{"collection":"Gnosticism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/gno/th2/th212.htm","path":"gno/th2/th212.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/gno/th2/th212.htm","text":"Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. 2, by G.R.S. Mead, [1906]\nThe redactor of our Corpus must have taken this sermon from some collection of \u201cThose to Tat,\u201d for it begins \u201c\u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03b4\u03b5 \u03c3\u03bf\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03bd.\u201d One other sermon at least, then, must have preceded it; but whether it was our C. H., iv. (v.), \u201cThe Cup,\u201d or the lost C. H. (ii.), \u201cThe General Sermon,\u201d it is impossible to say.\nThe sermon bears no title proper, and the enunciation of the subject, which stands in its place, is derived from the second sentence of the treatise itself, and has plainly been superscribed by some later Byzantine editor.\nThe opening paragraphs of this fine tractate are very difficult to render into English in any way that can preserve the subtle shades of meaning of the Greek. As this subtle word-play has been entirely missed by all previous translators, I have made a rough attempt to preserve it by using the somewhat clumsy term \u201cmanifest.\u201d The word-play in Greek may be seen\nfrom the following list of the original terms taken in the order of their occurrence: \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03bc\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f10\u03c6\u03ac\u03bd\u03b7, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ad\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u1fb3, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1, \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f00\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03ae\u03c2, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03b9\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bd\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9, \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9. These all occur in \u00a7 1 and the first two lines of \u00a7 2.\nI have translated \u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c3\u03af\u03b1 by \u201cthinking-manifest,\u201d seeing that it is the power by which an object is made apparent or manifest. The doctrine is the same as that of the Ved\u0101nta philosophy, the M\u0101y\u0101 of the Ved\u0101ntav\u0101dins. M\u0101y\u0101 is generally translated \u201cillusion,\u201d but this is not a good equivalent, for it comes from the root ma, to make or measure. The Logos is called in the Ved\u0101nta, M\u0101yin (masc.), the Maker, Measurer, or Creator, and His Power, or Shakti, is M\u0101y\u0101 (fem.). It is the Power of the Divine Thought, and so far from being illusion in any ordinary sense of the word, is very real for us, and is only non-real as compared to the Logos Himself, the One Reality in the highest philosophical sense of the term.\nThe idea is magnificently summed up for us in a logos of Ph\u014dsilamp\u0113s, 1 quoted by the redactor of the Untitled Apocalypse of the Codex Brucianus, which runs as follows:\n\u201cThrough Him is that-which-really-is and that-which-really-is-not, through which the Hidden-which-really-is and the Manifest-which-really-is-not exists.\u201d\nAlso compare Hippolytus\u2019 summary of the \u201cSimonian\u201d Gnosis:\n\u201cOf this Twofold Nature he calls the one side the Hidden and the other the Manifest, saying that the concealed [parts] of the Fire are hidden in the manifest, and the manifest produced by the concealed. . . .\n\u201cAnd the manifest side of the Fire has all things in itself which a man can perceive of things visible, or which he unconsciously fails to perceive. Whereas the hidden side is everything that we can conceive as intelligible, . . . or which a man fails to conceive.\u201d 1\n2. \u201cThe Lord begrudgeth not Himself to any thing.\u201d Compare this with C. H., iv. (v.) 3: \u201cNot that He grudgeth any, for grudging cometh not from Him\u201d; and compare both with the saying of Plato in the Tim\u00e6us (29 E):\n\u201cHe was Good, and to the Good there can never at any time be any grudging of aught.\u201d\n10. With the soul-satisfying pantheism of \u00a7 10 we may with interest compare the address to the Logos in The Martyrdom of Peter, which still retains many Gnostic elements.\n\u201cThou that art to be understood by spirit alone! Thou art my father, Thou my mother, Thou my brother, Thou my friend, Thou my servant, Thou my master. Thou art the all, and all is in Thee. Yea, all that is, is Thou; and there is nothing else that is but Thee alone!\u201d 2\nThe treatise ends with one of the most magnificent Hymns to God ever written in any language\u2014a hymn which some foolish copyist has spoilt by tagging on to it the gloss of a reader noted on the margin of the MS. from which our scribe copied.\nWith the sentence: \u201cAll are in Thee, all are from Thee,\u201d compare the Naassene Hymn (quoted in Hippolytus\u2019 Introduction, in \u201cThe Myth of Man\u201d):\n\u201c\u2018From Thee\u2019 is Father, and \u2018Through Thee,\u2019 Mother,\u2014the two Immortal Names, Parents of \u00c6ons, O Thou who hast the Heaven for Thy City, O Man of Mighty Names!\u201d\n107:1 Perhaps a by-name of Basilides; see F. F. F., p. 554.\n108:1 Hipp., Philos., vi. 9; see my Simon Magus (London, 1892), p. 13.\n108:2 Lipsius (R. A.) and Bonnet (M.), Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha (Leipzig, 1891), i. 98.","title":"Thrice-Greatest Hermes, Vol. 2: I. Corpus Hermeticum: Commentary","type":"page"}