Unurthed

A figure from John Dee‘s 1564 Monas Hieroglyphica (see Latin scans, English translation by Hamilton-Jones).

InTeLlectus iudicat veritatem. Contractus ad Punctum. Vulgaris, Hic, Oculus caligabit, diffidetque plurimum.

Which Josten translates, “Intellect judges the truth. Contracted to a Point. The vulgar eye will here be blind and most distrustful” (Ambix XII, 1964).

A diagram from Toru Sato’s The Ever-Transcending Spirit.

“One process [occurring during life] is the simultaneous process of separating the object from the subject and integrating a part of what used to be the subject with other objects (i.e., understanding our existence in relation to others). During this process, we begin to identify more and more with the object by integrating more and more of what used to be the subject with the object. This process enables us to see an increasingly bigger picture of how we exist in relation to others. As a consequence, this process helps us exist in more harmonious unity with other people and things…” (p82-3).

“Eventually, if we reach a state of complete transcendence, we differentiate everything from the subject (so that the subject disappears) and integrate all objects with other objects and we experience objective unity. However, since objects cannot exist without a subject, we commonly call it subjective unity instead of objective unity. In sum, we begin by venturing out of subjective unity into the world of conflict between subject and object and then we end by returning back to subjective unity. Therein lies the beauty in the cycle of our lives. It is like a story with a peaceful beginning, conflict and excitement in the middle, and then a peaceful ending after the climax. This is probably why Black Elk, the well-known wise man of the Lakota native North American tribe says, ‘The life of a man is a circle from childhood to childhood, and so it is in everything where power moves'” (p83).

Another yantra from Yantra (see previous post).

“Meditation on the yantra takes the most subtle form of all when it consists of inner illumination, a method of mediation without any yogic, ritual, or visual aids… The sadhaka builds up, in deep concentration, a square yantra enclosed by three concentric circles. In the centre of the square he visualizes the emblem of the yoni (a half-moon and bindu). The square symbolizes the vessel of consciousness (cit-kunda) in which burns the fire of consciousness, and into this symbolic fire the adept ‘surrenders’ all his mental offerings [his impulses, his senses, his selfhood, his acts, his self]. This mental offering of his entire being is the prelude to new birth” (p129).

“The essential difference between the outer form of yantra worship (puja) and inward meditation through yantric symbols is that the former produces mental states that are like ‘seeds’ for the future workings of consciousness, while the latter is ‘without seed’ (nirbija) and relies on intuitive apprehension of the real, reveling in the ontological plenitude in which being, knowledge and bliss are inseparable and indistinguishable” (p130).

Four yantras (see earlier post) and a diagram from Madhu Khanna’s Yantra: The Tantric Symbol of Cosmic Unity.

“Yantras function as revelatory symbols of cosmic truths and as instructional charts of the spiritual aspect of human experience. All the primal shapes of a yantra are psychological symbols corresponding to inner states of human consciousness, through which control and expansion of psychic forces are possible.” (p12).

Nepal, c. 18th century (p52).

“Each graphic shape can be seen as a psychological schema: the outer gates are the gates of one’s consciousness; the lotus petal, spiritual enfoldment; the inner geometrical figures, the stages of spiritual ascent; and the bindu, one’s innermost self” (p150).

“Every symbol in a yantra is ambivalently resonant in inner-outer synthesis, and is associated with the subtle body and aspects of human consciousness. Thus, for instance, the bindu in a yantra is cosmic when viewed as the emblem of the Absolute Principle but psychological when it is related to the adept’s spiritual centre. By aligning these two planes of awareness, the yantra translates psychic realities into cosmic terms and the cosmos into psychic planes” (p22).

Sri Yantra, formed by the interpenetration of two sets of triangles, four, apex upward, representing the male principle and five, apex-downward, representing the female principle. Rajasthan, c. 1700 (p112).

“Yantra meditation should should not be understood superficially, as though attention were merely pegged on to a symbol, as for instance when we focus on any symmetrical figure to control our mental flux. On the contrary, genuine yantra meditation produces an active mental state and induces receptivity to symbolic revelations” (p107).

Smar-hara Yantra, the ‘remover of desire’. The circle is the latent Kundalini Sakti, which when aroused can penetrate beyond the successive planes of inwardness illustrated by the five male and female triangles which correspond to the five psychic sheaths that envelop the innermost self (p142).

“One of the most important rituals of yantra worship is the infusing of vital force (prana) into the geometrical pattern of the yantra, called pranapratistha. The goal is to cause the spiritual universe underlying myth and iconography to ‘descend’ into the yantra so that it becomes a radiant emblem and receptacle of cosmic power (sakti-rupa), and consciousness (chaitanya), transforming into sacred archetypal space what is phenomenally no more than a mere design. The transfer of power from the sadhaka to the yantra changes the nature of the diagram, and the consecrration of profane space conversely elevates the sadhaka to realizing the inherent energy of the theophany, so that the yantra becomes a powerful means of contact between the sadhaka and the cosmos” (p98).

