well, he makes a good case for the idea that HT is a different transcription of enoch. i'm inclined to agree but then again, what HT says in early parts is not much different from what is repeated in timaeus and genesis and sumerian creation stories beginnings. that doesn't really qualify it.

where i definitely think he's on the nail is Vishnu Purana. and that also starts with a text that resembles parts of the creation story/science parts of enoch and HT's corpus hermeticum. so i'm gonna leave that one aside.

the main problem i have with the cosmology that he decribes in the 4th part of TAOY is thes "bang/bust" idea. because i believe the same as what Lao Tzu said: that it starts at zero, and it goes to infinity.