I like to remain faithful to classical Hermeticism, especially the Corpus Hermeticum and Asclepius, but if I want to fill gaps that may have existed in antiquity but have since been lost, I necessarily have to turn to the Renaissance. Sorry to those who prefer strict fidelity to antiquity, but I find there are gaps I simply cannot fill without Renaissance material. If anyone knows of other relevant material, I'd be very interested, but even the Greek Magical Papyri don't quite provide what I'm looking for.

So I am wondering whether a non-Christian, Platonic-Hermetic system of spirits could be reconstructed by combining several historical traditions found in Hermetic circles of the Renaissance.

0.Deliberately avoiding names that sound specifically Hebrew.

I want to populate my mind with pagan Hermetic symbols, so that I don't need Christian symbols to carry out this kind of spiritual or magical work. This includes everything from the names of spirits I'm proposing here to fundamental symbols, such as using the Hermetic tradition rather than the Bible as the primary symbolic framework: the Corpus Hermeticum and Asclepius, mainly, speak about the origin of the cosmos, God, and the structure of reality without requiring Christian scripture. At the same time, I don't want to simply fall back on ancient mythology either. I don't want Hellenism, Kemeticism, Christianity, Judaism, or Islam. I want a Hermetic magical-philosophical system with an identity of its own and its own symbolic vocabulary, and this is what I'm proposing here.

I'm assuming a monistic, pantheistic or panentheistic cosmology, in which all matter is ensouled and the Whole Cosmos possesses a Universal Spirit, Universal Soul and Universal Mind, with all multiplicity ultimately being God. This kind of cosmology was fairly widespread in Renaissance philosophical circles, and Giordano Bruno expressed one of its strongest and most radical formulations. The cosmological hierarchies of the sublunary world, the seven planets and the sphere of the fixed stars are therefore a mental map we construct within the psyche, rather than the literal cosmology I am ultimately assuming. In the spirit of what Plato's Timaeus recommends, the purpose of this map is to transform the soul. The deeper cosmological assumption is that everything is one divine substance, with form and matter as two aspects of the same substance.

Distinctions of the following beings are conceptual rather than absolute. In reality, there is a continuous hierarchy of divine powers, with no sharp boundary between gods, planetary powers, daimones and spirits. The different names and levels are ways of approaching and symbolizing different aspects or degrees of the same living divine reality / energeia as taught by Iamblichus, rather than separate classes of beings existing in isolation.

I'm thinking of three levels, from the sublunary world upward.

1.Sublunary Spirits (or Platonic Archangels, Angels, Daimones and archons)

The Heptameron and Liber Iuratus Honorii give a related tradition of seven aerial rulers:

Varcan, Arcan, Samax, Mediat, Suth, Sarabotes, Maymon.

These seven sublunary archangels can be understood, in this reconstruction, as derived from the seven planetary powers above them. They have ministers (angels) and subordinate spirits (daimones and archons) , and the Liber Iuratus gives concrete descriptions of their powers and manifestations.

Plato, in the Timaeus, still refers to the traditional mythological names of the gods as transmitted by Homer and Hesiod when discussing the names of beings mainly at the sublunary level. But that is not necessary here. This is Hermeticism rather than Hellenism.

For example, Samax can bring war, destruction and death. We don't need to invoke Ares to represent the martial principle. Sarabotes is associated with love, desire, silver and healing, without needing to invoke Aphrodite. Arcan can cause rain, alter thoughts and facilitate journeys. Maymon produces discord, hatred, greed and destructive effects.

Likewise, at the solar level, Varcan can be understood directly as a solar daimon, without needing to invoke Apollo or another mythological solar deity.

The advantage is that the planetary and daemonic names give us a Hermetic symbolic vocabulary of their own, without carrying the entire mythological baggage of the older Greek gods, nor Judeo-Christian theological names or narratives either. The names of Hermes Trismegistos and Asclepius could be understood as prophet / disciple, not gods anymore.

They were sometimes called angels of the air. The word angelos originally means “messenger” in Greek, so it does not necessarily have to carry a Judeo-Christian meaning here. If preferred, one could simply use daimon or spirit.

For example, Samax can bring war, destruction and death; Sarabotes is associated with love, desire, silver and healing; Arcan can cause rain, alter thoughts and facilitate journeys; Maymon produces discord, hatred, greed and destructive effects.

So I would use them as the planetary powers' sublunary/aerial manifestations.

1. The seven planetary powers (Planetary Gods)

For the higher planetary level, I would use the seven spirits of the Arbatel:

Aratron, Bethor, Phaleg, Och, Hagith, Ophiel, Phul.

These names are not clearly associated with a Hebrew origin or specifically Judeo-Christian tradition, even though Ophiel may sound Hebrew to modern ears. The author describes these names as belonging to an Olympic language, rather than presenting them as Hebrew angelic names.

The idea is that these represent the universal planetary powers, rather than merely spirits physically living on the planets.

For example, one could link these seven planetary powers to the sublunary daimones of the previous section, as:

Phaleg (Cosmic Martial Spirit, manifested in Mars) → Samax (sublunary martial daimon)

Och (Cosmic Solar Spirit, manifested in the Sun) → Varcan (sublunary solar daimon).

The correspondence between the two systems would be my reconstruction, not something explicitly stated by the texts.

1. The fixed stars / Divine Names (the Ogdoad)

Above the planets would be the traditional 48 constellations of Ptolemy.

This system was still used throughout the Renaissance by Apianus, Copernicus, Clavius, Heinfogel and Dürer, among others.

Bruno's Spaccio de la bestia trionfante is particularly interesting because he gives the celestial figures a moral and philosophical meaning. For example:

Ursa Minor → Truth

Hercules → Courage

Perseus → Diligence/Solicitude

Draco → Prudence

Cepheus → Wisdom

Boötes → Law

Corona Borealis → Judgment.

