class.

And just as the Intelligible World, holding the Sensible in its embrace, fills it [all] full, distending it with forms of every kind and every shape—so, too, the Sun distendeth all in Cosmos, affording births to all, and strengtheneth them.

When they are weary or they fail, He takes them in His arms again.

Pretty dramatic analysis, but it is nice how the sun doesn't discriminate.

13. And under Him is ranged the choir of daimons—or, rather, choirs; for these are multitudinous and very varied, ranked underneath the groups of Stars, in equal number with each one of them.

So, marshalled in their ranks, they are the ministers of each one of the Stars, being in their natures good, and bad, that is, in their activities (for that a daimon's essence is activity); while some of them are [of] mixed [natures], good and bad.

Evil spirits living among us? This is quite unlike the other Hermetic teachings, which makes me wonder if that's why it was excluded by Everard and Warwick.

14. To all of these has been allotted the authority o'er things upon the Earth; and it is they who bring about the multifold confusion of the turmoils on the Earth—for states and nations generally, and for each individual separately.

For they do shape our souls like to themselves, and set them moving with them,—obsessing nerves, and marrow, veins and arteries, the brain itself, down to the very heart.

Demons have authority over our reality, but some are bad, and God is only good, so who granted them this authority?

15. For on each one of us being born and made alive, the daimons take hold on us—those [daimones] who are in service at that moment [of the wheel] of Genesis, who are ranged under each one of the Stars.

For that these change at every moment; they do not stay the same, but circle back again.

These, then, descending through the body to the two parts of the soul, set it awhirling, each one towards its own activity.

But the soul's rational part is set above the lordship of the daimons—designed to be receptacle of God.

The demons possess the souls upon birth. It makes sense to assume these are human souls, reincarnated badly, trying again.

16. Who then doth have a Ray shining upon him through the Sun within his rational part—and these in all are few on them the daimons do not act; for no one of the daimons or of Gods has any power against one Ray of God.

As for the rest, they are all led and driven, soul and body, by the daimons—loving and hating the activities of these.

The reason (logos), [then,] is not the love that is deceived and that deceives.

The daimons, therefore, exercise the whole of this terrene economy, using our bodies as [their] instruments.

And this economy Hermes has called Heimarmenē.

Heimarmenē is a goddess fate/destiny in Greek mythology. Fittingly, Copenhaver actually uses "fate" while Salaman uses "destiny".

17. The World Intelligible, then, depends from God; the Sensible from the Intelligible [World].

The Sun, through the Intelligible and the Sensible Cosmos, pours forth abundantly the stream from God of Good,—that is, the demiurgic operation.

And round the Sun are the Eight Spheres, dependent from Him—the [Sphere] of the Non-wandering Ones, the Six [Spheres] of the Wanderers, and one Circumterrene.

And from the Spheres depend the daimones; and from these, men.

And thus all things and all [of them] depend from God.

This astrology feels off.

18. Wherefore God is the Sire of all; the Sun's [their] Demiurge; the Cosmos is the instrument of demiurgic operation.

Intelligible Essence regulateth Heaven; and Heaven, the Gods; the daimones, ranked underneath the Gods, regulate men.

This is the host of Gods and daimones.

Through these God makes all things for His own self.

And all [of them] are parts of God; and if they all [are] parts—then, God is all.

Thus, making all, He makes Himself; nor ever can He cease [His making], for He Himself is ceaseless.

Just, then, as God doth have no end and no beginning, so doth His making have no end and no beginning.

There is a greater God above the gods/demons here, and it is forever creating by its own driven desire. That's what I pick up. Janthopoyism would call this evolution, the holy purpose of the Absolute.

Copenhaver and Salaman split this bit, "Through these God" at #19. Either way, every scholar agrees this treatise is incomplete.

XVII. OF ASCLEPIUS TO THE KING

Alt titles: No title (Copenhaver); Tat to a King (Salaman)

Asclepius. If thou dost think [of it], O King, even of bodies there are things bodiless.

The King. What [are they]?—(asked the King.)

Asc. The bodies that appear in mirrors—do they not seem then to have no body?

The King. It is so, O Asclepius; thou thinkest like a God!—(the King replied.)

