Sacred Geometry is Neither
In recent years, there has been a movement which has been gaining popularity across the Internet, known as “Sacred Geometry.” I’m not using this phrase in its historical context, mind, where it traditionally referred to the geometry and architecture found in churches, mosques, temples, and religious artwork. The context in which we’ll be discussing Sacred Geometry, today, is in the idea that the very fabric and origins of the universe are found in fairly simple shapes and patterns. So far as I have been able to deduce, this whole movement owes itself almost entirely to a man who calls himself Drunvalo Melchizedek.
In the 1970’s, Bernard Perona got involved in a number of New Age philosophies. He was especially influenced by Edgar Cayce, an early 20th Century spiritualist who claimed to be able to channel the spirit of Thoth, the Egyptian god, and who made numerous claims about Atlantis. Perona found a Hindu instructor to teach him meditation, and began to “channel” spirits and experience visions. Apparently deciding that his real name didn’t sound mystical enough, Bernie Perona started calling himself “Drunvalo Melchizedek.” He became obsessed with simple shapes– especially circles– and by the mid- to late-80’s, Drunvalo had begun giving seminars on his research (a term I use quite loosely) on the “Flower of Life,” a construction composed of a number of circles interlocked in a certain pattern. In 1999, Drunvalo published his material from the Flower of Life seminars in a two-volume series entitled, The Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life.
The “Flower of Life” pattern
In the first volume, Drunvalo gives a bit of his own biography (though, he neglects to mention the whole name change) and claims that he was one semester away from finishing a degree in physics, with a minor in mathematics, before he left college. This claim is either a baldfaced lie designed to give him the appearance of credibility, or else Drunvalo was a terrible student. I say this because I took the time to read through the entirety of ASoFoL, and I learned that Drunvalo Melchizedek is bad at math. He has no idea what he is talking about, in many cases. He often gets fairly basic concepts completely wrong. However, because his average reader is even worse at math than ol’ Bernie, they don’t even bother to check his claims. They simply see a bunch of math-looking stuff, and they know that smart people use math; therefore, Drunvalo Melchizedek must be a smart person.
Ignoring Drunvalo’s problems with high school mathematics, for a moment, let’s take a look at his actual claims. These claims, after all, are precisely what have spawned the entire modern Sacred Geometry movement. In the beginning, he claims, the Creator existed in a void. But, the Creator wanted to create, so it expanded its consciousness. Now, Drunvalo doesn’t just use that phrase in its nebulous, New Age way, to mean that it opened itself to new ideas; he means that this Creator literally created a material expanse out of its own consciousness. Since this expanse spread evenly in all directions, it created something like a circle, with the Creator at the center. However, the Creator wasn’t satisfied, so it moved to the edge of the circle and repeated the process. It then continued to do this over and over until the Flower of Life pattern emerged. Thus the universe was born!
For a moment, let’s give Drunvalo the benefit of the doubt, and pretend that this description is not completely nonsensical. One has to wonder: how did he come to this knowledge? Did Drunvalo Melchizedek come to this conclusion after finding curious patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background? Did he construct mathematical models which are built off of known physics? Did he compile and aggregate results from scholarly publications by cosmologists? Don’t be silly. Drunvalo Melchizedek’s sources are much more reliable than that! No, he learned all these things from two ten-foot tall angels (one green, one purple) and from the Egyptian god Thoth in the guise of an old man. Oh, and also a mysterious Freemason who randomly showed up to Drunvalo’s dorm room, once, to talk about geometry.
Drunvalo Melchizedek’s “sacred geometry” is not geometry. There is a great deal more to geometry than just drawing some pretty shapes and patterns. Things like the Flower of Life are absolutely aesthetically pleasing, but they are next to useless in terms of mathematics. If you don’t believe me, go pick up a copy of Euclid’s Elements (in fact, do this anyway) and read through all 13 books. You won’t find the Flower of Life anywhere. Nor will it appear in any modern geometry textbook, because– despite how pretty it looks– the Flower of Life is mathematically boring. There are far more useful constructions to be made with a straightedge and compass.