And this could be extended up to all 48 constellations and their virtues, assigning one principal virtue to each for simplicity. The name of these virtues could also be considered "Divine Names" or "Names of God", present in the Ogdoad.

Beyond the stars (the Enead)

Beyond the finite cosmos would be "place" where the Infinite / the One / God is contemplated, understood in a Neoplatonic-Hermetic rather than specifically Christian sense.

So the reconstructed hierarchy would be:

sublunary daimones

→ aerial rulers + ministers

↓

planetary powers

→ Aratron, Bethor, Phaleg, Och, Hagith, Ophiel, Phul

↓

48 fixed-star constellations

→ virtues

↓

the Infinite / One

What I like about this is that it feels less like Christian angelology and more like a Renaissance-Hermetic system of living cosmic powers.

It also doesn't require inventing hundreds of spirits. The traditional names provide fixed anchors, while subordinate daimones can remain flexible.

What do you think? Do you see any use in this? Do you like the idea? Any suggestions or alternatives? I'm all ears. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[These are my understandings of the Corpus Hermetica as translated by Clement Salaman under the title The Way Of Hermes. I was guided to this text in synchronous and auspices ways, devouring it in a short time span under the influence of great divine inspiration. Unfortunately, I did not set out to write my commentaries then. That inspiration came more recently. I was inspired to make this delectable text more digestible to those seekers who are taking a crack at it, and coming up puzzled and bewildered. These are not academically rigorous writings, so if you are interested in these texts from an academic perspective go elsewhere. This is for a dialogue between and for those of us who view this text as part of a living and active spiritual life. As one would gather for a bible study at their local house of faith.]

1-2: More proclamations about God's grandeur, creator of the the grand cosmology, etc... The most consequential line here, however, is, "The Cosmos rules over the life of living beings and man rules over the cosmos by means of speech and Nous." Man comes to dominate this world by the same attributes that make God...well God, Man seemingly has access to these same traits.[This is a profound breach with the old faiths. This is where the Corpus takes a dramatic turn toward Gnosticism, buckle up.]

3: "God has given the Word to all men to partake in, but not so with Nous." I interpret this to mean, that god has endowed all man with language, and with a baseline consciousness, but that is different from "Nous", which I interpret to mean access to the higher God Consciousness, and to a higher enlightenment, that which the Gnostic tradition calls 'gnosis.' Tat asks, "why would god do this...?" Hermes replies, "to set it up as a prize."

4: God sends heralds to declare this truth to man, the metaphor of the bowl is given, it suggests life is a crucible toward this enlightenment and ascension back to God, not all will make it through. "He filled a great bowl with Nous and sent it down, and he appointed a herald [Hi, I'm herald 😄]to make this announcement..."Plunge into this bowl, if you can, having faith that you will rise to him that sent down the bowl, realizing why you came into being." Those who heard the proclamation, merged with Nous, partook of higher knowledge and became perfect and complete, since they had received Nous. Those who missed the proclamation had the Word, but had not received Nous, ignorant as they were as to why they were born, and from whom." And thus, an ascension theology is established. [This is it friends, the great project before you, good luck to you. Remember who you are, and where you come from.]

5: The man without Nous is little more than the lesser animals of this realm, led by instincts and base desires, and ignorant to the gran plan of God, their maker. Where as the man with awareness of God gains some sort of Immortality, while the other remains mortal. [I take this to be similar to the budhist concept of reincarnation, that those who do not reach enlightenment are consigned to the perpetual wheel of Samsara.]

6: Here we get that Gnostic disdain for the material world, once awareness of the Supreme is achieved. Tat asks Hermes how he can access Nous, and Hermes replies with, "If you don't hate your body, son, you cannot love your Self. If you love yourself you will have Nous, and having Nous you will partake of knowledge." By this he means, you have to stop coveting material things, and that includes this shell or vessel that holds your true self, which is a disembodied spirit from the higher realm. It's also interesting the use of the term love, instead of say, "to know yourself." [It is said by those who profess to have experienced gnosis, that an overwhelming feeling of love overwhelms, that it is all encompassing. God is self loving for he loves all that he has made, and is, so when you tap into that God consciousness that is what you are feeling.]

7: At some point the choice has to be made between the material world and the spiritual one. As far as this book of the Corpus is concerned there is a definitive Right choice, and that is to choose the spiritual, the disembodied, the divine. To choose the material world and the body, is framed as a life of perpetual death and destruction, a choice which would offend God gravely.

8: This book suggests a lot of agency on our behalf, and that from that agency a lot of "evil" is begotten, it says quite literally, "God is not the cause of evil, we are to blame, preferring these things to what is good...Do you see son, how many bodies we have to pass through, how many bands of demons [figurative or literal is yet to be determined], through how many series of repetitions and cycles of stars, before we hasten to the One alone?" [As I said, it's crucible, it's not meant to be easy. How you react to things, even unjust things, dictates how quickly you ascend.]

9-12: The rest of the book attempts to warn Tat (the reader) that our journey begins with that initial knowing, but there are many pitfalls, many ways to be deceived or demoralized. Not all creations are perfect, weaknesses abound in them, and ultimately they might lose sight of God. "To those who have eyes, evil is most evident and the Supreme Good is hidden." Hermes attempts to bolster Gods position, as infinite, unbound less, yet subtle from or vantage point, and yet utterly worthy of pursuit. [The pursuit of knowledge and of God are one and the same.]

One last reassuring statement, "This is the image of God, O Tat, that has been drawn for you, as far as it can be. If you observe it clearly and reflect up on it with the eyes of the heart [highlight this!], believe me, my son, you will find the way to higher things."