Sakti Yantra. The three sides of the yoni, the primordial triangle, creative matrix of the cosmos, stand for the three qualities composing material nature: sattva, the ascending quality, seen as white; rajas, the kinetic quality, seen as red; tamas, the descending quality or inertia, seen as black. Rajasthan, c. 17th century (p113).

“What is counselled is not withdrawal from existence or a cold ascetism which teaches us to sever our links with life, but a gathering up of existence into our own being. This gathering up is effected by cosmicizing the body, and treating it as a ‘tool’ for inner awareness by taming it with yogic rituals, awaking zones of consciousness and activating its latent subtle energies” (p119).

The dynamics of psyche and symbol. This process should be seen in relation to the dynamics of cosmic evolution and involution. Click to view larger version with labels (p75).

“When [the adept] has internalized all the symbols of the cosmos and his body ‘becomes the yantra’, [he] is no longer alienated from the truth that the symbol illustrates, but is transformed into the truth he seeks” (p80).

Continuing on the theme of the last post, another diagram from Vandenbroeck’s Al-Kemi.

“I worked up a construct [below] to show as clearly as possible the qualities which characterize the predominance of each of the three alchemical principles: heat for Sulphur, humidity for Mercury, coldness for Salt. This structure shows the principles and elements held in a network of relations between trinity and quaternary, and ruled by the permutations of two pairs. Completed to the show polarized duality manifesting a vertex of puncticular and irrational oneness, this pyramid of Pythagorean number forms the renowned Tetractys. An exaltation of the four elements reveals a quintessence as basis of the Pentactys, emblem of manifestation traditionally associated with the five senses” (p118).

Click image for larger version.

“Neither formulas, mechanisms, or processes had any bearing upon the science that concerned us. The presentation would be a gesture of knowing intuition, so that the only dependable representation would be an intuitive perception of form — as number, color, sound, volume, or plane-image. It would be an inscription into the fixed salt, not a notation onto memory” (p228-9).

“Aor maintained that the material process of the alchemical opus are banal, that they occur at every moment in every laboratory in plain view of everyone. There are no special or hidden chemical events, and the alchemical processes are of the most usual sort, so common that they escape notice, as is repeated again and again with regard to materia prima in alchemical texts. The difference in the esoteric manipulation lies entirely in the apprehension of the event: it is a matter of perception, of vision” (p147).

Says Aor, “The Oeuvre is not the discovery of a technique, it is nothing of the sort, it is the perception of an existing process. It is the perception that is the object of study and prayer. That is the theoretical part, and after that comes the practice, the proper gesture in matter and time. The perception of a process, the vision of an evolution, that is the first aim of the scientist. Prima materia into Materia prima is a constant process of nature, it is mindless, and therefore beyond the cerebral cortex. That is really the only difficulty. There is no use addressing the analytic mind with Hermetic language; it can do very little with it. Therefore the language of the birds, not spoken, only heard” (p60).

A diagram from André Vandenbroeck’s Al-Kemi, memoir of R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz.

Says Aor, “It is interesting to study the senses from the point of view of form-perception, to become aware of their functions as formative instruments. Realize how prejudiced we have become in favor of sight, because it seems to give us the volume so immediately and, we think, so surely, so certainly. But that isn’t even the eye’s primary function; this perception of volume is entirely secondary, it is color that is the primary sight-form… In the same way, volume is secondary form for the hearing function; it is sound that is primary. But volume is the material presence and all the senses partake of it… The immediacy of [sight] is what attracts us, but it is a solution of facility, and without perceptual education, it results in a universe of objects, of things. Actually, for the proportional perception that gives us so many profound hints as to the cosmic constitution, the ear is a far better tool. The laws are harmony are just that, perception of ratios and proportionality, and here the sound-form without equal… That trinity of lower senses can in fact be summed up under the sense of touch, as both smell and taste are a matter of contact… And touch… has contact with volume only.” (p106-7).

“You can say that the universe of form, pervaded by affinity, spans between number and volume. Volume and number are the forms of origin, whereas color and sound are later forms of more advanced evolution. Number exists inside and out of the least mineral structure as surely as does volume. Polarity is already number, in the same way that space is already volume” (p107-8).

