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

Re: Pythagorean thoughts:Beans again

Expand Messages
  • pmcvflag
    Herodotus was technically born a good number of years before Socrates, but his history is contemporary.... I have never seen him categorized as technically
    Message 1 of 170 , May 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Herodotus was technically born a good number of years before
      Socrates, but his history is contemporary.... I have never seen him
      categorized as technically "Pre-Socratic". However, that is not so
      much the point here. His work is largely legendary, and less reliable
      than even some later sources. It is interesting to note that
      Aristoxenus states explicitly that Pythagoras PREFERRED beans over
      other vegitables, and ate meat as well.

      Since Herodotus is also the primary source I'm aware of for the
      notion that transmigration is the suposedly Egyptian belief that
      Pythagoras brought home, I was wondering if anyone here could list,
      for my education, an actual traditional Egyptian source that talks
      about transmigration.

      For any one here who is interested in a better history of
      Pythagoras.... here is a webpage that will help
      http://plato.evansville.edu/public/burnet/ch2a.htm#41

      I would like to point out that in the end it may really not matter
      what Pythagoras himself taught, at least not for the sake of OUR
      topic. What is more important is what the later Pythagorians taught,
      since they are relvent to Gnosticism. Maybe Pythagoras was concerned
      with number, maybe not... but later Pythagorians certainly were. They
      were also a bit ascetic, and some of them held negative views of the
      physical world (others did not).

      The main relevence this has on Gnostic history, is that a couple well
      known Gnostics (Marcellina for instance) are also referred to
      as "Pythagorians" by some of the heresiologists. The resemblance
      between post Platonic "Neo-Pythagorianism" (which may have little in
      common with the original school) and Gnosticism of the era, may not
      be coincidental.

      PMCV

      --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > --- In gnosticism2@yahoogroups.com, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      >
      > > 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.
      >
      > It is true that Diogenes was post-Socratic...but not by much, maybe
      > about 70 years. Herodotus' account of the Egyptian injunction
      against
      > the eating of beans is definitely pre-Socratic, as well as the
      > injunction given to the initiates of the Mysteries of Eleusis.
      >
      > 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.