The Digital Ambler

This post is part of a series, “49 Days of Definitions”, discussing and explaining my thoughts and meditations on a set of aphorisms explaining crucial parts of Hermetic philosophy. These aphorisms, collectively titled the “Definitions from Hermes Trismegistus to Asclepius”, lay out the basics of Hermetic philosophy, the place of Man in the Cosmos, and all that stuff. It’s one of the first texts I studied as a Hermetic magician, and definitely what I would consider to be a foundational text. The Definitions consist of 49 short aphorisms broken down into ten sets, each of which is packed with knowledge both subtle and obvious, and each of which can be explained or expounded upon. While I don’t propose to offer the be-all end-all word on these Words, these might afford some people interested in the Definitions some food for thought, one aphorism per day.

Today, let’s discuss the second definition, part I, number 2 of 5:

Consequently (there are) three worlds on the whole: two units (make up) the sensible and one (is) the intelligible; one (is) after the species, and the third one (is) after (its) fullness. All of the multiple (belongs to) the three worlds: two of them (are) visibile: (namely) the sensible and man, (that) destructible world; and the intelligible is this God; he is not visible, but evident within the visible (things).

Starting off from the last definition, we know that there are three worlds:

God: intelligible, immovable, partially sensible
Heaven: sensible, moveable
Man: sensible, destructible, reasonable

Further, we also know that Man and God are one, with Man taking the form and essence of God but being still destructible in part. Of the “three worlds on the whole”, the “two units” that make up the sensible part of the world is that of heaven and that of Man, while God is the world that is intelligible, thus strengthening our conjecture from before that while all sensible things may be in God, God itself is not necessarily sensible but is still intelligible.

The part of this definition distinguishing species and fullness refers to the relationship between Man and God. Both are one, as said before, but there’s a difference this time between species and fullness. Species is one type, essence, or idea of thing; this may be called the Greek eidea, while the Fullness may be appropriately called the pleroma, which indicates all possible things, the complete entireity of the cosmos, universe, world, and every thing that can, will, has, and no longer exists. The world of God, then, can be said to encompass literally all things, and that all things both possible and actual are in God.

Hermes basically disproves the negative of this, saying that there is nothing that is actually nothing, and that all things (even space itself) are filled with things within God, even that which is not sensible but only intelligible (i.e. that which is part of God and no other world). Compare the Asclepius (book XXXIII):

Now on the subject of a “Void,”—which seems to almost all a thing of vast importance,—I hold the following view. Naught is, naught could have been, naught ever will be void. For all the members of the Cosmos are completely full; so that Cosmos itself is full and [quite] complete with bodies, diverse in quality and form, possessing each its proper kind and size. And of these bodies—one’s greater than another, or another’s less than is another, by difference of strength and size. Of course, the stronger of them are more easily perceived, just as the larger [are]. The lesser ones, however, or the more minute, can scarcely be perceived, or not at all—those which we know are things [at all] by sense of touch alone. Whence many come to think they are not bodies, and that there are void spaces,—which is impossible. So also [for the Space] which is called Extra-cosmic,—if there be any (which I do not believe),—[then] is it filled by Him with things Intelligible, that is things of like nature with His own Divinity; just as this Cosmos which is called the Sensible, is fully filled with bodies and with animals, consonant with its proper nature and its quality;—[bodies] the proper shape of which we do not all behold, but [see] some large beyond their proper measure, some very small; either because of the great space which lies between [them and ourselves], or else because our sight is dull; so that they seem to us to be minute, or by the multitude are thought not to exist at all, because of their too great tenuity. I mean the daimones, who, I believe, have their abode with us, and heroes, who abide between the purest part of air above us and the earth,—where it is ever cloudless, and no [movement from the] motion of a single star [disturbs the peace].

Because of this, Asclepius, thou shalt call nothing void; unless thou wilt declare of what that’s void, which thou dost say is void;—for instance, void of fire, of water, or things like to these. For if it should fall out, that it should seem that anything is able to be void of things like these,—though that which seemeth void be little or be big, it still cannot be void of spirit and of air.

In another sense, however, it may be said that God is fullness itself; instead of merely saying that all things exist within God, it can also be said that all things are God, and since God is all things, God is All. However, since God is still one divinely simple entity, God is also One, and thus All is One. Compare this from the Corpus Hermeticum (book XV, part 3):

Thus, then, will I begin the sermon by invocation unto God, the universals’ Lord and Maker, [their] Sire, and [their] Encompasser; who though being All is One, and though being One is All; for that the Fullness of all things is One, and [is] in One, this latter One not coming as a second [One], but both being One. And this is the idea that I would have thee keep, through the whole study of our sermon, Sire! For should one try to separate what seems to be both All and One and Same from One,—he will be found to take his epithet of “All” from [the idea of] multitude, and not from [that of) fullness—which is impossible; for if he part All from the One, he will destroy the All. For all things must be One—if they indeed are One. Yea, they are One; and they shall never cease being One—in order that the Fullness may not be destroyed.

And, as Hermes says, all things will always be One, just as God is One, and so that Fullness "may not be destroyed"; we know that God is not destructible because of definition I.1, but that individual parts within God may be (e.g. Man).

On the next point in the definition, that "all of the multiple belongs to the three worlds", this is just another way of saying that all things that exist or can exist do so somewhere, somehow: either it is in the world of Man, the world of heaven, or the world of God. However, two of the worlds are "visible", which are the "sensible" (meaning heaven, or the sensible world external of Man) and Man itself, "that destructible world". This is where we finally get to compare the destructibility of Man with heaven, which is not said to be destructible; thus, we might infer that heaven is indestructible and that the only thing that is destructible is Man, though this might be reaching a bit too far for the moment.

However, both heaven and Man are indeed sensible, which is pitted against the intelligibility of God, which is clarified to be "not visible" (and thus not sensible, at least physically or in the same manner that corresponds to things "visible" existing) but "evident within the visible things". Again, we are told that God is in all things, and from before, we know that all things are in God. Plus, we know that heaven is moveable and that God is immoveable, and that God exerts power over heaven; thus, we know that God has the power to affect and change heaven, which can be extended to the act of creation. Creation makes something within God manifest, either outside the sensible worlds or within them. Plus, it can be said that all things that are makeable are made within God and yet separate from him; things that are made are no longer intelligible, but they become sensible. Compare the Corpus Hermeticum (book V, parts 1 and 2):

I will recount for thee this sermon (logos) too, O Tat, that thou may’st cease to be without the mysteries of the God beyond all name. And mark thou well how That which to the many seems unmanifest, will grow most manifest for thee. Now were It manifest, It would not be. For all that is made manifest is subject to becoming, for it hath been made manifest. But the Unmanifest for ever is, for It doth not desire to be made manifest. It ever is, and maketh manifest all other things. Being Himself unmanifest, as ever being and ever making-manifest, Himself is not made manifest. God is not made Himself; by thinking-manifest, He thinketh all things manifest. Now “thinking-manifest” deals with things made alone, for thinking-manifest is nothing else than making.

He, then, alone who is not made, ’tis clear, is both beyond all power of thinking-manifest, and is unmanifest. And as He thinketh all things manifest, He manifests through all things and in all, and most of all in whatsoever things He wills to manifest. Do thou, then, Tat, my son, pray first unto our Lord and Father, the One-and-Only One, from whom the One doth come, to show His mercy unto thee, in order that thou mayest have the power to catch a thought of this so mighty God, one single beam of Him to shine into thy thinking. For thought alone “sees” the Unmanifest, in that it is itself unmanifest. If, then, thou hast the power, He will, Tat, manifest to thy mind’s eyes. The Lord begrudgeth not Himself to anything, but manifests Himself through the whole world. Thou hast the power of taking thought, of seeing it and grasping it in thy own “hands,” and gazing face to face upon God’s Image. But if what is within thee even is unmanifest to thee, how, then, shall He Himself who is within thy self be manifest for thee by means of [outer] eyes?

And again, in book XIV, parts 2 and 3:

If all things manifest have been and are being made, and made things are not made by their own selves but by another; [if] made things are the many,—nay more, are all things manifest and all things different and not alike; and things that are being made are being made by other [than themselves];—there is some one who makes these things; and He cannot be made, but is more ancient than the things that can. For things that can be made, I say, are made by other [than themselves]; but of the things that owe their being to their being made, it is impossible that anything should be more ancient than them all, save only That which is not able to be made.

So He is both Supreme, and One, and Only, the truly wise in all, as having naught more ancient [than Himself]. For He doth rule o’er both the number, size and difference of things that are being made, and o’er the continuity of their making [too]. Again, things makeable are seeable; but He cannot be seen. For for this cause He maketh,—that He may not be able to be seen. He, therefore, ever maketh; and therefore can He ne’er be seen. To comprehend Him thus is meet; and comprehending, [it is meet] to marvel; and marvelling, to count oneself as blessed, as having learnt to know one’s Sire.

Thus, as God makes all things, all things still remain a part of God and within him, just as God remains in all things. However, they become sensible, and no longer part of the world of God, but become part of the world of heaven or of man; these are still part of God and, especially in the case of Man, in the same form as God, but are not identical with God, though they are still One. It’s a little convoluted, but you can think of it in terms of emanations within emanations, such as that of Qabbalah. Further, God is “evident within the visible things”, indicating that not only is he present in all things made visible and sensible, but also that he has left his mark upon them in creating them.

Today, let’s discuss the third definition, part I, number 3 of 5:

Just as soul keeps up the figure (while being) within the body, which cannot possibly be constituted without a soul, likewise all of that visible cannot possibly be constituted without the invisible.

A short definition, but perhaps perplexing. It begins with an example to illustrate a later point (which is common for many of these aphorisms later on), but even the example is hard to understand without first clarifying some terms. First, we have the body, which refers to our physical, corporeal bodies. It’s understood in many schools of classical philosophy that Man is not merely a physical entity, but that we have some animating principle within us that itself or some link to it is kept within our bodies, something between the worlds of heaven and of God. This animating principle may be seen as the soul, which moves the body and makes Man more than an animal or a peculiarly-arranged random mass of sinew and muscle. However, the animating principle of the soul is itself hard to define; Agrippa basically says (book III, chapter 36) that the soul is the intermediary function that combines the intelligible mind (God) with the sensible body (heaven), binding the impressions and sensory data into a more-or-less unified whole (Man), especially as it pertains to occult virtues. Further, Agrippa says nearly the same exact thing as the bits from the Corpus Hermeticum, the Asclepius, and the Definitions as above (emphasis in boldface mine):

The most abundant God (as Trismegisus saith) hath framed two Images like himself, viz. the world and man, that in one of these he might sport himself with certain wonderfull operations…he hath fabricated this externall world after the example of the Internall, viz. Ideall world, sending forth nothing of the essence of the Idea, but created of nothing that which he had from eternity by the Idea: God also created after his Image; for as the world is the Image of God, so man is the Image of the world. Hence some think that it is spoken, that man is not created simply the Image of God, but after the Image, or the Image of the Image; therefore he is called Microcosme, that is the lesser world; The world is a Rationall creature, Immortall; man in like manner is rationall but mortal, that is, dissolvable; for (as Hermes saith) seeing the world it self is immortall, it is Impossible that any part of it can perish. Therefore to dye [die], is a vain name, and even as Vacuum is no where, so also Death; Therefore we say a man dieth, when his Soul and body are separated, not that anything of them perisheth or is turned into nothing. Notwithstanding the true Image of God is his word. The wisdome, life, light and Truth existing by himself, of which Image mans soul is the Image, in regard of which we are said to be made after the Image of God, not after the Image of the world, or of the creatures; for as God cannot be touched, nor perceived by the ears, nor seen with the eyes; so the soul of man can neither bee seen, heard nor touched. And as God himself is infinite, and cannot be compelled by any, so also the minde of man is free, and cannot be enforced or bounded…

Interesting parts with this text; we can see that the destruction of Man applies only to the body (world of Heaven), and not to the soul (world of Man), and that the body does not become void but becomes other material in the world (what happens in Heaven stays in Heaven). Add to it, we can see that the soul of Man is not visible, nor is it sensible, similar to how God is, and that the soul of Man is made in the image of God, again confirming that the Idea or species of Man is the same as God itself. Agrippa also gives us a little bonus here, saying that because God is immoveable, so too is the soul of Man immoveable, since both are intelligible, non-sensible, and of the same species; we’ll probably return to that later on, but it does indicate that there is a fundamental difference between the world of Man and the moveable world of Heaven.

So, we know that at least the body of Man must also be combined with the soul of Man in order for it to exist in the world of Man. Thus, we know that the world of Man is also partly physical and partly nonphysical. Similarly, so the definition goes, do all things that are visible require some invisible part as well, whether it be an animal, a stone, water, or a planet. All things that exist in the worlds of Man or Heaven, therefore, must be at least partly visible and partly invisible. After all, these are the sensible worlds, and the sensible worlds are within the intelligible God (as from definition I.1), who leaves some impression of his presence or effect or intelligence on all visible things, since he is “evident within the visible” (from definition I.2). This evidence of God, then, is present in how all things function; it is not enough for Man to merely exist within God as Heaven does, but to function as a part of God, just as a body functions by being animated by the soul.

Today, let’s discuss the fourth definition, part I, number 4 of 5:

Now man is a small world because of soul and breath, and a perfect world whose magnitude does not exceed the sensible god, (i.e.) the world. The world (is) intelligible and God (is) Nous; (he is) the truly uncreated, the intelligible; by essence, the uncreated and the ineffable, the intelligible good. In a word, God is the intelligible world, the immovable Monad, the invisible world, the intelligible, invisible and ineffable good.

When this definition says that Man is a “small world”, just as Heaven might better be rendered by the Greek word cosmos, we might be better off using the Greek word microcosmos. In other words, Man is a small world, but the Hermetic sense of this means that the microcosm is a reflection and interconnected system related to the macrocosm (great world); in the words of the Emerald Tablet, “what is above is like what is below, and what is below is like that which is above”. As such, Man reflects and is like the other worlds it is in, namely Heaven and God. Man, however small it may be, is a distinct world from either; it is both less and more than Heaven, and certainly less than God but made in a similar image.

Instead of mere matter as the sensible world of the cosmos is, Man is a different microcosm “because of soul and breath”, the spiritual and physical evidence of God in the visible world. Soul, after all, is that which animates the body, and breath is the physical evidence of soul; breath is spirit, which comes from Latin actually meaning “breath”, similar to Greek pneuma. Related words here are “inspiration”, the breathing in of new life, and “expiration”, the last exhalation of life or usefulness; breath gives power to both physical life, reason, and rationality, especially as it pertains to speech and communication. Soul, on the other hand, is the Latin anima and Greek psykhe, and is the power of motion within the body, that which commutes higher power from immovable God to moveable Heaven by means of the body. The soul, sometimes called the emotional seat of Man, is that which produces motion in the body, animating the body physically and the enabler of physical breath to relay divine spirit.

Thus, Man is different from other parts of Heaven due to its soul and breath, forming its own microcosm within the greater cosmos. However, Man is also “a perfect world whose magnitude does not exceed the sensible god, i.e. the world”. In other words, though Man is distinct from though still perfect as God is (being made in the image of God), Man is still limited and is bound by the world he finds himself in. The “sensible god” can be two different worlds: Heaven and Man. In either case, Man is either still distinctly Man, or Man exists within and a part of Heaven; in neither case does Man become greater than sensible, i.e. purely intelligible as the world of God is.

The sensible world is a distinct and strict subset of the intelligible world, since there are things that are intelligible that are not sensible (God), while all things that are sensible are intelligible (Heaven and Man). So, while Heaven as “the world is intelligible”, God is Nous, or Mind. This is pure intelligibility, that which is intelligence and intelligible both. This is clearly made the case in the Poimandres, the first chapter of the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter I, part 6):

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

What then?—say I.

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

Mind produces Word; as we said before, Word is empowered by Spirit, delivered by Soul, given by Man, and made evident in the World. Mind comes before all; Mind was before the Moist Nature (water) and Darkness (e.g. the darkness upon the face of the deeps in Genesis); Mind is that which spoke “Fiat Lux”, the first words, to make Light, which is also Word. Mind, though not the same as Word, is together with it, just as Man is with God, and since God is Mind, Man is also with the Word.