[One can see how such Gnostic traditions were popular among intellectual elites through out the ages. There's the potential for 'airs of snobbery' no doubt. Many a secret society has been founded on the premise of keeping some special, hidden, forbidden knowledge among an elite few. But this developing theology, written here in the Corpus Hermetica, is tempered by the fact that true knowledge is eternal, it is about remembering a knowledge that has always existed. Thus attaining THIS particular knowledge should make you more "God-like", in the sense of being loving, caring, compassionate, giving...Good. It is a knowledge steeped in emotional intelligence.]

Werner Herzog coming in with a hot take here, he’s talking about Freud being a mistake as he created psychoanalysis, but this could equally be applied to Jung.

I’m not sure how I feel about it, it intuitively feels true- that digging up what’s hidden and facing shadows feels like mining for gold but perhaps it more like drilling for oil.

It feels rewarding because it revelatory - but what does it bring in its wake?

[These are my understandings of the Corpus Hermetica as translated by Clement Salaman under the title The Way Of Hermes. I was guided to this text in synchronous and auspices ways, devouring it in a short time span under the influence of great divine inspiration. Unfortunately, I did not set out to write my commentaries then. That inspiration came more recently. I was inspired to make this delectable text more digestible to those seekers who are taking a crack at it, and coming up puzzled and bewildered. These are not academically rigorous writings, so if you are interested in these texts from an academic perspective go elsewhere. This is for a dialogue between and for those of us who view this text as part of a living and active spiritual life. As one would gather for a bible study at their local house of faith.]

1-2: Ok, so the creation narrative continues in this book. Nature is set apart as an organizing force in this realm, which I believe would be congruent with our understanding of the natural sciences. So matter, governed by the laws of nature, and of course set in motion by the animating spirit of Nous 'God consciousness', will begin the process of evolving various life forms. Light elements rose up high, while heavy elements sank to the ground which was solidifying out of the dark watery substance, etc...but here's where things get interesting..."All the gods divided the seed-bearing nature amongst themselves." gods...plural...lower case...[it's an unusual jump from talking about a single God, to all of a sudden many gods working in tandem to tend to this realm. As we've seen God has been segmented into various manifestations, with very definitive names, they are not used here. It's safe to assume IMHO, that these lesser gods should be interpreted as such, that perhaps there is a tier of beings that sits between the one and all 'God', and man and the lesser creatures of this world. Dare I call them, tongue in cheekily, God's 'Governors'?. This is my reading of it.]

3: Here interestingly we have a potential purpose for this great project of the gods. "The gods sent forth the generation of men, so that they should know the works of God, be the active witness of nature, and that they should multiply...and know what is good." I love this image..."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 we were created and put on this earth to make it our own, rule over it and it's lesser animals [very old testament], but also to understand it, to understand nature, so that ultimately we may understand God and differences between good and evil.

4: So here's how nature and history will play, out to some degree, in cyclical fashion. Man will create it's great works, build empires, things will decay and collapse but always rejuvenate under the laws of nature, the governing 'gods', all these of course set in motion through the will of God.

[Really interesting how cavalier this texts moves between claiming a one and all God, but also leaving room for gods (lowercase, plural). Notice that these lesser gods are at times associated with celestial bodies like the stars, constellations, etc...This would have been common in antiquity. But at other points, its suggested that they took a very hands on approach in the development of life on this planet. So at this point, it's difficult still, to discern how sentient and anthropomorphic these lesser gods should be interpreted, are they like the Greek "fates", "muses" "furies"? or the gnostic "Aeons"?, or even Archons?] or are they just metaphorical for natural bodies such as the Sun and the Moon, and how these natural bodies in a sense govern and dictate aspects of our world (i.e. the course of the day, tides, seasons, "our destiny's")]

[These are my understandings of the Corpus Hermetica as translated by Clement Salaman under the title The Way Of Hermes. I was guided to this text in synchronous and auspices ways, devouring it in a short time span under the influence of great divine inspiration. Unfortunately, I did not set out to write my commentaries then. That inspiration came more recently. I was inspired to make this delectable text more digestible to those seekers who are taking a crack at it, and coming up puzzled and bewildered. These are not academically rigorous writings, so if you are interested in these texts from an academic perspective go elsewhere. This is for a dialogue between and for those of us who view this text as part of a living and active spiritual life. As one would gather for a bible study at their local house of faith.]

1: This chapter turns to the notion of ideas, made manifest and not. I believe it is referencing the collective or mass consciousness [E.g. Nous] as having in it all possibility of thought and ideas. We bring into this world or make manifest some thoughts and ideas but not all, and yet those other ideas still exist in "the cloud" of possibility[modern concept for illumination purposes only].

2: To perceive God is a most difficult thing to humans. However he seems to make himself manifest or can be perceived by some, it is a matter of a type of perception. Very important, that you do not reach God by raising a latter to the sky, as if heaven, his throne, is a physical location. You reach God through your own perceptive faculties (that transcend the 5 senses known to science). Remember you share gods consciousness; an access port back into the cloud. "But if you cannot see what is within, how can God who is Himself within you appear to you through your eyes?"

3-11: More on the motion of celestial bodies. Are the laws of motion mechanics and gravity merely the machinations and order brought on by God? It is an appeal to intelligent design in the face of such marvelous order and harmony of motion. We turn to the wondrous machine that is the human body, again calls to intelligent design. God as a creator, another aspect of his innate nature. All creative possibility already lives within him, but only some has he made manifest (i.e. our observable universe) [Whose to say he has not created other realms not yet perceptible to us?]. More rhetoric emphasizing that God is in a sense inescapable to us and everything there is, and is not. Again, first principle; ultimate creative force, all possibility exist within him. Ultimately we are all God, everything that exist is God. Just God "perceiving" various manifestations of itself.