Asc. There are things bodiless as well as these; for instance, forms—do not they seem to thee to have no body, but to appear in bodies not only of the things which are ensouled, but also of those which are not ensouled?

The King. Thou sayest well, Asclepius.

Asc. Thus, [then,] there are reflexions of things bodiless on bodies, and of bodies too upon things bodiless—that is to say, reflexions] of the Sensible on the Intelligible World, and of the [World] Intelligible on the Sensible.

Wherefore, pay worship to the images, O King, since they too have their forms as from the World Intelligible.

(Thereon His Majesty arose and said:)

The King. It is the hour, O Prophet, to see about the comfort of our guests. To-morrow, [then,] will we resume our sacred converse.

Very brief exchange. The mirror thing is trippy the more I think about it, as there's nothing actually there and yet it's all there. A reflection of a body is not a body, it's a soulless entity.
Salaman mentions "statues" instead of "images". It's very interesting, especially once you've read the Kybalion, which speaks about how the essence (spirit) of the writer attaches to their characters, yet they are different. Same for any art. And same for us, created by the All, with the All in us.

XVIII. THE ENCOMIUM OF KINGS

Alt titles: On the soul hindered by the body's affections (Copenhaver)

Here is a much easier-to-understand chapter but it lacks so much representation, featured in only in two of the five translations in my possession. Many have also noted how this chapter feels a little out of place and is questionable in its inclusion. Hence, my comments are few and far between.

(ABOUT THE SOUL’S BEING HINDERED BY THE PASSION OF THE BODY)

1. [Now] in the case of those professing the harmonious art of muse-like melody—if, when the piece is played, the discord of the instruments doth hinder their intent, its rendering becomes ridiculous.

For when his instruments are quite too weak for what's required of them, the music-artist needs must be laughed at by the audience.

For He, with all good will, gives of His art unweariedly; they blame the [artist's] weakness.

He then who is the Natural Musician-God, not only in His making of the harmony of His [celestial] songs, but also in His sending forth the rhythm of the melody of His own song[s] right down unto the separate instruments, is, as God, never wearied.

For that with God there is no growing weary.

No notes.

2. So, then, if ever a musician desires to enter into the highest contest of his art he can—when now the trumpeters have rendered the same phrase of the [composer's] skill, and afterwards the flautists played the sweet notes of the melody upon their instruments, and they complete the music of the piece with pipe and plectrum—[if any thing goes wrong,] one does not lay the blame upon the inspiration of the music-maker.

Nay, [by no means,]—to him one renders the respect that is his due; one blames the falseness of the instrument, in that it has become a hindrance to those who are most excellent—embarrassing the maker of the music in [the execution of] his melody, and robbing those who listen of the sweetness of the song.

No notes.

3. In like way also, in our case, let no one of our audience for the weakness that inheres in body, blame impiously our Race.

Nay, let him know God is Unwearied Spirit—for ever in the self-same way possessed of His own science, unceasing in His joyous gifts, the selfsame benefits bestowing everywhere.

No notes.

4. And if the Pheidias—the Demiurge—is not responded to, by lack of matter to perfect His skilfulness, although for His own part the Artist has done all he can, let us not lay the blame on Him.

But let us, [rather,] blame the weakness of the string, in that, because it is too slack or is too tight, it mars the rhythm of the harmony.

Basically, everything stated thus far is to blame the faulty instrument, not the player. The same applies to God and shitty people. It's a good analogy.

5. So when it is that the mischance occurs by reason of the instrument, no one doth blame the Artist.

Nay, [more;] the worse the instrument doth chance to be, the more the Artist gains in reputation by the frequency with which his hand doth strike the proper note, and more the love the listeners pour upon that Music- maker, without the slightest thought of blaming him.

So will we too, most noble [Sirs], set our own lyre in tune again, within, with the Musician!

No notes.

6. Nay, I have seen one of the artist-folk—although he had no power of playing on the lyre—when once he had been trained for the right noble theme, make frequent use of his own self as instrument, and tune the service of his string by means of mysteries, so that the listeners were amazed at how he turned necessitude into magnificence.

Of course you know the story of the harper who won the favour of the God who is the president of music-work.

[One day,] when he was playing for a prize, and when the breaking of a string became a hindrance to him in the contest, the favour of the Better One supplied him with another string, and placed within his grasp the boon of fame.