In addition to being Mind, God is also “the truly uncreated, the intelligible; by essence, the uncreated and the ineffable, the intelligible good”. Since God is the Mind, and Mind made the Word which is the foundation of all other things, nothing has made God, hence “truly uncreated”. Since God is Mind, and since Mind is the forerunner of intelligible Word, and since that which is intelligible creates intelligible or is created by intelligible, and since all things are part of or come from God, God is also intelligible. Plus, although the Word comes from God, the Word is not God; thus, the Mind can never be truly spoken of, because this would then make God into Word, and as words are spoken and made sensible, this would attempt to try to make God sensible; this contradicts our earlier statements about God, so this cannot be the case. As such, this makes God also “ineffable”. Compare Hermes’ talk to Asclepius in the Corpus Hermeticum on what the Bodiless is, the “space in which everything is moved” but yet is itself unmoved (chapter II, parts 12 and 13):

Asc. What, then, is Bodiless?

Her. ’Tis Mind [(Nous)] and Reason (Logos), whole out of whole, all self-embracing, free from all body, from all error free, unsensible to body and untouchable, self stayed in self, containing all, preserving those that are, whose rays, to use a likeness, are Good, Truth, Light beyond light, the Archetype of soul.

Asc. What, then, is God?

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

The last part of that statement, however, poses a new problem for us, since it introduces a new term. Here, it says that God is “the intelligible good”, but we have not yet encountered the word “good”. It’s difficult to say succinctly, but the Good here is the summum bonum of the philosophers, the object of highest knowledge and importance that is the forerunner and producer of all other objects. One of the most well-developed (though still poorly understood) forms of this is Plato’s Form of the Good, which is similar and which influenced later Hermetic and Neo-Platonic thought on the matter. The Good is not the same thing as goodness; in other words, God is the Good, not God is good. The Good has no moral, ethical, or any substantiative meaning, since any such thing can be spoken of and therefore become sensible in addition to intelligible; this limits God, who is intelligible and therefore greater than all things, and since God cannot be limited, God is therefore without any such qualities, even though all qualities come from God (cf. the relationship between Word and Mind). Compare with the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter VI, parts 4 and 5):

And I, for my own part, give thanks to God, that He hath cast it in my mind about the Gnosis of the Good, that it can never be It should be in the world. For that the world is “fullness” of the bad, but God of Good, and Good of God. The excellencies of the Beautiful are round the very essence [of the Good]; nay, they do seem too pure, too unalloyed; perchance ’tis they that are themselves Its essences. For one may dare to say, Asclepius,—if essence, sooth, He have—God’s essence is the Beautiful; the Beautiful is further also Good. There is no Good that can be got from objects in the world. For all the things that fall beneath the eye are image-things and pictures as it were; while those that do not meet [the eye are the realities], especially the [essence] of the Beautiful and Good. Just as the eye cannot see God, so can it not behold the Beautiful and Good. For that they are integral parts of God, wedded to Him alone, inseparate familiars, most beloved, with whom God is Himself in love, or they with God.

If thou canst God conceive, thou shalt conceive the Beautiful and Good, transcending Light, made lighter than the Light by God. That Beauty is beyond compare, inimitate that Good, e’en as God is Himself. As, then, thou dost conceive of God, conceive the Beautiful and Good. For they cannot be joined with aught of other things that live, since they can never be divorced from God. Seek’st thou for God, thou seekest for the Beautiful. One is the Path that leadeth unto It—Devotion joined with Gnosis.

The last part of this definition basically offers a set of correspondences of God, a list of attributes that help clarify the position of God with respect to the other worlds. Continuing the list of correspondences of the three worlds from before:

God: intelligible, immovable, partially sensible, invisible, ineffable, Monad, Good
Heaven: sensible, moveable
Man: sensible, destructible, reasonable

Of the new correspondences for God, we now only have one thing left to discuss: the Monad. The Monad is the Greek word for the “One Thing”, that which is alone in itself, made by itself endlessly (i.e. unmade), making all things, coming first, and so on. Essentially, the Monad is another synonym for God; just as all things are present within God, God is only One Thing. The talk above about the “bodiless space” in which all things are moved indicates something similar; if all things can be moved in a bodiless space (including the non-physical emotional movement provided by the soul from above), then the space itself is unmoved. Again, the Corpus Hermeticum provides a fuller definition of the Monad and what relationships it has to the myriad of other things (chapter VI, parts 9 through 11):

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

The “Like’s” superiority to the “Unlike “and the “Unlike’s” inferiority unto the “Like” consists in this: The Oneness being Source and Root of all, is in all things as Root and Source. Without [this] Source is naught; whereas the Source [Itself] is from naught but Itself, since It is Source of all the rest. It is Itself Its Source, since It may have no other Source. The Oneness then being Source, containeth every number, but is contained by none; engendereth every number, but is engendered by no other one.

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

Having said that, God is the Good, which is the One, which is Mind. Mind is the source of all things, giving all qualities to all things while having no qualities of its own. For once, the Kybalion comes in good use here, when describing the Mental Universe (chapter 5):

Let us see! On his own plane of being, how does Man create? Well, first, he may create by making something out of outside materials. But this will not do, for there are no materials outside of THE ALL with which it may create. Well, then, secondly, Man pro-creates or reproduces his kind by the process of begetting, which is self-multiplication accomplished by transferring a portion of his substance to his offspring. But this will not do, because THE ALL cannot transfer or subtract a portion of itself, nor can it reproduce or multiply itself–in the first place there would be a taking away, and in the second case a multiplication or addition to THE ALL, both thoughts being an absurdity. Is there no third way in which MAN creates? Yes, there is–he CREATES MENTALLY! And in so doing he uses no outside materials, nor does he reproduce himself, and yet his Spirit pervades the Mental Creation.

Following the Principle of Correspondence, we are justified in considering that THE ALL creates the Universe MENTALLY, in a manner akin to the process whereby Man creates Mental Images. And, here is where the report of Reason tallies precisely with the report of the Illumined, as shown by their teachings and writings. Such are the teachings of the Wise Men. Such was the Teaching of Hermes.

Just as when Man thinks of something, Man does not become his thoughts, nor does Man become his words when he speaks; however, thought and word come from him and help describe or fill him. So too does Mind create and speak the Word as Monad. Although the Monad is One, all things are one within the One. Although the Monad is immoveable, it provides for motion and moving within itself. Although the Monad is the source of Word, it is itself not Word nor can it be made into words. Although the Monad is the Good, it is the source of all qualities without possessing those qualities itself, since this would indicate there is something else besides the Monad that has that not-quality.

Today, let’s discuss the fifth definition, part I, number 5 of 5:

God is eternal and uncreated; man is mortal (although) he is ever-living.

Short, but this contains not only another comparison between God and Man, but also an apparent contradiction regarding Man. Since this statement affords us some more correspondences, let’s continue building up our sets of correspondences to the three worlds given in the first definition:

God: intelligible, immovable, partially sensible, invisible, ineffable, Monad, Good, eternal, uncreated
Heaven: sensible, moveable
Man: sensible, destructible, reasonable, mortal, ever-living

First, let’s go to God. We already know from previous definitions that God is uncreated; God is the Monadic Source of all things, creating all things within itself yet never being made from anything besides itself, never taking away from itself into less nor multiplying itself into more. God is Mind, and Mind is the source of Word, which enables things to be both intelligible and sensible, though the Word itself is spoken only by Mind; although Mind and Word are one, they are not identical, no more than a man’s speech is the same thing as the man itself. I think we get the point by now with this.

However, God is also “eternal”. Eternity is something different from the popular conception of it; while most people consider “eternal” to mean “forever and ever”, extending infinitely foreward and backwards in time, this would more properly be called “everlasting” or “sempiternity”. Eternity, on the other hand, means timelessness. We can consider the passage of time to be like a car driving on an infinite road. A temporal car (neither sempiternal nor eternal) gets on the road at one point, continues driving along it for some time, then exits off the road. A sempiternal car drives along the road, has always driven along the road, and will always continue to drive along the road; just as the road was infinite, so too is the car itself, the only thing changing is its position along the road. An eternal car isn’t on the road at all; instead, the car is off the road entirely infinitely high above it, observing the entire road at once, seeing all points along the road. Similarly, an eternal being is one who doesn’t experience time but is outside it entirely, seeing any set of distinct points in time at the same time, much as one might look at multiple objects on a table from afar instead of feeling each object at the same time; in a geometric manner, it’s similar to a three-dimensional being seeing the entirety of a two-dimensional shape, while a two-dimensional beingcan only see one side of a two-dimensional shape at one time. (You might be interested to go read Flatland to further illustrate this point.)

Because God is both uncreated and eternal, it makes God wholly separate from anything made or unmade. There is simply no way God can be part of time or space; God is bodiless, invisible, and insensible, only being intelligible. God is eternal time just like how he is transcendent in space; although God is always present in all parts of the sensible world, God also is independent of and extends far beyond it and is far more than just that, and in a similar manner just as God is present at all times of the worlds, God also is independent of and extends far beyond it and is far more than just that. This is a powerful statement, allowing God to be truly infinite and unbounded. (There’s also the implication that because God is uncreated, God is also undestructed; that which cannot be made likewise cannot be destroyed, but we’ll encounter that later, probably.)

Now we go to Man. Man is both “mortal” while being “ever-living”; these terms seem to contradict each other. By being mortal, Man can die; by being ever-living (i.e. immortal), Man cannot die. We know that from the first definition, Man is a destructible world; that which is Man can be destroyed. However, Man is also made in the image of God, who is immovable and eternal, and so Man is made like God, and so Man is also in some way immoveable and eternal, right? It’s complicated, but it reflects the inherent complication within the world of Man. This much is said in the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter IV, part 2):

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

The problem here lies in the fact that Man is made in the image of God while being made in Heaven, i.e. the cosmos or material world. Part of us is cosmic, and part of us is godly; we have mind from God “after the species”, but body from Heaven. The parts of soul and spirit are intermediaries between the mind and body, and are neither here nor there for this discussion of mind and body. Mind, being from God, is immovable and eternal; this is the “ever-living” part of Man. The body, being from Heaven, is moveable and destructible; this is the “mortal” part of Man. This is discussed, though not very fully, in the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter VIII, parts 1 and 2):

For there’s no death for aught of things [that are]; the thought [this] word conveys, is either void of fact, or [simply] by the knocking off a syllable what is called “death,” doth stand for “deathless.” For death is of destruction, and nothing in the Cosmos is destroyed. For if Cosmos is second God, a life that cannot die, it cannot be that any part of this immortal life should die. All things in Cosmos are parts of Cosmos, and most of all is man, the rational animal.

For truly first of all, eternal and transcending birth, is God the universals’ Maker. Second is he “after His image,” Cosmos, brought into being by Him, sustained and fed by Him, made deathless, as by his own Sire, living for aye, as ever free from death. Now that which ever-liveth, differs from the Eternal; for He hath not been brought to being by another, and even if He have been brought to being, He hath not been brought into being by Himself, but ever is brought into being. For the Eternal, in that It is eternal, is the all. The Father is Himself eternal of Himself, but Cosmos hath become eternal and immortal by the Father.

Now we get a connection between Man and God: “now that which ever-liveth differs from the Eternal”, since that which is eternal is unmade (“not brought to being by another”), but that which is ever-living (sempiternal) is made and made to be so by God. In addition, since God is uncreated, God is also undestroyable, since God “ever is brought into being”, so God is never destroyed. Similarly, things that are made cannot be destroyed in the true sense of not-existing, hence “nothing in the Cosmos is destroyed”. The Corpus Hermeticum discusses what we call death and what actually happens in the world (chapter VIII, parts 3 and 4):

For matter, son, when it was yet incorporate, was in unorder. And it doth still retain down here this [nature of unorder] enveloping the rest of the small lives—that increase-and-decrease which men call death.

It is round earthly lives that this unorder doth exist. For that the bodies of the heavenly ones preserve one order allotted to them from the Father as their rule; and it is by the restoration of each one [of them] this order is preserved indissolute. The “restoration” then of bodies on the earth is [thus their] composition, whereas their dissolution restores them to those bodies which can never be dissolved, that is to say, which know no death. Privation, thus, of sense is brought about, not loss of bodies.

In other words, this is a Hermetic variant of the law of conservation of mass in physics: mass is neither created or destroyed, but may be rearranged or processed into new forms of mass. Just as “nothing comes from nothing”, the world has always existed, being made sempiternal by the eternal God. However, Man in bodily form is not sempiternal, so only sees part of the sensible world for part of the time it exists. In this way, Man speaks improperly of things “passing into existence” (true creation) or “passing out of existence” (true death). Because of a lack of constant ordering, material and sensible things constantly increase and decrease, while immaterial and intelligible things preserve themselves or are preserved by higher things forever.

Thus, Man takes part of two natures: a temporary material one, and a sempiternal immaterial one. Both come from God, with the material one indirectly through the world of Heaven and the immaterial one directly from God. This produces a weird nesting-doll effect, which I can liken best to a large container of water containing a bubble of air within it, which contains a water droplet within itself. The big water around the bubble represents the intelligible God; the air bubble within the water represents the sensible world; the water droplet inside the bubble represents the entity of Man, which exists within the sensible world with a shape that can change much like the bubble itself, but with a nature like that of the intelligible God outside the bubble and which doesn’t change. At any time, the water droplet can leave the world (with the boundary of air surrounding the water droplet returning to the bubble and not leaving), or a new water droplet can enter the bubble (with the boundary of air surrounding that water droplet coming from the rest of the bubble). In either case, the parts of the bubble proper to the bubble stay within the bubble, while the parts of the water proper to the water stay in the water or stay watery even in air. This, as best as I can describe it, is like the relationship of God (big water), cosmos (air bubble), and Man (water droplets).

This is the final definition for the first set. From this set, we know that there are three worlds: God, Heaven, and Man. God is the uncreated, unbegotten, eternal, intelligible first world of all worlds; there is nothing outside of God, and all things that exist are within God. Within God, which is intelligible, there is an additional world known as Heaven or the cosmos, which begins to be sensible; this contains the material world and all things within that, though things immaterial may not be in the cosmos. Within the Cosmos, there exists another world, that of Man, which acts as a kind of “water droplet in a bubble in water”, partaking of the sensibility of the cosmos and the intelligibility of God, being made from both godly Mind and material Body. To link the two, bodies are also given soul (which provides physical and emotional motion from the mind) and spirit (which provides the capability for reason and speech from the mind and enables the body to live). The mental part of Man is ever-living, just as all things in the cosmos fundamentally are, but the physical part of Man is as physical as anything else in the cosmos is; thus, the link between mind and body is temporary, because the body is only temporary. Because Man is made from both cosmos and God directly, Man reflects both in its own microcosmic form; we derive all our characteristics, forms, motions, words, and qualities from God directly (providing sempiternal qualities) or indirectly via the Cosmos (providing temporal qualities).

Today, let’s discuss the sixth definition, part II, number 1 of 6:

Nous is the invisible good; soul (is) a necessary movement adjusted to every (kind of) body. A body is (made out) of the four qualities, (as) a well-tempered composition of warm, cold, dry and wet: of warm (i.e.) of fire, of cold (i.e.) of air, of dry (i.e.) of earth, of wet (i.e.) of water. Breath is the body of soul or the column of soul.

While the first set of definitions focused on an introduction to the three worlds of Hermes Trismegistus, now we start to dig deeper into the actual meat of the worlds, and here we’re given an introduction to the world of the cosmos, that of ordered creation. Recall that, while God is intelligible, the cosmos is sensible and intelligible where God exists and is evident. Although the world is visible (a special kind of sensible), God is invisible, and since God is the Nous and is also the Good, so too is Nous the Good and invisible. From the Nous is created the cosmos, within the Nous and not exceeding it, so all things that exist in the cosmos are part of the Nous. Plus, the Nous has a special power over the cosmos: the cosmos is moved by the Nous, while the Nous itself is immovable.

The cosmos is formed from a multitude of bodies, some of which are the body of Man, a particular world that intersects with the material world of the cosmos and with the immaterial world of God, being both destructible, inasmuch as anything material can be “destroyed”, i.e. changed or reorganized into another material form. Each body, being movable, must have some quality that allows it to be moved; this is the soul (see definition I.3), where “all of the visibile cannot possibly be constituted without the invisible”, where the invisible portion here is the soul without which “[the body] cannot possibly be constituted”. The soul here is explained to be a “necessary movement” that allows it to function, the special quality derived from God that allows things made in the cosmos to still be a part of God while being so distinct from it.

