0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

17 просмотров69 страницStudies on Sacred Geometry

© © All Rights Reserved

DOCX, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Studies on Sacred Geometry

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

17 просмотров69 страницStudies on Sacred Geometry

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 69

In order to penetrate the ancient mentality one

must come grasp the idea that science (i.e. knowledge)

was not considered as something limited to a strictly

materialistic philosophy or a merely empirical awareness.

Modern science is actually a philosophy of knowledge

constrained to a materialistic ideology and an empirical

method, and what this means in simple terms is that

modern science and its methods are limited to a number

of philosophical stipulations which are of a materialist

tendency. When we speak of "science" in our days, we are

actually speaking of knowledge constrained to a modern

philosophical definition that is basically materialist

(naturalist) and empiricist (limited to sensorial awareness

for granting proof or evidence for a proposition).

Empirical reality is the 5 sense reality: what can be

seen, heard, smelled, tasted, and touched. "Empirical

proof" or what we sometimes refer to as "scientific proof"

means sensorial evidence. In modern times we have

invented a number of machines which allow us to inspect

the ultra sensorial realm empirically: microscopes,

infrared and ultraviolet telescopes, x-rays, thermal vision,

etc. But despite this industrial sophistication, our concept

of science (knowledge) is limited to the sensorial or

empirical awareness for proof or evidence of a scientific

proposition. Einstein's theory of relativity had to be

"proven" empirically: physicists needed to "prove" that

light was actually curving by observing eclipses and

planetary transits in order that Einstein's formulations

could be called "laws of relativity". Empirical or sensorial

proof is what makes the difference in our modern

philosophy of science.

However, to the ancient mentality (a mentality to

which Plato as a philosopher is faithful) an empirical

restriction on science or knowledge is no doubt a way of

restricting knowledge or science, or, what is worse, the

human intellect. In Platonic philosophy (and practically all

ancient philosophies like Vedanta or Pharaonic

philosophy), the realm of the 5 senses is barely the tip of

the iceberg of science or knowledge, and empirical proof,

although it is a good way of checking theories and

propositions of natural science (like physics), is in no way

a method of checking knowledge of a higher sphere.

Under the scope of Platonic and ancient philosophy,

the restriction of empiricism on science is considered

backwards because there is no naturalist or materialist

restriction on knowledge itself. Philosophy (the philosophy

of science) is not materialist or naturalist, hence there is

no sense in restricting knowledge or science to a

materialist or naturalist definition.

Now, one good example of how empiricism is

backwards in regards to science is found in the realm of

psychology and ontology. Every human being experiences

emotions like anger for example. It is well known that

anger nullifies our cognitive faculty of reason: that it make

us speak harsh words and perform violent acts that we

regret once the anger has subsided and we "think things

over". Nobody needs neuroscientists to "prove" that anger

is real or what its effects are in a materialist language

where we might hear of biochemical reactions in our body

or Central Nervous System. Emotions and thoughts are

not material objects, and hence they cannot be

understood scientifically under a philosophy of science

which declares the necessity of proof through empirical

methods. There is no possible way to "prove" under

empiricist methods that human beings and animals dream

and imagine. However, we know that we as humans

imagine and dream on a daily basis, and when we see a

dog raise its ears to hear at a distance, we infer it is

imaging what the sounds could be much as we do.

Empiricism studies the effects of metaphysical

causes. A cellular phone rings because it receives a

microwave signal. The electromagnetic signal has no

physical existence: it is a purely metaphysical thing which

has an effect on physical and sensorial reality. Modern

physics has no problem in admitting that there is a

metaphysical aspect of the universe. As paradoxical as it

may seem to say that physics studies metaphysical

powers, it is nonetheless a fact. Energy has no physical

existence and neither does gravity or "force". These

metaphysical or super-natural powers have effects on

matter which are empirically observable, buy energy is

not matter, and gravity and "force" have no empirical or

sensorial basis. The existence of these powers is only

inferable: its properties are deduced from the effects.

Modern physics even goes as far as denying that

there is such a thing as matter in the sense of actual

physical o material building blocks: the atomist theory

which proposes that there should be an actual material

basis for existence and the universe itself is a fantasy:

science fiction, not fact. In this sense, however, physics

has departed from practically all other scientific

disciplines of modern days who mostly favor a materialist

or atomistic cosmology and philosophy. Modern Biology,

with its propositions on the "origin" of life having a basis

on "primordial pools" is a clear example of this backwards

mentality.

Empiricism and the so-called "scientific method" of

modern days does not agree with the actual discoveries

and revelations of physics as a leading discipline

concerning the reality of the universe. The scientific

method as we know it in modern days has a fault at its

very philosophical basis and ideological fundament, and

this reality is simply ignored, although mostly in an

unconscious manner, by the vast majority of scholars and

academics who we recognize as "scientists".

Today we are glad to ignore this fact because it

does not have a very noticeable effect on our daily lives

where we are permanently indulging in those industrial

innovations we call "technologies". The philosophical

crack at the very base of our "science" is definitely not a

hot topic because 99.99% of people simply don't care,

and this 99.99% includes scholars and scientists.

However, this ignorance, whether it be deliberate or

unconscious does indeed have a significant effect on our

education and especially in the manner in which we are

presented with "science" by the scientific community and

academic consensus.

The detrimental effect that this naturalist

philosophy of science has for our education concerns the

very cosmology we are presented with by scientists and

scholars as well as the manner in which uncomfortable

truths are deliberately ignored in favor of sustaining

fictions as long as they do not harm the paradigm of

materialism and empiricism. The materialist philosophy

and empirical method is universally considered as the

only correct form of knowing or gaining a "scientific"

perspective of the universe. Practically no one questions

this philosophy of science because practically no one

knows that it is in fact a philosophy of science. It is simply

called "science", and this shows how it is believed to be

knowledge itself: the only correct form of acquiring

knowledge.

The worse effect of this ignorance in the academic

and scholarly community is the arrogant manner in which

any alternative philosophy of science is immediately

called "pseudo-science". This fancy greco-roman

terminology simply means fake-science or fake-

knowledge. The evidence today for this ridiculously

arrogant and hypocritical monopoly on the concept of

"science" is most evident in the matter of Intelligent

Design: the scientific proposition that the universe is

designed by a Universal Intelligence. This is exactly what

the ancient philosophies demonstrated, and it is exactly

what modern science today demonstrates, but the

"problem" among scientists is that it does not fit the

paradigm of materialistic atheism which developed our

"scientific method" and forcefully shoved knowledge itself

(science) into the intellectual enclosure of positivism and

empiricism.

Any philosophy of science along with its method is

constructed on the basis of a cosmology: on the basis of a

definition of reality and what the world is. At the very

heart of every scientific assessment there is always the

influence of how we perceive reality and the universe to

be, but this principle of cosmology and the philosophy of

science is very much ignored and simply taken for

granted when we speak of science or science fiction

(pseudo-science).

To any true philosopher it is obvious that restricting

human science or knowledge to the 5 sense experience is

limiting our own human intellect to a very inappropriate

and artificial limit. We would not know any natural law at

all if we were to restrict our intellect to sensorial reality.

The most fundamental principles which shaped the latest

scientific revolution, like the 3 laws of planetary motion

revealed by Kepler, and the laws of gravity revealed by

Newton as well as the mathematical principles of calculus

would have been impossible to understand with a human

intellect limited to sensorial reality.

Mind is our 6th sense. We are capable of thinking

with the mind, and this means performing the cognitive

functions of analysis, the comparison between elements,

the naming of objects, and the appreciation of logical

sequences in the world which are rational relationships

between objects. If it were not for this 6th sense of mind,

there would be no science as we know it at all, and our

intellect would be completely deprived of understanding

the laws of nature in the universe. Empiricism proposes

that any form of knowledge be demonstrated or proved

empirically, meaning that we need to prove mental

stipulations through sensorial consciousness. This is

perfectly fine for natural science, but it is completely

inappropriate for the higher realm of science which is of a

metaphysical or super-natural order.

It is precisely this form of science or knowledge

which the scientist of modern days arrogantly denies as if

the training in natural sciences like physics, chemistry,

biology, etc., would have given the person enough

knowledge to pass judgment upon matters which

transcend these spheres of thought commonly (and quite

mistakenly) perceived to be the limit of our intellectual

capacity. It is a lack of humbleness which pushes the

modern scientist to speak of "pseudo-science" as soon as

he or she hears of a knowledge beyond the intellectual

corral of naturalism and the materialistic philosophy of

science upon which the modern scientific method is

constructed. It is a lack of humbleness which sparks the

claim for "pseudo-science" because humbleness is

knowing one's limits, and the limits of this intellectual

corral are usually ignored by the scientists and scholars of

our days who have not the slightest clue about the

underlying philosophy of science which defines the

concept of "science" or "pseudo-science" in the first place.

The modern scientist and scholar thinks that his or her

mind is running freely through the pasture of free thought

when in fact it is restricted to a tight perimeter because of

a naturalist and materialist philosophy. Whosoever dares

to jump over the fence is immediately ridiculed and

aggressively assaulted intellectually not unlike the way in

which Plato makes notice of in his famous Allegory of the

Cavern when he tells of the liberated soul that is capable

of escaping the intellectual shackles and witnessing the

light of day beyond the darkness of the cave. The

arrogance and hypocrisy of modern scholars is certainly

not something new, and a reading of Socrates' words in

regard to the sophists of 2400 years ago reveals this fact.

Mind enables abstraction and conceptualization,

but abstraction is the limit of modern science and thus it

is branded as the intellectual limit of the human being

when in reality it is not. For Plato and the ancient sages,

abstraction or dianoia was not the limit of our human

intellect: there was a higher sphere of intellectual

awareness, and this is the realm of Eidos: the world of

Ideas or what Carl Jung called archetypes.

