I just read on an introductory post about the Gospel of Hermes, haven't read it but I will thanks to the recommendation.
But it remember me to an early book I read before the CH and is The Hermetica by Timothy Freke, here is the audiobook on YouTube:
https://youtu.be/N7hrzOCxaIE?si=B4m-VEgsYHyqpfGX
Although I know it's not a schoolar work, what would be your opinion as an introductory text?
Thank to it I was able to find the Kore Kosmu as I read the Gods giving powers to the human soul and I never read something like that on Brian's Hermética, that's when I bought Hermética II by David Litwa.
I know that the Egyptian theme might confuse the source, but I would like to read your opinions on that. Thankyou
Freke/Gandy's book isn't a translation of the Hermetic texts. Rather, it's their own sort of romanticized remix of Hermetic texts in their own way (with far more overt Egyptianization than the Egyptian stuff we see in the Hermetic texts).
While it can be a nice intro read to get a feel for the overall sense or aesthetics of Hermeticism, it's not a translation.
The KK is a fascinating text, but how "Hermetic" it is is really up for debate. Hanegraaff, for instance, in his latest book doesn't really include it as part of his reckoning of the Hermetica, because it's so dramatically different in its conception of God and divinity, as well as who does what in it, that it's really difficult to reconcile.
It's a great example of Greco-Egyptian spiritual literature, to be sure, and might be better considered as "Isiaca" instead of "Hermetica". However, because of the role of a Hermēs in it and its inclusion by Stobaeus in his Anthology, it has since been generally reckoned as part of the Hermetic corpora.
Much of KK clashes in some really essential ways with the outlook and direction of the Hermetic texts. For example, nowhere in the Hermetic texts does God take an anthropomorphized form, much less one that threatens to punish its creations, and much less than that actually exact it.
Or, nowhere else in the Hermetica do we have a notion of a divine Hermēs (specifically the planet) being the fashioner of human bodies, and only (once) in D89 (and that in an ecstatic state) do we see an explicit identification of our Hermēs Trismegistos with the actual planet, while KK seems to only talk about Hermēs as a planetary deity.
Maybe we should consider the KK as hermetic fanfiction 😀
Yes I see, so maybe the KK could be a Freke version of that time, and as a "fanfiction" does it have any value? Or isn't just a fascinating story? Would you say that it gives something more than a fascination about a stories of creation?
All this delivers another question, if a text is a romantiside version, even if there is a artistic contemporary expression that express in some way Hermetic principles, does it have any value to The Way Of Hermes? Or is it imperative to stick with the "approved" sources of knowledge?
I don't know if you follow my inquire.
@sirius-aor I understand it to be more like a remix of the Hermetica (the Corpus Hermeticum, Asclepius, and Stobaean Fragments) rather than a proper translation and they do offer a source list, but having section numbers in addition to book numbers would've been nicer than just book numbers. They also reframed the theological terminology in the texts to be more Egypt-centric (God = Atum, etc.), which they did to "allow the reader the opportunity to build up their own conceptual picture of what Hermes means by the term, free of any associations they may have with existing words like ‘God’”, which can be equally confusing considering the syncretic nature of the Hermetica and some people's lack of awareness of some of the Egyptian terms and potential conflict with Egyptological use of them versus how Freke and Gandy use them. It's an interesting contemplative work, and many would say a good one, but it's not one that should be consulted as a primary source for research and study.
@patches Thank you Patches for your response. I do know its a contemplative work, and that we cannot call it source text, as it is a derivation or a mixture, sometimes letting aside important information and giving importance to other no so.
But this post allow me to enter in to a different subject. I haven't yet do the "Way of Hermes" lessons at the end of the course, but I do want to give an insight regarding this and know your feeling about it as I can tell you have more academy rigor than me.
And this subject is something that has been on my meditation since I entered your course. I received that day sort of a mind blowing punch on my head (of esoteric nature), that I couldn't relate to my current situation. Then I saw that the problem was solved and I could do the course. I started and something important expanded in me, I have even found more source knowledge since I am doing it. But i also received something else.
