Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: The Corpus Hermeticum

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791

    The Corpus Hermeticum

    What a crock of you know what! Christianizing re-writes of history are all over the place and it would appear anyone who attributes any knowledge to people like the family of Jesus or his ancestors like Solomon and Melchizedek must be wrong because there was nothing known until Rome wrote it!

    In the book Rise of The Greeks by noted historian Michael Grant he makes it clear the predominant intellectual system in the Mediterranean of the millennium before the supposed birth of Jesus was Thoth/Hermes (Rome) or Imhotep/Asklepios (Greece). They are both based upon writings or disciplines attributable to Hermes Trismegistus who is probably not a real character. The introduction by sacred texts even admits all people knew it was that old until the end of the Dark Ages or the beginning of it's demise. But they have no facts to support their claims. It now is known to have an origin with (presumably Origen) some early Christian (means Roman) author.

    Needless to say this is not the 32 books attributed to the amalgam character Hermes Trismegistus - if only because it is clearly touting some Christian concoction by Rome.

    There is nothing of merit in it which I see. It is as incredible as Ron Wyatt discovering the ark of Noah.

    For actual facts we have books like Roshdi Rashed's The Encyclopedia of the History of Arabic Science, Technology, Alchemy and Life Sciences, Vol. 3, ed. by Roshdi Rashed, 1996, Mark Haeffner's Dictionary of Alchemy and many others that assure us throughout every third thread on this forum (placed here by me) to refute this crap. Here is one Chapter heading to make it obvious.

    "VI. In God Alone Is Good And Elsewhere Nowhere"

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/herm/hermes6.htm

    The 'As Above, So Below' law that is the combination of micro and macrocosmic reality likely comes from Hermes Trismegistus, a Babylonian who became a Pharaoh of Egypt according to the Arab Encyclopedia. Barrett is probably right about him being a legendary amalgam of people, but so what? This kind of semantic, pedantic, academic, squabbling just confuses the issue and people get to the point where they take one side or another, rather than integrate and see the effect of the power-mongers. In the time of Shakespeare the cosmogony relating the alchemic Dictum of Hermes was known as the Harmony of the Spheres. This Dictum is pictured on the back of Barrett's book Secret Societies as taken from 'Macoy's Cyclopedia' of things Masonic. But I cannot rehash all these things again, too much. I find many debunkers are agents of deceit like Barrett. I also wonder how Michel de Notredame's book escaped being on the Inquisitional Codex until the De Medicis had lost their influence centuries after his Prophecies were printed.

    Forensic analysis is the science and art of detective work. It comes in handy to have been an owner of a Public Relations firm (after being an auditor) for twelve years as I wade through the possibilities of 'spin-doctoring' at work by the Bible Exegesists. They sometimes call themselves hermeneuts or other high-falutin' names that would get any bum a coffee, and some change. Here is the real perspective of the Arab scholars from a highly credible Encyclopedia in 1996:

    "THE SOURCES OF ALCHEMY AMONG THE ARABS
    Pythagoras is often mentioned in Arabic philosophy and in gnomic literature. Jaldake
    calls him 'al-mu' lallim al-awival' because he acquired the science from hermetic texts.

    SOCRATES {Teacher of Plato and Aristotle, also mentioned as an alchemist in Mark
    Haeffner's 'Dictionary of Alchemy along with these same people. Yet no anthology of
    Aristotle in my local library mentions his 'Secretum Secretorum'.}

    Socrates is considered not only as a wise man but also as an alchemist {HIS teacher
    Archelaos was too.}. Jabir calls him 'the father and mother of all philosophers' and
    considers him as the prototype of the real chemist. From Socrates to Jabir, there is a
    continuous tradition which attributes entire treatises to him {All kept from unwarranted
    viewers.}. Jabir affirms that Socrates was opposed to writing down of alchemic
    knowledge to avoid its exposition to the ignorance of the masses. Most references to
    Socrates refer to his arithmetical speculations (theory of balance) and also to artificial
    generation {Homunculus to be covered more later.}.