Neither is “sacred geometry” something which can really be considered sacred. Even amongst its proponents, nobody worships the Flower of Life or the Metatron’s Cube or the Golden Ratio. These things are held in awe and wonder, sure, but no moreso than a sunset or a blooming flower or the rainbow in the mist of a waterfall. They are not ascribed “holy” significance. They are not dedicated to a god or gods. They are not revered or deified. No one is preaching sermons on them, or writing scripture about their nature. Nothing which we could describe as “sacred” can truly be attributed to these things.
Sacred Geometry is neither sacred nor geometry. It is a collection of preposterous assertions about pretty shapes and patterns made by people with little to no understanding of what they are seeing. It stands upon the shoulders of liars and frauds, and persists only due to confirmation bias and ignorance. Sacred Geometry is one of the worst examples of gullible people accepting pseudoscience in order to pretend that their irrational beliefs are actually rational.
Boxing Pythagoras 
Not quite. I suggest you read Matila Ghyka’s “The Geometry of Art and Life” from 1946. New-agey types probably get a lot of the attributions wrong, but there is an ancient mathematical tradition that flows neatly into the inquiries of Mandelbrot, people trying to understand the underlying mathematics to nature. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Ghyka’s “The Geometry of Art and Life” is a wonderful book, full of lovely scholarship and a keen appreciation for mathematics. However, that’s not what I’m talking about when I refer to the modern “Sacred Geometry” movement, which ascribes esoteric properties to pretty shapes and patterns with almost no understanding or appreciation of the underlying mathematics.
The ascription of religious significance to actual mathematics dates at least as far back as the Pythagorean brotherhood. However, the modern “Sacred Geometry” movement finds its source in Drunvalo Melchizedek’s preposterous work within the last three decades. Take, for example, that “Flower of Life” pattern which I show in the article. According to the “Sacred Geometry” crowd, this image was the actual demiurge by which God created the universe. Each circle represents a literal “expansion of consciousness” in order to create spacetime. This idea is presented as being an ancient and universal concept, by “Sacred Geometry” proponents, when it seems to have, in fact, been invented by Drunvalo.
Idk how hard you looked into this but you can see that that it’s the same pattern that cells divide to and that might not be significant to you but seems kinda sacred in the sense that it’s the primodial creation pattern that we ourselves are created with from 1 cell to billions in a materialistic view that’s about as sacred as it gets don’t you think
Well, no. That’s a bit of pareidolia. Cells are, notably, three dimensional. When roughly spherical cells– which, mind you, is not descriptive of all cells– divide, it is possible to take a two-dimensional projection of that division which begins to roughly approximate the Flower of Life pattern. Of course, it is also possible to take an infinite number of other 2D projections which approximate an infinite number of other patterns. The choice of the “Flower of Life” is an arbitrary one based on how pretty it is, not on any objective and necessary property of geometry.
If you don’t believe in yourself you’ll believe in anybody.
Here is a letter by Stan Tenen a Geometrical master debunking Drunvalo Melchizedek.
http://www.danwinter.com/DM0492.html
Reblogged this on The grokking eagle.
Drunvalo may be wrong but sacred g is real. This guy is definately disinfo. Sacred g is everywhere. Dont let the elites lie you like this anymore humanity. This guys either cometely ignorant, asleep in his soul or a piece of shit lying to you for those who supress us
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond to my blog. I always welcome new input, even (and especially) when it is contrary to my own position.
By all means, if you see some bit of information about which I seem to be ignorant, point it out. I always love learning new things, and if that information corrects a mistaken view which I currently hold, all’s the better.
I have no idea what you mean by “soul,” nor how I could be “asleep” in it. Could you, perhaps, elucidate?
I can assure you that I am most certainly not lying; nor am I even aware of anyone who is attempting to suppress you, let alone in service to such a person. But, again, if anything in my work is in error, I certainly welcome correction.
Which part of this article seems inaccurate to you? What disinformation or lies do you perceive in my work? I’d be more than happy to discuss any specific points which you might like to address.
I’m not taking sides, however I do have a question as to why the tone with skeptics and debunkers is always cynical with a hint of egotism?
Why divid and conquer each other?
Is this in reference to me? Which parts of my article or comments seem cynical or egotistical?
I have no intention to divide and conquer. My only intention is to correct misinformation as I find it.
