There has, of course, been lots of speculation as to where Pythagoras
must have studied this or that (usually based on an invalid
assumption that a movement could not come up with these ideas on
thier own and must have come from some society presupposed to
be "superior"... which is of course patronistic). Egypt, India,
Persia, Atlantis.... etc., have all been cited at some point or other
as places where Pythagoras gained his knowledge of numbers.
Not only do none of these have any historical backing, but (and here
is the real kicker), the very notion that Pythagoras even cared much
about math at all is not historically attested to. On the contrary,
the branch of "Pythagoreanism" known as the "Arithmatikoi" was a
later movement, and most critical works on the subject today present
Pythagoras and the early Pythagoreans as a religious commune with no
interest in numbers at all... or at least very little. Then, at some
later point a legend ascribing certain numeric interests by
Pythagoras fostered the invention of the arithmatikos as an alterior
stance from the akousmatikos... with the mathmatical principles not
being fully outined until it was developed by the Platonic Academies.
Teachings borrowed from the later neo-Pythagorian Arithmatikoi is
certainly a possibility.... speculation that it is from Pythagoras
himself is very unlikely.
--- In email@example.com, "Tom Saunders" <tom@c...> wrote:
> Jim Bauer writes,
> Most historians of science believe that Leibnitz' "Monadology" was
> from Hinduism, not Pythagorean mysticism.
> Clement mentions that Pythagoras studied the Hindu which would
indicate to me that Pythagoras did study the Eastern philosophies. I
am not defending Leibnitz here, or the source because it is
fragmented between several other sources, as a compilation. There is
no one source for Pythagoras.
> By the first century there were Eastern philosophies based upon the
geometric shapes aligned with the I-Ching, and Yin and Yang dualism.
This was an attempt to align man with the natural order of nature as
they saw it, with heaven and earth. 'One' or the monad was the basis
for these studies as the primary focus, in relation to duality, and
geometric patterns, form. One, is the first position of the Eastern
compass, and that is 'you' in the middle or monad of the four primary
> What I see is the parables as a tool that is based upon the idea
that we see Jesus wisdom as the monadic compass to guide us as
members of the 'form' of the parable.
> This is a simple point, and may not go much farther than the idea
of Jesus as the monad. On the other hand there may be further
parallels that can be made to the idea of order, and form, in the
process of Thomasine Gnosis, in concern to Pythagorean principles.
Or, more likely a borrowed or bastardized version of Pythagoras, that
only touches on some of his lost theories.
> If the idea that the parables and saying 114, are to be devoid from
the body of the Thomas text, is correct, then that makes ten units
you could put around the 'frame' of the parable, forming a box, of
Jesus Wisdom. You virtually wrap the parable in the 'Garment' of
> I don't know if there is a mathematical schema beyond this, but it
seems to me that the above is the key to unlocking Thomas as an
instrument of the Pneumatic. It would be something the ancients and
not so educated would get, and explains the concept of the Garment,
> Tom Saunders
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]