Archetypes or Platonic Ideas are primordial

forms of the universe. In other words, they are universal

powers or, as R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz called them,

functions. It is these archetypes, these primordial powers

or functions of the universe that the ancient Egyptians

called neteru: something that we translate today as

gods.

The so-called gods of the ancient philosophies are

the archetypes of the universe: the primordial powers that

cause and direct all manifest processes in the natural

world but also in the realm of Mind: of abstraction and

imagination.

It is very common today to believe that the

ancients were superstitious primitives who believed that

supernatural powers or gods ruled natural phenomena,

and this idea is usually brought up with a tone of vanity in

order to show how our modern understanding of the

universe under the paradigm of positivism and empiricism

is so bright and true compared to that of the ancients. But

the reality is that our materialist philosophy of science

cannot explain the cause or origin of any natural

phenomena as it always refers to another natural

phenomena in an infinite chain of effects which never

have a root or cause. One will ask a physicist what the

cause of the universe is, and the scientist will answer that

it is the Big Bang: a physical event. But our human

intellect inevitably asks once again: "What is the cause of

the Big Bang?". This very common question which repeats

itself over and over is a very significant testimony to the

fact that our human intellect is designed to expose the

fallacy of physical principles or causes in the universe.

The only answer to this question is that the cause of the

universe and its natural aspect is not physical or natural,

but metaphysical or supernatural. The question of "who

made God" in the same chain of propositions is a false

question, because that which we call "God" is Super-

natural which means beyond-born: Unmade and Eternal,

without beginning or end, metaphysical.

Today this answer and true resolution to the origin

of life and the universe is unacceptable for the scientists

because God does not fit in the little box of positivism and

empiricism wherein mankind has artificially drawn the

perimeter of "science". There is absolutely no

philosophical way around the problem of establishing a

physical cause for the universe: our human intellect is

designed to reject it because it is designed to know the

solution to this cosmological question. The origin of space

and time is Eternity, the origin of all limit is the Limitless.

If the true answer to the question is rejected by scholars

and academics of our days, it is certainly not on the basis

of any scientific or objective assessment of the universe.

It is on the basis of emotionally driven denials related to

the idea of what God should and should not be: atheistic

ideas which are obviously sparked by a hatred and

animosity towards religious institutions and their dogmas,

and not sustained by any serious and objective

assessment of the universe itself. Along with this

blindness imposed by resentment and anger comes the

denial of all traditional views of the ancient and archaic

world under the excuse of an invented backwardness of

primitive days.

In modern times it is extremely rare to find a

serious inquiry into ancient knowledge while it is very

easy to find the repeated ridicule of ancient beliefs in

gods in contrast to our sophisticated equations in

physics. Plato, Jung, and Schwaller are three examples of

people who took care to communicate to the reader the

actual complexities of ancient scientific thought and how

they are in fact based a true philosophy and derived from

a true cosmology. And it is true insomuch as it is unlike

our contaminated sophistry pretending to pass as

objective and biased free "science", as it actually provides

a real and true picture of the universe with answers to

human questions about life and its purpose. This is the

fundamental difference between ancient science and

modern science: the latter is an arid accumulation of data

aimed at a manipulation of Nature with the goal of

providing mankind with evermore sophisticated industrial

technologies. These are, at the same time, aimed at

providing addictive sensorial gratifications and mental

pleasures. On the contrary, the former kind of science is

dedicated to providing humanity with true answers to the

most important and significant questions in life. Perhaps

the question that must be raised for each of us on this

matter is whether we would like to live ignorant about our

meaning and purpose in life but spend our days indulging

in ever more sophisticated material treasures made in

China, or if we want to understand who we are and what

we are doing here. If we choose the second path, it is

quite necessary that we renounce to our permanent

distraction from this type of higher and properly human

knowledge and come to understand that "science" is not

limited to the intellectual corral of the modern philosophy

of materialistic atheism. That is the path of science as the

servant of industrial capitalism and generalized egotistic

hedonism, not the science for truth itself.

Now, one of the things Plato speaks about is the 4

Cardinal Sciences which need to be studied in a

philosophical framework. These are Geometry,

Arithmetics, Astronomy and Harmony. In this work

we follow this ancient guideline, and now it is time to

focus more specifically on Geometry, but not in the

manner which is taught in school in order to torture

children and indoctrinate minds in robotic and mechanical

calculations. Here we will see the relationship between

geometric form and number in the context of a

philosophical guideline.

One of the principal things that we have lost in our

modern mathematics is the notion that number is

subordinated to ratio and proportion. In other words,

Arithmetic is subordinated to Geometry. For example, if

one were to ask the question: what are numbers in the

universe? What would be the answer to this question?

Numbers have no empirical basis: they are invisible

things that exist in a plane of reality that is completely

abstract. So what is a number?

Perhaps the modern mind will think that it is a tool

or instrument for calculation, but the reality is that in

modern days one cannot answer the question of what

numbers are in the universe because we have forgotten

the link of numbers to geometry, and especially because

we have forgotten the philosophical aspect of arithmetics

and science in a general sense. So, here we will give a

quick illustration of how numbers are understood in the

ancient mentality that is true to philosophical principles.

The first number to consider is of course 1. One is

Unity, the Absolute and Eternal: God, the Tao which is

beyond all duality. The 1 is in all numbers, and yet it is not

any number except 1. Arithmetic functions like

multiplication and division are cancelled by 1 because

Unity is immutable, impossible to alter. Unity or 1 is the

common denominator of all numbers: all numbers are x/1,

but for practical purposes we have abandoned this true

and original notation. 1 is God, the Supreme and Absolute

reality in which there is no difference and no multiplicity.

Unity, represented by the number 1 is the Infinite and

Limitless, or, as the Vedanta philosophy of India says,

ananta.

Now, in order that 1 becomes a multiplicity of

being, it needs to be fractioned in such a way that its

inherent Unity remains unbroken. Here, in this

philosophcal dilemma of how the One becomes the many,

the Golden Proportion is the key. Unity is firstly fractioned

into a feminine power and a masculine power, a Yin and a

Yang, and thus Unity is fractioned into the primordial ratio

of the Golden Proportion which is numerically 2/3.

In the ancient traditions of the I Ching form China,

Yang, the masculine is represented by the number 3,

while Yin is the feminine power represented by number 2.

In ancient Mesopotamia, the priests of Enki, the god of

science and knowledge which represented the Universal

Intellect were known as priests of the 2/3. When Plato

represents his mysterious World Soul in the dialogue

Timaeus, it begins with the scission of Unity or 1 into 2

and 3 The secret to this mystery is : not a number, but

a function or archetype represented by number in the

sphere of the abstract.

The primordial scission from which all multiplicity of

existence arises is the scission of 1 by . Numerically it is

1/0.618... and reciprocally 1.618.../1, but is a logical

function as we have explained in Chapter 2 when we

encountered the Golden Proportion in many astronomical

relationships. It is not a number, but a proportion: a

unique relationship to Unity or 1.

This function that we symbolize with the Greek

letter is the root of all multiplicity, the root

function of all being, of all genesis or coming into

being in the Universe. It cannot be understood as a

number because numbers only communicate the idea

that it is always related to 1 in a very special and unique

way. Before it is number in a conceptual or abstract

sphere of reality, it is a relationship with 1 or Unity: a

relationship which allows a perfect equilibrium of

difference and similarity with respect to 1.

Philosophically, represents the mystery of human

consciousness, and this is because human consciousness,

even though it is divided and allows for a sense of isolated

individuality among particulars, also allows the

experience of Universal Awareness: the experience of

God. In order that conscious life exist, Absolute or

Universal Consciousness is fractioned into a feminine and

masculine archetype, and thus a holistic and analytical

perspective of the universe is born that brings forth our

normal waking state of consciousness. This is the actual

symbolism behind the myth of Adam and Eve in Hebrew

mysticism, and the re-union of these opposites in an

alchemical wedding provides the human being with the

experience of Absolute Consciousness of 1.

This is the basis of religion, a word whose original

meaning comes from the Latin re-ligere (to re-unite), and

this principle is also the idea behind the Sanskrit word

yoga which means union. The reunion of divided

consciousness (egotistic consciousness) it is the basis of

all esoteric and mystic traditions, no matter what cultural

background is evoked throughout history. The mystic

union between the archetypal feminine and masculine

powers of the universe is a tradition as old as time. The

mystic bondage between Shiva and Shakti or Purusha and

Prakirti in Hinduism is also appreciable in Valentinian

Christianity and the idea of the nupcial chamber. In

alchemy these primordial powers are symbolized by the

sun and the moon, and the archaic image of the caduceus

held by Hermes with two coiled serpents is well

recognized in India as the Kundalini and the basis for

Tantra, but less so in the archaic form of Fuxi and Nuwa in

China. In the Pyramid Texts of Unas (2300 BC), utterance

230 from the west gable of the sarcophagus chamber

reads:

The female serpent is bitten by the male serpent,

The heavens are glorified, the earth is glorified.

created the heavens and the earth. The 1 has become

2/3, the primordial fraction that is a masculine and a

feminine archetype symbolized in a number of ways.

The so-called Golden Proportion or is not just

some cosmic accident or a neat mathematical anecdote

about the universe. It has a deep relationship to the

innermost spiritual aspect of the human person, and with

these words we may get a glimpse of what is meant by

studying arithmetics in a philosophical context that is very

different from the mechanical and robotic treatment of

numbers we learn in our modern educational system.

Now, it is important to know that the numbers 2

and 3 produce a series for of their own, and while the

most famous series of is the feminine series of the

number 2, that we know as Fibonacci after Leonardo

Bonacci (c. 1170 c. 1250 AD), there is also a

masculine series for that is the series for number 3.