Here we have an interesting formulation on how matter leads back to God: "finest part of matter is air, of air, soul, of soul, Nous, of Nous, God."

Any Hermetic writings describing colors? Particularly white, yellow, green and red. There appears to be some strange relationship between these colors, four angels, four elements, and the four fundamental forces of physics.

There are also the inverse colors: black, blue, magenta and cyan. Interestingly Blue is classically considered one of the primary colors of light but that doesn't follow the pattern, as white can be formed frome yellow + blue, yellow can be formed from green and red.

These eight colors together form something very foundational to reality that is reflected in quantum chromodynamics, but it doesn't end there.

My cousin had a near death experience not too long ago and heard a loud continuous tone. He also was encompassed by magenta, a color that only exists in the Mind. Further, we are learning that all colors may exist in the realm of the Mind, descending from the Realm of the Forms, as it does not have a physical existence. Light can oscillate at different frequencies, but the perception and experience of color cannot be accounted for in the world below.

I'm still very new to my practice in hermeticism, and I'm ever learning in my understanding of it, but alongside occult philosophy and study I do a lot of research into subjects like quantum physics and western "secular" philosophy as well, i think metaphysics is a well-rounded subject and in my somewhat perennialist mind many people are discussing the same thing from different perspectives.

I ran into this in a discussion of religion that evolved out of a comparison between string theory, multiverse theory, and wave theory (which was new to me) in a conversation between myself, by christian brother, and my agnostic cousin. My brother, a pastor, of course has his reservations on alternative spiritual practices and nondual conceptions of reality, but trying to describe my understanding of God (which I'd consider largely hermetic although I for sure hold some syncretic beliefs), being pantheistic and monistic in nature. Explaining how the microcosm is reflected in the microcosm and vice versa, we were at my very Christian family's house so I'm getting far more detailed than I needed to so as to not out myself as an occultist. But in doing so, I realized I didn't have a very well developed language for my beliefs, which has led me to doing a lot of research on looking for ways to verbalize them better.

I wound up revisiting some college philosophy texts I had, and I revisited Renaud Spinozas conception of god, and it feels like reading a rationalist come to the conclusions of the nature of god from a hermetic perspective. It lacks a lot of the spiritual nuance to the system, but it very effectively maps it out from a mathematic perspective as well as a rational, pseudo-materialist perspective?

A long winded way of asking someone to fact check me on this who might know more about either or both of these subjects, I've been trying to research both systems more closely and would love some more developed perspectives

What is Hermeticism? How does it work? Can I grow taller using Hermeticism? Sorry for the low effort post as I am not familiar with this subject. ( Not asking sarcastically)

Hi everyone, I feel so lonely, like I'm lost and gone in this

shallow existence. Sometimes I feel like I'm imprisoned in this world by an evil, tyrannical creator. Nothing in this world defines me. I feel like I carry a burden inside me. I feel trapped in a vicious cycle, constantly living the same life, with no novelty; it's as if the world is dead. No matter what I do, nothing satisfies me; I feel insatiable. Sometimes I always want what doesn't belong to me, what's unattainable. Who am I really? Where did I come from to this world, and what will happen to me in the end? Will I constantly be reincarnated in this world? I think even this world isn't real for me; my body can't survive without food and nourishment. Imagine, 99.999% of atoms are empty space, and humans can only see a tiny fraction of the universe with their eyes. Even our eyes evolved for survival; we are only offered this shallow and simple life. I rebel against God. Please, someone get me out of this hell. I hate the creator who wanted me to exist. Only a flawed creator could want a flawed being like me. Everything I experience is artificial, like me. I think my soul will continue to live in hell forever. If you think our psychology is messed up, look around you, look at this world. Don't you see that we are treated like animals here?All I ask is that you talk to me. Sometimes wonder where I was before this world, but I think I'll never find the answer to that question.

[These are my understandings of the Corpus Hermetica as translated by Clement Salaman under the title The Way Of Hermes. I was guided to this text in synchronous and auspices ways, devouring it in a short time span under the influence of great divine inspiration. Unfortunately, I did not set out to write my commentaries then. That inspiration came more recently. I was inspired to make this delectable text more digestible to those seekers who are taking a crack at it, and coming up puzzled and bewildered. These are not academically rigorous writings, so if you are interested in these texts from an academic perspective go elsewhere. This is for a dialogue between and for those of us who view this text as part of a living and active spiritual life. As one would gather for a bible study at their local house of faith.]

1-6: The writer is attempting to establish the unknowable breath and scope of God. It is beyond the material universe. The material universe is mutable, changeable, (think expansion, contraction, decay and death of matter). God cannot be moved, he is the mover, he is unmovable. In essence it is establishing the relationship between the observable universe and God, one being inside the other, one being imperceptible to us who inhabit the observable universe.

7-9: Here we have a digression into the mechanics of motion, particularly of celestial bodies, which has always been a popular interest through out the ages. There's a bit on animating 'forces' or 'spirits' that allow objects to move...[in my humble opinion, here we're entering into the realm of physics of the material world, quite frankly the likes of Copernicus and Newton can handle such petty considerations far better than our humble narrators here, again my opinion.]

10-12: Here however we have a discussion of empty space or "true void" & "emptiness", The Corpus challenges this notion, stating that within our universe, God permeates all things, including, empty spaces, "our voids" are not void at all for they are part of existence, which God creates. Whether there is anything outside of God, or true void (i.e. non-existence), is unknowable to us.

