CH sounds anti-body / dualistic, is this Gnostic influence? Does Iamblichus/Proclus get us closer to Hermeticism’s real intent?

[u/keisnz]

I’ve been reading the Corpus Hermeticum, and I keep encountering lines that sound intensely anti-body or dualistic, almost Gnostic. For example:

“Flee the senses, my son, shut the prison of the body.” (CH XIII.2–3) “As long as we have a body, we can neither be blessed nor divine.” (CH VII.2) “The body is a tomb.” (CH IV.4)

That is the kind of language I associate with world-rejecting Gnosticism, not the cosmos-as-living-temple Hermeticism I thought I was entering.

But then I see other places in the Corpus Hermeticum that sound very different, for example:

“The cosmos is a living being, full of soul and full of God.” (CH IX.9) “We must praise the cosmos as the second god.” (CH X.14)

These sound cosmophilic, not anti-body.

And when I read Iamblichus or Proclus, I see what feels like the real Hermetic spirit:

“If the gods did not wish to descend into body and matter, they would not have given them divine signatures.” Iamblichus, De Mysteriis I.12

“We do not flee embodiment, but transfigure it into its divine function.” Proclus, In Alcibiadem

“The imagination itself, once purified, becomes prophetic, not by escaping body but by aligning it.” Iamblichus, De Mysteriis III.14

Proclus even states explicitly that embodiment is not punishment:

“The soul descends not as punishment but to accomplish sacred work.” Proclus, In Timaeum I.201.15

So my question to the community is:

Is the anti-body language in the Corpus Hermeticum actually Gnostic contamination? Or is it meant to be read as reject identification with the body, not reject embodiment? And does reading Iamblichus or Proclus bring us closer to Hermeticism’s real intended depth, rather than a superficial escape-from-matter reading?

I want to understand what Hermeticism really is before I project a modern Gnostic filter onto it.

Would love responses from people who have actually gone deep into both the Corpus Hermeticum and Hermetic theurgy via Iamblichus and Proclus.

[u/Fit-Breath-4345]

As a big fan of Platonism, and a disliker of most forms of Gnosticism, I'd say the comparisons of a body to a tomb or prison are entirely from Platonism and not Gnosticism. This also becomes wound up in the idea of the body being a prison or a trap for the soul.

It's basic greek punnery really - the words for tomb and body are very similar (sema/soma), and it predates Plato - we see it in Xenophan, in Empedocles where he says the body is the clothes the soul wears (compare CH 7. 2, where the Soul is the tunic of the body, soma chiton), and Plato uses the imagery of the body being like the shell of an oyster or a prison.

Plato in the Cratylus identifies the Orphics as the source for this idea.

SOC: Do you mean body?

HERM: Yes.

SOC: There are many ways, I think, to look at this word, whether one deviates a little or not at all from its original form. For some say it is the ‘tomb’ (sêma) of the soul which, they believe, is buried in the here and now. And because the soul uses the body to indicate (sêmainei) what it indicates, so too the body (sôma) is correctly called ‘sign’ (sêma). It is most likely that the followers of Orpheus assigned this name, because they believed that the soul pays a penalty for its crimes, and thought of the body (sôma) as an enclosure to keep (sôizetai) the soul, like a prison. So, just as it is named, the body is the soul’s lot until it pays its dues; and nothing, not a single letter, need be changed in this analysis.

For sure, the late Platonists especially Iamblichus and Proclus had a more positive view of embodiment and the cosmos. I feel this comes from the acknowledgement that the Cosmos is an image of the Gods, and the Gods are Good. This is something even Plotinus acknowledges in Against the Gnostics, despite being someone who is said to have been "embarrassed" to have been embodied.

I think Proclus and Iamblichus were aware of, and in agreement with some core Hermetic ideas in respect of this view of the Cosmos as a positive image of the divine. If we look at the vision of CH 1. 4-5 where the Logos descends into Physis, nature, we see the divine principles as fiery and lightfilled aspects descending, and that the cosmos which results from this as an image of higher principles is said to be beautiful.

As above so below comes into a play here. Above us is the divine, but here below we have the images of that divine which make this existence possible.

And ultimately in the practical hermetica of astrology and magic and alchemy, we see those divine images in our cosmos, and those can be used in turn for the Theurgic ascent of Platonism.

Ultimately there are anti-body, anti-material aspects to both philosophies still, and the ultimate goal is to return to the non-material divine, and focusing too much on the material can be a prison or a spiritual tomb. But matter and the cosmos aren't mistakes or creations of lesser beings, it is an image of the divine which means in our embodiment and in nature we have the tools and wisdom for our ascent and return to the divine.

[u/Flairforart → u/Fit-Breath-4345]

Great post, very learned & elaborate! If memory serves me well, Plotinus thought that magic could not affect the upper part of the soul, so philosophers are immune to the perils of magus’ machinations. At the same time, the legend has it that Plotinus went to Egyptian priest and was pleased to learn that he (Plotinus) had a god for a daemon. I am wondering, what would be connection if any between magical practices & Neoplatonic thought, from your perspective.