This is important to recognize for what comes next in our

examination of the ancient science.

7:11 that we met with the Great Pyramid of Giza. The

logic behind the masculine series is the same a:b::b:

(a+b), but now the initial unity of 1 turns into a masculine

3 just as it does to a feminine 2 in the more popular or

well known series. As we will see later, these two series

are the numerical models for the disposition of the

planets in the inner solar system since they define the

distances of the inner planets from the sun, and the

reason is their relation to the square root of 5 or 5. But in

order to comprehend this, we must first look at the simple

geometric and arithmetic principles which define what we

know as square roots.

The square root of a number is a geometric

function that has an irrational arithmetical value. When

we say square root we are actually using a geometric

terminology, a geometric language. The root of a square

is of course its side, and there is a very simple way of

illustrating what a square root is from a geometric

perspective.

The square root of 2 or 2 means the side (root) for

a square that has an area of 2. The first square in the

diagram that follows illustrates this principle as it has a

side (or root) of 1. Its diagonal is the root for a square

with double the area: the square root of 2 or 2.

In the philosophy of sacred geometry, 2

represents the reproduction and transformation of

material form: the generative function of the universe.

Let us remember that the ratios 1:2 and 1:3 (Unity

turning into a feminine and masculine archetype) are the

origins of all manifestation in the philosophy of number.

With this principle, we can understand how roots can be

rationalized as ratios between numbers.

The arithmetic logic behind the square root of 2

(which leads to its rationalization in fractional form) is

understood as follows. The rationalization of 2 comes

from a logical sequence of growth between the feminine

1:2 and masculine 1:3 ratios which form the primordial

scission of Unity or 1. It is a form of growth by addition

that is plotted into a grid of squares as we see in the

following diagram which explains the sequence for 2

geometrically and arithmetically.

It is by simple addition that the root is found. The

sequence for 2 is a simple addition of two squares, and

for the feminine series it is numerically 2+5+5 = 12, then

5+12+12 = 29, then 12+29+29 = 70, etc. This has a

geometric basis that is represented by number.

The numbers of the feminine series represent the

sides of the squares, while their diagonals are represented

by the masculine series.

The square root of 3 or 3 has two basic geometric

representations. One is the Vesica Pisces and the other is

the diagonal of the cube.

universe, and it is related to mind. The root of 3 is a

measure or ratio that results from the symmetric

interposition of two hemispheres. This is the symbol of

equilibrium between our natural duality of mind, and the

cerebral hemispheres which are the material expression

of the analytical and synthetic modes of thought.

In middle-age art it was common to place the figure

of Christ within a vesica pisces, and this symbolism can

be seen in the portal royal of Chartres Cathedral, the

entrance through the west. The Christ in the vesica pisces

is a symbol of enlightenment, of having the mind of

Christ as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:16.

We would like the reader to notice that the value for

3 corresponds to the ratio between English foot and

Egyptian Royal Cubit, units we have seen in the last

chapter.

The geometric and arithmetic series of growth of 3

is an interpolation of one, then two squares added to the

preceding rectangle in the case of the feminine series,

and inversely, two, then one square in the case of the

masculine series.

Finally, there is the square root of 5 or 5, and the

series is produced by the masculine and feminine series

for . Geometrically, the square root of 5 is the diagonal

that crosses a 2:1 rectangle or two squares. The 5 is also

deeply related to the Golden Proportion and the pentagon.

the universe and it is related to spirit. The principle of life

spirit. That which engenders thought and allows a

material form to have cohesion and continuity is spirit.

Spirit traverses two worlds, the world of the physical and

the world of the mental or psychological. By spirit we

mean the vital principle, what the hindu sacred texts call

prana, the chi of the Taoists, the pneuma of the Christian

philosophy, the ruah of the Hebrew tradition.

The relation of 5 to is self evident. The numbers

of the series are those of the feminine and masculine

series for . The arithmetic and geometric growth pattern

follows the logical principle of a:b::b:(a+b) that is the

logical formula for , the Golden Proportion. It is a series

which follows the simple addition of a square to a

preceding rectangle

The logarithmic spiral of is found to guide the

manifestation of galaxies, hurricanes, and the disposition

of seeds on a sunflower. It is present in the macrocosmic

and microcosmic: spirit permeates all things material and

mental. The universe is a sacred geometry, numbers are

expressions of the proportions and ratios guiding it's

architecture. The geometry behind planetary dispositions

creates the number for the periods, the amount of

sunrises and sunsets that we count here on Earth is

produced by a sacred geometry and architecture. Number

is an expression of geometric functions, of proportion,

ratio.

The rationalization of geometric functions which is

so common among the ancients is based on a true

philosophy of number and form, not on a lack of

knowledge as is commonly thought by modern scholars

with no understanding of sacred geometry and the

mentality of the ancestors. It is a mentality that has not

drawn an artificial scission between number and its

geometric origin, nor has it drawn an iron curtain between

science and the sacred philosophy or religion.

Numbers are expressions of ratios, proportions, or

relationships. Numbers are the expression of relationships

to Unity, to God, to the Absolute. They are literally

expressions of powers of the universe: archetypal forms

or "gods" in the sense that they are extensions or powers

of God which guide all natural phenomena in the universe.

The idea of "polytheism" as a different form of

religion from monotheism is an oversimplification and a

construct of modern days which comes from atheistic and

agnostic interpretations of religion. Angels, Jinns, spirits,

etc., are always powers of Unity: emanations or

"appearances" of the Monad which take on certain forms

because of a relationship between God and Man. In this

sense, represents the holy communion or yoga between

human consciousness and Absolute Consciousness, the

bond between Man and God.

Roots, as we have seen, come from a relationship

between 2/3: between a masculine and feminine

archetype representing the primordial scission of Unity or

1. The primordial scission is , not a number but a

proportion: a unique logical relationship with Unity or 1

that does what Plato says in the Timaeus: makes itself

and the terms it connects a unity.1

These three basic roots express three basic levels

of cognitive or intellectual horizons. In other words, they

express states of consciousness: one material or sensorial

(empirical), the next one mental, conceptual, or abstract,

and the latter one spiritual, noetic, religious.

Through the first material state of consciousness

we perceive only difference: a multitude of particular

material forms or objects. By the next mental state of

consciousness we grasp hidden relationships between

objects, and thus we access the more subtle aspects of

reality which introduce us into the realm of scientific

thought which in turn reveals to us logical patterns

governing natural (sensorial) phenomena. Ultimately,

however, there is the experience of Unity, of samadhi2 as

the Hindu philosophy teaches. Samadhi is an important

term in the Bhagavad Gita, for example. Its linguistic root

sama is equal to the English same, and the suffix dhi

means disposition/will/determination. Samadhi means

having the same disposition with all beings, and it is the

ultimate intellectual achievement of a yogi. In the

Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna gives a very clear illustration

of the three basic states of consciousness we are

speaking of here:

contemplates the Self situated in all living

beings, and also all living beings he sees

the Self. In this way one sees in all things

the same (sama).

He who sees Me everywhere and

sees all things reunited in Me does not

become separate from Me, and neither do

I become separate from him.

2 Samadhi is an importantterm in the Bhagavad

Gita, for example. Its linguistic root is equal to the English

same, and the suffix dhi means

disposition/will/determination. Samadhi means having

the same disposition with all beings, and it is

He who is established in Unity

(Ekvatam) worships me knowing that I

live in all beings, and that yogi, whatever

be the place wherein he is, finds his

residence in Me.3

Krishna says:

Truthful (Sattva) is that by which one sees

the One and Indestructible Reality in all

beings: That which is not different among

all beings, but One and the same (sama).

But the type of knowledge by which

one perceives different living entities

residing in different bodies, this is the

knowledge of a Passionate (Rajas) nature.

And the type of knowledge by which

one becomes attached to one kind of thing

as if it were the only one, without reason

or fundament on truth, that is the

knowledge of Darkness (Tamas).4

harmony in the ancient way must be accompanied with a

philosophical direction and a religious objective.

Otherwise it is useless in the path of self-realization.

Geometry becomes anecdotal, arithmetics becomes a

juggling and acrobatic manipulation of number,

astronomy becomes a senseless observation of deep-

space objects through powerful telescopes, and harmony

(music) becomes mere entertainment. Science loses its

human significance and becomes the instrument for

inhuman practices when it is completely withdrawn from

philosophical and religious principles.

The rationalization of geometric functions also

means to understand them as cosmic powers or functions

related to our inner human experience. It is not only a

4 Bhagavad Gita 18:20-22.

numerical formulation that serves practical purposes,

although this is also one of its advantages.

The Golden Ratio or , as we have suggested here,

represents a golden potential of human consciousness,

but understanding this aspect of what appears to be a

mathematical property of the cosmos is somewhat

difficult to understand. It took us quite a while to

understand this proposition because it requires an

assimilation of a new understanding of number as things

that represent higher, more archetypal structures of the

universe which are best represented by geometric forms.

at the same time, the understanding of how is related to

human consciousness requires one to meditate on the

fact that we as humans follow a process of spiritual

evolution in life wherein the goal from this perspective is

to achieve a conscious and living experience of God: an

experience that we believe is best explained by the

concept of samadhi in Hindu philosophy and religion,

although it is also expounded in the Upanishads which

teach that God, as the ultimate Truth is Atman: Self.