Umm, good sir, your entire article reads like a smear campaign and you yourself offer no evidence to support your claims or to debunk DM’s. Every paragraph calls him a liar, uneducated and a fraud yet you again offer no counter-evidence other than citing other mathematicians’ works (to which I’d say how do you know that these “experts” are correct). Frankly this reads like a butthurt blog with no credible sources, evidence or mathematics to back your claims and disprove DM’s. I get that this New Age information is just that: new, different and out-of-the-ordinary. But just because you disagree with it or find it flawed doesn’t mean it isn’t correct or that a growing number of people find truth in it. Try reading the works of Edgar Cayce, Robert Monroe, and Russel Targ, just to name a few, who have conducted scientifically-backed (and oftentimes government-backed) experiments which have greatly changed our perception of the mind, consciousness and spirit which proves it is possible to tap into our subconscious mind and even communicate with so-called “spirits” or “angels”. I get the sense that you are a learned person but you seem very phobic of the idea that there are things in this world that science/math cannot yet prove or disprove. Just like Western Medicine cannot cure all diseases and ailments, science cannot explain everything. I appreciate counter-arguments as they are crucial to be able to see an issue from varying viewpoints and to make an educated guess or opinion on the matter. However, sacred geometry’s ubiquity is hard to deny (e.g. in humans’ dimensions, ancient civilization structures/megaliths, nature, and in the solar system and beyond). DM may not have been the brightest pupil or most skilled writer, but give the guy credit for bringing these “preposterous” claims to the public. Can you imagine the backlash this guy received? You’d either have to be a complete nut-job or you’d have to be on to something to even speak such claims. His claims may seem outlandish, but I’m pretty sure Copernicus’ ideas sounded equally outlandish when he first proposed that the earth revolves around the sun (yes – he was still incorrect about the sun being the center of the universe but you get my point). The world needs more visionaries who push the boundaries to what we’ve come to believe as real. Without such individuals, we’d still think that we’re sitting on a flat earth that is the center of the universe. I challenge you to meditate, learn more about your own self and spirit and look inward. I guarantee what you find will challenge your previous beliefs and give you a whole new perception of this world and all the mysteries in it. Thanks for your blog. While I disagree wholeheartedly with your approach, manner, language and lack of evidence, these types of discussions are vital and I thank you for bringing us the opportunity to discuss these extraordinary claims.
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
<blockquoteUmm, good sir, your entire article reads like a smear campaign and you yourself offer no evidence to support your claims or to debunk DM’s. Every paragraph calls him a liar, uneducated and a fraud yet you again offer no counter-evidence other than citing other mathematicians’ works (to which I’d say how do you know that these “experts” are correct).Which of my claims do you find dubious? I’ll gladly explain them further. I promise, I won’t simply rely on the work of other mathematicians. Rather, I’ll derive the results myself so that you can follow the steps. If I make any errors, this should make it easy to point them out.
The fact that it is incorrect is what makes it incorrect. Whether people “find truth in it” is irrelevent. I’m simply discussing the factual claims made by Drunvalo Melchizedek and not the myriad interpretations put forth by those he has influenced.
Can you point to any such “scientifically-backed experiments” for me to review?
Quite the contrary! There are quite a number of things– an infinite number, in fact– which cannot be proven or disproven mathematically. This is actually one of the most interesting and important results of mathematical exploration of the 20th Century! It’s known as Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem.
That said, Gödel doesn’t therefore justify belief in an untenable and ad hoc proposition. So, it really doesn’t help proponents of Sacred Geometry.
I don’t see how this is relevant, since medicine has a far better track record at curing ailments than have holistic or “new-age” methods. Whether or not medicine can cure every illness is irrelevant to the question of whether Sacred Geometry claims are factually correct.
Not at all! I find it quite easy to deny!
I have! I was quite explicit in stating that almost all of the modern Sacred Geometry movement derives from his work. Giving someone credit for espousing false information does not require giving that person praise or respect for so doing.
Or you could notice that people are willing to pay good money for stuff you made up, whole cloth, and realize that bilking those suckers is easier than real work.
These discoveries did not arise from people making completely ad hoc, unsupoortable claims. These discoveries arose from making observations about the world, forming a model to explain those data, and then earnestly attempting to disprove that model.