“Attention, cher ami, if you really want a beginning, you have to find a totality, a oneness, and where experience is concerned, that oneness must be achieved in the perception of the experience. You can fragment it through an analytic view, which is what we have trained our cerebral cortex to do, or you can identify with the formal and functional essence of the experience and intuitively place it in its cosmic context. That takes a reeducation of the senses for modern man… Without adequate perception, you will encounter a world of objects to register into your brain matter, but you will only rarely be inscribing experience into salt” (p177-8).

An exercise in contemplative geometry from Robert Lawlor’s Sacred Geometry, 1982.

“There are a number of diagrams in the literature of Sacred Geometry all related to the single idea known as ‘Squaring of the Circle’. This is a practice which seeks, with only the usual compass and straight-edge, to construct a square which is virtually equal in perimeter to the circumference of a given circle, or which is virtually equal in area to the area of a given circle. Because the circle is an incommensurable figure based on π, it is impossible to draw a square more than approximately equal to it. Nevertheless the Squaring of the Circle is of great importance to the geometer-cosmologist because for him the circle represents pure, unmanifest spirit-space, while the square represents the manifest and comprehensible world. When a near equality is drawn between the circle and the square, the infinite is able to express its dimensions or qualities through the finite” (p74).

Here I have drawn the former arrangement (perimeter equal to circumference):

The derivation begins with an initial circle (within the square) of radius unity. Along its horizontal diameter are drawn two tangent circles, each with radius one half. Observe that the total circumference of the smaller circles equals the circumference of the initial circle, but the total area of the smaller circles is one half that of the initial circle: “One has become Two” (p73), an image of the primary duality, of yin-yang.

Next are drawn two arcs from the ends of the initial circle’s vertical diameter with radius tangent to the far sides of the smaller circles. This radius is φ, the golden ratio, dividing the vertical radius of the initial circle into the golden section of lengths 1/φ and 1/φ². The two arcs meet to create a vesica that encloses the primary duality — the mouth of Ra, the Word, the vibrating string.

Around the initial circle is drawn a tangent square, with side 2, perimeter 8; and, finally, a large circle is drawn with diameter equal to the width of the vesica, 2√φ, giving a circumference of 2π√φ = 7.993, approximately equal to 8. The circle is squared.

Nicholas of Cusa‘s paradigmatic diagram (figura paradigmatica, a.k.a. Diagram P) from his 1441/2 On Surmises (De Coniecturis), translated by Jasper Hopkins.

“Conceive of a pyramid-of-light as progressing into darkness and of a pyramid-of-darkness as progressing into light; and reduce to [that] figurative conception everything that can be investigated, so that by guidance from what is perceptible you can turn your surmise toward hidden [truths]. And in order that you may be aided by means of an example, consider the universe as reduced to the diagram here below. Notice that God, who is Oneness, is as the base-of-light; but the base-of-darkness is as nothing. Every creature, we surmise, lies between God and nothing” (p182).

The Latin labels are unitas: oneness; basis pyramis lucis: base of the pyramid of light; tertium caelum:third heaven; supremus mundus: uppermost world; secundum caelum: second heaven; medius mundus: middle world; primum caelum: first heaven; infimus mundus: lowest world; basis pyramis tenebrae: base of the pyramid of darkness; alteritas: otherness.

“The definition of ‘oneness’ is ‘indivisibility in and of itself and separation from all else.’ Hence, we say that oneness is called by the names of the many characteristics of its power. For whichever names indicate a certain indivisibility, distinctness, and union befit oneness. Now, the [foregoing] diagram includes, under [the label] ‘oneness,’ all such [befitting] things; and under [the label] ‘otherness’ it includes their opposites. Hence, for indivisibility to proceed into divisibility is nothing other than for oneness to descend into otherness” (p183-4).

“If you want to behold, intellectually, oneness in otherness, then pay very careful attention also to the following: viz., that for oneness to proceed into otherness is, at the same time, for otherness to return into oneness. For example, for the soul to be in the body is for the soul to proceed into the body in such a way that the body’s oneness enters into the soul. Likewise as regards form: the more one and the more perfect each form is, the more its proceeding [into otherness] is otherness’s returning [into its oneness]. For by means of a simple act of understanding, conceive of proceeding as conjoined with returning, if you want to arrive at those hidden truths which are more truly attained above reason (which separates progression from returning) by intellect alone (which folds opposites into a single bond)” (p187-8).

“You must notice that light’s descending is nothing other than darkness’s ascending. And God’s being in the world is nothing other than the world’s being in God. And for actuality to proceed into potentiality is nothing other than for potentiality to arrive at actuality. And a point’s ascending into corporeality is nothing other than corporeality’s descending into a point. And for darkness to elevate itself into light is nothing other than for light to descend into darkness. Likewise, for the potentiality of matter to proceed into the actuality-of-form is nothing other than for form’s actuality to descend into matter’s potentiality. Therefore, with intellectual acumen conjoin the ascent and the descent, in order that you may surmise more truly” (p217, c.f. Meister Eckhart’s words on coinherence and God’s eye).