It is not material self which is body, and it is not

psychological self which is ego. Beyond the material form

which is the feminine and natural aspect, and beyond the

spiritual form which is the person and supernatural aspect

there is the Seed of our existence: the nucleus of being,

the Atman. This is the Self which is not different here or

there but 1 in all beings. From this Atman shines a Light

which is Consciousness itself in its pure undifferentiated

form. In the ancient Egyptian cosmology, this Light is Ra,

the primordial Light, and the Upanishads, like the Gnostic

scriptures of Christianity explain that this Light shines

within the human being from the Holy Seed. A very

beautiful teaching of the Gospel of Thomas says:

that is, the square root of 5 plus one, divided by two. 5 This

over one. 0.618 is phi under one or one divided by phi

1/.

is demonstrated geometrically in the next figures where

we see the simple 5 diagram followed by another

example using the pentagon. The pentagon, 5, and are

deeply interrelated, and as we have seen in chapter two,

the pentagon and pentagram are a fundamental

geometry in the inner solar system where human

consciousness is found. The geometric relationship

between 5 and are represented in the following

diagrams where we show the logic behind the arithmetic

formulation /1 = 5+1 /2.

4.2 Pi and Phi

One of the most important functions communicated

by the geometry of the Great Pyramid of Giza is the

relationship between Pi or , and . This relationship is

communicated by the geometry of the squaring for the

circle, a geometry that we have already seen related to

the Great Pyramid in chapter 3. Here we will illustrate the

geometry involved in squaring the circle and how it uses

the function of 5.

a square and a circle of equal perimeter, we begin by

drawing a circle with the center O and we draw a square

around that circle. Next we draw the 5 which is line A:B

traversing the double square. Point C gives us a new

center for a smaller circle with a radius 1/4 th the radius of

the initial circle (and also 1/4th the side of the square).

Having drawn the circle with center on C, we take A for

the center of the compass and extend it to point D which

is the intersection of 5 with the smaller circle. With this

length A:D for the compass, we draw one of the big arcs,

while the other is drawn from the compass center at point

E using the same length A:D. The intersection of these

arcs gives us the radius of the outer circle, and its

perimeter will be equal to that of the square.

This is the diagram used in the basic design for the

Great Pyramids proportions, and we have also seen that

it is the diagram which reveals the 3:11 ratio between the

Earth and the Moon in Chapter 2. John Michell discovered

the use of this geometry in Stonehenge, and developed a

diagram from this one that squares the circle that allows

one to draw a 7-fold division of the circle. He called the

figure the New Jerusalem diagram and developed a very

interesting account of ancient science in his work The

Dimensions of Paradise.

The ancient Egyptians used to have a rational

approximation to as 22/7, and now we will see where

this rationalization of as 22/7 comes from. Today, is

always given an irrational value with an endless series of

numbers after the point (3.141592654). However, a

rational approximation of as 22/7 gives 3.142857 or 3

and 1/7th. This is a rational approximation to the irrational

value which 99.99% accurate.

Today, in modern days, we have forgotten that

numbers and many mathematical functions originally

have geometric reasons and mystic parallels to Nature.

This illustration of is a very good example of this

modern forgetfulness.

Let us consider what is shown in this image. A

hexagon inscribed in a circle will have the same side-

length as the radius of the circle. Here, in this example,

the radius is 21 units, and we will observe that the arc

traced over two of the vertices of the hexagon has a value

of 22 units. By simple multiplication, we know that the

circumference of the circle is then 22 x 6 = 132 units,

while the diameter is 21 x 2 = 42 units. 132/42 is 22/7,

and this is derived rationally through a very simple

geometry.

We can observe that the circumference can be

divided into 6 parts, and that 1/6th of the circumference is

22 units. But we can also see that the circumference can

be divided into two equal halves (22 x 3 = 66), and this

has a ratio of 7:11 to the diameter which is 42 units

(42:66 = 7:11). We can also observe that a third of the

circumference is 22 x 2 = 44, and this is /3, since it is

22/21 (44/42). Naturally, /4 is half of 11/7 which is 11/14,

and 1/6th of the circumference is 22, and this has a ratio of

11:21 with respect to the diameter which is 42 units.

(22/42 = 11/21).

Now, there is another very important fact about

as a rational ratio of 22:7, and this is that it is actually

derived from the series of . The relationship between

and is found in the ratio 6:5, the ratio that defines the

minor third in music or harmony:

found in the feminine and masculine series for that we

spoke of earlier. In fact, the ratio of 7:11 that defines the

ratio between the height and base-length of the Great

Pyramid is the ratio of defined by the masculine series.

This can be simply demonstrated arithmetically as

follows:

and the answer to this question is quite simple. The

feminine series for , as we have seen, is 1,2,3,5,8,13,21,

34,55, 89,144, 233, etc. As the relationship between

and is that = 2/1 x 6/5, we are speaking of 2/1

(numerically 2.618), and in order to get 2/1 from the

series, one only has to step over one number in the

series. For example, 2/1 is found in the ratios 144:55 and

so we step over the value 89. We can step over 144 and

establish 2/1 as 233:89.

Here we will illustrate the entire method in the

series until we reach the value of 22/7 in order that the

reader comprehends how the rational value of is derived

from the feminine series of .

that are known to have been used in antiquity by the

Egyptians and Babylonians. As we will see, the 441:440

ratio between these values plays a fundamental part in

the ancient system of metrology based on anthropic units.

4.3 The Rhomboidal

Pyramid

One of the most impressive of the Great Pyramids

of Egypt is the so-called bent pyramid found at Dashur.

This giant, also known as the Rhomboidal Pyramid stands

besides another giant pyramid known as the Red Pyramid.

According to mainstream Egyptology, these colossal

structures were both built in the time of pharaoh Snefru,

the father of Khufu who had the Great Pyramid of Giza

built.

As if constructing one megalithic structure like the

Great Pyramid of Giza were not enough, it is said the

Snefru had these two enormous buildings constructed

plus another third giant at Meidum which is mostly

broken. However, the Red and Rhomboidal pyramids are

very well preserved and are only a bit smaller than the

Great Pyramid of Giza.

Now, most mainstream Egyptologist believe that

the Rhomboidal Pyramid has its shape because of a

mistake made by the engineers and architects who

designed it. As usual, most scholars are completely blind

to the geometrical language spoken by these structures,

and so whatever they cannot understand about the

ancients intentions in building these marvelous buildings,

they blame it on the clumsy primitives. The hypothesis

of the Egyptologists is that the architects made the slope

angle too steep, and as they built the structure, they

began to notice cracks and faults so they decided to shift

the angle in order to save the work from collapsing. In

other words, they say that the shift in slope angle is an

accident, the product of a mistake.

As we say, such suppositions come from modern

ignorance about the language these structures are

speaking, namely, the language of sacred geometry. It is

another common case of psychological projection: instead

of admitting ones own ignorance, it is projected on

someone else, and to these scholars there is no problem

in blaming the ancients for any form of ignorance we

might be confronted with in trying to find out what

actually happened with this amazing construction and so

many others of the ancient world.

Thankfully, not all Egyptologists are so foolish. R.A.

Schwaller de Lubicz, the person from which we have

drawn much of the science related in this work, has

actually revealed the basic geometry that the Rhomboidal

Pyramid of Dashur is designed with. Not surprisingly, the

geometry responds to sacred proportions like and 5.

The ratios and proportions used in this construction

are very precise and important ones. As we can see, they

are related to the 5 and . The proportions of the

structure also show us how they respond to the feminine

and masculine series for . For example, the 11:21 ratio

which gives 0.523809523 and inversely 1.909090909 is a

ratio constructed by relationships between the feminine

and masculine series for . The ratio 11:21, as we have

seen, is /6 or 2/5.

Alternatively, this ratio can be formulated by 5.

Taking 5 as 76/34 then 5/ is 76/55. The calculation is

76/34 x 34/55 = 76/55 which gives 1.38181818. The

inverse of this (1/5/) is simply 55/76 which is 0.7236...

Again, we are simply using the feminine and masculine

series for .

Here we show the simple method of finding the

rational values for these functions using both series.

Rhomboidal Pyramid of Snefru, we should point out that

they are the ratios which define the orbital radii of the

planets of the inner solar system. In the following table we

give the values for the semi-minor axes for the planets

Mercury, Venus, and Earth and we also show the ratios

which define their relationships.

Km x

106 Mercury Venus Earth

Mercu 56.67174 1.90935 2.63936

ry 93 1 3 1

108.2063 1.38233

Venus 72 0.523738 1 2

149.5771 0.72341

Earth 80 0.378880 5 1

Geomet 6/ or

ry 1 5/2 2/1

/6 or

2/5 1 5/

1/2 1/5/ 1

11/21 1 29/21

11/29 21/29 1

Kingdom knew very well about the geometric and

numerical functions we are revising in relation to , 5,

and . Whether the astronomers of these times, around

2600 BC knew the distances between the planets which

follow these proportions is difficult to say. One is inclined

to believe that they did possess this knowledge, and

although this is only a belief or opinion that could very

well be mistaken, we must say that in order to make an

educated guess on what the ancients knew or ignored, it

is more reasonable to observe these geometric and

mathematical principles than it is to overlook them

completely (as most Egyptologists do) in order to support

the claim that the proportions in their monumets are

merely accidents instead of purposeful ratios and

proportions used by fully aware mathematicians and

geometers.

It is very hard to accept the claims of those who

speak of accidents and mere chance in relation to these

geometric and arithmetic properties, especially when

serious studies of the ancients monuments speak for

themselves in this language of number and form so as to

expose very precise and important formulas. The

presence of these functions in the architecture of the

monument is undeniable. That the rhomboidal pyramid

exposes these proportions is not a matter of opinion but a

matter of fact.

Usually, those who claim that the Egyptians could

not have known about the functions of , 5, and in

the times of the Old Kingdom are the same kind of people

who also claim the presence of these geometric and

mathematical functions in the solar system is merely

accidental. By kind of people we mean people who have

a number of beliefs and a priori determinations about the

ancients, their scientific accomplishments, and the nature

of the universe itself, and such beliefs and suppositions

are certainly not of a scientific nature or objective

assessments. They are biased beliefs in denial of facts,

and it is important to note that this sort of mentality is

completely opposed to that of the ancient Egyptians: a

mentality that was glad to identify the sacred and divine

aspect of the universe and teach it to the initiates.

