- ... have into the core of the secret teachings. The pebbles referred to above might very well have been substitutes for the preferred bean if a bean isMessage 1 of 170 , May 2, 2003View Source--- In email@example.com, "James Lambert" <jehlickova@m...>
>have into the core of the secret teachings.
> I believe that the bean issue may be one of the few clues that we
The pebbles referred to above might very well have been substitutes
for the preferred 'bean' if a bean is understood to be spherical in
> My studies in the Gnostic traditions have led me to the conclusionthat Pythagoras knew and taught something which has since been hidden.
Secret, Hidden, Lost, Knowledge of a Reality that is not readily
Sacred geometry, the secret of Holy Grail.
The Law, Only the Whole of a Single Reality, a Singularity, may
occupy a given moment of Time in Space.
Singularity, Whole of a Single reality.-------------->O
Irrational, bipolar, differentiated, divided, Chaotic.
Ever wonder why there are no left angles?
It is irrational, to divide, to differentiate, the Whole, a
Singularity, the whole of a single reality, to be duplicitous,
guileful, wily, to talk out of both, two, sides of your mouth, to be
a double dealer, to deal from the bottom of the deck, to be two
Faced, to speak with a Forked Tongue, to sine.
Rational, Real, reasonable, moderate, not extreme, balanced, of the
middle way, to be sensible, to make use of our senses, all six of
Irrational, complex, disoriented, babelized, Chaotic, to become
differentiated, separated, in opposition to, to loose touch the
Material World of Reality, with our five senses, the Flesh, to only
use our sixth sense, stuborness, to Image, to imagine, to carve Grave
Images of Reality, to Rationalize.
By adulterating our knowledge of Reality, the Truth that we speak of
becomes a differentiated Truth, a Half-truth, deceptive, just so must
The undivided, the undifferentiated Truth, the Truth, the Whole Truth
and nothing but the Truth, the singularity of Truth, our Knowledge of
Reality that we speak of the Absolute Truth.
> Are you aware of Carl Sagan's comments concerning the Pythagoreansbecause they were hunted. Why? Because their knowledge was a threat
> and the reason that they took to hiding in caves? He claimed that
> it was out of shame due to the discovery of irrational numbers.
> However the evidence seems clear enough on this issue. They hid
to the powers that were. Notice how Plato hardly even mentions
Pythagoras in his history of philosophers. Oversight? Or perhaps a
deliberate attempt to downplay his significance.
>fava bean looks something like a huge, overgrown green pea. So
> And at the heart of the secret is the bean.
> Why beans? We are speaking of the fava bean, to be more exact. A
perhaps a better question might be why peas? Beans or peas, what's
the difference? To me the term 'bean' summons up an image of a
kidney shaped legume, while a pea or lentil is spherical. And what
difference, you might ask, does the shape have to do with anything?
> Aristotle compares his procedure to that of those who bringnumbers into figures (schemata) like the triangle and the square."
Singularity, the Secret of the Holy Grail, Freedom from the Chaos of
the Material World of Reality, Boundlessness, the Magic of turning a
square, a Triangle, a cross, into a Circle.
A Duplicitous person is not open, single minded----->O, has
to many angles.
- 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, 2003View SourceThe 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"?