    PLATO

    In reference to his book the 'Liber Quartorum' he says: 'The contents of this book
    are mainly alchemic but it contains also information on geometry, physiology and
    astrology. The ancient authors cited are Aristotle, Ptolemy, Hipparchus, Proclus, the
    Sophists {Not alchemists and too open about their knowledge for the liking of Socrates
    who compared them to prostitutes who sell their beauty for money.}, Ostanes, Hermes,
    Asclepius and Hippocrates

    ARISTOTLE

    He wrote a book on alchemy for his disciple Alexander… It includes three chapters
    (l) About the great principles of alchemy; (2) Alchemic operations; (3) The elixir.
    Pythagoras, Democritus, Asclepiades, Hermes, Plato, Ostanes, and Balinās are mentioned
    in the text. We also have a dialogue between Aristotle and the Indian Yūhīn sent by the
    Indian king as messenger to Alexander...

    Zosimus and his contemporaries {Third century AD. much after these others, and in
    line with what Barrett says.} who collected their predecessors' traditions insist on their
    connections with the Egypt of the Pharoahs or with the Persia of Zoroastra and Ostanes.
    We can find texts under the name of Agathodaiman compared with Hermes. Some
    written pieces even say that alchemic texts were engraved in hieroglyphs on steles
    {Stones that could be rubbed with charcoal and parchment would pick up the symbols
    and formulas - thus ancient libraries.) but it was absolutely forbidden to divulge them.

    HERMES AND HERMETIC LITERATURE

    According to Ibn al-Nadim (351, 19) Arab alchemists considered the Babylonian
    Hermes as the first one to have mentioned the art of alchemy. Exiled by his countrymen,
    he came to Egypt where he became king {Guilds and knowledge were prerequisites to
    achieve high office in ancient times, for example the Tuatha de Danaan leader - Lugh.}.
    He wrote a certain number of books on alchemy and was equally interested in the hidden
    forces of nature.

    The 'Fihrist' gives a list of thirteen books of Hermes about alchemy but in fact some of
    them are about magic." (3)

    At the very least we can be assured that someone knows alchemists weren't hermits
    hiding in caves working on making manure into gold. That is the way many books and
    even Time/Life Video portrays them. They called Carl Jung an alchemist as well. That
    may be, in some definitions of the word; but I never read where Jung thought of himself
    in that manner even though he wrote a book on Psychology and Alchemy. His interest
    was more in the archetypal primordial symbology, and the truth aspects of it. If we were
    to accept Jung as an alchemist, then all Masons or at least the high level ones in
    Rosicrucianism are alchemists. It is true that some of the attendees at Eranos were
    alchemists and that Jung was a hermeticist, I suppose. It is not an easy title to throw
    around and I have been a student of these things for many years, but still wouldn't call
    myself an alchemist and certainly not a Spagyricist.
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-17-2016 at 03:31 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    At Levity.com we find this coded translation of the same chapter above which has the temerity to say good only exists in some boogeyman and no where else. It is stated that it comes via Ficino but no one seems too interested in who paid him - the de Medicis who are often Popes alongside their cousins or married kin - the Borgias. I think I have found only two sources which point out the book was re-titled originally with their clan name De Brix. And if you knew that clan you would be far closer to true history than you could possibly imagine.

    God is a word for Nature or reality and "What IS' and hermeticists know god better than all scholars in any era, including Sol - o - moon whose name has your Heliopolitan or Luciferian roots in it.

    "The Sixth Book.

    called

    "That in God alone is Good."

    1. Good, O Asciepius, is in nothing but in God alone; or rather God himself is the Good always.
    2. And if it be so, then must he be an Essence or Substance void of all motion and generation; but nothing is void or empty of him.

    3. And this Essence hath about or in himself a Stable, and firm Operation, wanting nothing, most full, and giving abundantly.

    4. One thing is the Beginning of all things, for it giveth all things; and when I name the Good, I mean that which is altogether and always Good. {Scrire or KNOW}

    5. This is present to none, but God alone; for he wanteth nothing, that he should desire to have it, nor can anything be taken from him; the loss whereof may grieve him; for sorrow is a part of evilness. {Potere or Will}

    6. Nothing is stronger than he, that he should be opposed by it; nor nothing equal to him, that he should be in love with it; nothing unheard of to be angry, with nothing wiser to be envious at. {Part of the Law Right Thought = Right Action}

    7. And none of these being in his Essence, what remains, but only the Good? {The RIGHT Action more explained}

    8. For as in this, being such an Essence, there is none of the evils; so in none of the other things shall the Good be found.