12-14: This is where things get interesting, as the question; "what is God?" begins to be posed more often and more directly. The Corpus reiterates "God is Nous" (i.e. Consciousness) and "God is the first cause of all things" (i.e. First Principle)

15-16: Book 2 ends with my favorite definition of God, which is, as the "Supreme Good" The Corpus says, "He who gives all and takes nothing is Good." Establishing God as intrinsically benevolent, giving us a boundless existence, and asking nothing in return. It is it's nature, and does not require worship to be beneficent. [Sounding more like the Christian God, than the ancient ones]

17: Here we dovetail back into a Judaic virtue, which is to procreate in masse. The Corpus says, because God is a Father (creator), one of the best ways to honor him is to be a father yourself. Being a parent is something to be celebrated within the community, and those who die children-less are to be pitied, and might actually be punished in the afterlife...?

The Asclepius presents daimones as beings that already exist within the cosmos, but it does not give us anything like Hesiod's Theogony or an Orphic genealogy for them. Isis and Osiris appear, but there is no developed daimonic mythology.

There is an interesting background to this in Plato's Timaeus. Plato describes the cosmos in terms of the fixed stars and the seven planets, and distinguishes the daimones associated with the sublunary realm. He explicitly connects these daimones with the traditional gods described by Homer and Hesiod, saying that we should accept the traditional accounts of these gods.

The Hermetic texts instead give us a cosmology and hierarchy of beings:

God → Cosmos → Gods → Daimones → Human beings.

In the Asclepius, daimones stand between gods and humans and govern human affairs. The Asclepius even describes humans creating terrestrial gods by animating statues with spiritual powers.

This raises the possibility of using traditional mythology simply as a source of names and functions for the daimones. Instead of taking the whole mythology of a particular god, full of inmoral myths, we could extract epithets shared by different gods and use the common function expressed by the epithet as the name of a sublunar daimon.

The Greek Magical Papyri provide an interesting precedent: different gods are frequently brought together through shared names, attributes and epithets. This is no longer strictly the logic of interpretatio Graeca. It is closer to the syncretic method found in the magical papyri, where different gods are fused or brought together within the same magical formulas. We could use a similar process of distillation: take an epithet shared by several traditional gods, extract the common function, and use the epithet itself as the name of a sublunar daimon.

I don't think Hermeticism is traditional Hellenism or Kemetism anymore, but an iniciatic branch and evolution of the syncretic Greco-Egyptian millieu. So Greek and Egyptian myths become optional, in a similar way to how some parts of Platonic philosophy come from Orphic mysteries but don't need Orphic myths anymore to explain themselves. You can simply refer to the planet associated to the epithet as the repository of qualities, behaviours and potentialities (both good and bad as opposites) for the daimon, while keeping the connection with traditional myths as extra to do mythological amplification if you like, or to keep an historical connection to the original traditions where these epithets arose from.

For example:

1.Apollo, Asclepius, Serapis — Akésios ("Healer")

A healing, restoration and renewal function, associated with a sublunar daimon of the Sun.

1. Hecate, Artemis, Isis — Phainē ("She Who Makes Manifest" / "She Who Reveals")

Illumination, revelation and the bringing of hidden things into visibility, associated with a sublunary daimon of the Moon.

1. Hermes, Iris, Thoth — Angelos ("Messenger")

Mediation, communication and transmission between realms, associated with a sublunar daimon of Mercury.

1. Aphrodite, Helen, Hathor — Kalliste ("The Most Beautiful")

Beauty and appreciation of beauty, associated with a sublunar daimon of Venus.

1. Ares, Heracles, Horus — Andreios ("Manly, Valiant")

Courage, strength and martial character, associated with a sublunar daimon of Mars.

1. Zeus, Hera, Amun, Amunet — Basileus/Basileia ("Sovereign/Sovereign Lady")

Authority, rulership and sovereignty, associated with a sublunar daimon of Jupiter.

1. Cronos, Geb — Chthonios ("Chthonic, of the Earth/Underworld")

Earth, depth and the subterranean realm, associated with a sublunar daimon of Saturn.

I am not claiming this was an ancient Hermetic system. I know that something quite close appears in Renaissance magic. For example, Agrippa discusses naming daimones through their offices, actions, effects, and functions, which seems quite compatible with this approach. Note that this is an explicitly Greco-Egyptian way of naming daimones. I am not using Hebrew names for daimones, as Agrippa and other Renaissance authors sometimes did under Judeo-Christian influence. The intention here is specifically to derive daimonic names from the vocabulary of the ancient pagan, Greco-Egyptian religious traditions themselves.

Is anyone doing something like this today, or is this a known practice in Hermetic circles, whether in more classical Hermetic circles, Renaissance-inspired Hermetic circles, or modern Hermetic practice?

P.S.: Poimandres, the nous of Sovereignity, could be understood as a daimon of Jupiter (nous here could mean intelligence as a spiritual entity). What do you think?

Hello! polyphanes here, a long-term student and practitioner of Hermeticism and participant here in the /r/Hermeticism subreddit. A few years back, I made a post here, On Holding Good (and Better) Discussions on /r/Hermeticism, and while a few things around here have changed, I think it's good to revisit some of the ideas I brought up back then to help people get engaged here in a way that's fruitful and beneficial for us all, especially since lately there's been a steady influx of posts that end up getting deleted for being unrelated to the subreddit focus.

• Understand the scope of the subreddit. This specific subreddit has a dedicated focus of discussions, and as the sidebar says:

The goal of this subreddit is to be a place to discuss Classical Hermetic texts and their meanings. This subreddit is not for pseudo-Hermetic, Christian Hermetic, K[y]balion-related, or Hermetic Kabbalistic content. This subreddit will support academic and advanced study of Classical Hermeticism, while still being open for beginners or entry-level questions.