It was precisely that sort of epiphany which led me down the philosophical path which resulted in this blog! But thanks!
My pleasure, of course!
Listen, this is the level of ignorance displayed by one follower of the sacred geometries….
“People really make it difficult for themselves, a sun/star is a black hole and vice versa its one and the same, think of sunspots on the sun its blacker than black it doesn’t makes sense for a big ball of fire. Not only that fire need oxygen too, how come it burns if space is vacuum. Then there is solid object’s (spaceships?) that fly in/out of the sun and through the sun hang around close to the sun. If you can except that everything is energy around us a dance between high and low energies (male and female energies) that create, then you should know that what is a sun in this dimension is a black hole in another dimension since it can suck up all types of energies. What? heat on earth? yeah its because energy rays of the sun goes through the earth atmosphere creating friction in the process, thus warmth. Its so easy and so logical than everything else I heard, just think about it they discover a massive black hole in the middle of our star galaxy and they even came to the conclusion that other star galaxies have it as well. Yet most people believe its all sucking up monster, while in the mean time it keep galaxies together. No.. black holes as wel as suns/stars keeps the energies flowing in and beween the higher and lower dimensions. If this doesn’t sound plausible, then you come up with a better one that everybody can understand without getting difficult on the subject.”
What you and others fail to understand and refuse to believe is that typically someone like myself or our heroic blogger here has fully understood and moved beyond the “math” of this subject before we were out of grade-school. It’s trivial, and if you actually did have a head for math, you would know that. Unfortunately you don’t have the proper skills for self-evaluation.
This is one of the top searches on Google.
I’m new to the concept of Sacred Geometry. I only recently began giving it some serious thought and there’s no denying the numbers are there. I’ve never heard of the person in your article, but I believe you when you say he’s a hack. So far a lot of the sites I’ve checked concerning the subject have shared your views.
However, NONE of these skeptics have provided a solid counter-argument in regards to the subject matter of Sacred G. Just unmitigated cynicism and one sided arguments. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Thanks for taking the time to read and comment!
There’s no denying which numbers are where?
Counter argument to which claims? I’ve given quite a bit of solid counter argument to particular claims of Sacred Geometry proponents in a number of posts on this blog.
Who ever wrote this article is the typical brainwashed invidual in modern day that only allows whats previosuly given to him or his generation, and classifies this as truth. Truth is inividually found. I too read his novel and am biased on where the hell drunvalo got his knowledge from. But in the ene it doesnt matter. I only use this book to build on my expierence. A lot of people arent ready for this knowledge drunvalo gives(hints the author of this article). Dont get me wrong not even im ready for this stuff either. But I will accept it for what it does. Not what it is!!! What it did was motivate me to learn more about myself and the energy around me.
I suggest anyone who has the same ideas( a.k.a hater of drunvalo) to read his serpent of light book. Hes giving his expierence of how he came to know this stuff. And makes you undertstand it more. The key is to seek truth based on your expierences, drunvalo as wonderful as he is was allowed to have greater expierences than most of us in this life( angela and toth giving him some awesome knowledge) BUT that doesnt mean we will not have these either. It just means we arent ready for that and one day we will be. Immortality is destined for all, non-forgetten memoury( what drunvalo already has). We too will have this soon. But not yet, the good thing is we will always be alive but will be aware of it like this great man is? Well thats on us to decide.
– dont judge of writing skills
– seek the meaning of this shit I know I sound a bit non-educated lol and was to lazy to fix any grammer errors
Quite the contrary! I’m always searching for new information and ideas. And I classify as truth that which corresponds to reality. I do not simply latch onto ideas of yesteryear as if they are written into the fabric of the cosmos.
What knowledge do you think is to be found in the Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life for which I am unready?
Drunvalo says that “he came to know this stuff” because it was told to him by two giant chromatic angels and an old man claiming to be an ancient Egyptian god.
I can assure you that I do not! I much prefer to judge based on the content of a written work than on the form of that work. For example, when I reviewed ASoFoL I did not judge the book on its horrendous writing and complete lack of structure. I judged it based on its complete ignorance concerning matters of mathematics and geometry– ostensibly, the main topic of the book.