Further, each soul is “adjusted to every kind of body”, so the animating principle of each body in the cosmos is unique depending on the type of body it is. Note here that the definition says “kind of body” and not simply “body”; this indicates that there are uniform types of souls for different classes of bodies. However, we also know that something made from another thing inherits the qualities of those things; thus, the cosmos as made by God inherits a certain divinity from God, though because the cosmos is not identical with God, it does not inherit those qualities identically. So, while there may be a soul for the type of bodies known as “mammals”, there are also souls for those of “squirrels”, which is a type of mammal; likewise, there will be individual souls for individual squirrels, each suited for each individual body (which itself can be considered a class with only one member). Essentially, this statement is the Hermetic equivalent of the Liskov substitution principle in software engineering. However, to go with a more Hermetic route, we might also explain it with the Corpus Hermeticum (pretty much all of chapter XII, but especially parts 2 through 4):

But in irrational lives Mind is their nature. For where is Soul, there too is Mind; just as where Life, there is there also Soul. But in irrational lives their soul is life devoid of mind; for Mind is the in-worker of the souls of men for good;—He works on them for their own good. In lives irrational He doth co-operate with each one’s nature; but in the souls of men He counteracteth them. For every soul, when it becomes embodied, is instantly depraved by pleasure and by pain. For in a compound body, just like juices, pain and pleasure seethe, and into them the soul, on entering in, is plunged.

O’er whatsoever souls the Mind doth, then, preside, to these it showeth its own light, by acting counter to their prepossessions, just as a good physician doth upon the body prepossessed by sickness, pain inflict, burning or lancing it for sake of health. In just the selfsame way the Mind inflicteth pain upon the soul, to rescue it from pleasure, whence comes its every ill. The great ill of the soul is godlessness; then followeth fancy for all evil things and nothing good. So, then, Mind counteracting it doth work good on the soul, as the physician health upon the body.

But whatsoever human souls have not the Mind as pilot, they share in the same fate as souls of lives irrational. For [Mind] becomes co-worker with them, giving full play to the desires towards which [such souls] are borne,—[desires] that from the rush of lust strain after the irrational; [so that such human souls,] just like irrational animals, cease not irrationally to rage and lust, nor ever are they satiate of ills. For passions and irrational desires are ills exceeding great; and over these God hath set up the Mind to play the part of judge and executioner.

Now that we understand more about the soul, we can now go onto more about bodies. And, finally, we get something concrete: “a body is made out of the four qualities, as a well-tempered composition of warm, cold, dry and wet: of warm i.e. fire, of cold i.e. air, of dry i.e. earth, of wet i.e. water”. Here we have the four classical elements of Empedocles along with his four qualities: hot and cold, wet and dry. However, unlike Empedoclean classical elements with two qualities, each element here is ascribed one quality: fire is hot, air is cold, water is wet, earth is dry. Empedoclean elements have two qualities: fire is hot and dry, air is hot and wet, water is wet and cold, earth is dry and cold. Aristotle ascribed each of the Empedoclean elements a primary and secondary quality: fire is primarily hot and secondarily dry, air is primarily moist and secondarily hot, water is primarily cold and secondarily moist, earth is primarily dry and secondarily cold. The system in this definition, however, is the same as that of the Stoics, which focused more on the material basis of the cosmos than most other philosophies.

These four qualities of hot, cold, dry, and moist provide the foundation for all bodies that exist, and each body has certain amounts of each. We can be simple about things, saying that a body of water has little air in it since it is full of water, or that a brick has little air in it since it is full of earth; likewise, that things like fire have no coldness, and that ice has no heat in it. However, this can also be expanded as Cornelius Agrippa does in his First Book to more spiritual or immaterial distinctions (book I, chapter 3):

For some are heavy, as Earth and Water, and others are light, as Aire and Fire. Wherefore the Stoicks called the former passives, but the latter actives. And yet once again Plato distinguished them after another manner, and assigns to every one of them three qualities, viz. to the Fire brightness, thinness and motion, but to the Earth darkness, thickness and quietness. And according to these qualities the Elements of Fire and Earth are contrary. But the other Elements borrow their qualities from these, so that the Aire receives two qualities of the Fire, thinness and motion; and one of the Earth, viz. darkness. In like manner Water receives two qualities of the Earth, darkness and thickness, and one of Fire, viz. motion. But Fire is twice more thin then Aire, thrice more movable, and four times more bright: and the Aire is twice more bright, thrice more thin, and four times more moveable then Water. Wherefore Water is twice more bright then Earth, thrice more thin, and four times more movable. As therefore the Fire is to the Aire, so Aire is to the Water, and Water to the Earth; and again, as the Earth is to the Water, so is the Water to the Aire, and the Aire to the Fire. And this is the root and foundation of all bodies, natures, vertues, and wonderfull works; and he which shall know these qualities of the Elements, and their mixtions, shall easily bring to pass such things that are wonderfull, and astonishing, and shall be perfect in Magick.

So much for an introduction to the elements. All bodies that exist, as said above, consist of these four elements and qualities, but there is one more physical phenomenon to explain still in this definition: that of breath. Breath “is the body of soul or the column of soul”, and the text seems to offer both these descriptions equivalently or equally. In the first, that the breath is the “body of soul”, we can go back to our earlier definitions and describe the breath as the physical evidence of the invisible part of the body that affords it motion; in other words, the breath (or spirit) is the mechanism that allows the soul to come in contact with the body and vice versa. As such, just as all bodies are given a mind, and because all bodies require a soul in order to be moved, the spirit allows the mind to interface between the soul and the body. In this sense, the spirit can be seen as the body of soul that allows the body of Man to live.

In the other view, however, the breath is the “column of soul”, which is a similar but new interpretation. Columns indicate support or understanding, something that holds another thing up, and just as the soul “keeps up the figure while being within the body” (from I.3), the breath is similarly the support that keeps up the soul while being within the soul. In this view, the spirit is within the soul, and animates the soul as much as the soul animates the body. However, in the previous view where the spirit is the body of the soul, it’s the soul that exists within the spirit, which may indicate that the soul is within the spirit independently of the body or that the soul inhabits the body as well as the spirit and the spirit interacts with the body in a different manner than the soul does, or that the soul is within the spirit which is itself in the body. In the former interpretation, it would seem that the Mind goes through two agents to work with the Body: both soul and spirit equally yet independently, with the soul acting on the spirit which acts on the body as well as with the soul acting on the body directly. In the latter interpretation, it sould seem that the Mind goes through the soul to activate the spirit which itself activates the Body. Both of these accounts, however, conflict with the notion that the breath is the “column of soul”, where it seems that the Mind goes through the spirit to activate the soul which itself activates the body.

Between the different interpretations here of the role of body, soul, spirit, and mind, it doesn’t seem clear which view is being presented here. Then again, perhaps that’s the point; maybe different bodies simply require different arrangements of soul and spirit, having one but not the other or operating in different ways depending on the body and the type of soul. After all, we know that all bodies have souls, and that all souls come from Nous. However, we only have concrete evidence that man has breath (from I.4) without yet speaking of other types of bodies, and this makes sense, kinda. Rocks don’t breathe, right? Rocks, despite having souls, also don’t really move independently (yet, being movable, still have souls) but are utterly movable and mutable, being changed by other forces that are more animate than itself. Perhaps the function of spirit is tailored to each body much as the soul is for each body, or that spirit really is independent of soul but relies on the nature of the body (bodies without lungs or means to breathe simply do not breathe). In either case, where the breath is the body of soul (having the soul within the spirit to animate it) or the column of soul (having the spirit within the soul to animate it), it’s clear that both interpretations have different roles to play in the cosmos.

Today, let’s discuss the seventh definition, part II, number 2 of 6:

Heaven is an eternal body, an immutable body, unalterable and mixed up out of soul and Nous. Air is the separation of heaven from the earth or the conjunction of heaven with earth. What is air? They call ‘air’ the interval between heaven and earth, by which they are not separated fromeach other, since heavens and earth are united (with each other) by the air.

This definition focuses primarily on the element of air, the element of the quality of cold from the last definition, and one of the four elements that together compose all bodies that exist. First, however, the definition talks about the relationship of heaven, or the cosmos, to God. Based on this first statement about the cosmos, we can add to our correspondence list for the three worlds from the first set of definitions:

God: intelligible, immovable, partially sensible, invisible, ineffable, Monad, Good, eternal, uncreated
Heaven: sensible, movable, eternal, immutable, unalterable
Man: sensible, destructible, reasonable, mortal, ever-living

We now know that the cosmos is an “eternal body”, so it’s eternal in the same sense that God is eternal; although God made the cosmos which gives the cosmos a “beginning”, it’s not in the sense of time that it has a beginning. Instead, it can be asserted that the cosmos has no temporal start or end: it always has been and it always will be. Add to it, we also know that the cosmos is a body, and more importantly, one single body. Although there are many parts to the cosmos (every rock, tree, person, entity, etc. that exists), it is still all one cohesive body, joined together by means of the elements in the cosmos, all of which exists within and as part of God, which itself is a single Monad. This is kinda cool, and suggests that all things that exist operate more-or-less harmoniously just as the parts of a human body work together as one entity.

When the definition calls the cosmos “immutable”, it doesn’t mean in the fact that nothing in the cosmos can change. Rather, that quality of the cosmos would make it “immovable”, just as God is immovable; when something is immovable, it means both in terms of spacial motion as well as composition. God is immovable because there is spacially nowhere where God is already not, so God cannot move somewhere where it is not; further, all things that exist exist within and as part of God, so God cannot change into something that does not exist. This is what immobility would be, and we already know from the first definition that the cosmos is, indeed, movable; thus, the cosmos has the capacity to be moved within itself (especially as it pertains to things within the cosmos in relationship to each other), as well as has the capacity to change its composition from one thing into another thing. Although, as discussed before, all things that exist do not truly become destroyed but only ever change form, so too are things in the cosmos able to change form and composition, never truly leaving the cosmos or being destroyed out of it.

That the cosmos is “unalterable” is similar in tone to “immutable”, though the difference is subtle. I contend that while “immutable” indicates that the composition of the cosmos will never change, “unalterable” indicates that it can never actively be changed by some agent. In other words, no matter how hard we might try to bomb something out of existence, the unalterable quality of the cosmos prevents it from actually being made non-existent. The distinction here is very minor, but indicates that the cosmos can neither have something added to it or removed from it that is similarly cosmic either on its own or by some outside or inside force. The cosmos, in other words, is a system whose material properties are fixed in amount and essence, though the materials inside the cosmos are subject to change in terms of composition and arrangement.

Add to it, the cosmos is “mixed up out of soul and Nous”. After all, since the cosmos is a body (just an eternal, immutable, and unalterable one), the cosmos must have a soul, since all bodies have souls. Further, just as the soul comes from the Nous which is God, so too is the cosmos made from God as well as being mixed up within and with God. In this sense, due to the shared natures between the cosmos and God, we might also say that the cosmos is the body of God. After all, just as any sensible thing requires the nonsensible intelligible aspect to exist, the body of heaven must similarly have something intelligible behind it; here we are told that the cosmos is empowered and ensouled by God itself. God, of course, is far more than the cosmos, just as the mind of any human is greater than the human itself belonging properly to the world of Man.

Now we come to something new: a new distinction within the sensible world: “air is the separation of heaven from the earth or the conjunction of heaven with earth”. While before we supposed that all sensible things were part of heaven (i.e. the cosmos), now we have some new separation between heaven and earth. While all of the cosmos is one body, that body is composed of the four elements; the air is one such element that separates the earthy part of the cosmos from itself yet exists within the cosmos, just as the cosmos is separated from God yet exists within it. The thing that separates or joins together these parts of the heavenly cosmos with the earthly cosmos is air.

The next part of the definition poses a rhetorical question: “what is air?” Air, as it turns out, is no separation; air is the “interval between heaven and earth”, and can be thought of as a glue that binds the two together. Since the cosmos is one body, there can be no disjointed parts within the body, no gaps or voids. Air, since it is an element that composes a body, is not void; thus, any area filled with air is not truly empty. This would be equivalent to saying that two lands separated by a river are completely and forever cut off, when one can simply walk, swim, or sail across the river to reach to the other side; the water joins the two lands, but does not truly separate them. Compare Hermes’ talk to Asclepius about the notion of air and void from the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter II, part 11):

Her. Is not air body?

Asc. It is.

Her. And doth this body not pervade all things, and so, pervading, fill them? And “body”; doth body not consist from blending of the “four”? Full, then, of air are all thou callest void; and if of air, then of the “four.” Further, of this the converse follows, that all thou callest full are void—of air; for that they have their space filled out with other bodies, and, therefore, are not able to receive the air therein. These, then, which thou dost say are void, they should be hollow named, not void; for they not only are, but they are full of air and spirit.

Indeed, the definition goes on to fully state that air is not a separation between heaven and earth, “since heavens and earth are united with each other by the air”. Air, then, is a means of linking and joining things in the cosmos. Things on earth down here are joined to the bodies of the cosmos high above in the heavens by means of air; just as one can use a river to link two bodies of land, so too can air allow us to engage with forces high above just as things high above can interact with forces down below. Truly, the air is a “conjunction” far more than a “separation”, though one might mistakenly call it a separation just as one might consider a man’s death to be the utter annihilation and cosmic removal of the man. In other words, perspective matters.

The only thing left unexplained in this aphorism is the matter of earth. Earth, as far as can be said now, is some part within the cosmos that exists as part of the world of heaven; as such, the earth has at least some of the qualities that the cosmos itself has, such as sensibility and mobility. Earth elementally has the quality of dryness, as from definition II.1, while air has the quality of coldness. Earth is part of the cosmos and is joined to the higher parts of the cosmos and non-earth things by means of air. That’s about as much as we can say so far

Today, let’s discuss the eighth definition, part II, number 3 of 6:

Earth is the support of the world, the basis of the elements, the nurse of the living (beings), the receptacle of the dead; for (it comes) last after fire and water, since it became what (it is) after fire and water. What is the power of the world? To keep up for ever the immortal (beings), such as they came into being, and to always change the mortal.

While the previous definition described the role of air in the cosmos, this one describes the role of earth, which is good since the earth was the only part of the previous definition that was left undefined. Again, this whole part of definitions describe the cosmos, and now we’re getting into the nitty-gritty of the parts of the cosmos and what its constituent parts are: the elements. Air is that which conjoins the highest parts of the cosmos with the lowest, which is earth.

Earth is “the support of the world”, and here this provides an interesting comparison with the relationship between bodies and souls generally. In definition 1.3, the soul is said to support or “keep up” the body, and that all bodies require souls. Similarly, the breath (or spirit, which may or may not be the same thing as air) is said to be the support or the “column” of the soul. The thing that supports another is what enables it to work: the soul animates the body, and the spirit facilitates the motion of the soul. Earth is a part of the cosmos, which is the sensible world, and earth is said to be the support of the world. Earth is the element responsible, then, for making the cosmos what it is as distinct from the world of God: earth enables the cosmos to be sensible and movable. Earth is the foundation of the sensible world, the foundation of the cosmos itself. Indeed, just as the cosmos is made from the four elements, if earth is the foundation of the cosmos, then earth is also the foundation for everything made from the elements; earth is “the basis of the elements”.

Thus, because all things that are composed of the four elements require earth, earth is “the nurse of the living beings”. Anything that arises in the cosmos does so because of earth; anything that has a body does so because of earth; anything that is able to move and be moved in the cosmos does so because of earth. Everything that exists in the cosmos with a body comes from earth in at least some sense; as in Ecclesiastes 3:20, “all go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.” And, indeed, according to the definition, earth is also the “receptacle of the dead”; all things that die or are destroyed return to earth. However, bear in mind that nothing ever truly dies or is destroyed, but only changes form from one thing into another. As such, when this definition says that earth is the “receptacle of the dead”, it refers to the ultimate nature of all material entities and bodies: when all water is evaporated out, all head dissipated, all breath expired, all that is left is earth. (This leads into something like the Black Work and White Work of the alchemists, but that’s for another day.)