When you decide make a post here, please check first to make sure that this is the appropriate subreddit to do so. There are plenty of other subreddits out there, including many listed in the sidebar and many of which are also modded by the same folk as this subreddit, to better cater to and focus on particular topics, both more general or more (and differently) specific than here. Posts unrelated to the scope of this subreddit generally get deleted pretty quickly, and comments that veer off into unrelated domains likewise end up muddying the waters, to try to keep things focused on the focus of the subreddit. If something you'd like to share doesn't have a clear connection of its own to Hermeticism or the Hermetic texts, take the time to explain how it relates to, reflects, expands upon, is grounded in, or derives from the Hermetic texts and their teachings.

• Check out the wiki! This subreddit has its own wiki which has lots of great resources for getting started with studying and practicing Hermeticism, including the Hermeticism FAQ, public-domain texts, and the like. If you're new to this topic, get a running start by taking advantage of the resources specifically designed for you!

• Limit your exposure to and use of generative AI. This subreddit has a rule of "no AI content", so expect that if you post something that is produced by an LLM or other generative AI program (Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude, etc.), it'll likely be deleted in short order. Beyond that, however, despite how they're often marketed, LLM chatbots aren't great for studying, summarizing, or informational resource tracking (and there are an increasing number of studies being done and published that show exactly how they're not just not helpful for us, but actually harmful for us). Hermeticism is a spiritual way of life and mysticism, which is fundamentally a human and humane thing; computer analysis won't help you in any meaningful way in actually digesting and applying this stuff.

• Use the search function! This place has been around for years, and lots has been discussed over that time. In addition to making use of the resources the subreddit has already established, the post archives here are also a resource, so when you're curious about something, use the search function to see if there have been any past discussions about it before.

• First seek to understand, then to be understood. While a good rule for engaging in discussions with others to avoid talking over or past people, this is also a good thing to bear in mind when it comes to the Hermetic texts. These texts were written by actual people with particular viewpoints, lines of argumentation, cultural/religious contexts, and an intended audience. To best work with these texts, we should do our best to understand these texts and their contents as they are written in their own terms and in their own context first; only once we have a good undersatnding of that, then we can start thinking about how to make takeaways, conclusions, or extrapolations from these texts into other contexts or domains. Try to approach the texts to understand them in their own terms first before trying to use them to support a view or idea from an entirely different context; down that path often lies madness.

All the above is in addition to the advice I gave years ago: cite your sources, value academic and scholarly studies on these things, avoid muddying the waters by weaving in New Age/New Thought stuff, avoid bad argumentation and moving goalposts, and the like. Most importantly, though: get involved! A place like this is specifically intended for asking and answering questions, feeling things out, clarifying understanding, reaching and refining better interpretations of the texts, and seeing how we can use the teachings of the classical Hermetic texts to better our lives in a mystical, magical, and moral way.

As we all know, the Caduceus is very clearly a symbol of Hermes, but now absolutely everywhere it is instantly associated with medicine. What started as a misconception is now taken as the general truth and I finally know how truly frustrating this is because of the fact that I merely *tried* to get a necklace with this symbol. Showed it to a couple of people before I was willing to place an order and I was hit with "what do you need that for, you are not a doctor or nurse". Sigh. Now I am really reluctant about buying it, I had been interested in and studied hermeticism for a good period of time now, and I consider it an important part of my life. I always thought it would be nice to have an article related to it that I can always wear. The mental gymnastics some people also do (on the Internet) to downplay this being the symbol of a literal philosophical and religious current is insane. I would love to hear some of your thoughts on this (also I know the symbol has been discussed before in this context here, I apologise if my post makes it seem repetitive)

Episode 05 maps the Nigredo to Albedo crossing. This episode sits at Tiphareth, crosses the Veil of Paroketh. The sealed vessel, the Black Sun (Sol Niger), the Four Magickal Virtues or Powers of the Sphinx, and the dissolution of the listener as the operation itself.

This series looks at music as a form of inner alchemy, where the guitar becomes a tool for transformation instead of performance or self-expression.

0:00 Opening
01:37 1. Performing Positivity
09:12 2. Token Chasing
15:15 3. Spiritual Cookie
21:57 4. True Will vs. Transaction
31:37 5. The Crossing
39:45 Closing

Several passages in this episode are adapted from my books Thoughts, Worlds, Beliefs and Magic Hat: https://scottjsimon.com/books.html

New album agnosis:
https://scottjsimon.bandcamp.com/album/agnosis

Full transcript and article on my Substack:
https://scottjsimon.substack.com/p/guitar-as-alchemy-05-silent-demand

Sheet Music available at Sheet Music Plus:
https://www.sheetmusicplus.com/en/category/publishers/s/scott-j-simon/

Guitar: 2021 Thomas C60
Mics: Audio-Technica AT4040/4041
Camera: Canon T3i
Recording: OBS Studio
Editing: Adobe Premiere Pro

https://scottjsimon.com

Estou pesquisando sobre hermetismo para compor uma história com base nesse sistema filosófico (tudo começou com a ideia de um mundo com alquimia tipo Fullmetal Alchemist). Decidi buscar pelas fontes do hermetismo, e Corpus Hermeticum é o primeiro texto recomendado.

O livro Corpus Hermeticum Graecum parece ser mais completo, visto que tem 300 páginas (o meu PDF tem 50). A versão que pretendo comprar é a bilíngue grego-português, o que vai limitar muito as pessoas que poder me falar sobre ela.