From our perspective, to claim that the clear

presence of geometric and mathematical principles in

ancient monuments and the cosmos are accidental is

not an objective and scientific assessment of the facts. On

the contrary, the claims for accidents here and there are a

subjective, unscientific, and a completely biased denial of

perfectly clear evidences, and such denial comes because

these evidences are speaking very much against the

modern paradigms of scientism. These evidences speak

for the case of Intelligent Design in the universe as well as

for the high science of the ancients, and these two

realities are incompatible with the paradigm of

materialistic atheism and Darwinian evolution which go

hand in hand; namely because one predicts a random

purposeless universe without any kind of sign for a

Universal Intelligence or Supreme Creator (like we do find

in the design of the solar system), while the other

(derived from the first) preaches a linear progress from

idiot ape-man ancestors whose cognitive faculties were

dominated by foolish superstitions about metaphysical

causes, towards a supposed enlightened of modern

human beings with a sophisticated learning in natural

sciences and a complex modern industry. Over and over,

these hypotheses have been proven wrong on the basis of

scientific studies, and yet they are paraded in academic

circles and advertised to the public as if they were actual

undeniable laws of nature instead of mistaken

assumptions about the universe and our human nature.

Our intention in this first part of the chapter has

been to show the reader that numbers are entities

subordinate to geometric proportion and ratio. This can

only be understood through the study of sacred geometry:

the study of geometry and arithmetics derived from it in

the context of a true philosophy or cosmology that is

unbiased by a priori suppositions.

In the beginning of the chapter we made a very

quick observation of the philosophical premises or

principles that lead to the comprehension of the function

as a primordial scission of Unity from which all diversity

is derived. This prime scission into a feminine and a

masculine principle is represented by the numbers 2 and

3 in an abstract sphere of thought. The relationship or

ratio of 1:2 and 1:3 is what defines 2 and 3 or any number

as a representative of a multiplicity. It is their relation to 1,

to Unity, to God, the Eternal and Absolute, not their

relationship to other particulars of the multiplicity.

From these archetypal relationships of 1:2 and 1:3

arise the basic roots of geometry: 2, 3, and 5.

Philosophically, 1 is Absolute Consciousness, and

represents the genesis of dual consciousness which in

turn gives way to multiplicity of consciousness. The roots

2, 3, and 5 correspond with states of consciousness:

material, mental, and spiritual. The affinity between 5

and exposes how spiritual consciousness as a human

cognitive power propels divided and dual consciousness

back into its Absolute state of Unity.

We have also seen the geometric origins for the

arithmetic formulations of , and we also encountered the

geometric logic behind the rationalization of as well as

its relationship with (which is its origin in rational form).

Finally, we have observed the geometries of

another Great Pyramid from ancient Egypts Old Kingdom,

the Rhomboidal Pyramid of Snefru and we have observed

how the geometry corresponds to specific ratios and

proportions which are also found in the planets of the

inner solar system.

4.4 Ancient Metrology

The basic units of the ancient world were based on

human proportions. As we have seen, the foot is a unit of

measure derived from the Earth's dimensions, but its

name also shows that it was intended to harmonize with

human dimensions. A foot is a 1/100th fraction of a

second of arc around the Earth's circumference, and

1/6000th of a minute of arc.

The cubit is 3:2 the length of a foot, so the

conversion rate is always that of the fifth in music. The

ancient Egyptians used to measure smaller lengths with

the unit called a finger or djeba. There are 16 fingers to a

foot which was called a djeser, and the cubit had 24

fingers. However, there was also the Royal Cubit that was

28 fingers long, and the difference between the Royal and

standard cubit was that the Royal cubit measured from

the elbow to the stretched fingertips, while the standard

cubit measured from the elbow to the knuckles with a

closed fist.

The unit of the inch, known to the Romans as the

uncia is naturally 4:3 larger than the finger since we know

there are 12 inches to a foot while there are 16 fingers to

a foot. The ratios 4:3 and 3:2 are musical or harmonic

ratios and the whole idea behind the anthropologic

system of units is based on a philosophy well known to

the ancients and still present in the Christian tradition, for

example, when we read from Paul:

Man as a temple.

acknowledged in the Judeo-Christian tradition just as

much as it is in the Hindu tradition. In the Aitareya

Upanishad, God holds a dialogue with the devas or

"gods", that is, there is a description of a relationship

between Absolute Unity and the archetypes or powers

emanated from Unity. It is only with the human being that

the devas are satisfied and they decide to take their

residence in Man. The "gods" or devas are his vital

functions: the powers or extensions of the One God whose

name in the Upanishads is Atman or Self.

Although this mystic philosophy cannot be revealed

in this work, it is important to notice that the ancient

philosophy which lead to the development of units of

measure based on human proportions considers the

human being as the most sacred or holy of creatures. The

reason for this is that Man embodies the final phase of the

evolutionary process; in other words, Man is the finality or

purpose of the evolutionary process of life because it is

with human consciousness that divided or fractioned

consciousness is able to return to the original state of

Unity.

This philosophy is known as anthropocosmic. It is

not anthropo-centric, but anthropocosmic, and the

meaning is not that Man (anthropos) is the center of the

universe, but that Man is a universe: a synthesis of all

evolutionary possibilities. The archaic depictions of all the

cosmic powers or "gods" are always those of animals, but

the Supreme God of gods, the Supreme Intelect

controlling those powers is always represented with the

figure of a human being. This is found in pharaonic

depictions of the "gods" or neteru just as much as it is

found in tribal traditions like those of the Naskapi with

their Great Man or Mistapeo.

As cosmos, Man is a synthesis that contains all

powers or archetypes which form Nature and its diversity.

But as cosmos, Man is the finality or the final step in the

process of creation by which chaos is ordered (kosmos)

into a holy or sacred finality. This is divine or enlightened

(realized) Man, the Christ of Christian tradition and also

Pharaoh in the Egyptian tradition.

The ancient science from which we inherited the

anthropic units had a very deep philosophical and

religious meaning that cannot be perceived by a simple

study of metrology in a so-called "scientific" manner as

we understand it today. By "scientific" here we of course

mean a typical materialist ideology that is allergic of the

sacred and religious even though it is studying an ancient

mentality that cannot be separated from the religious and

spiritual. No understanding can be gained with this so-

called "scientific" mentality of modern times.

The idea that the human body is a Temple of God

means that the ideal Man that "embodies" the proportions

of the foot, cubit, inch, fathom, etc., is Royal Man: the

"perfect human" as the Christian philosophy stipulates,

and not only perfect from the point of view of psychology

and consciousness, but also in the sense that Royal Man is

the ideal or perfect model in the sense that his

proportions are perfectly harmonic in relation to the

universe, and, especially, to the Earth which is his natural

home. Man as cosmos means Man in perfect order and

harmony.

This idea is the one that modeled every sculpture of

pharaoh for 3000 years of pharaonic history, and it is also

the kind of philosophy which sculpted the Greek and

Roman statues as well as the renaissance works and the

vitruvian man of Leonardo. There is always the idea of the

perfect human, not an idea of a particular person but of

an ideal Man. This is exactly what motivated the anthropic

units of the ancient system. To subtract this philosophy

from the study of ancient metrology is to kill any chance

of understanding it. Such is the setback of modern

metrology which shamefully refers to the correct method

as "pseudo-science". Such is the Iron mentality of scholars

today.

But let us proceed to expose the basic ratios

between anthropic units. As we said earlier, the foot and

cubit hold a ratio of 2:3 like the fifth in music. Another

musical ratio is found with the remen which is 5:4 to a

foot like the major third and it is 15 inches long. The yard

is of course 3 feet long meaning 2 cubits. The yard is thus

36 inches long, while the person's height is 6 feet or 2

yards (4 cubits).

Most important in this anthropic metrology is the

fathom which is the measure of the outstretched arms,

also known as the arm-span. This unit is quite important

because it holds a relationship to the height of 22:21. As

we have seen earlier, when = 22/7, then 22:21 is /3, so

this is the ratio between height and fathom. 6

its numerical expression as 22:21 has a logical expression

best understood through geometric relationships. The

In Royal Man, the fathom is longer than the height

by the ratio 22:21, so when the height is 1, the fathom is

1.047619. Since the height of the person is taken as 6

feet, so the fathom is 22:21 longer at 6.285714 feet. 7

In relation to the Earth, we must keep in mind that

the height of Man is an extension of the radius, while the

fathom is a fraction of the circumference. As we have

seen earlier, the 22:21 ratio is a relationship between a

straight path and a curved one in the diagram of the

hexagon and the circumscribing circle. Schwaller de

Lubicz has revealed this relationship from the study of

Egyptian temples and art where the god Toth is depicted

with arms outstretched portraying (teaching) this

proportion.

Great Pyramid of Giza are when one uses Egyptian Royal

Fathoms as the unit. The numbers match those of the

feminine series and expose another feature of the

monument, namely, that it is based on the proportions

which match the so-called "Kepler triangle", that is, a

triangle whose sides squared share the relationship of 1 :

: 2.

The half base-length of the Great Pyramid is 55

Royal Fathoms, while the apothem is 89 Royal Fathoms.

The value of 70 equals the root of /1 when 1 is 55, and

/1 is 89. The areas of these roots are 3025, 4900, and

7921 (1 : : 2). Triangles with these proportions are

known as Kepler Triangles even though the Egyptians

knew about them 4000 years before Keplers time

approximation of = 22/7 and from the rational

expression of 2 x 2/5.

7 This number is 44/7 or 6 and 2/7ths.

A very important characteristic of the 22:21

proportion related to the fathom is that it leads to the so

called "statute" units.