Earth is said to come “last after fire and water, since it became what it is after fire and water”. Here we have the beginnings of a cosmogony: in the beginning was God, who spoke the Word and somehow created the cosmos and eventually Man. Within the cosmos, the elements were formed at different stages, not all at once: fire and water and air came first in some manner, and earth was last. Earth was made unique, partitioned out, or “separated” out from the cosmos last. Something similar is said in the Poemandres of the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter I, part 5):

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

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

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

Earth is often seen as the heaviest of the four elements. Fire rises up, air moves around, water flows around; earth sinks and compresses into itself. Earth is often exemplified as the rocks, boulders, crystals, metals, soil, humus, loam, and dust that is lowest on the ground, that which falls from the sky or from trees down through the air and water. If one mixes up a batch of mud, over time the water will rise to the top and the earth will sink to the bottom; the earth is what comes out last when all else is formed, and when all else leaves again to return to its natural elements. Fire can burn earth to produce brittle earth, but it’s still earth; air can break earth to form dusty earth, but it’s still earth; water can moisten earth to produce sloppy earth, but it’s still earth. Earth is the last element, and the one that is always produced from any interaction with the other elements. Plato discusses the nature of the element of earth in similar terms in the Timaeus:

To earth, then, let us assign the cubical form; for earth is the most immoveable of the four and the most plastic of all bodies, and that which has the most stable bases must of necessity be of such a nature…

From all that we have just been saying about the elements or kinds, the most probable conclusion is as follows : earth, when meeting with fire and dissolved by its sharpness, whether the dissolution take place in the fire itself or perhaps in some mass of air or water, is borne hither and thither, until its parts, meeting together and mutually harmonising, again become earth ; for they can never take any other form…

In essence, where the world is (and by “world” here I mean the sensible world of the cosmos), earth must necessarily be, because earth is the “support of the world”, its core and defining element that forms the foundation for all other elements, including itself, to interact amongst each other. The cosmos is made because of earth; without earth, nothing tangible or visible could exist. This is what makes the cosmos separate from the rest of the All as God; basically, the cosmos is earthy, and because of this, the question “what is the power of the world?” is essentially “what is the power of earth?”

To that question, the definition gives “to keep up for ever the immortal beings, such as they came into being, and to always change the mortal”. The first part, “to keep up for ever the immortal beings”, indicates that all things that live forever (note the use of “immortal” here as opposed to the “ever-living” of Man) live by means of earth, which supports (“keeps up”) these creatures. Anything that exists forever in the cosmos does so because of the imperishable, indissoluble earth that it consists of. The Earth (not the element, but the planet) is something that can very well be considered immortal, as can the other planets, as can mountains or similar. These things are called “immortal” since their bodies always were and always will be (modern notions of physics being laid aside for now). Mortal things, however, are those whose bodies pass into existence from and within the cosmos, and whose bodies will pass out of existence from and back into the cosmos. These things suffer the increase and decrease appropriate to physical bodies, with the element of earth that composes them taking the hits, so to speak. Earth, being the densest and most plastic of the elements, is what is physically acted upon by the other elements; the other elements act together upon the body, changing it and reacting with it, eventually causing deterioration, decrease, death, and destruction. Again, though, the element of earth that composes these bodies only ever decomposes back into the raw elements that they consist of; mass and elements will always be conserved within the cosmos, since nothing comes from nothing.

Today, let’s discuss the ninth definition, part II, number 4 of 6:

Water is a fecund essence, the support of earth, as a nutritive essence.

Delightfully short! While definition II.2 described air and II.3 described earth, II.4 describes water, and unlike the others, it’s pretty straightforward. Water is “fecund”, so it helps nurture and produce; water is the essence of fertility. Without water, nothing can grow; although earth is the nurse of the living, it’s water that helps them thrive, it’s water that helps nourish and provide nutrition. Dry earth alone can do nothing, but with water, earth can be made into clay or loam, and be made to grow. Water is that which provides and builds upon the earth.

The middle part of this definition, though, says that water is “the support of earth”. We’ve encountered this type of phrase before in II.3, where “earth is the support of the world”. In II.3, we understood that to mean that the cosmos is made material and sensible because of the quality of earth, that all things with any mass or matter in them owe it to their component of the earthy element. Thus, just as the soul “keeps up the figure while being within the body” (I.3) and so is the support of the body, earth is the support of the world. In II.4, however, we find that earth itself is supported by water. Does that mean that earth owes its earthiness to water? In a sense, yes, though it’s a little hard to discern.

In the cosmogony of the Poemander (chapter I, part 5), we find a basic layout of the four elements in the cosmos:

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

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

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

Here, while fire flies to the top (upper heavens) and air follows it (the conjunction between the heavens and the earth), earth and water are mingled together as a single mass or body, just as the cosmos itself is composed of many parts but is still one whole body. In this sense, we start to find yet another microcosm: just as Man as a “small world” (I.4) reflects the cosmos and God because of “soul and breath” in addition to his body, the Earth (not just the element, but the planet) is a microcosm in itself of the macrocosm. However, the combination of earth and water in the beginning was at first chaotic: as in Genesis 1:2, “and the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” However, as in the Poemander, “by reason of the Logos”, they were moved and made into form, just as God in Genesis spoke and gave form to the heaven and the earth.

Thus, while earth is the support of the world, water is the support of earth, and since water and earth both come from the cosmos, water is also the support of the world. For anything in the cosmos to grow or nourish, water must be present, just as earth must be present for anything to be sensible or material in the cosmos. Water is the essence of growth and production, just as earth is the essence of matter and sensibility. However, earth can also be the foundation for any measure of increase or decrease, the growth and destruction of anything in the cosmos. Starting with earth, if one adds water, the matter inceases; if one removes water, the matter decreases. This is similar to dehydration of foods; anything plump and juicy when dried will shrivel and desiccate. Continue this long enough by removing enough water, and only earth will remain. Add water again, however, and you’ll make the earth fertile again to grow new things from it.

Earth and water are necessary for anything in the cosmos to live; it’s not enough to merely exist as an inanimate object (and, indeed, no such thing truly exists since all bodies in the cosmos have a soul). Earth enables a body to be material and sensible, as well as allowing for other elements to act upon it and move it. Water enables a body to grow, produce, nurture, and increase. Both of these elements work together as part of the low cosmos (or the Earth) in conjunction with air and fire.

Today, let’s discuss the tenth definition, part II, number 5 of 6:

Fire is a sterile essence, the duration of the immortal bodies and the destruction of the mortal: an infertile substance, in as much (it belongs to) the destructive fire which makes (things) disappear; and the perpetuation of the immortal (beings), since what cannot be consumed by fire is immortal and indestructible, but the mortal can be destroyed by fire.

While definition II.2 described air, II.3 earth, and II.4 water, definition II.5 describes fire, the last but certainly not the least element to be discussed. Air is the conjoining element that binds other things together; earth is the foundation of matter for other elements to act upon it; water nurtures and nourishes and allows for growth. Air and earth can be seen as opposites in a way: while earth allows for distinct bodies to be formed, air helps bind them together again. Thus, water and fire can also be seen as a pair of opposites; if water helps to nourish, fire then must help to destroy.

Fire is the “sterile essence”; fire prohibits things from growing or producing things, unlike water which helps things to grow or produce. Sterility is something that we might attribute to bare earth, as well, earth unmixed with water. However, as seen from earlier definitions, water and earth are both the support of the cosmos, and are inextricably linked together; they are going to be combined together in all cosmic things (at least down here on the Earth). Fire, however, is something different; fire is hot, it is heat, it is burning, it is active. And these things are not conducive to life for mortals.

Fire is also the “duration of the immortal bodies and the destruction of the mortal”. This is a pair of opposites that contrasts that which is immortal (like gods or planets) and that which is mortal (like human bodies or animals). In the first part of this statement, fire is the “duration of the immortal”, or that fire is that which maintains, empowers, and sustains immortal bodies. In a way, immortal bodies are primarily fire, and fire is what enables them to “live”. I use quotes around “live” here because fire is inherently antithetical to life, or at least life as we know it: mortal life. Immortal beings live in a way that is distinct from mortal beings, and based on what we know about fire, I think one of the qualities of immortal beings is that they cannot give birth. After all, if fire is the “duration of the immortal”, and if fire is also a “sterile essence”, then beings who are primarily fire cannot give birth due to their sterility.

That said, anyone who’s lit a fire before can attest to how quickly it can spread from tinder to tinder, twig to twig, log to log. Fire expands and catches other things on fire, so it doesn’t just burn out immediately; in a way, fire “lives” on its own, but in a way distinct from other bodies that are composed of water and earth (e.g. human bodies). Because of how fire catches, immortal beings can definitely reproduce or spread their influence by means of their fire, but this is simply an effect of fire on the earth of a body. And, because fire is sterile and hot, fire also desiccates and burns up; fire destroys any body that is not immortal. Thus, fire is “the destruction of the mortal”; fire corrupts, decreases, and burns up anything that is not also fire. The ability to be destroyed and undergo decrease back into basic components is a characteristic of mortal beings, and now we know that these actions are caused (at least in part) by fire.

Fire, as well as being sterile (inhibiting life), is also an “infertile substance”, meaning that it cannot be the growth of anything, nor can it help to produce anything. Then again, the text continues this to qualify that fire is infertile insofar as “it belongs to the destructive fire which makes things disappear”. This suggests that there are multiple types of fire: a destructive fire is that which decreases, desiccates, and the like on bodies that are capable of undergoing that function (mortal bodies). When we get to immortal bodies, however, not only is fire their primary life-giving substance, but fire is “the perpetuation of the immortal beings”. Just as fire spreads and catches onto other things, so too do immortal beings “catch onto” and spread their influence across other bodies.

Immortal beings don’t simply catch on fire; they themselves already are fire, and they are not harmed by it or by the fire of other immortals. After all, immortal beings cannot undergo destruction or desiccation, and so are an ever-living fire on their own; their fires may combine to form a bigger fire, or their fire may ignite elsewhere to “perpetuate” themselves. In any case, because they cannot be consumed by fire, they are “immortal and indestructible”. However, mortal beings “can be destroyed by fire”. So now we know that fire is something that acts fundamentally different for mortal beings and immortal beings: immortal beings are perpetuated by the use and spread of fire, while mortal beings are destroyed and consumed by fire.

Today, let’s discuss the eleventh definition, part II, number 6 of 6:

Light is a good, a clear vision, (which makes) appear all of the visible (things). The essence of fire is burning. However, fire is one (thing) and light is another one. For what fire has reached shall be destroyed, but light appears just as it is by itself. Every move of soul is perceived by Nous; since it is some (kind of) energy, breath performs (it).

This last definition of part II may come as a surprise, seeing how the second through fifth definitions focused on the four elements; where the hell was light mentioned? It doesn’t appear to be an element, and it wasn’t really spoken of in II.1. However, read II.1 closely again, and you’ll read two parts that link this definition cohesively into this section:

“Nous is the invisible good; soul is a necessary movement adjusted to every kind of body.”
“Breath is the body of soul or the column of soul.”

Bearing in mind that we now know about the four elements that constitute “every kind of body”, this definition then goes on to describe the nature of the thing behind the body. If this is starting to make this sound like a fifth element or quintessence (literally, “the fifth essence”) like spirit or akasha of modern occultism, you’re catching on, but there’s some more unpacking to do first.

First, let’s talk about light. Light is “a good”, not “the good” of the Nous, but it is “a good”. While this type of phrase hasn’t yet been encountered in the Definitions, we can assume that this means that light is a quality of the Nous, or that light is something from of and part of the Nous. In either way, light is something divine, something mental. Light is also “a clear vision, which makes appear all of the visible things”. When modern people think of light, they think of some sort of electromagnetic waves that bounce off and reflect from objects, and these waves are then registered by the eyes to produce neural signals to be interpreted as a vision. Classically, however, light was seen to emanate from the eyes or objects themselves and catch alight of other things (and is one of the reasons gazing magic and the “evil eye” are still around). Light is vision itself; more importatly, light is a clear vision, that which illumines and enlightens, that which presents things clearly and truly in its true form. However, light can only work to make things appear that are already visible, or able to be seen. Things that are bodiless or only intelligible without being sensible cannot be seen, and so light is independent of these things; light, then, is probably a component of the Nous in the cosmos, since being visible is a special kind of being sensible, and only the cosmos is the part of God that is sensible.

However, this is an ideal kind of light, a mental or spiritual light that is independent of physical processes. The definition then goes on to compare fire and light, where “the essence of fire is burning” and that “fire is one thing and light is another one”. Many people, especially classically, equated fire and light as the same, since fire and other extraordinarily hot things are what gives off light. Fire does indeed give off light, but this is not the light that is a good; “what fire has reached shall be destroyed, but light appears just as it is by itself”. In other words, fire burns up and burns away, and anything exposed to firelight has this effect made upon itself. True light, however, acts differently: it presents what is visible and sensible, and nothing more. Compare Tat’s exclamation from the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter X, part 4):

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

Tat. Thou hast, O father, filled us so full of this so good and fairest Sight, that thereby my mind’s eye hath now become for me almost a thing to worship. For that the Vision of the Good doth not, like the sun’s beam, fire-like blaze on the eyes and make them close; nay, on the contrary, it shineth forth and maketh to increase the seeing of the eye, as far as e’er a man hath the capacity to hold the inflow of the radiance that the mind alone can see. Not only does it come more swiftly down to us, but it does us no harm, and is instinct with all immortal life.

Things like firelight are temporary and easily consumed; once the matter on fire is consumed by fire, the fire dies out. When firelight dies out, darkness remains. However, light is something independent of sources of fire, and anything that can be seen can be illumined by light. Light, then, is something different, and anything that can be perceived or sensed is done so with light. In a sense, light is wherever the mind is, and if the mind of Man is made more fully like the Nous in whose image it is made, and if Nous is God, and if God is the All and the One, then light is everywhere, since light is in all things, not just in the sensible cosmos. Compare the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter XI, part 7):

Behold, again, the seven subject Worlds; ordered by Æon’s order, and with their varied course full-filling Æon! [See how] all things [are] full of light, and nowhere [is there] fire; for ’tis the love and blending of the contraries and the dissimilars that doth give birth to light down shining by the energy of God, the Father of all good, the Leader of all order, and Ruler of the seven world-orderings! …

Thus, while bodies are sensible, light may be the actual function of sense itself, where anything sensed is done so by means of light, which illumines the mind. And since all bodies in the cosmos have a soul made just for it, since each body cannot exist without one, soul itself is what makes itself known by means of the body. After all, the soul is “a necessary movement adjusted to every kind of body”, though itself is invisible, much how the Nous is the “invisible good”. The soul is what enables a body to move and function in the cosmos, and since the body is sensible, the soul is evident through the body. Because of light, we can sense the motion of bodies and therefore of souls, either physically through our eyes or mentally through the sight of the mind, but in either case this perception is done with light. And, further, because the Nous perceives all things, especially through and because of the minds of Man, “every move of soul is perceived by Nous”, and this perception is made possible through light.

The last part of this definition is a little complex, but it relates to the connection between soul and spirit. “Since [every move of soul] is some kind of energy, breath performs it.” In other words, the soul provides a force that is enacted through the body into the cosmos, but the relationship between the soul and the breath (or spirit, since these terms are interchangeable so far) has not yet really been fully explored. We know that Man exists as a microcosm due to “soul and breath” (I.4), and that breath is the “body of soul or the column of soul”. Because the body is moved by the soul, the body is moved by means of the breath because of the soul. The breath is what keeps the physical body able to receive the soul’s motions, so the breath is the facilitator of the soul into the physical body. In other words, breath performs the motions in the body that the soul desires to give it. We can think of the breath as something akin to air. Air is the element that binds the upper heavens with the lower earth. Similarly, the breath is something that combines the soul with the body. Just as the influences of the higher heavens can be felt down here by means of the air and the forces that travel through it, the influences of the soul can be felt and enacted by the body by means of the breath and the motions that pass through it.

So much for the last definition of part II. From this set, we know there are four elements that constitute the body: earth that provides the material basis for action, water which nourishes and moistens, air which conjoins and permits influence between different locations, and fire which desiccates and destroys. All bodies are made out of some composition from these elements, and all bodies are given motion and movement from the soul. The soul, which is necessary but not sufficient to animate the body, is given expression through the breath or spirit, which like the air that conjoins the upper heavens and lower Earth conjoins the soul and body together. All bodies, being sensible, are known by means of light, which provides pure and clear vision. Light, however, is not just a property of cosmos, but also of Nous, and by means of light the minds of Man as well as the Mind of God can know all things.

