It cannot be contested that it is from Hermes that Hermetism takes its name. The Greek Hermes has in fact characteristics that correspond exactly to the sciences in question and that are strikingly expressed, for example, by his chief attribute, the Caduceus. No doubt there will be a further opportunity to examine its symbolism more fully; suffice it to say for the moment that this symbolism is essentially and directly related to what might be called "human alchemy  " and is concerned with the possibilities of the subtle state, even if these are to be taken merely as the preparatory means to a higher realization, as are, in Hinduism, the equivalent hatha-yoga practices. This can moreover be transferred to the cosmic order, since everything in man has its correspondence in the outer world, and vice versa. [NA: As is said in Rasa’il ikhwan as-safa, "The world is a great man and man is a little world" (al-alam insan kabir   wa ’l-insan alam saghir). It is moreover in virtue of this correspondence that a certain realization in the "microcosmic" order can cause, accidentally as regards the being who has achieved it, an outward realization relating to the "macrocosmic" order without any special effort having been exerted in that direction, as has been known to happen, for example, in certain cases of metallic transmutations.] Here again, and by reason of this very correspondence, the domain in question is the "intermediary world," where are brought into play forces whose dual nature is very clearly figured by the two serpents of the Caduceus. It may be remembered also, in this connection, that Hermes is represented as the messenger of the gods and as their interpreter (hermeneutcs), that is, precisely, an intermediary between the celestial and terrestrial worlds, and that he has in addition the function of "guide of the souls of the dead" which, in a lower order, is clearly related also to the domain of the subtle possibilities. [NA: The functions of divine messenger and "guide of souls" could, astro-logically, be related respectively to a diurnal and a nocturnal aspect; they may also be said to correspond to the descending and ascending currents symbolized by the two serpents of the Caduceus.] It might be objected that insofar as concerns Hermetism, Hermes takes the place of the Egyptian Thoth with whom he has been identified, and that Thoth represents wisdom, which is related to the priesthood as guardian and transmitter of the tradition. That is true, but since this identification cannot have been made without some reason, it must be admitted that it concerns more especially a certain aspect of Thoth which corresponds to a certain part of the tradition, the part that comprises those branches of knowledge that are related to the "intermediary world"; and the remains that the ancient Egyptian civilization has left behind do in fact show that the sciences of this order were much more developed there and had taken on an importance far more considerable than anywhere else. There is moreover another comparison, we might even say another equivalence, which shows clearly that this objection would have no real bearing: In India the planet Mercury (or Hermes) is called Budha, a name of which the root letters mean wisdom; here again, it is enough to specify the domain in which this wisdom (in its essence the inspiring principle of all knowledge) is to find its more particular application when it is related to this specialized function. [NA: Budha is not to be confused with Buddha, the title of Shakya-Muni, although both appellations have clearly the same radical meaning, and although certain attributes of the planetary Budha were eventually transferred to the historic Buddha, who is represented as having been "illuminated" by the irradiation of this planet, whose essence he was said to have absorbed into himself. It may be noted in this connection that the mother of the Buddha is called Maya-Devi and that, for the Greeks and Romans, Maia was also the mother of Hermes or Mercury.] Essays: Hermes

In place of the terms "Self " and "ego," we may also use those of " Personality" and "individuality," with one reservation, however, for the "Self," as we shall explain later on, may denote something over and above the Personality. The Theosophists, who seem to have taken a delight in confusing their terminology, interpret the Personality and the individuality in a sense which is the exact opposite of that in which they should rightly be understood; it is the first which they identify with the "ego," and the second with the "Self." Previously, on the contrary, even in the West, whenever any distinction has been made between these two terms, the Personality has always been regarded as superior to the individuality and that is why we say that this is their normal relationship, which there is every reason to retain. Scholastic philosophy, in particular, has not overlooked this distinction, but it does not seem to have grasped its full metaphysical significance, nor to have extracted the most profound consequences which follow from it ; this is moreover what often occurs, even on occasions where Scholasticism shows the most remarkable similarity with certain portions of the Oriental doctrines. In any case, the Personality, metaphysically speaking, has nothing in common with what modern philosophers so often call the "human person," which is, in fact, nothing but the individuality pure and simple ; besides, it is this alone and not the Personality which can strictly be called human. In a general way, it appears that Westerners, even when they attempt to carry their views further than those of the majority, mistake for the Personality what is actually but the superior part of the individuality, or a simple extension of it [NA: M. Léon Daudet in certain of his works (L’Hérédo and Le Monde des Images) has distinguished in the human being between what he calls "self" (soi) and "ego" (moi); but both of these, as he conceives them, are for us equally included in the individuality and fall entirely within the scope of psychology which, whatever he may have supposed, is quite incapable of extending its sway so far as to include the Personality; however, the fact of having tried to establish such a distinction indicates a kind of presentiment which deserves to be pointed out as remarkable in an author who had no pretensions to be called a metaphysician.]: in these circumstances everything which is of the purely metaphysical order necessarily remains outside their comprehension. Man and His Becoming according to the Vedanta FUNDAMENTAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SELF" AND THE "EGO"