And that's the doubt on why I am here doing this. Let me explain:
I arrived at Hermetism not as a scholar or because I had a course or someone told me about it, but just by mere chance, by inquiry on my reality this "theology" explained my expirience and what my intuition has been telling me my whole life. Everything I have read, heard or see on this subjects, its like an "of course" confirmation, and I am full of Eureka moments where everything collapse on my experience(what i feel and what i know about Hermetica). Its not like I am trying to understand is that these words explain and describe what's not possible to describe that I see and feel.
I am actually a very imaginary type, I do Architecture and design and reading had never been a way for me to know or understand.
So Wouter is introducing a new dimension on the understanding of this current (on the academy), and even Copenhaver says that this a liturgical text, not intended to construct knowledge or register a time, but to function as a key to enter our spiritual reality.
The concrete matter that has been going around my studies is how do you draw a line between what is "right" to be contemplative about (on this case the romanticized Hermetica we are regarding on this post) and what could be considered deluded and crazy new age mumbo jumbo without historic appreciation?
My answer has been that there is no clear line, as this is about Gnosis, an the Great Book Of Nature is our main text, never written always present. So, How do you deal with these doubts? if there is any...
Thank you
@sirius-aor well, if we are talking about gnosis and divinity in general. Then I believe that you can learn from many different sources and spiritual paths.
but when we are talking about Hermeticism strictly, there is a rigid guideline as to what is “Hermetic” and what is not.
For example, if Hermeticism helps me to realize a lesson or a new concept in Gnosticism or Sufism then that is awesome, but that isn’t Sufi or Gnostic knowledge at its core.. I will still want a way to explain the phenomenon in Gnostic or Sufi terms. The same goes the other way around, if a Buddhist aphorism or a Taoist concept help me understand Hermeticism better, well then that is great, but it is not Hermetic thought at its core. To “draw the line” so to speak, I use the classic Hermetica (as well as secondary sources) [ https://wayofhermes.com/quick-start-to-studying-hermeticism/ ] at my disposal to distinguish what “is” and “is not” Hermetic, and I also discuss these matters here and with other Hermetic practitioners/studies as well as meditate and use nous (critical thinking) which is extremely important as the Hermetica is not 100% cohesive and agreeable… it does have some contradictions, but that is expected from a core spirituality that spans hundreds of years of authorship and comes from many different cultures and different geographic areas.
The concrete matter that has been going around my studies is how do you draw a line between what is "right" to be contemplative about (on this case the romanticized Hermetica we are regarding on this post) and what could be considered deluded and crazy new age mumbo jumbo without historic appreciation?
Maybe a good start is the 16 Principles as summarized by David Litwa in his presentation:
https://wayofhermes.com/hermeticism/david-litwas-16-principles-of-hermetic-spirituality/
Hermeticism is not a free-for-all where you can bring in your own views. It is a tradition with a certain view on creation, God, the gods, mankind, and what it is that makes us human and brings us salvation.
You can recognize "deluded and crazy new age mumbo jumbo" if it does not align with the authentic hermetic texts (for example the popular book The Kybalion). Hermetica by Freke is not "deluded and crazy new age mumbo jumbo" as it is a nice introduction to Hermeticism, but it can never be an alternative to the real hermetic texts.
Thank you, very clear as to what Hermética principles are. Although I did a course on the Kybalion I did recognize that it was not at all Hermetism, and that happened after I read the Hermética.
As for other kind of Non Dual thought? I know that the cosmology is not the same and I might be here looking for Perennial philosophy or the Prisca Theologia... I have listen to the Advaita Vedanta, or even to Mahamudra theology or Sufi and it's very close to the essence, maybe the forms (gods, heaven and earth) change but I feel really inclined to cross all over.
This obviously drops out of the Way of Hermes as it is, but for me is the way of the Human to find true Humanity (Logos).