The Sun enters Sagittarius today, the mutable fire sign and ultimate sign of Autumn in the northern hemisphere. Among its many significations, Sagittarius rules any kind of higher learning or education: philosophy, theology, religion, mysticism, and the like. Based on these associations, and there being so few institutions of higher education in the old days (e.g. colleges, seminaries, or universities), it’s perhaps not surprising that Sagittarius is also associated with foreign countries and exotic lands, as well as the people inhabiting them and those who taught high education. Among the most distant places would be the stars and celestial spheres themselves, hence Sagittarius’ connection with astrology, celestial or high magic, divination, and especially dreams. The ruling planet of Sagittarius, Jupiter in direct motion, bears many of these same significations, including nobility, greatness, and holiness.

It’s also the sign that rules my 9th house, with which it holds many similar associations. So perhaps it’s fitting now that I start considering a ritual framework for working with dreams magically. Dreams are not my cup of tea normally; my dream recall has been mediocre throughout my life, with many nights having no dreams to remember.

The Unlikely Mage during his Agrippa project recently summarized chapter 59 of Cornelius Agrippa’s First Book of Occult Philosophy. I’ll leave you to read his post summarizing dreams and their significations (and, really, his whole amazing blog) for yourself, but Agrippa has this to say about divination by dreams:

… The rule of interpreting this is found amongst Astrologers, in that part which is wrote concerning questions; but yet that is not sufficient, because these kind of Dreams come by use to divers men after a divers manner, and according to the divers quality, and dispositions of the phantastick spirit: wherefore there cannot be given one common rule to all for the interpretation of Dreams. But according to the opinion of Synesius, seeing there are the same accidents to things, and like befall like; so be which hath often fallen upon the same visible thing, hath assigned to himself the same opinion, passion, fortune, action, event, and as Aristotle saith, the memory is confirmed by sence, and by keeping in memory the same thing knowledge is obtained, as also by the knowledge of many experiences, by little, & little, arts, and sciences are obtained. After the same account you must conceive of Dreams. Whence Synesius commands that every one should observe his Dreams, and their events, and such like rules, viz. to commit to memory all things that are seen, and accidents that befall, as well in sleep, as in watching, and with a diligent observation consider with himself the rules by which these are to be examined, for by this means shall a Diviner be able by little, and little to interpret his Dreams, if so be nothing slip out of his memory. Now Dreams are more efficacious, when the Moon over-runs that Sign, which was in the ninth number of the Nativity, or revolution of that yeer, or in the ninth Sign from the Sign of perfection. For it is a most true, and certain divination, neither doth it proceed from nature or humane Arts, but from purified minds, by divine inspiration. …

Basically, all those books with sets of symbols to be used in dreams? Worthless; “there cannot be given one common rule to all for the interpretation of Dreams” because everyone’s spirit and soul is different and works in different ways. Similarities may be observed, but these aren’t reliable enough to be made into rules for mass consumption and application. The images in dreams are based on what happens in our lives and to ourselves, and so we should be aware of the constant activity going on around us and how we interpret it both consciously and subconsciously. This helps us to not only understand our own minds and our awareness of the area around ourselves, but it helps to build up a conscious knowledge of the symbol set our minds are constantly building to help understand the world.

Agrippa gives several rules for when “Dreams are more efficacious”, and they all center around the 9th house in an astrological chart or horoscope. Essentially, dreams for divination are best when the Moon is in the 9th house of someone’s chart; the other rules for yearly revolution charts or “the Sign of perfection” are a little more obscure, but since the Moon visits all the signs for about 2.5 days every 29 days, you’ve got a decent window for about two days running for good, honest, divinatory dreaming. So, for instance, when the Moon is in Sagittarius (the sign ruling my 9th house), my dreams tend to be more potent and clear than otherwise. Looking back through some of my journals, this actually makes sense, which is a surprise to me.

Because I don’t like to merely throw away dreams as I would trash, I figured I may as well approach them as any decent magician would: ritual and preparation! Below is a simple ritual framework I’m gonna start using to work with my dreams more and see where this gets me. It’s assumed that you know which signs rule over the houses of your natal chart, but if not, I’m sure you can find free astrology sites to do that for you. Keep track of the Moon’s position, since that’s essential for this working. Sure, the following ritual is a little involved, but then, it helps to dedicate oneself to dreaming when dreaming is Right for oneself, and it echoes the old asklepeions and temples where dreams were seen as holy messages sent to the worthy supplicant.

The day before the Moon enters the sign of the 9th house, prepare yourself mentally and physically for dreaming.
1. Banish, take a spiritual bath, and generally cleanse and clean oneself and your sleeping area.
2. Start winding down your food and drug intake: no caffeine, no heavy foods, light fruit or stomach-soothing foods only. You can extend the fasting period as long as you like, but one day should be sufficient.
3. Pray and ritual as you normally would.
4. If you have a dream-conducive tea (mugwort, jasmine, rose, and valerian work well for me), start drinking this today and continue drinking it through the operation.
5. Be sure to get a full night’s rest, at least 7.5 hours’ worth of sleep (or five sleep cycles). Before resting, make an offering to Morpheus, the god of sleep: sing his Orphic Hymn, make an offering of opium or poppy incense, and light a black or dark candle to him. Ask for his help in bestowing good and healthful rest, and protection in sleep and dreaming.
The next day, the Moon should be in the sign ruling the 9th house before you go to bed at night. Be sure you have at least ten hours to spare for proper rest and sleeping, with the addition of ritual.
1. Fast. Drink only water, and eat only white food with no salt. Plain or vanilla yoghurt, bananas, and similar are suggested, if any food is to be eaten at all. If you have a dream-conducive tea, keep drinking that.
2. In an hour of Mercury while the Moon is in the sign ruling the 9th house, make an adoration to Hermes Chthonios or similar nighttime, underworld, or otherworld guide. Say a prayer e.g. the Orphic Hymn to Terrestrial Hermes; make offerings of candles, incense, wine, or other preferred goods. Ask for clarity, memory, truth, and direction in the realm of dreams and sleep.
3. In an hour of the Moon while the Moon is in the sign ruling the 9th house, make an adoration to the Moon, a lunar angel like Gabriel, or any lunar deity. Say a prayer e.g. the Orphic Hymn to the Moon; make offerings of candles, incense, wine, or other preferred goods. Ask for help, guidance, and illumination in dreams and the realm of night.
4. Set pen, paper, and flashlight by the bed for later.
5. Meditate for at least twenty minutes before retiring for the night.
6. Upon retiring, make another offering to Morpheus as before. In addition, make an offering to his other role as the god of dreams: sing the Orphic Hymn to the Divinity of Dreams; make an offering of a white or lightly-colored candle, along with wine and sweet floral incense such as jasmine, rose, gardenia, violet, musk, or similar. Ask for truth, understanding, memory, and power in one’s rest, that true and meaningful dreams be bestowed upon them, and similar. If you have any specific requests that should be answered, now’s the time to do that.
7. Go to sleep, but set a (quiet) alarm after 4.5 hours (or however long three sleep cycles would be). Upon waking, write down any dreams that one may have had immediately. Make another entreaty to Morpheus as God of Sleep as well as God of Dreams using prayer with more incense; their candles should not have burnt out yet, but if they have, light new ones. If the request for a specific answer has not yet been answered, pray for it again; if so, and if another question needs to be answered, ask it; if no other questions need to be answered, ask for illumination, truth, and awareness generally in dreams.
8. Return to sleep for at least another three hours; however much is up to you, since this second sleep is the final sleep of the day. Upon waking, write down any dreams as before. Make another offering of candles and wine to Morpheus as thanks for the previous night and dreams.
9. Repeat the above for as as long as the Moon is in the sign ruling the 9th house, asking for more dreams along the way.

Happy dreaming!

Today, let’s discuss the twelfth definition, part III, number 1 of 4:

Nothing is uninhabited by God, for where heaven is, God (is) too, and where the world is, heaven (is) too. I think that God is in heaven, and heaven in the world.

Now we start on the third set of definitions. The first set of definitions described the fundamental philosophy that lays out the three worlds of God, cosmos, and Man for us; the second set briefly described the composition of bodies in the cosmos from the four elements, along with a bit on the nature of the soul and sensibility that light provides. This first definition begins to describe the relationship between the cosmos (what we know of as creation) and God, and first states that “nothing is uninhabited by God”. This statement makes clear that God is immanent in creation, and that there is nothing that is not with God. Since God is the “invisible world” (I.4), and since “all of that visible cannot possibly be constituted without the invisible” (I.3), God must be present in at least all visible things. Add to it, God is the intelligible world, and the cosmos is made in the likeness of God “after its fullness” (I.2); the cosmos is all made as and part of God, and God is similarly within all things. Hermes Trismegistus waxes ecstatically on this and a bit more about the Divine in the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter V, parts 10 and 11):

He is the God beyond all name; He the unmanifest, He the most manifest; He whom the mind [alone] can contemplate, He visible unto the eyes [as well]; He is the one of no body, the one of many bodies, nay, rather He of every body. Naught is there which He is not. For all are He and He is all. And for this cause hath He all names, in that they are one Father’s. And for this cause hath He Himself no name, in that He’s Father of [them] all.

Who, then, may sing Thee praise of Thee, or [praise] to Thee? Whither, again, am I to turn my eyes to sing Thy praise; above, below, within, without?

There is no way, no place [is there] about Thee, nor any other thing of things that are. All [are] in Thee; all [are] from Thee, O Thou who givest all and takest naught, for Thou hast all and naught is there Thou hast not.

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

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

How, further, shall I hymn Thee? As being of myself? As having something of mine own? As being other? For that Thou art whatever I may be; Thou art whatever I may do; Thou art whatever I may speak. For Thou art all, and there is nothing else which Thou art not. Thou art all that which doth exist, and Thou art what doth not exist,—Mind when Thou thinkest, and Father when Thou makest, and God when Thou dost energize, and Good and Maker of all things.

Not only is God in all things, the definition continues to say that “where heaven is, God is too, and where the world is, heaven is too”. Now we have a clear distinction between two parts of the cosmos: the heavens and the world, or the upper cosmos and the lower cosmos. It may be that these two parts are those that are conjoined by air (II.2), but it’s still unclear at this point. However, now that we’re starting to get into the more concrete description of the world in Hermetic philosophy, it is suitable that we start to draw concrete delineations of worlds in our aphorisms, too.

So, where there is heaven, there is also God. Where there is the world, there is also heaven; thus, there there is the world, there is also God. This is like a set of nested spheres or a Russian matryoshka doll, and we’ve made similar descriptions of this before. Imagine three nested circles: between the outermost circle and the middle circle, there is God; God encompasses all things. Between the middle circle and the innermost circle, there is heaven; all of heaven is within God, but there may be parts of God that are not heaven (this is as yet unknown; it may be that heaven is God and God is heaven, in which case these two circles would simply overlap entirely). In the innermost circle, there is the world; all of the world is within heaven, but there are parts of heaven that are not within the world (unless the world is identical with heaven, but this seems unlikely). Because the world is within God, God is also in the world, but there are parts of God that are not in the world.

The last part of this definition is a little perplexing, and the footnotes suggest that the last sentence was a gloss of the compiler. After all, we don’t commonly see the first person used in these definitions, so it’s unclear; besides, it’s unlike the Hermes of this text to offer a conjecture instead of an axiom. Let’s assume, however, that Hermes said it. “God is in heaven, and heaven in the world”; essentially, this says the same thing as before. Wherever the world is, there is also heaven, since heaven is in the world; wherever heaven is, there is also God, since God is in heaven; thus, wherever the world is, there is also God, since God is in heaven and heaven is in the world.

This definition affords a clearly panentheistic view of God: not only is God fully immanent in the world, but God also transcends the world. Likewise, God is fully immanent in heaven, but God also transcends heaven (probably, since we have no identification of God with heaven). However, the way this last sentence is phrased almost reads to me like a reversal of the nested-circles image from before. From before, God is the outermost circle and the world the innermost. Phrased this way, it can read that God is the innermost circle and that the world is the outermost circle. This doesn’t lead to panentheism, since this indicates that there are places in the world that are only in the world and not part of heaven and not a part of God, and that there are parts of heaven that are also not part of God though all of heaven is within the world, and that all of God is within heaven though the reverse isn’t true.

I don’t believe this last view is the case, since it contradicts a lot of other Hermetic writing, even in the Definitions; rather, I think that this particular statement indicates that God is the source of heaven (“God is in heaven”) and that heaven is the source of the world (“heaven in the world”), so that instead of containers and sets, we have an idea of emanation. All things come from God, so God is the core of all things and is “in” all things; the further away from God or the more changes something undergoes doesn’t matter, since at its core there is always God. With the world being the outermost circle in this latter image, this is simply another way to view all of creation as one whole with the materially real world we know and see being the most readily apparent; it’s like seeing creation in the Qabbalah from the point of view of Malkuth up to Kether, or from the viewpoint of Kether all the way down to Malkuth. In either case, the same basic truth is evident: all has God, and all comes from God.

Today, let’s discuss the thirteenth definition, part III, number 2 of 4:

Many (places) are uninhabited by humans; for where the world is, the earth (is) too, but man is not on every earth. The sea is large as well as the earth, but heaven by itself (is as much as) both the sea and the earth. [And he wanted to say that, by its magnitude, heaven is (as much as) both the earth and the sea, so large as the two of them may be, since by taking everything into (itself), it encompassed it and it contains it enclosed within (itself).]

Now that we know that all things are within God and that God is in all things and beyond them, we have a more-or-less panentheistic notion of creation: God is both immanent (within creation) and transcendent (beyond creation). Just to make this clear, this is distinct from pantheism, where God is in creation and creation is God; the two are synonymous in pantheism. However, we have good evidence from earlier definitions that Hermetic philosophy is panentheistic, not pantheistic. Panentheism is common in much of tribal, primal, or primitive religions, though it tends to be relegated to fringe or mystic movements in some of the more common religions known nowadays. However, this definition helps build the case for a Hermetic panentheistic worldview.

We can kinda continue the definition from before by including mankind: wherever there is heaven, there is God; wherever there is the world, there is heaven, thus there is God; wherever there are humans, there is world, thus there is heaven, thus there is God. However, this definition makes it clear that there are places that are in the world where no human lives: “many places are uninhabited by humans”. Yes, it is true that humans live in the world, but there are places where there are no humans: either places too far out of reach for us, or places inhospitable to us. After all, “where the world is, the earth is too, but man is not on every [all] earth”. In other words, although there is the potential for human inhabitation in any given place where there is a foundation for it, such potential is not always realized for one reason or another.

Thus, the world is strictly greater than the inhabited world; phrased another way, the world is greater than humanity. Not only that, but heaven is greater than the world: “the sea is large as well as the earth, but heaven by itself is as much as both the sea and the earth”. Thus, there are places where humanity (such as it is physically) cannot even possibly go that aren’t even of this world. Thus, we now know that heaven is definitely greater than the world, and the world greater than humanity. This is evidence for there being multiple levels of reality, multiple worlds that are nested in some way with some worlds inside other, bigger worlds. However, this isn’t something necessarily strict, however; though we know that humanity is less than the world, we don’t have anything quite equating humanity with Man yet. In other words, there may be more to Man than just what we know of as human beings, but that’s as yet undecided.

The next part is another probable gloss of the compiler, much as the “I think that…” sentence in III.1 was; in other words, somewhere at some point added a bit more commentary to the Definitions. Here, the commentor seems to rephrase the rest of this definition: “by its magnitude, heaven is as much as both the earth and the sea, so large as the two of them may be, since by taking everything into itself, it encompassed it and it contains it enclosed within itself”. In other words, this seems to be a conjecture that because “heaven by itself is as much as both the sea and the earth”, heaven is the same magnitude as the world in terms of size and location. What this means in terms of magnitude for something without a body and cannot be measured in the same way, however, is unknown to me; trying to measure a body against something without a physical basis isn’t very helpful. However, by comparing them in essence, we might say that the heavens are as varied, as multiformed, as complex as the world, while still being one whole as much as the world is one whole and is full of things. Still knowing so little about the world and heaven yet, it’s hard to draw many comparisons between the two, much less equivalences while knowing they cannot be identical.