    9. For in all other things, are all those other things. as well in the small as the great ; and as well in the particulars as in this living Creature the greater and mightiest of all. {This is the Dictum of Hermes or As Above, So Below and one of three Magian Laws.}

    10. For all things that are made or generated are full of Passion, Generation itself being a Passion ; and where Passion is there is not the Good; where the Good is, there is no Passion; where it is day, it is not night, and where it is night, it is not day."
    {Maybe part of Audere or Dare}

    http://www.levity.com/alchemy/ch6.html

    In point 17 it says "there is nothing in man but Good" this is the G-d "within". It is also a translation of g-d as good - ness. In Islam the saying "Allah Akbar" or 'g-d is Great' is the same reflection of Hermetics studied by the family of Jesus (Merovingians) in every generation by at least one who became adept. You will find many more sayings attributed to Jesus mirroring this thought such as John 10: 34 or in The Gospel of Thomas. So the myth-making Roman Empire needed to date the Corpus AFTER his supposed death - which they blamed on his family - and people.

    In Islam they are a little more accurate when they translate it as 'G-d is greater' and indeed the collective of ALL is more than even the perfect adept or 'self' can be.

    I have yet to meet a priest who could read my mind but I have met many who make you feel special.

    http://www.ananda.org/autobiography/

    Coppens says the Philosopher's Stone and the Holy Grail are both Spiritual quests of transformation. He quotes Julius Evola and others to this end, and it is at least partially true. The San Graal or Royal Blood of the House of David etc, known as Merovingians may even have power to pass on Genetic information as I have said. It also may be as Gardner says in Genesis of the Grail Kings, that they had the key to some form of cloning or genetic manipulation. But even so, there is more to the Stone or Great Work as I see it. I say physical transformation, extended life and more can come if you can SEE and make the Stone.

    http://philipcoppens.com/sog_art4.html
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-22-2016 at 08:56 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    "Man achieves the height of Wisdom when all that he does is as self evident as what Nature does." - I Ching

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




    There are many codes, I have no doubt
    The meaning certain to freak you out
    But all the visions of anti-Christ
    Are projections there, you pay a price

    http://gnosis.org/library/hermet.htm
    Last edited by R_Baird; 03-17-2016 at 07:57 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    The Memphis center or ashram of the people who built the Pyramids was a very nice thing for the Egypt Exploration Fund to allow to get built over. It might have given us greater insight into the 'gods' referred to in this work.

    "Long before John allegedly wrote the Apocalypse on the island of Patmos, an unknown Egyptian wrote down the Lament, which some have titled “The Apocalypse”, for it prophesized the demise of the Egyptian religion. The Asclepius is sometimes not treated as part of the Corpus Hermeticum, as its Greek text was lost and it is only partially preserved in Latin. Some have described it as “one of the most moving passages of prose I have read from Classical Antiquity”. It predicted that “there will come a time when it will be seen that in vain have the Egyptians honoured the divinity with a pious mind and with assiduous service. All their holy worship will become inefficacious.” It predicted the end of the world – the Egyptian world.

    “Do you not know, Asclepius, that Egypt is an image of heaven or, to be more precise, that everything governed and moved in heaven came down to Egypt and was transferred there? If truth were told, our land is the temple of the whole world.” It is one of the most quoted relatively ancient Egyptian texts, though it is actually part of the Corpus Hermeticum and thus by some to be considered not Egyptian at all. It is the “extended and unabridged edition” of the dictum “as above, so below”. Some have labelled this the summary of the entire system of traditional and modern magic, while others believe it holds the key to all mysteries. It suggests that the macrocosmos was reflected in the microcosmos, a concept which formed the basis of astrology. For Robert Bauval, Wim Zitman and many others, it meant that Egypt’s monuments (read: pyramids) were earthly representations of the heavens, specifically creating a correspondence between the layout of the stars in the sky and the pyramids on Earth. For philosophers, it means that God was not some distant entity, but that God was the same as man, and man was God, each of us containing a divine spark. Most importantly, it also formed the backbone of magic, as it worked with correspondences. An act that was done here on Earth, had a correspondence in Heaven; asking a statue of a god on Earth was delivered to that god above.
    Everything was interrelated and interdependent. The purpose of all rituals in ceremonial magic was – and is – to unite the microcosm with the macrocosm, to join God, or the gods, when invoked (prayer or concentrated thought) with human consciousness. When such a supreme union was achieved, the subject and object became one. The magician felt that he was consciously in touch with all elements of the universe, therefore, he could control them. Authors like Jeremy Naydler have made it clear that the Egyptians expected nothing more, nothing less and nothing but, from their Pharaoh: to be a bridge between this world and the divine realm, to balance both and channel the lower things upwards and the higher things downwards. It led to a highly proscribed and ritualised lifestyle, with little room for deviation from that which was required to happen. It was a careful balance that had to be maintained at all cost, for the welfare of the nation.