A grasshopper was made to settle on his lyre, through the foreknowledge of the Better One, and [so] fill in the melody in substitution of the [broken] string.

And so by mending of his string the harper's grief was stayed, and fame of victory was won.

I do love this whole analogy, and we've seen it in action. A true professional will break a string but keep playing or even restring WHILE playing. And then they're even MORE impressive. This can be applied to so much of life. Jantho speaks about this too.
The grasshopper was a cicada, according to Copenhaver.

7. And this I feel is my own case, most noble [Sirs]!

For but just now I seemed to make confession of my want of strength, and play the weakling for a little while; but now, by virtue of the strength of [that] Superior One, as though my song about the King had been perfected [by Him, I seem] to wake my muse.

For, you must know, the end of [this] our duty will be the glorious fame of Kings, and the good-will of our discourse (logos) [will occupy itself] about the triumphs which they win.

Come then, let us make haste! For that the singer willeth it, and hath attuned his lyre for this; nay more, more sweetly will he play, more fitly will he sing, as he has for his song the greater subjects of his theme.

No notes.

8. Since, then, he has the [stringing] of his lyre tuned specially to Kings, and has the key of laudatory songs, and as his goal the Royal praises, let him first raise himself unto the highest King—the God of wholes.

Beginning, [then,] his song from the above, he, [thus,] in second place, descends to those after His likeness who hold the sceptre's power; since Kings themselves, indeed, prefer the [topics] of the song should step by step descend from the above, and where they have their [gifts of] victory presided o'er for them, thence should their hopes be led in orderly succession.

No notes.

9. Let, then, the singer start with God, the greatest King of wholes, who is for ever free from death, both everlasting and possessed of [all] the might of everlastingness, the Glorious Victor, the very first, from whom all victories descend to those who in succession do succeed to victory.

No notes.

10. Our sermon (logos) then, doth hasten to descend to [Kingly] praises and to the Presidents of common weal and peace, the Kings—whose lordship in most ancient times was placed upon the highest pinnacle by God Supreme; for whom the prizes have already been prepared even before their prowess in the war; of whom the trophies have been raised even before the shock of conflict.

For whom it is appointed not only to be Kings but also to be best.

At whom, before they even stir, the foreign land doth quake.

No notes.

(ABOUT THE BLESSING OF THE BETTER [ONE] AND PRAISING OF THE KING)

11. But now our theme (logos) doth hasten on to blend its end with its beginnings—with blessing of the Better [One]; and then to make a final end of its discourse (logos) on those divinest Kings who give us the [great] prize of peace.

For just as we began [by treating] of the Better [One] and of the Power Above, so let us make the end bend round again unto the same—the Better [One].

Just as the Sun, the nurse of all the things that grow, on his first rising, gathers unto himself the first-fruits of their yield with his most mighty hands, using his rays as though it were for plucking off their fruits—yea, [for] his rays are [truly] hands for him who plucketh first the most ambrosial [essences] of plants—so, too, should we, beginning from the Better [One], and [thus] recipient of His wisdom's stream, and turning it upon the garden of our souls above the heavens,—we should [direct and] train these [streams] of blessing back again unto their source, [blessing] whose entire power of germination [in us] He hath Himself poured into us.

Wrap it up nicely.

12.' Tis fit ten thousand tongues and voices should be used to send His blessings back again unto the all-pure God, who is the Father of our souls; and though we cannot utter what is fit—for we are [far] unequal to the task—[yet will we say what best we can].

For Babes just born have not the strength to sing their Father's glory as it should be sung; but they give proper thanks for them, according to their strength, and meet with pardon for their feebleness.

Nay, it is rather that God's glory doth consist in this [one] very thing—that He is greater than His children; and that the prelude and the source, the middle and the end, of blessings, is to confess the Father to be infinitely puissant and never knowing what a limit means.

No notes.

13. So is it, too, in the King's case.

For that we men, as though we were the children of the King, feel it our natural duty to give praise to him. Still must we ask for pardon [for our insufficiency], e'en though 'tis granted by our Sire before we [even] ask.

And as it cannot be the Sire will turn from Babes new-born because they are so weak, but rather will rejoice when they begin to recognise [his love]—so also will the Gnosis of the all [rejoice], which doth distribute life to all, and power of giving blessing back to God, which He hath given [us].