However, the addendum goes on a little further to say that “by taking everything into itself, [heaven] encompassed [the world] and [heaven] contains [the world] enclosed within itself”. This is more evidence for the notion that the world is contained within heaven, not partially but entirely; there are no places in the world that are not also part of heaven, but there are places in heaven that are not part of the world. The world is fully contained within heaven, since the world was “taken into” heaven. This phrasing makes it sound like the heavens kinda absorbed another realm within God but not within heaven, as an amoeba might eat something else; I’m unsure. I don’t think the verb “take” indicates quite this, but that heaven absorbed the influences given to it to form something inside itself; this is somewhat corroborated by the account of Hermes as given in the Corpus Hermeticum by Poemandres (chapter 1, part 8):

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

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

Today, let’s discuss the fourteenth definition, part III, number 3 of 4:

Heaven is larger than everything, and the sun than earth and sea, for it extends beyond both of them. However the earth is larger than the sea, because the sea (comes) from it. And in heaven are all (the beings), for it contains the superior ones and it (also) contains the inferior, enclosing them from every side.

This definition appears to continue the same idea that III.2 did: just as the world is greater than humanity, so too is heaven greater than the world. This definition just makes it explicit: “heaven is larger than everything [in the manifest world]“. This definition draws a comparison between the manifest world and the unmanifest heaven with something a little more concrete: things in the manifest world themselves. The relationship between heaven and the world is much like that between the sun with the Earth; just as “the sun [is larger] than earth and sea”, so too is “heaven larger than [the world]“. The sun is both distant and far off as well as much greater in size than the earth; in these ways does the sun extend beyond the Earth. In the same way does heaven become larger than the world; it is distant, far off, and greater in size. The comparison between the sun and the earth with heaven and the world is apt.

Another comparison is drawn, this time on a smaller scale: “the earth is larger than the sea, because the sea comes from it”. The earth here refers to the worldly earth, not the element; in this case, the waters of the sea “come from” the earth. This isnt’ to say that the earth somehow jutted forth masses of water, but recall from the Poemander that earth and water were mixed together once air and fire left the primordial mixture of the elements. Plus, given that earth is heavy and prone to settle, it can be said that the waters of the sea came from the mixture of earth and water after the earth settled into distinct places. Because “the earth” is the combination of water and earth elementally, ”the earth” is something greater than both, being made from and the source of these things as they are found down here in the world. Similarly, heaven is greater than the world because the world comes from heaven; not only is the world located within heaven, and that no part of the world is not also heaven, but the world comes from and emanates from heaven.

This is a pretty interesting concept, but it logically follows from the other definitions we have, considering our emanationist panentheistic worldview that the Definisions develop. It also has an interesting consequence: all entities that exist in God exist in heaven. While God is transcendent of heaven, this definition states that all beings that are not God (whose being-ness is not completely clear) are in heaven. As such, because heaven is both in the world and greater than the world, there are some beings that are in the world (inferior beings) as well as not of the world (superior beings). Thus, consider an animal: this would be an inferior being, since it is in the inferior part of heaven, or the world. An angel, on the other hand, would be a superior being, since it is in the superior part of heaven, or “outside the world”. This isn’t to use the words inferior or superior as better or worse, but only in a notion of hierarchy according to the relationship between God, heaven, and the world.

That heaven is the world “enclosing [the beings] from every side” further strengthens the notion that all beings that exist that are not God exist within heaven, and that all beings are a part of heaven. Some beings are a part of the world, but they are still part of heaven all the same. Some beings may be heavenly without being worldly. This is a logical consequence of the fact that heaven is populated with entities, and that heaven is greater than the world. However, we know that not all beings are sensible; those would be in the world, while the beings not in the world but still in heaven are only intelligible. In either case, both are still intelligible, and since they are known by Nous, even inferior beings who can see with light (not just firelight, but the light that is a good, as in II.6) can come to know superior beings. After all, all beings are still part of one whole, the One, the All, even if they have separate forms.

Today, let’s discuss the fifteenth definition, part III, number 4 of 4:

God is the good (which is) previous to all the intelligible (beings); God is the father of the intelligible; heaven is the maker of the body. The magnitude of the light of the sun is earth and sea; the magnitude of heaven (is) the world; the magnitude of the world is God.

From the last few definitions in this section, we know that the Definitions provide a Hermetic panentheistic view of the universe: God is both immanent in creation and transcendent of it, existing both as part of all things that exist and outside existence entirely. Further, all of creation isn’t one solid thing; there are different parts to creation, namely heaven, the world, and humanity. Humanity exists only in part of the world; the world exists only in part of heaven; heaven exists only in part of God. Thus, God is in all things that we can possibly know, but also exists outside it as well in a place of weird non-existence-yet-not-not-existing (it’s hard to talk about things that we don’t have words for, after all).

The current definition talks a little more about God and it’s relationship with heaven, the world, and man. God is “the good”, specifying him as something that is or is part of the Nous (II.1), as well as likening him to the light of sense (II.6). More importantly, God is “the good which is previous to all the intelligible beings”. In other words, God is the thing that came first before anything else that has ever existed, might exist, can exist, or doesn’t exist; God has always been. “God is the father of the intelligible”, so not only did God come first before all other things, but God also created all other things; things that are sensible (heaven, the world, Man, etc.) are a subset of things that are intelligible (things higher than heaven but still part of God).

In addition to being intelligible and coming from God, “heaven is the maker of the body”, so anything that’s sensible or has a body comes from heaven. Just as heaven itself comes from God, so too do bodies also come from God, but bodies only exist in and under heaven. Thus, heaven plays a microcosmic role in comparison to the macrocosmic God; heaven provides sensibility just as God provides intelligibility. Thus, bodies don’t exist outside heaven because there’s nothing to make them, support them, or provide for them outside of heaven; beyond heaven, there is no sensibility, but only intelligibility. This is basically saying that “the planes are discrete and not continuous” when it comes to certain characteristics of intelligible entities, in that sensibility cannot be taken out of the sensible realms into realms where sensibility isn’t actually a thing.

The next part of the definition waxes on a bit about comparisons, starting from small things and going to big things, but it talks about “magnitude”. Magnitude, or greatness, was previously discussed in definition II.2, when it discussed that “heaven is as much as both the earth and the sea”, yet in II.3, we know that “heaven is larger than everything…for it extends beyond [the sun and the Earth]“. So, clearly, physical size isn’t really being used as a grounds for comparison, especially since things without bodies (the strictly intelligible) don’t have any notion of “size”. Spiritual fullness, complexity-while-being-one-ness, goodness, intelligibility, or other characteristics might be the grounds for comparison, but there’s little to go on here except a vague notion of “greatness”.

“The magnitude of the light of the sun is earth and sea”: thus, that which we receive from the heavens (being represented as a whole by “light of the sun”) is the greatness of the physical Earth we live on and all the humanity on it. In a sense, the greatness that comes down here is that which remains down here; what comes down here is the totality of things that come from above. “The magnitude of heaven is the world”: here, “heaven” is linked back to the previous comparison by referring to “the light of the sun”, which fills the heavens. Just as the “earth and sea” is less than “the light of the sun”, so too is the world less than heaven; however, just as the Earth consists of the totality of everything that comes from above it, so too does the general world (which includes both the Earth as well as the sun) receive the influences of things higher than itself. Thus, all of the world is the sum total of all the influences it receives from heaven. “The magnitude of the world is God”: this is where we get an interesting reversal of the sequence, when read in the same way as the others. Here, God is certainly more than the world, and we know that there’s a lot more going on in creation than just the world (there’s also heaven, and the things part of God that are not part of heaven); thus, we can’t simply say that God is the sum total of all the influences it receives from the world, since the world is what receives influences from God, and to say that God is influenced by the thing it’s influencing implies that the world is equal with God, which contradicts many of our definitions. Thus, we need to revise our interpretation a bit.

The first comparison likens the “magnitude of the light of the sun” to Earth, or “earth and sea”. We haven’t really encountered “light of the sun” yet in the Definitions, though we have encountered “light”, which we know makes things visible and known (II.6). We can take “light of the sun” to mean “visible light”, since the Sun is a visible body and not something merely intelligible. Thus, if we take the comparison to really be more of a strict equality, we can say that visible (“light of the sun”) supports and enables the existence of things that become visible in light (“earth and sea”), as well as vice versa; they support each other. Similarly, that the “magnitude of heaven is the world” indicates that heaven supports and enables the existence of the world, and vice versa; although things exist outside of the world in heaven, heaven as a whole cannot exist without the world, nor can the world exist without heaven. Finally, this means the same thing for the world and God: God enables and supports the existence of the world, and the world supports and enables the existence of God.

This last bit is counterintuitive, perhaps, but isn’t as contradictory as our first attempt at understanding this. What this means is that the world is a necessary part of God; although God is bigger and outside the world, the part of God that is the world and in the world is what enables the other things as well. Everything is permeated with divine essence, in other words, but everything is also therefore intrinsically connected by it as well. If the magnitude of the world is God, and the magnitude of heaven is the world, then that also means that God’s existence enables and is enabled by that of heaven as much as it is by the existence of the world. Everything that exists is not only part of the Whole, the All, or the One, but everything that exists is necessary for the existence of everything else in the Whole. Just because something exists outside another thing (uninhabited land outside inhabited land, heavenly places outside the worldly places, God outside heaven, etc.) doesn’t mean it’s independent of the rest, because that would make God “disjointed” in a sense that would break the interconnectedness of everything within God; if something exists independent of something else, then it would also have to be independent of everything including God, which contradicts definition III.1 (“nothing is uninhabited by God”). Everything is connected by and through the connection to God.

Today, let’s discuss the sixteenth definition, part IV, number 1 of 2:

The living (beings) in heaven are constituted of fire and air, and those (which are) on earth of the four elements. Man (is) a reasonable living (being), for he has Nous; but all of the other living (beings) which are endowed with voice have breath and soul, since all that decreases and increases is a living being.

At this point in the Definitions, we know that there are multiple parts of the world, from the meta-world of God to the pale blue dot of Earth where Man resides, at least for a part of it. All things within God are intelligible, indicating that they can be known. Within the meta-world of God, we know that there’s a place referred to as heaven, within which there are the four elements which constitute all of the bodies. Things with bodies are not only intelligible, but they are sensible, which is a necessary quality of existing within heaven. However, all things both intelligible and sensible and non-sensibile are all part of the One, the All, the Whole that is God; everything is interconnected, even if some parts of the worlds are outside and seemingly unconnected to other parts of the worlds.

Although the definitions have mentioned living beings before, now we finally get to what those beings are composed of and what they’re all about. First, just as we know that there’s a distinction between heaven and earth (II.2), we also know that there are “superior beings” and “inferior beings” (III.3), or entities that are of heaven but not of Earth and entities that are of Earth within heaven, respectively. According to this definition, the superior beings or “living beings in heaven” are made of “fire and air”, while the inferior beings “which are on earth” are made of the “four elements”. So, while superior beings are made of fire and air, inferior beings are made from fire, air, water, and earth. This makes sense: we know that air is the glue that binds the earth and heaven together but is of neither heaven nor earth (II.2), and we know that fire is sterile and the “perpetuation of immortal beings” (II.5). Earth and water, however, support each other (II.3, II.4) but are much denser than air or fire.

Knowing that the superior beings are made of only air and fire, we also know that they cannot die nor can they reproduce by growing; these are qualities that fire prohibits. Fiery beings without earth must be immortal, since earth exists to be changed as well as to hold both life and death, while fire is the life itself of immortal beings. In addition, without earth to be changed, heavenly beings inherently are incapable of change, since there’s nothing to change within their bodies; this is not the same thing as increase and decrease, however, which fire and air both permit them to do. Air, however, allows the heavenly beings to move around both in the heavens and between heaven and earth. By including water and earth into fire and air, we obtain inferior beings, who have the capacity to be born, grow, increase, decrease, and die. However, inferior beings also have air and fire, which give them some of the qualities of the superior beings, but not all of them; indeed, the fire itself within an inferior being may be the seed of its downfall and death, since fire is the “destruction of the mortal [bodies]“; fire will, over time without proper maintenance, burn out the rest of the body and kill it.

However, even though heavenly bodies can travel between the upper heavens and lower earth, the same is not true of earthly bodies. This is due to the earth within the bodies themselves; we know that, from the Poemander, earth and water were left behind when the Nous separated the elements. Fire rose up first and highest, and air followed the fire underneath it, but water and earth remained below, being heavy and dense. Due to this, without removing all the earth and water from an earthly body, it will be too dense to rise higher than the earth itself from which it was made and grown.

Of all the living beings, there also exists Man, the reasonable, sensible, and destructible world (I.1). Man is reasonable because “he has Nous”, meaning that Man has Mind. More importantly, the definition doesn’t say that Man has “a mind”, but that he has “Nous”, being God. Thus, Man possesses or carries with him “the invisible good” of Mind with him, allowing him to reason as Nous or God itself reasons. However, “all of the other living beings which are endowed with voice have breath and soul”. This shouldn’t be taken to mean that Man only has Nous and no soul nor breath, since we know that all bodies must possess a soul of some kind (I.3), and that Man has both soul and breath (I.4), and now that Man has soul, breath, and Nous. Other living beings, though, have only soul and breath, though they have “voice”, which is something we can expect that Man also has, but what this function is relative to the other attributions is as yet unknown. After all, without Nous, something can still be a living being if it has soul and breath and is composed of at least some of the elements, since “all that decreases and increases is a living being”, and all things down here under heaven perform that function by means of the interactions of the elements.

Because Man alone among the living beings possesses Nous, Man is the only reasonable living being, or the only living being capable of understanding God and the cosmos as God does. This is huge in anthropocentric ideas, and begins to clarify some of the meanings from before. We know that Man was made after the “species of” God (I.1); this is because we were made with the same reasoning, mental capabilities that God has. We know that Man, although mortal due to his body, is “ever-living” (I.5), because the Nous is immortal, eternal, and immovable; we owe at least the immortal part of ourselves that cannot be touched by death to God through the Nous we have. Thus, Hermes’ speech to Tat in the Corpus Hermeticum becomes a little clearer (chapter 13, part 13):

Tat. Tell me, O father: This Body which is made up of the Powers, is it at any time dissolved?

Her. Hush, [son]! Speak not of things impossible, else wilt thou sin and thy Mind’s eye be quenched. The natural body which our sense perceives is far removed from this essential birth. The first must be dissolved, the last can never be; the first must die, the last death cannot touch. Dost thou not know thou hast been born a God, Son of the One, even as I myself?

Because of our godly creator and who gave us a godly component, we too are not only part of God but we are, in a sense, many made in the image of God or the likeness of God. And it’s all because of our reasoning, mental, thinkable capability; it’s not due to our physical form, though that may also be true through a highly indirect path via the heavens, Earth, and elements. Thus, though we are a living being capable of death, we are unlike the other such mortal living beings because of Nous, which makes us, in a sense, immortal-but-not-in-the-normal-sense.

Today, let’s discuss the seventeenth definition, part IV, number 2 of 2:

And among the living (beings), some are immortal and animated, some have Nous, soul and spirit, some (have) only spirit, some (have) soul and spirit, and others only life. For life can aquire consistency without spirit, Nous, soul and immortality, but all of the others without life cannot possibly exist.

The previous definition described the beginnings of the importance and place of Man in the cosmos, as well as drawing some distinctions between Man and other living entities. We know that all living beings have bodies made from at least fire and air; heavenly beings have only these, while earthly beings have also water and earth. All living beings have breath and soul, but Man is special in that Man also has Nous, which links him to and raises him up to the level of God, though mixed with a mortal, earthly body.

This definition now brings up the qualities of different kinds of living beings, classifying them by the traits they have. To start with, all living beings have bodies; this is a necessary aspect of living (IV.1). First, there are the “immortal and animated” living beings; these would be the ones in the heavens, made of fire and air but no earth; “animated” here means “ensouled” or “made to move by soul”, since soul is the essence that allows any body to move (II.1). The beings that “have Nous, soul, and spirit” in addition to an (earthy) body are Man, as noted from before. However, the distinctions don’t stop there; there are also living bodies that have “only spirit”, those with “soul and spirit”, and those with neither soul nor spirit. Now this gets interesting.

First, let’s list the different categories of living beings offered in this definition:

Immortality, soul, body
Mortality, Nous, soul, spirit, body
Mortality, soul, spirit, body
Mortality, spirit, body
Mortality, body

Note that we have five categories. Only one is immortal, and that’s because it has a non-earthy body; these are the heavenly living beings, who are able to move due to the presence of soul (“animated”) but, without a need for an earthy body, also have no breath or spirit, since spirit is what allows the soul to enact other changes and motion in an earthy body (II.6). All the rest of the living creatures, however, are worldly and thus mortal, because they all have earthly bodies. Thus, anything living not of the world we live on is immortal due to its lack of an earthy body; anything with an earthy body is mortal.