Of what “shit” would you suggest I seek the meaning?
And, again, don’t worry about your copious grammatical mistakes. I much prefer to judge based on the content of your writing, and none of your mistakes have made your comment any less comprehensible than it would have been otherwise.
First of, You seem very keen on weeding out the information presented, and double down on that with every commenters (i doubt they care to elaborate as they didn’t even bother do it in the first place).
I, on the other hand, see the hole thing in a different matter to you by prioritizing other facet of the ordeal.
1- Guru (you must lie & cheat to the ones that can’t prove)
*- referring to Feynman’s magnetic rant, he clearly explain his refusal to “dumb” down any understanding as one must lie (“cheating” he says) to give the answer someone else is seeking.
You, me, rational ppl (all scientist or theorist) refuse to take on that responsibility/risk
Guru, spiritual, emotional ppl, who do not have a complete language to convey INFORMATION have no problem taking that risk as no other system exist to take on that risk.
furthermore, just like we scientist, use “Feynman Technique” (i didn’t plan those 2 Feynman reference… but it will help make my point soon) “Bernard Perona” seem to use a technique of his own to make you see a light without telling you were to look.
in essence, Bernard Perona and Feynman are both Guru’s, trying to make you see without telling you what to see…
To scientist… Guru are *fraud* & to Guru… scientist are *limited*
Now what i like about spirit science is 2 fold.
– They allow both(science & spirit) to co-exist.. Science still refuse to allow both solely based on the observer’s shortcomings. (not a bad thing as we evolve… but most likely wrong too)
-They also do the same with lies… the needed lie i am talking about are never presented as a truth but a momentarily acceptance of the statement as truth in the name of a message…. This is very important as it allows knowledge to roam free and ultimately get out of the box.
I think you did your homework, presented your opinion intelligently and you are right all the way not forgetting encouraging troll to bait.
But that’s a scientific argumentation…
– it’s awesome to win argument, not always to being “right”
If you didn’t have time to read all that… here’s the short version
I see/feel/believe PI as the encryption key of life
(infinity is a very clever thing, maybe we would understand it if we never invented “zero”)
– Spirit-science is the one of the only one allowing for that to be as it will take infinity to prove that point using science.
So fraud or not, there is a lot behind what he did. perhaps the packaging is all wrong.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to reply!
The primary difference is that there exists a coherent and reproducible system behind the things which Feynman teaches, one which is shared by almost all who work in that field, while no such system exists for proponents of “Sacred Geometry”or “Spirit Science.”
Science does not “refuse” to allow spirit to exist. Science is simply a tool, and like any tool, it loses its effectiveness when one attempts to use it for a job which it was not intended to do. A hammer is meant to drive nails. If I attempt to use a hammer to drive screws, or to cut a board into lengths, or to paint a wall, that attempt will obviously end in failure.
Science deals with definable, falsifiable concepts. If one can define “spirit” in such a way as to allow it to be a falsifiable concept, then science can be utilized in its exploration.
I think you have things precisely backwards, here. I am far more concerned with being right and correcting my own misconceptions about the world than I am with winning any argument. I would much rather lose an argument and learn some new truth than to win an argument while holding to incorrect beliefs about the world. This is, in fact, the ideal to which nearly every scientist I know strives towards, and a person who holds to false propositions solely in order to win arguments is not generally considered to be a very good scientist.
In what way? What about life is “encrypted?” In what manner can the ratio between a circle’s circumference and its diameter be used to decrypt this data?
As for infinity, I’m not sure why you would think the concept of zero impinges upon understanding the infinite.
Such as what? Which of the things proposed by Drunvalo Melchizedek do you find to be applicable to the real world? In what way?
Why do you say sacred geometry is useless, when it can be found everywhere in nature? All you have to do is go out to your own yard and look at a pinecone, a sunflower, or a snail’s shell. The spiral based on the Fibonacci sequence can be found in ALL of those things and more! In fact, check this out…
The geometry of natural objects is surely aesthetically pleasing. However, the claims that the Fibonacci sequence and the golden spiral can be found “everywhere in nature” are vastly overblown. Your own example, above, of a spiraling shell is not even a golden spiral. If you don’t believe me, go ahead and try to superimpose the actual golden spiral that lies above it onto the shell. You’ll see that it clearly does not fit.