“For the more subtly the mind contemplates itself in and through the world unfolded from itself, the more abundantly fruitful it is made within itself” (p165).

* * *

In edition Codex Latinus Cusanus 218 (1445), the diagram is situated horizontally rather than vertically, an arrangement seemingly familiar to Yeat’s instructors 500 years later (c.f. Yeat’s Concord and Discord with Cusanus’s oneness and otherness).

The coinherence symbol designed by Professor Roger Corless (Duke) in 1983, combining the symbols of various religious traditions. As the logo of the Duke University Department of Religion, it combines 7 symbols (circle, taijitu, wheel, hexagram, labarum, crescent, cross); the logo of the University Religious Council (URC) at UC Berkeley adds 4 more (point, atom, chalice, lotus).

I have redrawn the former version here:

The symbol combines its constituents “in such a way as to represent simultaneously the full and autonomous presence of each tradition and their intimate interrelation, each inside the other, in the mode of coinherence” (URC).

Meister Eckhart on coinherence: “There is a difference between spiritual things and bodily things. Every spiritual thing can dwell in another but nothing bodily can exist in another. There may be water in a tub, and the tub surrounds it, but where the wood is, there is no water. In this sense no material thing dwells in another, but every spiritual thing does dwell in another. Every single angel is in the next with all his joy, with all his happiness and all his beatitude as perfectly as in himself; and every angel with all his joy and all his beatitude is in me, and so is God Himself with all his beatitude, though I know it not” (Meister Eckhart: Sermons and Treatises, translated and edited by Walshe, vI p50; appearing in Corless’s Many Selves, Many Realities, 2002).

Four illustrations appearing in E. J. Holmyard’s 1957 Alchemy, a historical account of exoteric alchemy.

First, a diagram (p22) of the Greek conception of the four elements — fire, air, water, and earth — in relation to their qualities — wet (fluid, moist), dry, hot, and cold.

Each element is described, unequally, by its two adjacent properties; thus fire is primarily hot and secondarily dry, air wet and hot, water cold and wet, and earth dry and cold. “None of the four elements is unchangeable; they may pass into one another through the medium of that quality which they possess in common; thus fire fire can become air through the medium of heat, air can become water through the medium of fluidity; and so on” (p22).

This system (with earlier roots, and similarly present in other cultures) was conceptualized by Aristotle (384 BC — 322 BC), who “argues that each and every other substance is composed of each and every ‘element’, the difference between one substance and another depending on the proportions in which the elements are present… It follows that any kind of substance can be transformed into any other kind by so treating it that the proportions of its elements are changed to accord with the proportions of the elements in the other substance. This may be done by change of the elements originally existing in the first substance, or by adding some substance consisting of such proportions of the elements that when the substances are mixed or combined the desired final proportions are attained” (p23).

“Here we have the germ of all theories of metallic transmutation and the basic philosophical justification of all the laborious days spent by alchemists over their furnaces” (p23) — a point well-illustrated (plate 18) in Mylius’ 1622 Philosophia Reformata (see also earlier post on Mylius):

The spherical fundaments display the alchemical symbols of the four elements (earth, water, air, fire, from left-to-right), while the flaming flasks atop represent so-supported stages of the Work, blackening, whitening, yellowing, reddening, which color changes describe successive objectives of the various alchemical operations: calcination, sublimation, fusion, crystallization, distillation, and putrefaction, among other processes.

Arab alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan (a.k.a. Geber, 721 — 815) theorized that all metals were formed in the earth by the union of sulphur (that is, philosophical sulphur, dry and hot) and mercury (also philosophical, cold and wet), and that therefore the art of alchemy is the balancing of these two natures (later, salt made three, the tria prima) to produce other metals (e.g., gold). This was the start of a “chemical marriage” that would influence all of European alchemy during its entire extent, as seen (plate 19), for example, in Barchusen’s Elementa Chemia one thousand years later (1718):

Wherein is shown the opposing principles of sun and moon, drawing near over receding waters, with the symbols for sulphur and mercury in close association — thence, if the alchemist is successful, to finally unite, the fusion of oppositions, of male and female, represented by the philosophical androgyne:

“The Grand Hermetic Androgyne trampling underfoot the four elements of the prima materia. From the Codex Germanicus 598″ (plate 34).

Whose imprint can still be seen today:

A Laurent de Brunhoff adaptation of Raffaello Sanzio‘s Saint Michael and the Dragon from Babar’s Museum of Art, 2003 (p15).