Next, we have mortal living beings with an earthy body with Nous, soul, and spirit. This is Man, as known from the last definition. This is pretty straightforward: Man can think (Nous), move (soul), breathe (spirit), and exist in the world (earthy body). The other categories, however, all have something missing, and the definitions so far don’t clarify what each of these categories might be. However, we can venture a guess or two. Note that only heavenly beings are known as immortal, so by omission of this quality we know that all other beings are mortal.

Living beings that die, with soul, spirit, and bodies are animals. The last definition, we know that “all of the other living beings which are endowed with voice have breath [spirit] and soul”. These are bodies that breathe and move and can die. Plus, these living bodies have “voice”; the howls, cries, chirps, squeaks, chittering, and roars of animals are not unlike the voice of Man, though without Nous, their voices aren’t necessarily reasonable (at least to human ears).
Living beings that die, with spirit and bodies are plants. It’s odd to consider living bodies without soul and that this definition should omit soul, since we know that “soul is a necessary movement adjusted to every kind of body” (II.1). However, plants don’t move; they may be moved and they may grow, but it’s not an intentional or directed motion of its own volition; plants have no such notion. Thus, though they breathe (respiration, photosynthesis, diffusion), they do not move. Spirit, though it’s the “column of soul”, does not require a soul itself; soul, however, does require spirit if the body has earth involved in it, which is why heavenly beings have soul without spirit, and not the other way around.
Living beings that die with only bodies are stones or elements. This is “life” at its bare minimum, able to exist but without any other quality. It’s true: stones are technically considered living beings according to Hermetic doctrine, even according to the other definitions. Stones can increase or decrease over time, or can be made into dust and scattered and then remade into new bodies. They do not respire or breathe, so there is no spirit; they do not move on their own, so there is no soul, and thus no need of spirit. However, this only covers the notion when earthy bodies are considered; non-earthy bodies must therefore be pure elements, such as pure fire, pure air, pure water, or even pure light. Something that’s purely earth would, as it so happens, be a stone. I hesitate to use the word “force”, but that’s kinda the idea I’m reaching for with this. It’s odd to think that forces or elements might be mortal, but this is actually seen in other sources; Plato’s Timaeus notes that fire, air, and water can become each other, while earth is always going to remain earthy; when one element becomes another, we can consider that element to “die”.

Things with only life in the Hermetic sense are things that are only bodies, inanimate and which do not increase or decrease on their own but are still increasable and decreasable. Without a body, it would not have life, and “all of the others without life cannot possibly exist”. Thus, in order for something to be considered living, it must possess a body, which enables it to increase and decrease either on its own or because of other things. Without a body, there can be no notion of immortality or mortality; there can be nothing to move or be moved since there is no soul to animate a body; there can be no growth since there is no spirit or breath to respire and provide it; there can be no speaking or reasoning since there is no Nous to reason in the body. The body is the foundation of life and living, in the Hermetic sense of the word of “living”.

What does this mean for things that are bodiless? That things without bodies are not living, neither mortal nor immortal, and that they are uncreated and, without a body, inable to be destroyed. The only bodiless thing we know of are things outside heaven, and the only word for that for that which we know of is God. This also explains why, although we know of God to be “uncreated”, “intelligible”, “ineffable”, “immovable”, “invisible”, “eternal”, etc. (I.4, I.5), we have never seen God described as “immortal”. The notion simply doesn’t apply to something that can neither live and die nor live forever, because God doesn’t work on that level.

Today, let’s discuss the eighteenth definition, part V, number 1 of 3:

(Reasonable) speech is the servant of Nous. For what Nous wants, speech in turn interprets. Nous sees everything, and eyes all corporeal (things). And yet Nous does not become an observer for the eyes, but the eyes for Nous.

The last set of definitions investigated the different types of living beings, and most significant among them is Man. Man has a body, so Man is a living being. Further, Man has soul and spirit, enabling Man to grow and move of its own accord. Because it increases and decreases according to the element of earth within its body, Man can die, so it is mortal and not immortal. We know that living beings with body, soul, and spirit also have voice, but Man has this in addition to Nous. This distinction from IV.1 is important, and the clarification between living beings with voice with Nous and living beings with voice without Nous now becomes apparent.

For one, “reasonable speech is the servant of Nous”. Thus, Nous as God or Nous as possessed by Man enables any living being or entity or non-entity to be reasonable; Man is, after all, a reasonable entity (I.1, IV.1). Now we find that speech, which is made possible by voice that animals and Man possess, serves Nous, and above all reasonable speech. This is made a little more clear in the Greek word logos, meaning many things, but among them speech, reason, discourse, order, logic, science, knowing, and many other things. The concept of logos is pretty complex and has been used in many traditions and philosophies, but suffice to say that here it refers to the power of languge and utterance.

However, not all utterance is reasonable. Animals, for instance, utter many different kinds of sounds and patterns of sounds in a way that modern biologists and zoologists would classify as language, but this is a pretty far cry from how humans communicate using their utterances. We can get by using grunts and cries, it’s true, but that’s still a marked change from the language used to describe, say, Hermetic philosophy. It’s by this sort of high-minded “reasonable” speech that Man makes use of when he uses Nous, since reasonable speech serves Nous and not Man. This also implies that all reasonable speech, used everywhere and by any human, also serves Nous; after all, Nous is with each member and entity belong to Man, which connects all of us to the Nous itself that is God.

Continuing the definition, this makes sense: “what Nous wants, speech in turn interprets”. Thus, whatever Nous desires to happen, this is made clear and reasonable (and, thus, intelligible in a way unique to humanity) by the power of reasonable speech, by the power of logos. The idea of reasonable speech, or what we might call the Word, is what enables Nous to act. Consider the first words of the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. Word and Mind go together very tightly. The relationship between Nous and Logos was clarified by Hermes in the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter 9, part 1):

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

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

When “speech in turn interprets” what Nous desires, this allows Nous to make its intelligibility known to those who can reason. Man reasons due to the presence of Nous within Man. Thus, Nous can communicate with Man through Logos, and vice versa. However, this is often done by means of Logos itself, since Nous contacting Nous doesn’t really work, since Nous is Nous. Reasonable speech is what bridges the gap between intelligibility and sensibility; it’s what allows things from outside heaven without body to communicate and interact with things inside heaven with body. All things are part of God, but it’s impossible to sense what is not sensible. Speech allows such a thing to happen; speech is an important intrinsic mechanic that allows the different parts of God to work in harmony with each other. Voice is a sensible thing; reason is an intelligible thing. Combining both to obtain reasonable speech allows both to interact, and allows the intelligible to become sensible.

The next part of the definition essentially makes a comparison to drive this point home using sight and observation. Consider that “Nous sees everything”; after all, “God is Nous” (I.4), “nothing is uninhabited by God” (III.1), and ”every move of soul is perceived by Nous” (II.2). Thus, all things both in heaven and out of heaven are seen by Nous, or God. However, the eyes that living beings have can only see that which is “corporeal”, i.e. sensible since sensible things possess bodies of some sort. The set of observable things is greater than and includes the set of visible things; for instance, Nous can perceive soul, which is invisible (I.3), but living beings cannot see soul. This is made extra powerful by the fact that light is what reveals visible things (II.6), and the eyes react to light in order to witness or observe a visible thing; however, being visible requires something to be sensible, and that which is only intelligible cannot be seen, i.e. the bodiless and intelligible God. Thus, in this sense, Nooic observation is to corporeal sight what reasonable speech is to utterance: that which involves Nous is broader and more transcendent, and that which serves to aid Nous.

However, the definition clarifies that “Nous does not become an observer for the eyes, but the eyes for Nous”. What this means is that Nous does not exist to observe for the sake of the eyes; Nous and observation are not the result of seeing. Intead, seeing is a means by which the Nous observes. The eyes serve the Nous; the Nous does not serve the eyes. In another sense, this also means that the eyes cannot see the Nous or by means of the Nous, but the Nous can see both eyes and by the means of the eyes. Hermes said as much in the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter 7, part 2):

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

What this means for speech is that Nous uses speech to further the aims and desires of the Nous; Nous can use logos itself, the concept behind speech, as well speak as any word. However, those who speak cannot do the same to Nous: those who speak cannot speak Nous for their own benefit, nor can they directly speak of the Nous, nor can they speak pure logos itself, though it manifests in reasonable speech. Reasonable speech comes about as a result of Nous, but Nous does not come about as a result of reasonable speech, just as observation of the intelligible does not come around from sight of the visible alone. Consider what Hermes taught Asclepius regarding his own words in the Corpus (chapter 9, part 10):

My word (logos) doth go before [thee] to the truth. But mighty is the mind, and when it hath been led by word up to a certain point, it hath the power to come before [thee] to the truth. And having thought o’er all these things, and found them consonant with those which have already been translated by the reason, it hath [e’en now] believed, and found its rest in that Fair Faith. To those, then, who by God[’s good aid] do understand the things that have been said [by us] above, they’re credible; but unto those who understand them not, incredible.

There, Hermes has used his reasonable speech of logos to serve the Nous in bringing Asclepius forward to it. However, the mind (Nous) is more powerful than words, and words serve the mind only up until a certain point, when the mind is able to act and work directly instead of by servants or media such as words. The Nous works in the world by means of Logos, just as a wealthy landowner uses his servants to work outside or even within his land; however, only when the servants bring something to his attention and presence directly does the landowner work directly. This requires the servants to work for the landowner, and not vice versa; the landowner speaks, and things are done. Thus, the Nous employs Logos, and things are accomplished. Hermes was indeed employed by the Nous, through the guide of Poemander, to spread the word to guide others to Nous (chapter 1, part 27):

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

The comparison with sight and eyes in this definition brings up another interesting thought to my mind here. With sight, we have two components: the act of seeing (sight) and the faculty of seeing (the eye). The two are very tightly coupled; the eye sees, because that’s what the eye does. In a sense, the eye is embodied sight. Similarly, there’s Nous and Logos, the Mind and Word; the Mind makes Word because that’s what the Mind does. Thus, the Mind is a kind of divine Word, since it is what it does. This brings to mind the phrase “I am what I am” from Exodus, the reply of God given to Moses when asked for the divine name: “EHYEH ASHER EHYEH” (aleph-heh-yod-heh aleph-shin-resh aleph-heh-yod-heh). However, if we change the “Y” in the second “EHYEH” from a yod to a vav, we get “EHYEH ASHER EHWEH”. As it turns out, there’s a grammatical relationship between ”EHWEH” (aleph-heh-vav-heh) and “YAHWEH” (yod-heh-vav-heh), the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable name of God in the Torah; this holy name has a meaning something similar to “I make to be” or “I create”. Thus, the hypothetical name “EHYEH ASHER EHWEH” can be interpreted as “I am what I do” (using the obscure Hebraic root heh-vav-heh). Thus, the One who is what it is is also what it does; this is both faculty and act at once. The Mind spoke the Word in the beginning to create, and since the faculty and the act are one because God is what God does, the Mind is the Word. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

I get a lot of hits on my blog from across the realm of the Internet, many of which are from links on Facebook, Twitter, or RSS readers. To you guys who follow me: thank you! You give me many happies. However, I also get a huge number of new visitors daily to my blog from people who search around the Internet for various search terms. As part of a monthly project, here are some short replies to some of the search terms people have used to arrive here at the Digital Ambler. This focuses on some search terms that caught my eye during the month of November 2013. As most of you know, the big thing that’s been going on this month has been the 49 Days of Definitions project, but people are still finding their way here for many other things. I also noticed that I had an unusual number of “unknown search terms”, referring to people who are using anonymous search techniques and secure browsing. Good for you; keep it up! I support that like whoa.

“orgone symbol” — As far as I’m aware, I know of no symbol for orgone generally; granted that I haven’t read many of Reich’s works, but I don’t know of an “orgone factor” represented with any Greek letter or symbol. Orgone is just an ambient life force, so it doesn’t have a religion or *ism that has its own symbol; you might use the Chinese character 氣, qi, which is used for a similar concept but might be crossing disciplines too enthusiastically. If you want a symbol to work with orgone, you might look up symbols used in Western-style reiki, or look up radionics patterns or designs. Some of my experiments with making “orgone circuitboards” or force compasses (which are closer to radionics than other things) can be found at this post.

“how to get over an addiction to divination” — For reference, check out my post on divinaddiction and divinaversion. First, let me clarify: an addiction to divination is basically micromanaging the future without letting things have a chance to happen first. It is over-reliance and dependence on divination in order to do anything of use. It’s alright to do ten readings in a row to figure out what’s needed for a trip or how certain things on the trip will go; it’s unhealthy if you do it for when you should leave for work in the morning each morning. (Note to hyper-Christianist mothers: use of divination is a necessary but not sufficient symptom of divinaddiction. Divination isn’t ungodly; you are for your hypocrisy and fundamentalism.) Honestly, the best way to get over an addiction to divination is to stop caring so much. Let life happen; you’re not in control of everything, nor have you ever, nor will you ever be. Use divination (sparingly) to see what you can work to change. Fix the problems that arise, and live with the predicaments that come your way. Ease up and stop being so goddamn controlling of everything in your life; learn your lessons, live well, and let go.

“talisman for love tetragrammaton key solomon” — The second, third, and fifth pentacles of Venus from the Key of Solomon should do you nicely. You might want to find the Mathers’ version of the text, which is drawn much more clearly.

“how to adhere my copper wand to my crystal” — Assuming you mean you have a crystal point that you’d like to affix to a copper wand, first I recommend you make a niche, nook, or pit in the wand that can hold the crystal comfortably and safely (much as in my ebony wand project); if the wand is a tube, see if you can get a copper pipe opening or valve that’s just big enough to let the crystal through while screwing the valve onto one end (much as in my fire wand project). In either case, when you’re ready to make the bond, get two-part epoxy from your local hardware or craft store. Mix the two parts together, apply to both surfaces, push together and hold firmly, then let cure for 24 hours. The bond made will be permanent and very sturdy.

“why are there ruling angels for planets” — Oooh, a deceptively simple philosophical question! To condense a lot of philosophy and theology into a brief explanation in a post mocking other people for finding my blog, the Divine Source has these things called “angels”, which are basically extensions of itself in other realms to achieve or create certain ends. It’s like the Divine is the brain or central command of operations, and the angels are the actual hands and feet or the machines that actually do the work. In that sense, everything that happens is manifested under the guidance and rulership of angels; it’s not just planets, but everything has a ruling angel, and some things have multiple angels. For instance, the “threefold keeper of Man” (Agrippa, book III, chapter 22) refers to three angels each and every human being has ruling over them: one for their specific incarnation and destiny in this life (natal genius), one for their current job and productive capabilities there (angel of occupation), and one that connects us directly to the Divine to guide us through all circumstances in all lifetimes (the Holy Guardian Angel or “Holy Demon”). Working with the ruling angel of anything is basically working with the thing that commands and directs the thing in this world, so it’s a powerful way to get in touch with anything and understand it.

“spiritual cleaningyour home with van van oil do i start from front to back” — The way I’ve heard it, when you’re cleaning out your house, you want to start from the back of the property to the front; when you’re blessing your house, you want to start from the front of the property to the back. I wouldn’t necessarily cleanse things off with Van Van oil, though it’s possible; I’d save Van Van oil for blessing and protecting after cleansing and banishing. YMMV.

“what are geomantic ablilities?” — The ability to understand the symbols and techniques involved in geomantic divination, but more than that, to cut through bullshit, ask concrete and specific questions, make effective and useful plans of action to achieve goals, to be able to cut a large problem down into multiple parts for easier analysis

“lost + stolen + planets + houses + astrology -vedic -radu -indian” — First, major props to anyone who actually knows how to use a goddamn search engine. Whoever you are, I love you for knowing and specifying what you actually want to search for. As for the actual substance, what you appear to be looking for is a method to find lost or stolen items using only Western astrology (as opposed to Vedic or jyotish astrology). While I’m no real astrologer, I’d suggest looking at the significator of the second house to represent the object, that of the fifth (fourth from the second) to determine where it might be, and that of the seventh to see whether anyone stole it or whether you just happened to lose it. Apply the other rules of horary astrology as normal. If you want a geomantic perspective on how to find lost or stolen objects, read this post, which is more than a little influenced by horary astrology techniques.

