That’s why it isn’t surprising that Pushkin was able to distinguish the two groups of images, we have just discussed, as some entity. The Russians presented me his astonishing story in verses “A House at Colomna”, written in octanarians[73]. We started translating it on Arabian and English, since even in the first strophe of the foreword the poet expressed his attitude to the two worldviews using the vocabulary of poets’ guild.

Iambic tetrameter makes me tired,

Since everyone so writes. For children’s fun

It's time to leave it.

This is about “Amon’s quaternion”, which is taken through habit even today as the maximal generalizing categories of Universe[74] and is the basis of kaleidoscopic worldview. Even that time Pushkin thought that the majority of people have such a worldview (Since everyone so writes). For them the charming change of impressions is just a fun[75]. On your language it could be called a “picnic”, translated on Russian as “a pleasant pastime”. And so it goes that the word “picnic”, which had come into Russian from English lexicon, encodes the kaleidoscopic worldview on the unconscious psychical levels. And the Russian “puzzle’s” pictures say about it.

But what could Pushkin those times oppose to kaleidoscopic worldview within which the life is incognisable? – The eternity’s cognition.

Well, I have desired

For long to write in octonarians

Salem took a seemed to be fine gold “Parker” pen from a pocket of his white jacket. He cursed out Americans for that the metal screw cap was screwed on plastic body thread and thus the thread pair was quickly worn out. And a pen possessed the quality to fall to pieces in the very hands the most inappropriately. When he had coped with uncomfortable “Parker”, which he cared for something, Salem wrote a symmetrical eight on a napkin. Then he rotated in to 90º and continued his narration.

Look, Mr. Holmes, the octave is the eight. But from another side it’s the sign of infinity – the unified and whole Universe where everything is cause-and-effect conditioned. But the world is taken in such way only within the mosaic worldview, in which the Universe is the process of triunity of matter, information and measure. I think that Pushkin didn’t distinguish the images of the three appearances of the objective reality. But he took them as the whole triple consonance and told about it poetically:

Though I can really get the better of the triple

Consonance – I'll start the first-rate one.

The rhymes have always been the friends of mine:

The two will come then they’ll bring the third line.

And indeed, the triunity is the triple consonance of matter, information and measure. In other words, there could not be a matter as it is: any thing has its material, informational and measural[76] components and they all are equal from the point of their perception. None of them is primary towards the others and none of them is able to do without the rest in a certain thing. Moreover these three components so are mutually connected that none of them could be separated from the others – they are always together. Just during the cognition of objective reality the “division of the triple consonance” into the categories of matter, information and measure occurs.

In this case Pushkin in my opinion mentioned some “”technologies”, yet unknown to the biblical technocratic culture, by the words: “the two will come then they’ll bring the third line”. Probably the certain representatives of the antediluvian civilization were proficient in them, so the rest took them for the gods. If one is able to imagine in his mind an image of a thing (information) and its measure (an order at not only molecular and atomic levels but even at vacuum or etheric level[77]), then the material part of the thing should appear. It’s because in the Universe created by God everything comes out the vacuum and returns to it.

Mr. Salem. You speak of these technologies so earnestly, that I involuntarily want to ask: whether you yourself are proficient in them? – Holmes asked.

Unfortunately, – smiled Salem, – these technologies are inaccessible for me. But my wife says that a person known in modern India as Sai Baba[78], whom many people consider to be an incarnated god, wields such technologies, though visually they are indistinguishable from illusions. Sai Baba doesn’t consider himself to be a god. But nonetheless he think that anyone can create things from “nothing”, or precisely from vacuum, using the power of his or her imagination.

How surprising… Just before visiting you I’ve got the suggestion to fly from Cairo to Bombay to make my firm’s business.

If you have never been in India, Mr. Holmes, I strongly recommend you to take occasion and visit Sai Baba’s residence at once.

And how far is Sai Baba’s place from Bombay?

The small town, Puttaparthi is situated to the south from Bombay. But there is an airport, where two times a week pilgrims are ferried from Bombay in one hour. If you really want to visit India, my wife will give you all required information about the trip.

Thank you, Mr. Salem. If I’m going to India, I will surely consult with your wife. And now before the evening’s end I would like to ask you some questions, which seem to be connected with the Russian puzzles.

Please, Mr. Holmes. I’m at your service.

How do you think, Mr. Salem, what can this phrase mean? – Holmes took the napkin with the infinity sign and engrossed: “Sunlight everywhere”.

Sunlight everywhere? Where is this from, Mr. Holmes?

It’s taken from Trotsky’s testament. Did the Russians mention this figure in their conversations?

Yes they did many times, Mr. Holmes. But they were speaking of the Trotskyism as of the special type of psyche structure, when one says and does different things. In Islam it’s called “possession”, and according to the Russians’ opinion Trotsky was in full measure possessed. As regards the phrase, the Ancient Egyptian znakhars used to finish any ritual event in crowd’s presence with it. Understanding the monotheism in their own way and maintaining the crowd-“elitism”, they considered their task to be in assuring the crowd that the Sun was the God.

Do you want to say, that in that times this phrase was something like modern Christian “Amen”?

Quite right. “Amen” is the proper name of the Lord, whom indeed does the church of Christ worship. But it isn’t a name of Christ – Jesus, – whom does the church openly call its Lord. One can make sure that Amen is the real Lord of those, who had given the articles of faith to Christians, by looking to the Revelation to John: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: “The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation, says this”[79].

Amen, Amin (orthodox), Amun, Amon are the variations of the same name of the god of Sun – Amon-Ra, whom did ancient Egyptians worshiped. Even if he is really “the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation”, nevertheless he is neither God the Almighty, nor Jesus Christ, who had come under his own name rather then under a pseudonym.

And the last I’d like to ask, Mr. Salem. Are you familiar to Albert Reville’s book “Jesus the Nazarene”?

Yes I do, Mr. Holmes. I’ve got it among my books, which even my grandfather, who for some time lived in France, began to collect. But what has attracted you in Reville’s book?

The matter is that Albert Reville in his book[80] for some purpose mentioned that after nearly 230 B.C. a pair of rabbis headed the Great Synagogue of Ancient Judea. However he didn’t explain this surprising fact. May be you, Mr. Salem, can make clear this fact.