    Egypt was a land of magic: it was meant to be an image of heaven and the Egyptians had always tried to do their utmost to make it so. But things were not about to last; the Lament spoke of a dark future – a vision of the apocalypse, when Egypt as the ancient Egyptians knew it would no longer be: “And yet, since it befits the wise to know all things in advance, of this you must not remain ignorant: a time will come when it will appear that the Egyptians paid respect to divinity with faithful mind and painstaking reverence – to no purpose. All their holy worship will be disappointed and perish without effect, for divinity will return from Earth to Heaven, and Egypt will be abandoned. The land that was the seat of reverence will be widowed by the powers and left destitute of their presence. When foreigners occupy the land and territory, not only will reverence fall into neglect but, even harder, a prohibition under penalty prescribed by law (so-called) will be enacted against reverence, fidelity and divine worship. Then this most holy land, seat of shrines and temples, will be filled completely with tombs and corpses.”
    And so it happened. Today, Egypt is indeed nothing but tombs and corpses, with Egyptology a science that is purely interested in the tombs and corpses, with only the most minimal of attention paid to the Egyptian religion, if at all. Indeed, today, most argue that the ancient Egyptian civilisation was impressive, but that their religion was ignorant of modern philosophical frameworks; several academics label the ancient Egyptian mindset as little better than primitive or one step beyond “savages”.
    We stand in awe of the temples and the statues of Horus in front of the Temple of Edfu, but we see nothing but a statue. In ancient Egyptian times, these statues were seen as being alive, animated – holding the spirit of the deity – being the deity – represented on Earth. But now the statues are indeed silent and “divinity has returned from Earth to Heaven”. The bond between Heaven and Earth, so central to the ancient Egyptian mind, has been broken and nothing but a dead landscape remains. Whereas the Lament is at pains to explain that, as unlikely it may seem for the ancient Egyptian that this will happen, for modern man, it is as unlikely to imagine that a stone statue was once believed to be a living entity, an earthly residence for a god, somehow “alive”.
    Indeed, “0 Egypt, Egypt, of your reverent deeds only stories will survive, and they will be incredible to your children! Only words cut in stone will survive to tell your faithful works, and the Scythian or Indian or some such neighbour barbarian will dwell in Egypt.” Indeed.

    As sad as this was, this was not the end of it. “Why weep, O Asclepius? Egypt will be carried away to worse things than this; she will be polluted with yet graver crimes. She, hitherto most holy, who so much loved the gods, only country of the Earth where the gods made their home in return for her devotion, she who taught men holiness and piety, will give example of the most atrocious cruelty, in that hour, weary of life, men will no longer regard the world as worthy object of their admiration and reverence.” Egypt was seen as the land where the gods dwelled. It was the only land in the world where the gods dwelled. And they dwelled in Egypt, for it was there that they were worshipped by the people; it was a symbiotic link."


    http://www.philipcoppens.com/thelament.html

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Nanaimo
    Posts
    3,791
    The fact that many languages and different syntax and form over time in each of those languages exist - makes reading difficult and comprehension more so. That is especially true because death awaited those who spilled the beans in many eras - not just the Dark Ages. For example we know in the time of Plato it was summary death as the judgement awaiting he who explained the Pentagon-Dodecahedron (a major part of the field of energy surrounding us and the Earth Energy Grid). Here is how many names of people became translated as Gods over time.

    http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me...-v1/th150.html

    "Young Thoth who succeeded to his Father when that Father ascended to the Gods.

