Corpus Hermeticum, Libellus VII : Hermes Trismegistus Urges Us to Wake Up! (part 2)

Ὅτι μέγιστον κακὸν ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ περὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἀγνωσία.

Humanity's Greatest Illness is Ignorance Concerning the Transcendent. 

The title of this short book contains Hermes diagnosing the root cause of our greatest illness, the source of the greatest evil we inflict upon others as well as ourselves, as being ignorance of the transcendent. Let's examine the three main concepts of this title to see what Hermes is talking about. 

I. Illness / Evil

Hermes begins his diagnosis by focusing upon humanity's greatest kakon, a word which, in this case, does not have a single English equivalent. The basic meaning is evil, but the way the word evil is used in English to describe the likes of Hitler and Charles Manson is too narrow for what Hermes is discussing, though he undoubtedly means this as well. Another meaning is illness or sickness, which is good, but which undersells the evil component. Really the best way for us to understand what Hermes is talking about is to keep these words together in our mind: illness-evil. The illness aspect is important, because it suggests that we have an inner dis-ease, and that a cure is possible. The evil aspect alerts us to the fact that our actions which come from our dis-ease compromise us morally.

II. Ignorance

So what is the cause of our illness-evil? It is our ignorance of the way things are. The Greek is interesting: a-gnōsia, a compounding of the negating prefix a- (meaning "the opposite of what follows), plus the word gnōsia, the root of which is connected to the word gnosis, as well as the word knowledge. If it is a lack of knowledge that is the root cause of our illness, then knowledge must be the cure. But this intellectual knowledge must be extended to permeate our entire being, it must change the way we see and experience reality. This is what is known as gnosis. 

III. The Transcendent

The word Hermes uses here, theos, literally means god. But in English the word god, or God, has come to mean almost exclusively a divine male parent who is angry and jealous, who though He loves us his children, has us dangling over the pits of eternal torment into which He will cast us upon our death unless we believe certain things. This is not in any way, shape, or form, what Hermes is talking about. By this word Hermes is designating what we might call the Transcendent. His word is a pointer to something that humans cannot comprehend with our mind nor in any way experience with our senses. 

We can, though, get some ideas about the Transcendent, especially ideas about what it is not. The Buddha declares that "There is the unborn, the unproduced, the unmade, the uncompounded[1]." As a lead up to this he also describes this same "reality" as being non-spatial and non-temporal[2]. If we try to picture any one of these aspects we will find that it is simply an impossibility. It is an instructive exercise, however, because it lets us know the limitations of rational inquiry. But it's easy to make a mistake here, thinking that the Buddha is describing this from an un-interested, third person, clinically objective point of view. He describes this state (or touching this state) as alone being the "end of suffering[3]".

Dionysius the Areopagite takes a similar approach in his Mystical Theology, where he negates about everything imaginable concerning the Transcendent. In chapter 4 he states that, "the cause of all things (of our reality), since it is even above every existence, is neither non-existent nor lifeless, neither devoid of reason nor mindless. It is neither a body nor a shape, and it neither possesses form nor qualities nor quantities nor mass. It is not in a place nor is it visible nor does it have the sense of touch.[4]" And he begins chapter 5 with, "Again, ascending higher, we say that it is not a soul, nor a mind, and it does not have an imagination, an opinion, reason, or conception.[5]" 

This same process is known in Vedanta as neti, neti, Sanskrit for "not this, not this". As a matter of fact there is in Vedantic philosophy a well-known formulation: What I perceive, that I am not. This perceiving spares nothing: physical objects as well as ideas, memories, emotions, any state of awareness (waking, dreaming, dreamless sleep), any sense of "I" are all perceived, and thus are not the actual Self.

And before going further we should keep in mind as often as possible that, just as we humans don't usually tend to argue over whether one language's word for sun is better than another, we shouldn't argue over which words or concepts are the correct concepts for the state or experience that is the referent of such words as Brahman, Atman, Buddha Body, Nirvana, Godhead, etc. These words and concepts are merely pointers to an experience that words and concepts are not fit to describe.

-----------

1. Atthi, bhikkhave, ajātaṃ abhūtaṃ akataṃ asaṅkhataṃ. See Udāna, 8.3. Note how Pāli has the same negating prefix as Greek!

2. See Udāna, 8.1.

3. Esevanto dukkhassa. Udāna, 8.1.

4. Λέγομεν οὖν, ὡς ἡ πάντων αἰτία καὶ ὑπὲρ πάντα οὖσα οὔτε ἀνούσιός ἐστιν οὔτε ἄζωος, οὔτε ἄλογος οὔτε ἄνους· οὐδὲ σῶμά ἐστιν οὔτε σχῆμα, οὔτε εἶδος οὔτε ποιότητα ἢ ποσότητα ἢ ὄγκον ἔχει· οὐδὲ ἐν τόπῳ ἐστὶν οὔτε ὁρᾶται οὔτε ἐπαφὴν αἰσθητὴν ἔχει·

5. Αὖθις δὲ ἀνιόντες λέγομεν, ὡς οὔτε ψυχή ἐστιν οὔτε νοῦς, οὔτε φαντασίαν ἢ δόξαν ἢ λόγον ἢ νόησιν ἔχει·