Today it is well known that 5280 feet make one

statute mile, but it is not so well known that the mile

actually comes from the Latin "mile" meaning 1000. 8 The

reference to the value of 1000 comes from the fact that

the mile is mile passus or 1000 paces. This pace used by

the Romans was a double pace of 5 feet and the mile is

originally 5000 feet long not 5280 feet.

So, why is the statute mile 5280 feet instead of

being 5000 feet? The answer to this question is that the

statute units are not the same as the "English" units

which are the basis of measures of the ancient system. In

fact, the statute foot, being 1/5000th of the statute mile

is 1.056 feet long or 12.672 inches.

In order to understand this shift into statute units,

we must first go over the recent discoveries of John Neal

and John Michell concerning the ancient canon of

metrology and its basic ratios and proportions.

There are two basic ratios which shift the values of

the units in this canon. One ratio is 440:441 which we

already found related to and , and the other ratio is

175:176. The 441:440 ratio shifts vertically in the tables,

changing from ROOT into STANDARD values for the unit,

while the 176:175 ratio is used to shift from the ROOT

values into the CANONICAL and GEOGRAPHIC values as

illustrated in the tables below.

In the following tables we will give the values for

the English foot and the Royal Egyptian Cubit as

examples.

Foot ROOT CAL HIC

ROOT 1 1.005714 1.011461

STANDAR 1.0022

D 73 1.008 1.01376

1000 is "mil".

Cubit CAL HIC

1.7142

ROOT 86 1.724082 1.733934

STANDAR 1.7181

D 82 1.728 1.737874

shift according to the 441:440 and 176:175 ratios. We

will also notice that the combination of these ratios gives

126:125, the ratio we have seen relating the core

perimeter of the Great Pyramid to the casing perimeter.

Moreover, the largest leap between ROOT and

GEOGRAPHIC is a ratio of 3168:3125.

It is here that we may understand why the statute

mile is 5280 feet instead of 5000 feet. The statute units

are actually part of the 22:21 value related to the fathom.

When we take the 1.047619 ft value of 1/6th of a fathom

and augment it by 441/440 and 176/175 we get the value

of the statute foot at 1.056 ft.

When we put this into the perspective of the

ancient canon and its methods of conversion, it becomes

clear that the statute units are the GEOGRAPHIC

value of a ROOT unit that is 25/24 over the English

units. Here we provide the decimal values and next we

show the fraction ratios for each case.

Foot ROOT CAL HIC

1.0416

ROOT 67 1.047619 1.053605

STANDAR 1.0440

D 34 1.05 1.056

Foot ROOT AL HIC

ROOT 25/24 22/21 3872/3675

STANDAR 735/70

D 4 21/20 132/125

The ratio of 25:24 is known in music as the

chromatic semitone and it is also used to convert the

English units to the Roman units (seen next). The Roman

units are diminished by this ratio of 25:24 instead of being

augmented like the case of the statute units. Here we will

provide the Roman units in a somewhat different manner

than the ones provided by Neal and Michell. 9

Foot ROOT CAL HIC

0.9523

ROOT 81 0.957823 0.963296

STANDAR 0.9545

D 45 0.96 0.965486

Foot ROOT CAL HIC

ROOT 20/21 704/735 -

STANDAR

D 21/22 24/25 4224/4375

relationship to the rationalization of . The 441:440 ratio

was pointed out earlier when we exposed the derivation

of from . We showed how the rationalization of as

22/7 and 63/20 is related by a ratio of 440:441, and it is

not an accident that this ancient canon uses this ratio.

There are four basic values for in this ancient

canon which are shown below following the logic of

conversions. In fact, it seems that this variation of

rationalizations of was the basis of the ancient system.

Here are the basic values for which seem to be at the

heart of this ancient system of metrology.

CANONI GEOGRAP

ROOT CAL HIC

ROOT 3.125 3.14285 3.160816

9 Neal and Michell place the 0.96 or 24/25 value as

the ROOT-ROOT value which is an alternative possibility.

7

STANDA 3.1321

RD 02 3.15 3.168

CANONI GEOGRAP

ROOT CAL HIC

ROOT 25/8 22/7 3872/1225

STANDA 2205/7

RD 04 63/20 396/125

measures seems to be at the heart of the ancient system.

It will be noted that when =25/8, then /3 is 25/24 just

as 22/21 is /3 when =22/7. Also, when =3.168, then

/3 is 1.056, the value of the statute foot.

The value of as 25/8 (3.125) is recorded on

ancient clay tablets from Mesopotamia dating between

1900-1600 BC, and it is also mentioned by the roman

engineer Vitruvius (c.80-c.15 BC). In book ten of his

work entitled Architecture, Vitruvius speaks of the

odometer, an instrument consisting of a wheel that allows

one to measure distances on land and sea. There he

states:

each four feet in diameter, so that if a

wheel has a mark made upon it, and

begins to move forward from that mark in

making its revolution on the surface of the

road, it will have covered the definite

distance of twelve and a half feet on

reaching that mark at which it began to

revolve.10

ancients" in order to count the miles traveled by the

carriage. The mechanism was devised in such a way that

a stone would drop into a box every time the wheel

turned 400 times. As the wheel measured 12.5 feet in

10 Vitruvius, Architecture, 10.9.1.

circumference, 400 revolutions of the wheel equaled 5000

feet or 1 mile. We will notice, however, that the value for

being used here by Vitruvius is 25/8 or 3.125, and using

this value for would make an error of 28 feet every mile

in the calculation.

However, this error could be prevented using the

176:175 ratio of the canon which shifts the value of

between 25/8 and 22/7. For example, if the diameter of

the wheel was 4 STANDARD CANONICAL Roman feet, then

it would equal 3.84 English feet, but the circumference

of the wheel would be measured with a STANDARD

GEOGRAPHIC Roman foot, a unit 176:175 times

greater than the one used for the diameter. In this

way, the value for being used would be 22/7 instead of

25/8, although the value of =25/8 would be explicitly

given for the sake of making calculations simpler. There

would be a different unit for diameter and

circumference in these calculations, that is, one

unit for a straight path and another for the curved

path. With this method there would be only 1.94 feet of

error in every mile according to the difference between

as 22/7 and the irrational value used by our modern

calculators.

In this example from Vitruvius, we may appreciate

that the variation between ancient units could very well

have been linked to functions like that relate straight

measures to curved ones, or, more specifically, between

diameter and circumference of a circle. We will later

encounter such a relation between the Meter and the

Sacred Foot, but let us first look at another example

relating to the Earth's dimensions.

In The Ancient Science of Measuring the Earth,

Robin Heath has shown that the value of 63/20 or 3.15 for

was used by the Spanish in order to measure the

terrestrial globe. Quoting from Edward Wright (1561-1615

AD), from a work entitled Certaine Errors in Navigation

Detected and Corrected it is clear that the Spanish had

calculated the Meridian Circumference of the Earth at

6,300 leagues. In that work Wright stated:

and Water, compared with the Spheres of

the Stars, is as it were a center or prick;

yet being considered by itself, it

conteineth in the greatest circle thereof

6300 common Spanish leagues. Which a

man may easily perceive, by taking two

such points or head-lands of the earth, as

are under the same Meridian, and which

differ in distance one from another so

much as one of those parts is, whereof the

compasse of the whole world conteineth

360; and it is found both by Navigation at

Sea and also by travel on land, that the

two foresaid points are distant each from

other 17 leagues and an half: of which

leagues, each one conteineth 4000 paces,

every pace 5 foot, every foot 16 fingers,

and every finger 4 grains of barley.11

16th century were using an ancient system of units that

allowed them to calculate the Earth's dimensions with

great precision, but whether they knew the conversion

methods of the ancient canon is something we cannot say

for certain. By stating that the meridian circumference of

the globe was 6300 leagues, they knew that the Earth's

polar diameter was 2000 of these leagues, while the polar

radius was naturally 1000 of these units called leguas or

leagues.

The ratio between the polar and mean meridian

values of the Earth is 440:441, and this means that if the

Earth's polar radius is calculated at 1000 units, then the

mean meridian circumference is naturally 6300 units. 12

Because the 440:441 ratio shifts polar units to mean

Detected and Corrected, The Division of the Whole Art of

Navigation, Chapter. VIII. The whole quantity of the Earth.

12 Let us recall that the mean radius of the Earth is

longer than the polar radius. The mean meridian radius is

the mean between the length of the meridian at 0 and

90. This should not be confused with the equatorial

radius or circumference.

meridian units, the trick of the calculation is to use a

value of as 63/20 (3.15) in order to calculate the mean

meridian circumference from the polar radius or vice

versa. In other words, we use a polar unit for the straight

path which measures the polar radius or diameter, and

another mean meridian unit which measures the

circumference.

The value of the mean meridian circumference of

the globe is very important for the purpose of navigation

because it provides a mean estimate for the degree of

latitude. The mean radius of the Earth is found on latitude

5028'13.8" and it measures 3958.38/55 statute miles

according to the ancient canon. One mean degree of arc

is 69.12 statute miles or 364,953.6 feet. The mean

meridian unit is the GEOGRAPHIC English foot which is

1.01367 ft. The reader will be made to notice that this is

precisely 3168/3125 over 360,000 ft for the degree of arc

in the ideal or ROOT Earth values.

Now, the league that Wright was referring to was

the legua maritima or "marine league" of the Spanish. The

word "league" in itself is derived from the Latin and its

root is ligo meaning "to tie". This league was 20,000

"feet", but the foot used in this estimation for the Earth's

dimensions was actually a unit known as the sacred

foot. The league known as the legua maritima by the

Spanish, measuring 20,000 feet was used for the first

transoceanic explorations of modern days in the late 15th

century, but it was not 20,000 Spanish feet because the

Spanish foot is 32/35 of the English foot.