    IMHOTEP-IMUTH-ASCLEPIUS


    Moreover the Egyptian texts prove that besides Nefer-Tem still another Son of Ptaḥ was regarded as the third member of the Memphitic Triad. This Son was called I-em-ḥetep (or Imḥotep), whom the Greeks called Imouthēs or Imuth, and equated him with their Asclepius.

    The name I-em-ḥetep means “He who cometh in Peace,” and is very appropriate to the God who brought the knowledge of Healing to mankind; but I-em-ḥetep, though specially the God of medicine, was also the God of study and learning in general.

    “As a God of learning he partook of some of the attributes of Thoth, and he was supposed to take the place of this God in the performance of funeral ceremonies, and in superintending the embalming of the dead; in later times he absorbed the duties of Thoth as ‘Scribe of the Gods,’ and the authorship of the words of power which protected the dead from enemies of every kind in the Underworld was ascribed to him” (ib., 522, 523).

    In the “Ritual of Embalmment” 1 it is said to the Deceased: “Thy soul uniteth itself to I-em-ḥetep whilst thou art in the funeral valley.”

    The oldest shrine of the God was situated close to Memphis, and was called the “Temple of I-em-ḥetep, the Son of Ptaḥ,” which the Greeks called the Asclēpieion.

    Under Ptolemy IV., Philopator (222-205 B.C.), a temple was built to I-em-ḥetep on the Island of Philæ, and from the hieroglyphic inscriptions we learn that the God was called: “Great One, Son of Ptaḥ, the Creative God, made by Thenen, begotten by him and beloved by him, the God of divine forms in the temples, who giveth life to all men, the Mighty One of wonders, the Maker of times [?], who cometh unto him that calleth upon him wheresoever he may be, who giveth sons to the childless, the wisest and most learned one, the image and likeness of Thoth the Wise.” 2

    Imḥotep-Asclepius was thus the “image and likeness of Thoth the Wise,” even as Nefer-Tem was

    [paragraph continues] Young Thoth. Here we have precisely the distinction drawn between Asclepius and Tat in our Trismegistic literature; Asclepius was trained in all philosophy, Tat was young and as yet untrained.

    “I-em-ḥetep,” concludes Budge, “was the God who sent sleep to those who were suffering and in pain, and those who were afflicted with any kind of disease formed his special charge; he was the Good Physician both of Gods and men, and he healed the bodies of mortals during life, and superintended the arrangements for the preservation of the same after death. . . . He was certainly the God of physicians and of all those who were occupied with the mingled science of medicine and magic; and when we remember that several of the first Kings of the Early Empire are declared by Manetho, whose statements have been supported by the evidence of the papyri, to have written, i.e. caused to be edited, works on medicine, it is clear that the God of medicine was in Memphis as old as the archaic period” (ib., 524).

    So much for the more important information that Budge has to offer us on the subject of Asclepius-Imuth from the side of pure Egyptian tradition—if we can use such a phrase of that tradition as strained through the sieve of almost purely physical interpretation.

    THĀTH-TAT

    And now let us turn to Reitzenstein and his instructive Dissertation, “Hermes u. Schüler” (pp. 117 ff.).

    Unquestionably the most general form of sermon found in the remains of our Trismegistic literature is that of instruction to Tat the “Son” of Hermes, who is “Father” and Initiator. Of these instructions two Corpora existed, namely, “The General Sermons” and “The Expository Sermons.”

    The name Tat is, of course, a variant of Thoth (Teḥut); but whereas Hermes himself is always in such sermons characterised as Thrice-greatest, Tat has not yet reached to this grade of mastership; he is still “Young.”

    The name “Tat” occurs in one of the prayers in the Magic Papyri, part of which is undecipherable, and can only be translated by following the conjecture of Reitzenstein (p. 117, n. 6).

    “Show thyself unto me in thy prophetic power O God of mighty mind, Thrice-great Hermes! Let him who rules the four regions of the Heavens and the four foundations of the Earth appear. Be present unto me O thou in Heaven, be present unto me thou from the Egg. . . . Speak, the Two Gods also are round thee,—the one God is called Thāth and the other Haf.”"

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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