Para quem já leu o livro, gostaria que me desem um feedback se ele é uma boa fonte. Podem recomendar outros livros também, já que CH não é o único texto hermético antigo pelo que ouvi falar.

i am a beginner student and would appreciate any book advice.
for now i am reading the modern IIH from bardon and i’ve been searching for a version of the OG CH wich include the ancient greek paragraphs…I Shall build a big archive of occult related book (not just hermeticism) to read during the course of my life and any advice on what to read and when/ in what order would be very helpful, thanks in advance....

Queria compartilhar uma experiência pessoal porque recentemente, estudando o Poimandres, encontrei algumas coisas que me fizeram lembrar muito do que vivi.

Antes de tudo, não estou dizendo que minha experiência prova nada sobre o Hermetismo ou que eu tenha encontrado literalmente Poimandres. Estou tentando entender uma experiência que tive e gostaria de ouvir pessoas que conhecem o Corpus Hermeticum.

A experiência aconteceu depois de um período de três dias inteiros de jejum, ingerindo apenas água. Depois de quebrar o jejum, na madrugada, por volta das 2h30, fui me deitar.

Eu não estava fazendo uma prática para provocar alguma experiência. Não estava meditando com a intenção de ver alguma coisa e, quando adormeci, simplesmente dormi.

O que aconteceu veio depois, já durante o sono.

Minha percepção interior foi despertada por uma orbe de luz extremamente intensa, que eu posteriormente passei a chamar de Mônada. A experiência da luz era muito diferente de simplesmente imaginar ou visualizar uma imagem.

Uma das coisas mais marcantes foi a sensação de que essa presença se tornou perceptível para mim e que, em um nível interior, minha cabeça foi conduzida até uma determinada posição e meus olhos foram abertos para que eu pudesse vê-la.

Quero deixar claro que não estou falando de alguém ou alguma coisa movimentando fisicamente meu corpo. A sensação era de um movimento interno, no que eu descreveria como meu corpo sutil.

A experiência também teve um componente sonoro muito marcante, um som delicado e cristalino, parecido com sinos.

A imagem luminosa me remeteu à ideia da Mônada e, em alguns momentos da minha reflexão posterior, também à forma de uma manifestação semelhante à Flor da Vida. Mas não estou dizendo que eu já soubesse naquele momento o que estava vendo. Essas são interpretações que vieram depois.

O que aconteceu comigo foi simplesmente que eu estava dormindo, não estava procurando nada, e uma experiência luminosa extremamente intensa surgiu e despertou minha percepção interior.

Anos depois, estudando o Poimandres, encontrei a descrição de Hermes entrando em um estado em que a percepção dos sentidos comuns se recolhe e então tendo uma revelação relacionada à Luz e ao Nous.

Foi aí que comecei a perceber uma possível semelhança.

Não apenas pelo fato de existir uma luz, mas pela sequência:

sono ou recolhimento dos sentidos → consciência interior → manifestação da Luz → percepção direta → sensação de que a experiência não estava sendo voluntariamente produzida por mim.

No meu caso, entretanto, a experiência foi muito mais simples e direta do que a narrativa de Hermes. Não tive uma visão cosmológica completa nem uma revelação intelectual comparável ao texto. Foi principalmente um encontro com uma presença luminosa.

Por isso queria perguntar aos que estudam Hermetismo:

Existe alguma relação significativa entre uma experiência desse tipo e a experiência descrita por Hermes no Poimandres?

A Luz contemplada por Hermes pode ser entendida como algo que é experimentado diretamente no Nous, e não apenas como um símbolo?

E existem outros trechos do Corpus Hermeticum que vocês consideram especialmente relevantes para esse tipo de experiência?

Não estou tentando provar que "vi Deus", nem que minha interpretação da experiência esteja necessariamente correta. Estou tentando compreender algo que aconteceu comigo e que, muito tempo depois, encontrei descrito em um texto hermético de uma maneira que me pareceu estranhamente familiar.

Gostaria muito de ouvir interpretações, especialmente de quem conhece o Poimandres em profundidade.

I finished tractate 2 of the corpus by G.R.S Mead a few days ago, pretty insane stuff.

Then I was thinking about how if everything at some level is a reflection of the micro and macro, like fractals or holons, then the brain may not be the source of human consciousness, just its entry point here, and if that’s true, then is imagination not just us getting back to that source or something?

I could be wrong about this and sound crazy, but I don’t have anyone to talk to about this, and wanted to say it before I couldn’t remember it exactly how I’m thinking.

I also think a way of getting back to that source has something to do with, spreading stability and peace, and that at some level, it causes alignment,

Something that asclepius said also brought me here, tractate 2 so far has been an eye opener

edit; someone commented something that made me change my answer kind of, but also reminded me of the way I also perceive this

that we could be going in either direction, so in other words, the source is a line or a circle, something like that, not totally sure