The league of the Romans (from which the Spanish

was derived) was a unit of 7500 feet which is nothing like

the 20,000 feet of the so-called "Spanish league". Here we

encounter a problem that is similar to the "stade" of

Eratosthenes: the Spanish were calling "legua" or

"league" a unit that was very different from the original

league of the Romans. Not surprisingly, the unit was a

very ancient one and based on very accurate knowledge

of the Earth's dimensions.

The Spanish navigators and geographers of the late

15th and 16th century knew that one degree of arc across

the meridian circumference was 17.5 of these so-called

"leagues". As we just mentioned, the value of a degree of

arc for the mean meridian circumference is 69.12 statute

miles, and by simple calculation we will notice that the

foot used for this Spanish "league" was a foot measuring

1.042724571 English feet.

This is the value for the GEOGRAPHIC Sacred foot,

a foot which is only 1/2 of the Sacred Cubit instead of

holding the normal 2/3 ratio. The Sacred units are actually

polar units related to the Earth's polar radius and

diameter.

Foot ROOT CAL HIC

1.0285

ROOT 71 1.034449 1.040360

STANDAR 1.0309

D 09 1.0368 1.042725

Cubit ROOT CAL HIC

2.0571

ROOT 43 2.068898 2.080720

STANDAR 2.0618

D 18 2.0736 2.085449

exactly 10,000,000 GEOGRAPHIC Sacred Cubits or

20,000,000 GEOGRAPHIC Sacred Feet.

The "league" that the Spanish navigators and

geographers were using was a very ancient unit which

they seem to have inherited from the Arabs during the

invasions of the Iberian peninsula throughout the middle

ages. But it is also possible that this science of metrology

was kept by the Spanish through the discoveries of the

Knight Templars and other knightly orders of Europe after

the crusades.

The Knight Templars was an order that is known to

have been spared by the Spanish and Portuguese from

the brutal massacres occurred in France during the early

1300's. While the Templars of France were brutally

murdered and tortured by decree of the Catholic

Inquisition, the decree was not carried off by the Spanish

and Portuguese since the people of Spain and Portugal

recognized them as good lords in their land.

It is well known that the Knight Templars used

sacred metrology in the design of Gothic Cathedrals and

many Christian temples throughout Europe during the late

middle ages, and it is rumored that their knowledge of the

ancient science even revealed long forgotten trade routes

with the Americas.

The Spanish explorer Fernando de Magallanes

(1480-1521 AD), was the first explorer to circumnavigate

the globe in modern days.13 It is interesting to note that

Fernando de Magallanes was part of the Orden de

Santiago, a knightly order from Spain that was parallel to

that of the Knight Templars of France and was known to

hold on to sacred science tied to astronomy, arithmetic,

and geometry which was applied to sacred architecture. 14

Whatever the case is, the Spanish and Portuguese

navigators of the late 15th and early 16th century like

Christopher Columbus (1436-1506 AD), Fernando de

Magallanes, and Vasco da Gama (1460-1524 AD) were the

first among the modern Europeans to explore the

Americas, India, Polynesia and circumnavigate the globe

and they all used a "league" based on the sacred or polar

units extracted from a very precise measure of the Earth's

imensions.

Christopher Columbus used the 20,000 foot

"league" based on the sacred units in his journey to the

Americas. When he goes on to account of the first day of

the first journey in his diary, Columbus states:

August, 1492 from Barra de Salts at eight

hours. We traveled until sunset with a

strong sea-breeze due south for sixty

miles which are fifteen leagues; then

to the southwest and south a quarter

the rest of the trip was commanded by Juan Sebastian

Elcano (1476-1526 AD).

14 See XXXXXXXXXXXXX Templars Book.

southwest which was the way to the

Canaries.15

15 leagues, so the league is then 20,000 feet long.

However, as we have seen, this foot is not the Spanish

foot but the sacred foot. The Spanish units had a ratio of

32:35 of the English units meaning that the STANDARD

CANONICAL value of the Spanish foot was 0.9216 ft.

These units used by the Spanish are 24/25 times smaller

than the Roman units.

Foot ROOT CAL HIC

0.9142

ROOT 86 0.919510 0.924765

STANDAR 0.9163

D 64 0.9216 0.926866

related to the sacred units by a ratio of 3:2. For example,

in order to achieve the measure of the Sacred Cubit, one

has to multiply the Spanish Cubit (which is 3/2 over the

Spanish foot) by 3/2. We can also notice that the Spanish

Foot is 8/9ths of the Sacred Foot and 9:8 is the tone in

music.

The study of these ancient units and their

relationships to one another reveal that the ancient canon

of units was fractured among middle age peoples of

Europe, and each took for themselves a fraction or part of

an ancient system that was whole. Today we speak of

these units as "English", "Spanish", "Persian", "Russian",

etc., but the reality is that the ancient Canon was a single

system with variations between units based on musical

ratios and rationalizations of geometric functions.

We must recall that the different units are related

among one another by simple ratios which are difficult to

notice when the values are shown in our decimal system.

de las Casas' Relacin del primer viaje de D. Cristbal

Coln para el descubrimiento de las Indias.

For example, the ROOT Egyptian Royal Cubit is written

1.714285 ft in decimal notation but it is simply 12/7 ft as

a fraction. We also see that the STANDARD CANONICAL

Royal Cubit is 1.728 ft: that is, actually 6/53 (6/5 x 6/5 x

6/5).

Moreover, the Sacred Cubit is actually a unit of 6/5 4

(6/5 x 6/5 x 6/5 x 6/5). The Sacred Cubit is a unit that is

exactly 1/10,000,000th the polar radius of the Earth and as

we stated earlier, it is most probable that the Spanish

"league" was related to the Sacred units as 10,000 Sacred

Cubits or 20,000 Sacred Feet.

It would appear that these ancient units were

known in the Old World alone, but there is one fascinating

exception to this supposition. A yard is 3 feet long, and

since the foot and cubit have a ratio of 2:3, a yard also

measures 2 cubits. The Egyptian Royal Yard is then 2

Royal Cubits long and has a STANDARD CANONICAL value

of 3.456 ft. Its ROOT value is simply 24/7 ft because it is

double the Royal Cubit which is 12/7 ft.

Yard ROOT CAL PHIC

3.4285 3.44816 3.467867

ROOT 714 327 055

STANDA 3.4363 3.475748

RD 636 3.456 571

the Egyptian Royal Yard: incredibly, it was also used by

the architects of Teotihuacan in Mexico as the basic unit

with which they designed their pyramids and temples in

that very impressive ancient city.

The measure of the Royal Yard in Teotihuacan is

found in the work of Hugh Harleston Jr. who surveyed the

ancient city in the 1970s and stated that it had been

designed using a unit that he called a Standard

Teotihuacan Unit (STU).

The STU is given by Harleston at 41.7111 inches

which is 3.475925 ft. We noticed this was extremely close

to the Royal Yard in its STANDARD GEOGRAPHIC value and

the comparison in inches speaks for itself:

STU = 41.7111 inches

RYY = 41.708982862 inches

Diff = 0.00212825396 inches

0.00816 mm As difficult as it may seem to assimilate

that the Ancient Egyptians and the architects of

Teotihuacan in Mexico used the same unit of measure,

when we take into account that the unit is derived from

the Earths dimensions, and that astronomical

observations lead to the revelation of the Earths size, it

becomes apparent that this coincidence is due to the fact

that both cultures measured the same Earth and derived

a set of units based on those calculations.

It is well known that the Pyramid of the Sun and the

Great Pyramid of Giza have about the same size a the

base. Less known, however, is the fact that both

constructions share a unique relation between their base-

perimeters and height which relates to the function of .

In the following diagram we show a simplification of the

geometry behind the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan

derived from the geometry of the Great Pyramid that is

based on the squaring of the circle.

According to Hugh Harleston Jr., the Pyramid of the

Sun has a base-length of 216 STU or Geographic Royal

Yards. This means 9009 inches which is basically identical

with the value of the core base-length of the Great

Pyramid of Giza given by Petrie. The base-perimeter of

the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan is thus 864 units,

and the height of the pyramid is found by dividing the

base-perimeter by 4. When is taken as 22/7, then 4 is

11/14 meaning that the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan

holds an 11:14 ratio between base-perimeter and height.

In the case of the Great Pyramid of Giza, the base-

perimeter and height are also related by the function of ,

but the height is found by dividing the base-perimeter by

2. As we have seen, this ratio is 7:11.

This relationship between base-perimeter and

height is a special geometric relationship, and it was

chosen by the architects in order to communicate the

relationship between and .

4.5 - The AMY

Two more units need to be introduced into this

review of ancient metrology before we can present the

reader with a synthesis. These two units are the Meter

and the Megalithic Yard. We will begin with the latter.

The Megalithic Yard was discovered by Alexander

Thom (1894 - 1985 AD) a Scottish engineer who surveyed

and studied some 250 megalithic sites around Britain. 16

Thom proposed a standard unit of measure was used for

these prehistoric monuments measuring about 2.72 ft,

and he named it the Megalithic Yard.

Although most of Thoms's contemporaries and

many of today's scientists dismiss Thom's findings, Robin

Heath has taken the matter seriously and has discovered

the geometrical derivation of the Megalithic Yard. We will

recall that in chapter 2 of this work we showed how the

amount of Lunations in a solar year could be expressed

through the geometry of a 5:12:13 triangle.

It is precisely this geometry that Robin Heath used

in order to discover the geometric basis for the Megalithic

Yard, except that he called it the Astronomical

Megalithic Yard or AMY.

and when the 0.368 fraction over 12 is made to be an

English foot, then the unit measuring the 5:12:13 triangle

(i.e. the Lunation itself) is the AMY.

