Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Pythagorean thoughts:Beans again

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    It is true that even in many traditional sources Pythagoras injunction is seen as dietary. However, it is also of note that in the earliest sources Pythagoras
    Message 1 of 170 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      It is true that even in many traditional sources Pythagoras'
      injunction is seen as dietary. However, it is also of note that in
      the earliest sources Pythagoras is specifically not shown as a
      vegitarian, and later he is, and that all of these sources outlining
      his dietary practices are far enough after the fact to raise
      questions (Diogenes, once again, is a post-Socratic). This has been
      part of my point.

      BTW, generally speaking Chianti, at least from the Classico region,
      seems just a little too light for liver in my view. Also, it's fruity
      acidity might bring out an unpleasant matalic taste the way it does
      with liver pate'. I could see a nice Chianti Putto with it's coffee
      overtones though.

      Oft stated sayings of Pythagoras.........

      One must not eat beans

      One must not pick up what has fallen

      One must not touch a white rooster

      One must not break bread

      One must not step over a cross-bar

      One must not stir the fire with iron

      One must not eat from a whole loaf

      One must not pluck a garland

      One must not sit on a quart of anything

      One must not eat the heart of anything

      One must not walk on highways

      One must not allow swallows to nest on one's roof

      One must not look in a mirror beside a light


      Some of these certainly do not remind one of teh mathmatical and
      logical ideas that were suppoed to have been central to the
      Pythagorian school. However, many of them look as if perhaps there
      could be some non-literal meaning that could be lost to us now.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > However, if we do assume that perhaps some of these pieces by
      later
      > > writes have a grain of truth in them, what exactly can we glean?
      For
      > > instance, what about the famous admonition against eating beans?
      It
      > > is notable that in fact Pythagoras doesn't say "don't eat beans",
      he
      > > says "Abstain from beans" ("kyamon apechete", if he said it at
      all
      > > that is). It has been suggested that in fact Pythagoras was
      > > admonishing people to stay away from political life and the black
      > and
      > > white beans used for voting in the councils.
      >
      > Hi PMCV,
      >
      > Wherever did you get such an absurd idea?…;-)…You know, there is a
      > traditional story about Pythagoras that goes something like this:
      > Pythagoras was walking through a field one day when he observed in
      ox
      > eating beans. He told the oxherd that he should advise his charge
      to
      > abstain from eating beans. The oxherd replied, "How can I do that,
      I
      > don't speak ox!" whereupon Pythagoras went over to the ox and
      > whispered something into his ear. Thereafter, the ox was never to
      eat
      > beans again.
      >
      > So I tend to think that the injunction was a dietary one. If my
      > physician advised me to "Abstain from red meat." His meaning would
      be
      > clear enough. If I did not wish to take his advice, I suppose I
      could
      > invent some metaphorical meaning for his statement. It would make
      > sense that Pythagoras should make such dietary proscriptions
      because
      > it would be consistent with the Pythagorean notion that the things
      of
      > the world have a direct relation to the psyche. And if we return to
      > Classical sources, it becomes clear that the injunction was a
      dietary
      > one. Diogenes proposed that the Pythagoreans rejected fava beans
      > because they cause thought-disturbing flatulence, saying, "One
      should
      > abstain from fava beans, since they are full of wind and take part
      in
      > the soul, and if one abstains from them one's stomach will be less
      > noisy and one's dreams will be less oppressive and calmer." This is
      > the judgment of Cicero, who refers to Plato (Div. 68), and of an
      > unnamed authority in Diogenes (VIII, 24), who associates this
      effect
      > with their 'participating most especially tou psychikou," a term
      which
      > can designate the soul of the dead as well as of the living. Also,
      > Herodotus (II, 37) reports that Egyptian priests consider beans to
      be
      > unclean. They were also taboo for Orphics and the initiates at
      > Eleusis; see Pausanias I, 37, 4 and Porphyry, Abst. IV, 16.
      Porphyry
      > makes clear that they were not to be touched and includes them in a
      > list along with apples, pomegranates, dead bodies, and recently
      > delivered women.
      >
      > BTW, I have it on good authority that fava beans make a great
      > accompaniment to liver with a nice Chianti.
      >
      > Regards,
      > fred
    • Wayne
      The Middle region, when you separate the light from the darkness you enter into the Twilight Zone, the World of the Imagination, Freedom of Mind, Divine Will.
      Message 170 of 170 , Jun 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        The Middle region, when you separate the light from the darkness
        you enter into the Twilight Zone, the World of the Imagination,
        Freedom of Mind, Divine Will.

        To Truly be Good you must be Free from the knowledge, from having
        known, experienced wrong doing, you must be innocent.

        Innocence exists only when there is no Evil, a long as Evil exist
        Good is Evil and Evil is good, there is no innocence.

        In between the Light and the Darkness, Parallel Universes, the Two
        Worlds of Reality, One the World of Reality as seen in the light of
        day, the Reality of the Moment, the Here and Now, Reality that exists
        independent of our thoughts concerning it and the World of the
        Imagination, the middle World, the World of Illusion, Sin; Reality as
        seen in the Second light of the Sun, Moon Light, where thinly veiled
        shadowy figures lurk in the Darkest corners of the Mind.

        By the light of the Silvery Moon, Light that is separated out of the
        Darkness, Twice light.

        Illusion Trice Light, Reality hauled up out of the darkest depths of
        the abyss, the imagination.

        A Lie is the Truth, an Illusion is a Reality, Evil is Good, Good is
        Evil, Good and Evil is Evil.


        Yahoogroups.com, lady_caritas <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pessy@c... wrote:
        > > lady_caritas writes:
        > >
        > > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
        > there
        > > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
        > (really)
        > > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
        > > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
        be
        > a
        > > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
        the
        > > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception of
        > the
        > > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
        be
        > a
        > > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
        > entering
        > > > an initiation process or even a Valentinian not entirely
        > convinced or
        > > > in agreement about the concepts of good and evil? Regardless,
        I
        > > > think we can at least glean some Valentinian ideas from this
        > passage,
        > > > as it speaks to hylic, psychic, and pneumatic natures, and it
        > > > certainly reiterates a common theme of resurrection now in
        this
        > > > lifetime, not waiting for some later time.
        > >
        > >
        > > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
        > world,
        > > whereas Zoroastrians see good and bad residing in the world.
        > >
        > >
        > > Klaus Schilling
        >
        >
        > Klaus, I suppose that is also a very likely interpretation. (My
        last
        > sentence of that paragraph was referring not only to the line just
        > previously discussed about "good" and "evil," but to other comments
        > in the GPh passage as a whole.) However, I guess my point was,
        > perhaps we could only assume the line related to Zoroastrian
        thought
        > when no direct mention is made of them and we don't even know the
        > original source or context of this whole passage. And, where does
        > the passage say that this world is only "evil," as you interpret?
        Or
        > do you think it is implied somehow?
        >
        > Also, considering your interpretation of that line, how does that
        fit
        > within the context of the remainder of the passage, with the author
        > defining the "midpoint" -- "**after** this world" -- as "evil"?
        >
        >
        > Cari
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.