Re: Pythagorean thoughts:Beans again
- Ah, PMCV, thank you for your most recent post (#7667), tying in later
Pythagoreans to Gnosticism. I just wanted to backtrack here a bit.
Did you catch Fred's allusion to Hannibal Lecter in "Silence of the
Lambs"? He (Hannibal, not Fred) claimed to have eaten a census
taker's liver "with some fava beans and a nice Chianti." Hannibal
might have been crazy but he was classy, so he undoubtedly he would
have had a "nice Chianti Putto," per your suggestion. :-)
I'd have to wonder if this whole bean affair, whether or not
originally an authentic concern, might not have developed in some
cases into just more of the stuff of legend for expediency, if only
because of all the possible explanations offered. During a quick
search, I found links in agreement with various suggestions already
offered here, including your political one.
The following link also discusses the ongoing debate citing that
fresh fava beans can be poisonous for some people, but there are some
nice recipes at the end (uh, no liver). ;-)
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
> 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
> 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.
> --- In email@example.com, fred60471 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, pmcvflag <no_reply@y...>
> > > However, if we do assume that perhaps some of these pieces by
> > > writes have a grain of truth in them, what exactly can we
> > > instance, what about the famous admonition against eating
> > > is notable that in fact Pythagoras doesn't say "don't eat
> > > says "Abstain from beans" ("kyamon apechete", if he said it at
> > > that is). It has been suggested that in fact Pythagoras was
> > > admonishing people to stay away from political life and the
> > and
> > > white beans used for voting in the councils.
> > Hi PMCV,
> > Wherever did you get such an absurd idea? ;-) You know, there is
> > traditional story about Pythagoras that goes something like this:
> > Pythagoras was walking through a field one day when he observed
> > eating beans. He told the oxherd that he should advise his charge
> > abstain from eating beans. The oxherd replied, "How can I do
> > don't speak ox!" whereupon Pythagoras went over to the ox and
> > whispered something into his ear. Thereafter, the ox was never to
> > 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
> > clear enough. If I did not wish to take his advice, I suppose I
> > invent some metaphorical meaning for his statement. It would make
> > sense that Pythagoras should make such dietary proscriptions
> > it would be consistent with the Pythagorean notion that the
> > the world have a direct relation to the psyche. And if we return
> > Classical sources, it becomes clear that the injunction was a
> > one. Diogenes proposed that the Pythagoreans rejected fava beans
> > because they cause thought-disturbing flatulence, saying, "One
> > abstain from fava beans, since they are full of wind and take
> > the soul, and if one abstains from them one's stomach will be
> > noisy and one's dreams will be less oppressive and calmer." This
> > the judgment of Cicero, who refers to Plato (Div. 68), and of an
> > unnamed authority in Diogenes (VIII, 24), who associates this
> > with their 'participating most especially tou psychikou," a term
> > can designate the soul of the dead as well as of the living.
> > Herodotus (II, 37) reports that Egyptian priests consider beans
> > unclean. They were also taboo for Orphics and the initiates at
> > Eleusis; see Pausanias I, 37, 4 and Porphyry, Abst. IV, 16.
> > makes clear that they were not to be touched and includes them in
> > 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
- 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 email@example.com, 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"?