This type of derivation which uses geometry and

astronomy as a basis is very likely to have been the

method used by the prehistoric architects of the

megalithic sites of Britain. Alexander Thom also made

notice of the many astronomical alignment of the sites

which defined their geometries, and we have seen how

Stonehenge displays significant soli-lunar alignments.

Sites in Britain, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A

(General)Vol. 118, No. 3 (1955), pp. 275-295..

It is worth noticing that the 0.368 over 12 which

defines the amount of Lunations in a solar year is

basically 7/19. The Megalithic Yard, according to this logic

is the inverse of this fraction, that is, 19/7. The

importance of these numbers is found in the fact that 7

and 19 are the first hexagonal numbers, that is, the first

numbers whose units conform to a hexagonal shape.

7 and 19 diagram

also defined as 11:7 over the Royal Cubit.17 Because the

AMY and Royal Cubit hold this proportion, it is evident that

the geometry linking these two ancient units is once again

found in the squaring of the circle diagram from which the

Great Pyramid of Giza's design is derived.

these ancient units are related to one another, we must

also speak of the meter. As we have said earlier, the

meter was firstly defined by the French Academy of

Science as a fraction of the meridian circumference of the

Earth. By this early definition, the meter was

1/40,000,000th of the Earth's meridian circumference.

Since the Earth's mean meridian circumference is

24,883.2 statute miles, we can calculate the meter

defined as a fraction of the Earth's circumference as a unit

3.2845824 ft long. The ROOT value of the Meter defined in

this way is 3.24 ft.

CANONI GEOGRAP

Meter ROOT CAL HIC

ROOT 3.24 3.258514 3.277134

STANDAR 3.2473 3.284582

D 64 3.26592 4

6/7.

However, the meter has been redefined for the

entirety of the 19th and 20th century according to

different standards and is now defined according to the

distance traveled by light in a vacuum. The meter is

defined today as "the length of the path travelled by light

in a vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458th of

a second". In other words, it is the 1/299,792,458th part

of the distance traveled by light in one second.

The numerical value of the meter today is

3.280839895 ft. Richard Heath has shown that this value

of the meter can be rationalized as 1250/381

(3.280839895), and we noticed that this rationalization is

using the value of 2 which is 0.381.... The fraction

1250/381 which defines the value of the meter by the

speed of light is actually the same as 5/4 divided by 1/ 2

or 5/4 multiplied by 2/1. So, even though the meter is no

longer defined as an Earth measure, it still has a sacred

reference to and the value of the major third in music.

Another form of arriving at the value of the meter is

quite interesting. When one takes the value of the tone in

music which is 9:8, one can fraction it into two different

semitones: 36/35 and 35/32. The 36/35 semitone gives

the value of the ROOT Sacred Foot, while the other 35/32

semitone (which is the inverse of the Spanish units) gives

a foot for the meter of 1.09375 ft. In this case, the meter

would be a yard of 3.28125 ft which is 39 and 3/8 inches

long. This value of the meter is simply 21/8 x 5/4, that is,

2/1 augmented by a major third.

One more interesting relationship of the Meter to

ancient units is found in its relationship to the Royal units

of the ancient Egyptians. It is well acknowledged by

Egyptologists that the Royal Cubit is 0.5236 m long. This

is the value of /6. Once again, the ancient units are

spaking a language of geometry which many metrologists

cannot understand as the underlying language behind

numerical relationships.

The value of /6 is known, for example, as the ratio

between the volume of a sphere inscribed in a cube, but

most important is the fact that when we take as 22/7,

then the Royal Yard, being 2 Royal Cubits long, holds a

relationship to the meter as 22:21 or /3. In this case, the

Meter would have a ROOT value of 36/11.18

Here we have given four different values for the

Meter: one derived from the meridian circumference of

the Earth, another form the speed of light, a third from

musical ratios, and finally another value derived from the

Royal units by .

So, one is forced to ask the question of what the

real value of the meter is. The answer to this question

depends on what we consider the "real" manner of

defining a unit of measure, and this is the question we

intend to answer in this chapter.

The Meter is the best example of how different our

modern method of defining units is from the ancient

method. Today we use quite arbitrary standards to define

a unit like the meter, standards that are unacceptable to a

mentality like the one that defined units in ancient days

through geometric relationships as well as fractions of the

Earths dimensions. On the other hand, the "official"

metrology of today, the kind that arrogantly catalogues

the work of various authors exposed in this chapter as

"pseudo-science" uses the meter as a basic unit and

defines ancient units strictly in a decimal notation with

irrational values that never expose any rational

relationship between units.

It is obvious that two mentalities are at odds here,

and this opposition has nothing to do with metrology or

"science". It has to do with a philosophy of science and a

cosmology as we have stated in the very beginning of this

chapter.

The modern "official" method of metrology that

defines the study of ancient units is designed to ignore

the possibility of rational relationships between units such

as the "English", "Roman", "Egyptian", "Spanish", etc.

Using a metric system with irrational values in decimal

notation will never reveal the unity of the ancient system:

it will only emphasize the differences between units

without hinting at any possible link between them. This is

a purely analytical mentality designed to expose

144/55 x 5/4, that is, as 2/1 times a major third.

differences and differences alone, and the only conclusion

that can be drawn from this method is that the ancients

possessed a number of systems which were totally

disconnected from one another and probably invented by

completely arbitrary standards. Such is the "official"

conclusion of modern metrology that is self-proclaimed

"scientific".

On the other hand, the so-called "pseudo-scientific"

method is the one we have related here. It is based on a

different mentality: a mentality which uses the so-called

"English" units for a basis, or, better said, an Earth

fraction unit called "English" which is not arbitrary. This

method uses rational values and seeks to expose the

relationships between units in fractional notation, the

result being that it reveals a single and whole system of

units which are linked to one another instead of being

isolated. Contrary to the purely analytical method, this is

a holistic method and the reason why it is actually better

as a method is because it corresponds with the ancient

mentality that devised the ancient system of units in the

first place.

The reason why this method used by John Neal,

John Michell, and Robin and Richard Heath has revealed

so many interesting results while the arid method of

official academics has revealed nothing interesting at all

about ancient metrology is because these refuse to adopt

the correct mentality while the former have made an

effort to do so. To this list of pioneers in ancient metrology

we can also add Livio Stecchini, but we can also see how

Stecchini was held back by the modern method and never

revealed what John Neal did using the English foot as a

basic unit.

It is worth noting that the reason why this

metrology is considered "pseudo-science" is because it

does not come from scholars and academics thinking

inside the intellectual corral of modern dogmas. It is

especially repulsive to modern scholars that the

revelations of Michell, for example, follow a spiritual and

religious narrative much like the work of Schwaller de

Lubicz on ancient Egypt and the pharaonic science. It is

these two factors which compel scholars and academics

to call for "pseudo-science" when in reality there is

nothing "pseudo" about this knowledge at all.

As we have noted throughout this work, if anything

seems false about these affirmations, the reader is given

a clear and open opportunity to corroborate or disprove

the claims with the data at hand. The numbers are

exposed for anyone to check them, and the reality is that

numbers don't lie. The claim of "pseudo-science" is

greatly abused by scholars to disguise very subjective and

emotionally charged reactions against amateur

investigations and research that contradicts the atheistic

paradigm of naturalist philosophy that dominates modern

academic mentality.

Now, the synthesis of all that we have gone over in

this chapter can only be expressed through geometry. We

have made an effort to expose how geometry, understood

as a relationship of forms, is the essence and underlying

principle of number or arithmetic. The ancients

understood this principle and used geometry to derive the

basic units of a canon of measure that we are beginning

to resurrect today in the final years of the Iron Age or Kali

Yuga.

The geometries which expose the relationships

between the units we have mentioned here are shown

next. Here the reader will notice that the geometry of

squaring the circle which we have brought up once and

again defines the relationship between Royal units with

the AMY as well as Sacred units with the Meter.

3168 See:

http://www.thegreatdesign.com/archive/Chapter1/1

09.htm

http://www.biblegematria.com/pythagoras.html

http://www.esotericonline.net/group/christianity/for

um/topics/jesus-the-sacred-triangle

apothem of the Great Pyramid is very close to the angle of

360/7 or 90x 4/7. The slope angle of the Great Pyramid

can only be estimated because original outer stones are

missing and the top of the pyramid is also missing its final

top layers. Sir W. Flinders Petrie gave an approximation of

5152 and thus estimated a height of 5776 inches for the

monument, corresponding to 280.77 Egyptian Royal

Cubits.19

In the diagram we observe that when we give the

Great Pyramid a height of 280 Royal Cubits and a half

base-length of 220 Royal Cubits (a 11:7 ratio), the

angle of the apothem is then 515033.98. In this

case, the apothem would be 356 Royal Cubits long.

has a base of 1.618 ft and a hypothenuse of 2.618

ft.

Slope angle of 5148'36" when 1.61803399

between 514411 and 515320 for the north slope,

and 515730 for the southern slope. The original casing

stones of the Great Pyramid which he measured in situ

gave an angle of 514645 when measured by theodolite.

Strabo on Hipparcus taking from other anonymous

texts:

entirely measured; for he tells us that he does not know

the extent of the portion between Armenia and the

northern mountains,2 as it has not been measured. By

reason of these hindrances he states that he has been

only able to give a very superficial view of the third

section, and that his estimate of the distances is

borrowed from various Itineraries, some of them,

according to his own description, anonymous.

Hipparchus therefore must be considered guilty of

unfairness, for criticizing with geometrical precision a

work of this general nature. We ought rather to be

grateful to a person who gives us any description at all of

the character of such [unknown] places. But when he

urges his geometrical objections not against any real

statement of Eratosthenes, but merely against imaginary

hypotheses of his own creation, he shows too plainly the

contradictory bent of his mind.

at Latitude 245' N, and Longitude 3254'