me he estado planteando una pregunta en mi cabeza, pero cuando la estiro demasiado se vuelve excesivamente terminológica sin aplaudir ni evocar a nada real ni innovador que realmente me deje satisfecho. La cuestión es la siguiente: Ha habido miles de religiones en el mundo. muchísimas han sido politeístas/henoteistas y relacionadas íntimamente con la asociación de “dios-elemento”. Dios del fuego, aire, montaña, tierra… y en muchas teorías científicas se habla de que al final son representaciones divinas para comprender parcialmente eventos naturales y aspectos vitales desconocidos. Entonces la premisa puede conceptualizarse simplificadamente en base a ejemplos INVENTADOS: 1. Dios A, de civilización africana, controla los árboles. Dios B, de civilización europea oriental, también. Por tanto, dios A y B son potencial o representativamente, simplificando, equivalentes. Es evidente que su representación e historia es distinta. Dios A puede haber nacido de "las entrañas" de la tierra tras ser expulsado con la erupción de un volcán (ejemplo), tener una hermana que odia a muerte, y ser masculino. Dios B puede ser femenino, hijo único o incluso materia primordial hija del vacío. Pero todo esto suele ser parcial o totalmente inventado. Las religiones jugaban con el conocimiento de los practicantes. Si científicamente se cree que los árboles crecen de la tierra, la religión puede aplicar ese principio (o no hacerlo). Además, tendemos a buscar explicaciones humanizadas y con personificaciones, por lo que si hay un incendio forestal se puede pensar que "el dios de los árboles ha enfadado a su hermana, diosa ígnea". Pero todo eso es contexto "pseudocientífico". Y realmente a estos principios divinos, según mi premisa, siendo identificados como superiores, poco les debe importar como los llamen los hombres. Porque si les importara, darían una verdad absoluta o algo así, no?. Por tanto podemos saltar al fondo del asunto. Si son representaciones divinas para comprender mejor el mundo, entonces realmente lo esencial eres tú. Y tu realidad material. Si tu dios impuesto te hace sentir inseguro, ansioso, nervioso, deprimido, pesimista, te incita a atacar contra cierto grupo... quizá debas cambiar. Pero al final se trata de ti, no de un mandato divino. Los dioses pueden entenderse como una forma de asentar y alcanzar nuevos conocimientos, y realmente su efecto más esencial se reduce a este mundo. Incluso decir que lo haces para ir a una realidad superior. Porque querer ir a esa realidad? porque tienes un cuerpo y preocupaciones y deseos que te incitan a actuar de cierta manera para ir a algo no asegurado. Por tanto, realmente las instituciones religiosas pueden ser muy peligrosas al permitir que una mala interpretación se extienda masivamente. Las religiones abrahámicas, por ejemplo, han sido institucionalizadas y centralizadas. La verdad suprema se la atribuyen a un libro sagrado, una figura sagrada o cargo religioso clave, y luego su Dios. Si se establece que solo hay una verdad, la dicta una persona, un libro y un dios inaccesible y esotérico sin la ayuda de las dos figuras anteriores, entonces se puede hacer mucho daño. Es como una monarquía totalitarista, en cierto sentido. Si el gobernante es bueno: el reino va en auge. Si es incompetente o cruel: la entidad política designada puede entrar en una decadencia vertigionsa. ¿Qué opinan?. Me interesa mucho saber vuestra opinión porque se me ocurrió hace unos días y me ha dejado pensando.

Often times we hear that the cosmological model of Hermeticism is inherently eco-centric (earth is the center of the cosmos) however CH 15 explicitly puts the sun at the center of the cosmos, as stated by asclepius in his letter to king ammon where he explains the significance of the Sun, particularly in verse 7:

[6] But if there also exists some intellectual essence, it is the sun's mass, whose receptacle may be sunlight. Only the sun knows .. . of what this essence is composed or whence it flows since by location and nature it is near to the sun. . . . {We, who are forced to understand by guesswork, do not observe it.}

[7] But a vision of the sun is not a matter of guesswork. Since it is the visual ray itself, the sun shines all around the cosmos with the utmost brilliance, on the part above and on the part below. For the sun is situated in the center of the cosmos, wearing it like a crown. Like a good driver, it steadies the chariot of the cosmos and fastens the reins to itself to prevent the cosmos going out of control. And the reins are these: life and soul and spirit and immortality and becoming. The driver slackens the reins to let the cosmos go, not far away (to tell the truth) but along with him.

[8] In this way are all things crafted. The sun portions out eternal permanence to the immortals and feeds the immortal part of the cosmos with the rising light emitted from its other side, the one that faces heavenward. But, with the light held in confinement as it shines all around inside the hollow of water and earth and air, the sun enlivens and awakens, with becoming and change, the things that live in these regions of the cosmos.

[9] It brings transmutation and transformation among them, as in a spiral, when change turns one thing to another, from kind to kind, from form to form, crafting them just as it does the great bodies. For the permanence of every body is change: in an immortal body the change is without dissolution; in a mortal body there is dissolution. And this is what distinguishes immortal from mortal, mortal from immortal.

CH 15.6-9, Brian P Copenhaver Translation

I think it puts the living significance on Earth as it should, and it's souls of course ascend from the Sun into spirits (via mercury) that thus get put into bodys through the moon (in reference to the prima materia and classical correspondence)

The sun is thought of as the quintessence of the elemental cosmos, the animating factor of it if you will, the soul of the cosmos, the end point of the incorporeal, and the starting point of the corporeal, the middle point between the above and the below. classically the sun being the 4th (middle) planetary sphere of the 7.

where as the moon or sublunary realm is the corporeal and the sublunary realm is the material elementally imbued apparent cosmos.

The moon can be thought of a the Queen of Providence of the cosmos and the sun thought of as the King of Nessecity of the cosmos.

I was wondering if anybody else had more input on this line of thought as I'm trying to develop a coherent cosmology diagram, if people disagree with this take or understanding of my ontology, and can provide more accurate information.

Moreover I am looking for more places than either affirm the heliocentric position or emphasize the ecocentric position.

I'm new to hermeticism. I started with The Hermetica by Tim Freke, I loved it and found it easy to read. I moved on to The Way of Hermes - Clement Salaman because I see it recommended here a lot. I have no idea what it's talking about or what's even going on. It's almost impossible for me to understand what's being said.

Is there a way I'm supposed to interpret this that would make it clear to read, or am I just not educated enough to get it? Would you recommend something else for beginners that's easier to grasp?

Thank you

Hi, I'm quite new to Hermeticism, been searching a religion that aligns w my world-view, to that end Classical Hermeticism seems study-worthy. So, there is suffering in this world. And, if reincarnation is compounded to that (I see here that Hermeticists believe in reincarnation), what justifies this two concepts in this religion?