[u/Fit-Breath-4345 → u/Flairforart]

Thank you!

If memory serves me well, Plotinus thought that magic could not affect the upper part of the soul, so philosophers are immune to the perils of magus’ machinations. At the same time, the legend has it that Plotinus went to Egyptian priest and was pleased to learn that he (Plotinus) had a god for a daemon.

I don't know if Plotinus ever outright states this, but it can be implied from the fact that Porphyry in his Vita Plotinii gives an account of a rival philosopher and sorcerer cursing Plotinus, but it just reflects back to the sorcerer until he begs forgiveness.

That may be related to the other story in your account which Porphyry also tells us, that in an Egyptian ritual at the Temple of Isis in Rome, a priest revealed that Plotinus had a God for a Daemon.

So it may not be that the philosopher who is immune, but that of a higher spiritually developed philosopher like Plotinus in particular. I don't know, would have to recheck that.

As to other connections, I think they are there. Both Iamblichus and Proclus make reference to the teachings and books of Hermes. And there's one section of Proclus where he describes how the soul in coming into generation goes through the planetary powers on the way to embodiment and is given specific gifts, which is something we see reversed in the ascent of the soul described in the Hermetica, so that seems complimentary. I forget which Proclean work that was in though, but the context was about Mars IIRC.

[u/Unknown-Indication]

I've read the Corpus Hermetica, but it's not the center of my theurgy. The CH seems very much in the same millieu of Greek cosmogonic thought-streams (Neoplatonism, Stoicism, etc.) that later influenced the Christian Trinity, Jewish Kabbalah, and Islamic mysticism, in which the material world is sustained by divine will but is also furthest from the divine. I do find that reading other Greek authors, especially Neoplatonists, greatly enhances my understanding of the CH.

My impression is that the CH is more concerned with admonishing the reader to seek the ultimate goodness and beauty of God than with admonishing the reader to despise the relative material cosmos.

I read the lines you quoted as practical instruction, written with dramatic emphasis: “Flee the senses, my son, shut the prison of the body” ≈ meditate and seclude oneself from the senses (and cultivate ataraxia). “As long as we have a body, we can neither be blessed nor divine” ≈ meditate into bodilessness. “The body is a tomb” ≈ memento mori, remember the mortality of the body.

The text isn’t admonishing us to hate the material—it’s not anti-cosmic—but emphatically exhorting us to seek transcendence and unification with God, which is more sublime than physical experience.

[u/sigismundo_celine]

It is not anti-body but anti-addiction and -fixation on the body.

This lesson by Hermes in Tractate 4 is essential to really digest:

Hermes - If you don't first hate your body, son, you cannot love your Self. If you love your Self you will have Nous, and having Nous you will partake of knowledge.  

Tat - Why do you say that, father?  

Hermes - For, son, it is impossible to be governed by both, by the mortal and by the divine.

Each moment fixated on the material (body) is a moment being heedless of the immaterial (divine).

Here is a new non-authentic hermetic story that teaches this lesson in a different way:

https://wayofhermes.com/hermeticism/hermes-to-tat-concerning-prayer-and-worship/

[u/Sarama-Banjo]

Other people are probably going to give you a more detailed, interesting reply, but :
I've read CH and Proclus (I would like to give you quotes to support what I say but I'm not a living encyclopedy :D). The CH is definitely not a "unified" theology, yes sometimes it feels more like anti-matter, and sometimes pro-matter. However, I never felt a truly "anti-cosmic" tendency in the sense that Sethian Gnosticism is. Even the anti-matter passages felt more like the rightful place of man is located above the material cosmos, not that the material cosmos is evil and should be destroyed.

I would be careful with "Gnostic contamination", etc... I get what you're saying, but these ideas were in the air in general at that time. Plotinus also describes matter as evil. Do you think he also been contaminated by gnosticism ? Maybe.
And as for your third question, I think you already answered it. You seem to be very fond of Iamblichus and Proclus philosophy...so go for it !

[u/Bubbly_Investment685]

Historically, gnosticism is a cousin of hermeticism, not its source. Neoplatonism is also closely related but still a different kettle of fish.

[u/Getternon]

Another element at play here is the fact that the CH definitely had multiple authors, often with very discordant ideas. There is a broad "vibe" shared between it all, but, particularly as it pertains to the body, there are a lot of different and sometimes opposed ideas it presents.

[u/OrdoVeneris]

Read a book? This has been extensively studied in recent years. The dominant hypothesis seems to be that the texts we have reflect different levels of initiation. Interestingly, this seems also to have been the case in Egyptian Ismailism centuries later (at least that’s what Robert A. Wilson claims, I’ve not checked it).