“greek red five pointed star on a column geomantic magick” — I…what? Are you trying to type out an entire slide on a Freemason conspiracy theorist PowerPoint presentation, or an entire Golden Dawn visualization? As far as I’m aware, there are multiple subjects in that query, so it’s hard to understand what’s being searched for here. Using my powerful geomantic abilities, I’m gonna have you whittle it down for me a bit.

“raven orthaevelve” — Ah, seems like I’ve been mentioning her plenty enough on my blog! Raven Orthaevelve is a fantastic friend of mine, who’s also a very skilled craftswoman, silversmith, and reference for several occult communities. She’s incredibly smart and regularly vomits textbooks of information, and is quite deft at weaving modern medical and scientific knowledge with alchemical, herbal, and spiritual lore. She has an Etsy page (with beautiful works that make excellent holiday gifts), and she’s open for commissions; she’s helped me out immensely on a number of projects, and I’ve got her help in something very special in the near future, too. Raven is also a devotee of the Mesoamerican (Mayan, Aztec, and Olmec, mostly) gods and does Mayan astrological forecasting on her Facebook page.

“books about positive energy communing with spirits” — If you’re still in the phase where you’re waffling about “positive energy”, I’m going to say that you’re not ready or magically mature enough to conjure or summon spirits. Prayer to the angels or beneficial gods like Tykhe or Fortuna might be better for you. Most spirits don’t care about “positive energy” but “energy that works”, no matter whether it’s positive or negative, lifey or deathy, white or black, or whatever.

“organic orgone” — You can pick this stuff up at your local Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s, usually beside the incense and scented soaps sections. It’ll cost a little more than the orgone that comes with chemical preservatives, but it’s much healthier for you. Goes great in kombucha, vegan quinoa kale curry, and anything that doesn’t actually taste good or is reasonable to buy but makes you feel better for being an entitled, yuppie activist-wannabe.

“how to conjuration calzas angel for help” — I’ve never heard of this spirit before, so it might be from some obscure text I haven’t come across yet. Googling for “calzas” I find nothing but images of tights, stockings, hosiery, and skinny jeans, so if you wanted to conjure that, you could go to your local Target or department store and buy some; if you wanted something more spiritual, you could conjure the ruling angel of this type of clothing by drawing on a stylized picture of pants on a lamen and performing a Trithemian conjuration ritual.

“orgone generator orb” — An orgone generator is anything that collects or “generates” orgone, usually in the form of a box or cabinet. A container whose walls are lined with repeating layers of organic and inorganic material work fine for this to collect orgone in the inside of the container; a simple version of this can be made by taking multiple pieces of printer paper and tinfoil, putting one on top of the other in alternating layers with the paper as both the outermost and innermost layers, then gluing or taping it all together and making a box out of it. An orb can be done in a similar way, but is difficult to make easily; you don’t need an orb to focus the orgone in the generator, since the generator simply collects it all inside anyway. I use an orb in my MaGOS setup, but that’s for a different purpose; I’m using an orgone accelerator (which propels orgone in a particular direction) into a crystal field using the orb to redirect the energy in the field, so this probably isn’t what you’re looking for. (Then again, with anything orgone-related, it’s hard to determine what people actually want out of it.)

“geomantic hours” — The geomantic hours are a development of time division much like the planetary hours, where individual slices of time are assigned to the seven planets. Similarly, previous geomancers have tried to form a similar system of time where one assigns individual geomantic figures to the hours, but I haven’t found this system to be of much use. While the system of planetary hours is clean, orderly, and regular, the systems of geomantic hours (as I’ve read them) are either incredibly haphazard, significantly flawed, or corrupted from an original source. Besides, I haven’t found much use for them that I wouldn’t simply use for the planetary hours and looking outside to see whether it’s daytime or nighttime. If you’d like to read more, you might look up this post on timing with geomancy that mentions these hours.

“md caduceus symbol tattoo” — If you’re going to be a doctor of medicine with the highest recognizable degree in the land to show it, you should know better than to use the Wand of Hermes (with two snakes and wings on the top) for your profession. You want the asclepian, or the Staff of Asclepius, which has one snake and no wings. You can see my tattoos, one of each, in this post from before. The caduceus is for speed, messages, trickery, deceit, which is good for commercial health organizations who’re into that. The asclepian is for health, healing, wholeness, and purity, which is good for doctors, nurses, medics, and anyone who actually helps people. I would, however, suggest the caduceus in addition to the asclepian if you’re an ambulance driver, in an armed forces, or some sort of field medic where speed is of the essence, but this might be better for a talisman than a tattoo proper.

“lead pencil in orgonite” — Technically, “lead pencils” use graphite, which is a form of more-or-less pure carbon. Like lead and unlike some other sources of carbon, however, graphite is inorganic, serving as a metal when working with orgone technology. The wood surrounding the graphite, as might be expected, is organic; technically the pencil itself can serve as a conductor for orgone due to its combination of organic and inorganic elements, though a weak one on its own. Pencils have never contained lead, not now nor ever since their development as a tool of writing, but were thought to since graphite is visually similar to lead ore. In a similar vein, orgonite has never been of use, not now nor ever since their development as glittery robot vomit, but were thought to since fluffy pseudoscientific new-agers want to “heal the earth” without doing any actual work of value. The pencil is better off being used to fill out forms for helping out with third world countries or disaster victims than being wasted in resin and other trash.

Today, let’s discuss the nineteenth definition, part V, number 2 of 3:

To Nous nothing is incomprehensible, to speech nothing ineffable: when you keep silent, you understand; when you talk, you (just) talk. Since Nous conceives speech in silence, only (that) speech (which comes) from silence and Nous (is) salvation. (But that) speech (which comes) from speech (is) only perdition; for by (his) body man is mortal, but by speech (he is) immortal.

Speech with reason is Logos; speech without reason is voice (V.1). Among all the creatures with voice, Man is the only one with Nous, which enables him to reason (I.1, IV.1). Logos, which is “reasonable speech”, is the servant of Nous, allowing for the gap between that which is only intelligible and that which is both sensible and intelligible (or, said another way, that which is sensible and that which is insensible) to be bridged. Voice is sensible; reason is intelligible only; by combining the two, we get reasonable speech, which allows for the intelligible to become sensible. Now we start to see how the Logos works with the Nous, and how Man works with both of these in its own manner.

First, we read that “to Nous nothing is incomprehensible”; this follows from V.1, where “Nous sees everything”, and from III.1, where “nothing is uninhabited by God”. Nous is Mind, and more than that, the Mind of All as well as the All. After this, we learn that “to speech nothing [is] ineffable”; thus, there is nothing that cannot be intelligible nor reasoned about. Consider that it is impossible for anything to exist outside of God; all things must be a part of God, and all of God is intelligible. Add to it, where the Mind is, so too is the Word, so the Word is with the Mind in all places at all times and is a servant to Mind. The Word, the Logos, allows things to be reasoned and reasonable; thus, where Logos goes, so too does reason. Whatever can be reasoned can be spoken of; thus, “nothing is ineffable” to Logos, which can reason about literally everything that exists and can possibly exist within God.

However, while nothing is ineffable to the Word itself, this is a far cry from the words we humans use. “When you keep silent, you understand; when you talk, you just talk” suggests that the real reason within us is not connected to sensibility, since silence is not sensible. Sensing a lack of talking is not the same thing as sensing silence, since we can sense the absence of something but not something that is truly insensible, as Logos is. Reason allows us to bridge the gap between the sensible and the insensible, but is not itself sensible. Consider the beginning of Hermes Trismegistus’ prayer from the Poemander (chapter I, parts 30 through 32):

Accept my reason’s offerings pure, from soul and heart for aye stretched up to Thee, O Thou unutterable, unspeakable, Whose Name naught but the Silence can express.

We know that “to speech nothing [is] ineffable”, though we also know that God is ineffable (I.4); this would appear to be a contradiction, but remember that speech is not the same thing as reasonable speech. Reasonable speech allows us to learn about the intelligible through sensible means, but does not allow us to bring the intelligible into sensibility, much as “Nous does not become an observer for the eyes, but the eyes for Nous” when it comes to sight (V.1). True understanding through reasonable speech requires us to abandon voice; I’m reminded of the parable of the raft to explain this point:

A man is trapped on one side of a fast-flowing river. Where he stands, there is great danger and uncertainty – but on the far side of the river, there is safety. But there is no bridge or ferry for crossing. So the man gathers logs, leaves, twigs, and vines and is able to fashion a raft, sturdy enough to carry him to the other shore. By lying on the raft and using his arms to paddle, he crosses the river to safety.

The Buddha then asks the listeners a question: “What would you think if the man, having crossed over the river, then said to himself, ‘Oh, this raft has served me so well, I should strap it on to my back and carry it over land now?’”

The monks replied that it would not be very sensible to cling to the raft in such a way.

The Buddha continues: “What if he lay the raft down gratefully, thinking that this raft has served him well, but is no longer of use and can thus be laid down upon the shore?”

The monks replied that this would be the proper attitude.

The Buddha concluded by saying, “So it is with my teachings, which are like a raft, and are for crossing over with — not for seizing hold of.”

Reasonable speech serves the Nous by bringing us closer to understanding, that which the Nous does, but this is done through speech which serves reasonable speech which serves Nous. Once we reach understanding, we no longer have need of speech, since we are enjoined with Logos, and once we are brought by Logos to Nous, we no longer have need of even that. And, much as the innate Buddha-nature within us all according to several kinds of Buddhist thought, Man already has Nous, and nothing really stops us from understanding things as we are immediately. To talk for any purpose besides reason, and only then when understanding is not yet obtained through it, is talking simply for the sake of talking. Speech just becomes voice, and Man acts as animals with only voice and no Nous.

“Nous conceived speech in silence”; it’s easier to understand this as “Logos” rather than “speech”, since speech implies sensibility, but Logos was not conceived in the realm of sense. Logos is intelligible; voice is sensible; reasonable speech is the cross between the two. Thus, reason abides in silence, not merely a lack of talking, but silence as intelligibility can only be. Because of this, “only that [Logos] which comes from silence and Nous is salvation”. This is making the case that simply reasoning about things out loud, using sensibility as the primary and only means of understanding creation, is not the way to go; silent contemplation, reasoning from reasoning itself, is the way to approach the Nous. This itself is directed by the Nous, who conceived Logos in silence; similarly, as Man is made in the image of Nous, we too must conceive within ourselves Logos in silence and not jabbering about.

Contrasted to this, “speech which comes from speech is only perdition”. Remember that all living beings with voice are earthly; although the immortal, heavenly beings made of fire and air have soul and body, it’s only the earthy mortal beings that have soul and breath as well as voice (IV.1, IV.2). And, since earthy living beings are mortal, they must die. Speech-from-speech is part and parcel of this; this is an aspect of animalian, mortal, worldly speech, which limits one’s understanding of things only to that which is sensible. Speech-from-speech binds Man to the world just as it does for animals, who can only ever use speech-from-speech. This is not the way to “salvation”, to Nous, which requires speech-from-silence.

The last part of this definition clarifies something about Man: “by his body man is mortal, but by speech he is immortal”. Now we start to pick up on the last part from definition I.V, where it said that “man is mortal although he is ever-living”. Speech-from-speech represents the animalian, inferior part of Man; speech-from-silence represents the spiritual, superior part of Man. The former is a creation of the world; the latter is the Nous and Logos itself. Creations of the world die, while the Nous and Logos are eternal and undying. It’s by reasonable speech, Logos, speech-from-silence that Man can attain salvation and immortality; in other words, we talked ourselves into this mess, and now we have to understand it to get back out. Merely keeping on talking will only serve to get us further entrenched in the mess of the world, so that’s not the route we need to take. We need to understand what’s going on, how the higher affects the lower and vice versa, and what reason itself is to get back on our immortal legs; in order to become immortal, we need to be silent.

We have to understand that Man is not merely a creature of this sensible world; Man is something made from both above and below, from God as well as from Heaven. Man is made in the image of God because Man was given Nous; Man was also made in the image of Heaven being made from the four elements with an animalian body. We’re a weird syncresis of purely-divine and impurely-divine parts, or directly-divine and indirectly-divine, that gives us both death and immortality at once. The Poemander describes this weird amalgamation of Mankind and how we came to be (chapter I, parts 14 and 15):

So he who hath the whole authority o’er [all] the mortals in the cosmos and o’er its lives irrational, bent his face downwards through the Harmony, breaking right through its strength, and showed to downward Nature God’s fair Form. And when she saw that Form of beauty which can never satiate, and him who [now] possessed within himself each single energy of [all seven] Rulers as well as God’s [own] Form, she smiled with love; for ’twas as though she’d seen the image of Man’s fairest form upon her Water, his shadow on her Earth. He in his turn beholding the form like to himself, existing in her, in her Water, loved it and willed to live in it; and with the will came act, and [so] he vivified the form devoid of reason. And Nature took the object of her love and wound herself completely round him, and they were intermingled, for they were lovers.

And this is why beyond all creatures on the earth man is twofold; mortal because of body, but because of the essential Man immortal. Though deathless and possessed of sway o’er all, yet doth he suffer as a mortal doth, subject to Fate. Thus though above the Harmony, within the Harmony he hath become a slave. Though male-female, as from a Father male-female, and though he’s sleepless from a sleepless [Sire], yet is he overcome [by sleep].

So, where does that leave me with all this writing and talking about the Definitions, or any of my magic and philosophical work? If talking only serves to keep talking, and if silence is the only means to real understanding, why am I bothering with all of this? We have to remember that, being made from two parts, we must be able to act as One, just as God is One from the All. God conceived Logos in silence, which is the realm of God. Thus, to do the same for us, we must conceive Logos in a lack of talking, which is the correspondence in our realm to that of silence in God’s. However, God not only conceived the Word but spoke it, creating the rest of the cosmos; Man must, then, not only conceive the Word in a lack of talking but speak it. Understanding is silence, but salvation is reason, and reason and speech go together as one in Man; just as Man is a combination of the intelligible (Nous) and sensible (body), so too is reasonable speech a combination of the intelligible (Logos) and sensible (voice). Speech borne from silent understanding allows Logos to enter more into the world; speech borne from speech brings more of the world into itself.

In other words, we have to use speech to sensibly approach Logos, which is the first step to salvation in the Definitions. This leads us from talking to a lack of talking, which produces silence within ourselves. Once we approach and obtain Logos, and thus reason and Nous within ourselves, we must use Logos instead of speech to approach the Nous itself. After all, why else would Hermes Trismegistus have spoken and taught, if not to bring others to Logos and Nous when he himself had already accomplished it? For that matter, why else would Jesus have taught his disciples, or Buddha Shakyamuni the arhats? Because they wanted to bring others to truth. Because they saw the need for more people to obtain understanding. Because reasonable speech is the servant of Nous. “For what Nous wants, speech interprets it” (V.1); and if those who understand Nous speak from their (silent) understanding, then it’s not speech-from-speech they’re saying, but speech-from-silence, and it’s only speech-from-silence that shows the way to salvation, to nirvana, to enlightenment, to immortality, to God, to Nous. We can then derive from this, then, that Nous wants Man to join itself through Logos.

I’ll let Hermes finish this post off, with his own explanation of his own spoken words to his student Asclepius, from the Corpus Hermeticum (chapter IX, part 10):

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

My word (logos) doth go before [thee] to the truth. But mighty is the mind, and when it hath been led by word up to a certain point, it hath the power to come before [thee] to the truth. And having thought o’er all these things, and found them consonant with those which have already been translated by the reason, it hath [e’en now] believed, and found its rest in that Fair Faith.

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

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

49 Days of Definitions: Part I, Definition 2

49 Days of Definitions: Part I, Definition 3

49 Days of Definitions: Part I, Definition 4

49 Days of Definitions: Part I, Definition 5

49 Days of Definitions: Part II, Definition 1

49 Days of Definitions: Part II, Definition 2

49 Days of Definitions: Part II, Definition 3

49 Days of Definitions: Part II, Definition 4

49 Days of Definitions: Part II, Definition 5

49 Days of Definitions: Part II, Definition 6

Dream Divination Ritual and Timing

49 Days of Definitions: Part III, Definition 1

49 Days of Definitions: Part III, Definition 2

49 Days of Definitions: Part III, Definition 3

49 Days of Definitions: Part III, Definition 4

49 Days of Definitions: Part IV, Definition 1

49 Days of Definitions: Part IV, Definition 2

49 Days of Definitions: Part V, Definition 1

Search Term Shoot Back, November 2013

49 Days of Definitions: Part V, Definition 2