Re: Pythagorean thoughts:Beans again
- 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
For any one here who is interested in a better history of
Pythagoras.... here is a webpage that will help
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
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> --- In email@example.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
> > the earliest sources Pythagoras is specifically not shown as a
> > vegitarian, and later he is, and that all of these sources
> > his dietary practices are far enough after the fact to raise
> > questions (Diogenes, once again, is a post-Socratic). This has
> > 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
> the eating of beans is definitely pre-Socratic, as well as the
> injunction given to the initiates of the Mysteries of Eleusis.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, pessy@c... wrote:be
> > lady_caritas writes:
> > > contained in this line, "Within the present world, (reputedly)
> > > is good and there is evil, (but) the world's goods are not
> > > good, and its evils not (really) evil." IOW, "reputedly"
> > > or "allegedly" or "so they say" makes me wonder. Would this
> > > Valentinian recounting a more literal, traditional notion of
> > > opposites, "good" and "evil," in comparison to a conception ofbe
> > > world not being (really) black and white? Or OTOH might this
> > > heresiologist relating a view secondhand or rather a novice
> > > an initiation process or even a Valentinian not entirely
> convinced or
> > > in agreement about the concepts of good and evil? Regardless,
> > > think we can at least glean some Valentinian ideas from thisthis
> > > as it speaks to hylic, psychic, and pneumatic natures, and it
> > > certainly reiterates a common theme of resurrection now in
> > > lifetime, not waiting for some later time.last
> > no, it just merans that the world is evil, and good is out of the
> > whereas Zoroastrians see good and bad residing in the world.
> > Klaus Schilling
> Klaus, I suppose that is also a very likely interpretation. (My
> sentence of that paragraph was referring not only to the line justthought
> 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
> when no direct mention is made of them and we don't even know theOr
> original source or context of this whole passage. And, where does
> the passage say that this world is only "evil," as you interpret?
> do you think it is implied somehow?fit
> Also, considering your interpretation of that line, how does that
> within the context of the remainder of the passage, with the author
> defining the "midpoint" -- "**after** this world" -- as "evil"?