"For the king it is just the same." - Copenhaver. A king is like a parent is like god???

14. For God, being Good, and having in Himself eternally the limit of His own eternal fitness, and being deathless, and containing in Himself that lot of that inheritance that cannot come unto an end, and [thus] for ever ever-flowing from out that energy of His, He doth send tidings to this world down here [to urge us] to the rendering of praise that brings us home again.

With Him, therefore, is there no difference with one another; there is no partiality with Him.

But they are one in Thought. One is the Prescience of all. They have one Mind—their Father.

One is the Sense that's active through them— their passion for each other.' Tis Love Himself who worketh the one harmony of all.

Parents are like mini-gods. They expect us to be one way, but when we go against them, we disappoint them and have to make amends. They punish us and forgive us. But our entire existence is their fault!!!

15. Thus, therefore, let us sing the praise of God.

Nay, rather, let us [first] descend to those who have received their sceptres from Him.

For that we ought to make beginning with our Kings, and so by practising ourselves on them, accustom us to songs of praise, and train ourselves in pious service to the Better [One].

[We ought] to make the very first beginnings of our exercise of praise begin from him, and through him exercise the practice [of our praise], that so there may be in us both the exercising of our piety towards God, and of our praise to Kings.

Practice your love of God on your kings. I find this all highly dubious.

16. For that we ought to make return to them, in that they have extended the prosperity of such great peace to us.

It is the virtue of the King, nay, 'tis his name alone, that doth establish peace.

He has his name of King because he levelleth the summits of dissension with his smooth tread, and is the lord of reason (logos) that [makes] for peace.

And in as much, in sooth, as he hath made himself the natural protector of the kingdom which is not his native land, his very name [is made] the sign of peace.

For that, indeed, you know, the appellation of the King has frequently at once restrained the foe.

Nay, more, the very statues of the King are peaceful harbours for those most tempest-tossed.

The likeness of the King alone has to appear to win the victory, and to assure to all the citizens freedom from hurt and fear.

I do love the reverence for statues in this religion! Different to Islam and Hòa Hảo, for example.


OK DONE, BUT THEN...

DIFFERENT CONTENT PER TRANSLATION

The previous treatise ends my physical copy of G. R. S. Mead's translation, but there are discrepancies across the board. I considered delving into each one using the same approach as above, but decided against it, for it is a bottomless pit of study, which I do not feel justifies the energy. However, I shall skim over what I know here, and hopefully that is adequate for you.

As already covered, G. R. S. Mead features 18 treatises.

Clement Salaman features 17 treatises, missing Mead's II and XVIII. It also leaps from XIV to XVI, skipping XV without omitting the number. It features an additional treatise at the end called From Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius: Definitions.

Brian P. Copenhaver features 18 treatises, also missing Mead's II while skipping over XV like Salaman. At the end, we have a very long chapter, ASCLEPIUS: To me this Asclepius is like the sun. A Holy Book of Hermes Trismegistus addressed to Asclepius. Following this have a daunting 167 pages of notes and then an index.

I must note that I have found an online version of G. R. S. Mead that places a treatise named The Perfect Sermon or the Asclepius at the end. I recognise how these three translations appear to present the same final content based on titles alone (they're each about Asclepius, after all), but I assure you, they are very different works.

This leaves us with the complexities of John Everard (and consequently Tarl Warwick). As previously highlighted, the 17 treatises here skip Mead's II and completely cut off anything from XVI onwards. Instead, Everard got mixed up and included three parts of what's known as the Stobaean Fragments/Excerpts. They are as follows: Hermes Trismegistus, His First Book; Of Operation and Sense; and Of Truth to His Son Tat. It is accepted in all Hermetic circles that this was incorrect.

I explored these above chapters myself but did not feel the drive to include any analysis. Based on these differences, perhaps every Corpus Hermeticum translation comes with its own quirks, so striving for completion would not end even here. I am comfortable with letting them fall away while sticking to the generally agreed standard order.

The Seven Hermetic Principles

Finally, we come to the Seven Hermetic Principles, according to The Kybalion. Now, it's important to note that this is not Hermeticism canon (some may even consider it blasphemous) as it was written thousands of years after the fact. However, its central concepts have infiltrated the imagination of occultists so fiercely that many people consider this to be Hermeticism in a nutshell (without any other knowledge). I, myself, do not tie it too deeply into the Hermetic conversation, but I am in debt to the power of its teachings, and am happy to include it for those who wish to connect the introspections.

