Re: Meddling with alchemy

This is an archived post from the old bulletin board. For new posts, see the forum.

Posted by PatK on May 26, 2101 at 18:40:38:

In Reply to: Re: Meddling with alchemy posted by David on May 26, 2101 at 03:50:12:

?? "In the "Lawhi Hikmat", Baha'u'llah says that Philosophy finds its impetus in Revelation. Perhaps Empedocles was a
contemporary of Zoroaster. If Zoroaster is commonly believed to have lived 500 years earlier, the point gets obscored in the
controversy of the dating of Zoroaster." -- It's an assertion. You must base it on something...

What is the assertion (: a) Philosophy driven by revelation, b) Empedocles a contemporary of Zoroaster, c) Zoroaster believed to live 500 years prior, or d) that the resolution of the details can obscure the point)?

I base a) on my reading of the tablet. b) is the common dating of Empodecles @ 5th century BCE - the axial period. c) is based on some dating Zoroaster earlier. As for d) my question on which "it" is the assertion, might be an example.

(transmutation of elements) As you can see Baha'u'llah was refering more than once to this topic.

PK: I beg your forgiveness for mistaking you for an uninformed missionary. Perhaps you are familiar with Tao, and perhaps you have read about inner and outer meanings: that the inner meaning need not always preclude the outer meaning. Perhaps I may have anticipated that you were far better informed than I presumed you to be, and that may be why I alluded to the transmutation of metals.

Khoda Negahdar!
- Pat

this topic is closed - post at