You are clearly being too rough on the poor man. This is sacred:

Hoop - The reason I'm getting tired of this thread is because I am the only one on my side of the matter, and I've found myself repeating things I said two pages ago. I don't have any desire to change your way of thinking, or brians, or uke masters. Furthermore a few of the comments (especially yours) are insulting, aggressive, and sarcastic, which is frustrating. You are free to see the world as you like.

I have said several times in this thread that I do not believe in a sky daddy with a white beard. My idea of god is not the personification. Here is a quote from Einstein on the subject.



You think that is stupid, too?

I don't understand why you think I'm being nitpicky in regards to semantics. I've been trying to loosen the definition of the word god by expanding it, and I am not the first person to do this. The videos I linked were very clear in this as well, but you choose not to acknowledge that. If you'd like to better understand your religious friend, it might be a good idea to ask him more questions and listen to what he says, rather than make it a personal project to debunk his beliefs.

Dude, that is just a pretty picture.

You even took it from a site that has the word "soul" in the name that is highly specific in what they mean by spirituality. They certainly don't agree with you.

Listen Brian, this stuff is subjective. You can learn from it no matter what your spiritual insights are, which also are subjective. I got that picture from a google image search. I am not trying to prove anything to you, though I think it is interesting that ancient symbols like the star of david come from the same school of thought.

If your interest in Sacred Geometry stops at the word Sacred, or at what a religious fundamentalist says, that's on you. Enjoy the pretty pictures that mirror cell division, anatomy, and astrophysics which are also booga-booga nonsense.

What are you trying to do?

What do you mean by "came from the same school of thought"? Do you have evidence to support this?

My primary issue with your presentation is that you're saying more than that these are pretty pictures, but you don't seem to want to admit to it. Saying that something is subjective is fine. And if that's all you're saying, nobody would be bothering to disagree with you. But you're saying more while trying not to say more because there's nothing more to say.

btw, in case you don't know the name of your purported view, and especially since you quoted einstein, you are claiming to be a pantheist.

Which is fine, I only have minor objections to pantheism. However, if you are going to be a pantheist in a theist dominated society then I am sorry but YOU have a burden to make that very clear when you start dropping terms like god and sacred around. Because what you are claiming to mean by them is very different from what the more common connotations of the mare.

Personally, I don't really believe you. I don't think you DO think that some pretty math pictures you posted on the internet with very limited understanding of them implies something supernatural. I think you are back peddling now because you know you can't justify it. Maybe I am wrong but that is my best guess.

If you draw the vesica pisces (constructed from circles) and you superimpose that on a standing wave (constructed from a sine curve), they don't match. They don't match in exactly the same way the picture with circles and cell division don't match. They kind of look the same, but if you think about what one or the other is doing, you'll find that they aren't the same.

Obviously, not ALL; consider the trivial case when considering the text one letter at a time! ( This is easily the most important way to understand the text! ) Besides that, the typical ELS "strings" can be names and dates in Hebrew; on the other hand, the words "Torah" and the Tetragrammaton are some of the ( if not THE ) most important "strings" in the Torah. Also, 50 is a relatively important number: consider the Jubilee and the Pentecost ( but you may not have understood this ).

In a way, "sacred geometry" as it is presented seems deceptive. Consider Metatron's cube as it has been presented: it's not obvious or clear that the regular dodecahedron and regular icosahedron are represented. What seems to be an important geometric figure in the canonical biblical literature is the regular hexahedron - e.g., the "Holy of holies" and the New Jerusalem.

Stop. I've explained this basic point several times now and you are missing it. The content of the short strings is irrelevant. It doesn't matter that the content is torah and tetragrammaton and you think these are important. It doesn't matter that the content is dates or names. The whole point is that the content can be ANYTHING YOU WANT, and you can use this method to find that content in texts of sufficient length for strings of sufficient shortness. Saying "but but but torah is super important" doesn't help you one iota as the whole point of the nonsensical method is to construct arbitrary such strings.

Posthoc nonsense. Besides, of the time it is based on the number 49. That is always the way with these things, as soon as a code is found, we then go around rationalizing why all the numbers and "tunings" used in the code are themselves super important. Nobody would have ever said "you know what I bet the secret to finding a secret code in the torah is? The numbers 49 and 50! let's start with those". It is only ever after something is found that they start saying that 49 and 50 (or maybe just one of them?) is important.

My aren't you clever! I am totally going to believe in hidden ELS codes in the torah because the not hidden reading with 0 skips could be thought of as the trivial ELS code and that like has actual meaning man! Puhlease.

Okay so I see a few of my favourite questions being kicked around.
1) What is sacred geometry?
And
Why is it sacred?

Ive heard so many ridiculous answers to this
So let me offer mnsho ...

1) My definition is that Sacred Geometry is the study of the fundamental forms of existence to reveal secrets of the physical and spiritual worlds. Its a key to good science, a secret of great art, and a light on the mystical path.

2) Its called sacred because in studying the fundamental forms we are examining the source and nature of existence, and that is by definition 'sacred' if anything is.

If a pattern is not either one of the primary patterns of existence, or one that gives us insights about those primary patterns, then I dont personally think it should be classed as sacred geometry.

Therefore I include the flower of life because it is a study in symmetry and circle packing, and sphere packing is an important concept to explore. I also include metatrons cube because despite not showing an exact projection of the dodeca or icosa it is probably the simplest way to show approximations of the 3d regular convex forms in 2D, and therefore teaches us something important about the symmetry of space again.

However - I am reluctant to include the 'tree of life' design as although it is an interesting study of vertical symmetry and polarity, it is mostly a cultural and religious glyph influenced by the other two forms but not showing any geometric principles that are as essential as theirs. Note that the current form of the tree of life glyph is not very old and that it evolved through many other diagrams people drew to illustrate references in scripture.

I dont know if anyone has mentioned the tradition that sacred geometry is the language of light the angels (non embodied intelligences) speak? One implication I draw from this is that it is the geometry of electromagnetic fields that is primary. The geometric forms are important because they are an evolution from subtler energetic forms - and those energetic forms are the original language of the universe.

For more I recommend www.SacredGeometryWeb.com

Well you've added one more to that list.

I have collected a lot of items related to the symbol of the Flower of Life to my pinterest account. If history of the symbol is in your interest, I'm sure there will be new things on the post where I have made some notes about the pictures:

http://floweroflifemystery.wordpress.../17/artifacts/

A lot more should be coming, but what comes to the OP, there should be no reason to think, its not an ancient symbol and its origin is going so far on the history that we dont really know when it was "born". Is it sacred? Well it was often used in religious context, maybe not always, but very often. Decoration was used on funeral items owned or dedicated for higher class citicens and kings. No doubt it was highly appreciated. Geometrical and mathematical properties of the symbol are well known, but one thing not often mentioned is its relation to the 7*7 grid and squaring the circle construction. These properties alone sends it to the space, where math and myth were shaking hands on ancient times.

It is notable that name for the symbol is not known from the history, but on the other hand there cannot be one name, because it was known by many cultures thousands years. Nowadays we call it a flower of life, name promoted by Drunvalo. And it is a pretty good name for the symbol. Historians / archaeologists calls it often a rosette, or six petal rosette motif to be more exact. But the way it is used as a continuous net/grid makes it special from 4 or 8 petal rosettes.

This thread really is better suited to SMP than RGT. I don't know who decided to move this or why. It shows a total misunderstanding of the topic which is also in the majority of the posts.

This video is one of the most relevant I have seen regarding Sacred Geometry and it's relationship to the universe.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESxY...9JWwCjA_8tZYng