Study the following laws, and you will learn how to play the physics of reality against itself to your benefit. Consider reading the book too, as it definitely helps to decode Hermeticism, plus it opened my mind way wider than Corpus Hermeticum managed. Check out my full review on Goodreads here

1. The Principle of Mentalism
Reality is a mental construct which is congruent with quantum mechanics. Hermeticism goes further where God itself is this mental substance (Nous), and our minds are on some sort of a playing field within that. Still, it's a theory, in my eyes. There could be many stages up or down or nowhere at all.

2. The Principle of Correspondence
An elaboration on the famed "As above, so below; as below, so above" statement. The more you explore this idea, the more it will change your life. All the dualism we think we see in the Universe is illusionary as it can be simplified to the same energetic substance. Spiritual, mental, physical... it's all electron-based, a collective unit of One. It puts literally everything on the same level, and everything affects everything else.

3. The Principle of Vibration
This thousand-year-old principle is a scientific fact now. Our atoms never rest. Everything is forever in motion. Hermeticism teaches that these vibrations play on different frequencies to create different things.

4. The Principle of Polarity
What appears so obvious when spelt out is that polar opposites are identical, just different degrees on the same measurement. There is no precise moment when hot becomes cold or East becomes West. It's a gradual shift on a spectrum. Same can be applied to atheism vs theism or even conspiracy theories vs mainstream media. Those who argue on either side don't seem to recognise that they are executing indistinguishable mechanics on a limited seesaw of a topic. Opposites are always equivalent in nature, just different in measure. Therefore, all truths are half-truths. One can utilise this to reconcile paradoxes. Emotional upset can be slowly transmuted to its positive end. Very powerful stuff.

5. The Principle of Rhythm
Life swings like a pendulum, moving one way then the other. We can see this in action with dominating left-wing/right-wing politics or social attitudes. Rise and fall, ebb and flow, up and down, it applies to everything big and small. What's great is the hardships of your life can be defeated using Principle 4. It also introduces the Law of Neutralisation, whereby one can rise above this law simply by refusing to be involved with it. Awareness is the first step. When something goes wrong, this is the Principle to recall.

6. The Principle of Cause and Effect
The Kybalion dances around the topic of hard determinism/lack of free will, seeming to disagree with it yet failing to explain why. From my understanding, this Principle highlights how free will does not exist. Every cause has an effect, and everything that has happened did so from a preceding cause. Something happens and triggers another happening, and nothing is ever coincidental. It is a knock-on effect resulting from whatever came before. Think about rolling a dice. We assume it's random but it's not. If you could hold the dice in the exact same way then throw it in the exact same manner at the exact same angle on the exact same surface repeatedly, the identical number would roll time after time after time.

7. The Principle of Gender
Here is the only Principle I am unsure of. According to The Kybalion (and the Corpus Hermeticum in many parts), everything is either masculine or feminine. Each human possesses both in degrees (Principle #4), but there are distinct characteristics between the two, primarily that the male essence initiates the energy (galvanised the female), then the female essence creates everything. When looking at reproduction, it does check out. Hermeticism goes deep into this, "God" being male (a patriarchal hierarchy the Abrahamic texts would love to hear), but Nature is female, the one that created everything material (hence Mother Earth). The essential idea is that gender is about creation, and it takes both forces to get it done. The Kybalion even sifts this down to an atomic level, where negative and positive charges are required to produce change. I must say, for such an eggshells topic, The Kybalion does well never to favour one of the other, illustrating the importance of each while explaining that human sexes are not gender, rather sex is the physical manifestation of gender, but it's much more than that. It also explains later that The All is above gender (and indeed all the Principles) which helps the all-encompassing God I subscribe to. But in the end, it isn't something I feel is too necessary or even useful to contemplate.


AND THAT IS THE END OF THIS STUDY, I HOPE YOU HAD A WONDERFUL TIME, I SURE DID.


True Hermetic Transmutation is a Mental Art.

Read This Next Maybe

I Read the Bible So You Don't Have To

Follow @LegoTrip