Nor did I ever claim that sacred geometry is “useless.” Quite the contrary, it is readily apparent that Drunvalo Melchizedek has been able to use sacred geometry in order to line his pockets for a few decades, now. Rather, the claim which I put forward is that “sacred geometry” cannot rightly be called either sacred or geometry.
Look at examples 7 and 8 on this page. The galaxy and the hurricane. You can see, by this overlay, that both clearly DO conform to the golden ratio/fibonacci sequence:
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5985588/15-uncanny-examples-of-the-golden-ratio-in-nature
Hurricanes and galaxies describe logarithmic spirals, and since the Golden Spiral is itself a logarithmic spiral, it is unsurprising that we can find examples of galaxies and hurricanes which are close fits to the Golden Spiral. Not every galaxy nor every hurricane fits so closely.
However, even in places where the Fibonacci sequence– or similarly recursive additive sequences– and the Golden Ratio do appear in nature, it doesn’t really seem all that surprising. These are very natural sequences which are formed by rather simple additive patterns. I see no reason to think that there is anything divine, sacred, spiritual, or supernatural about the practical applications of Fibonacci-like sequences.
You’re an ignoramus. Cognitively dissonant.
Would you care to expand? Which of my claims do you find to be particularly ignorant? In what way do you find my cognition to be dissonant?
Don’t be so cynical bro. I’ve actually seen a video on the internet of a village in Haiti or so where an actual pine cone flower that looks exactly likE wat drunvalo is talking about is very much revered, not worshiped per se but great importance is given to it. Let’s just be a little open minded. Einstein was also a slow student and nikola Tessa was dubbed the mad scientist. Science is madnes. even da Vinc, if not for his Relationship with the papacy would have been thoroughly this so history is a good teacher too on matters like this, there’s always something to learn from a mad man.
I’m not a cynic. I’m a skeptic. Wholly disparate philosophical traditions.
Is it so revered expressly due to its geometry? Is it referred to as “the Flower of Life?” Does those people ascribe the same meaning to its geometry as does Drunvalo? If so, I’d be very interested in learning more about them. If not, I fail to see how they are relevant.
This is a common, but untenable, myth. Einstein was a methodical and quiet student, but he was not a slow student in any sense of the word. He was tackling Calculus by his early teens.
Tesla was certainly mad. The man was in love with a pigeon. That does not imply that his genius was due to his madness, nor that it caused his madness. The two may have been entirely unrelated.
I’ve never implied that Drunvalo is mad. Quite the contrary, I think him to be perfectly sane. I simply find him to be poorly educated on the matters he discusses, and seemingly dishonest as regards his personal history.
WELL DONE!
False Christs appear at every end of and beginnings of a new church. (Church: Literally, a cohesive collection of acceptable group ideals and thoughts). I find the man extremely vain and pretentious, and delusional… for a vain man speaks vainly of vain ideas to appeal to the vanity in others. When asked,” are you the Messiah”? Christ said” who do you say I am?” Buddha did not call himself Buddha. If you were to ask me, and if I were an honest man, “what is your name and are you a truthful person”? I would have to say,” I am the worlds biggest liar! and my name is mud.
Ok Mr. Boxing Pythagoras, youre a clever guy, Id like to know what you think about THIS. It literally shows you some concrete evidence that there’s something real in all of this mumbo jumbo. I don’t doubt any of it. I can usually sense bullshit when I see/hear it, but with all this stuff I get a genuine sense of authenticity. So much so that I don’t feel as though I should question it as abrasively as you are. I hope this helps you.
❤ Lauren
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply, Ms. Bradley! The video which you sent certainly shows some pretty patterns being created by sound waves, but that’s rather to be expected since the sound waves in question are, themselves, very pretty sinoid patterns. I’m not sure I understand what this is meant to show me beyond that.
Do you see something more in this video which I am not recognizing?
Thank you again, Ms. Bradley.
I’m not sure how this is meant to answer my last question, but I’m familiar with this video. It is, unfortunately, precisely the sort of thing which I talk about in my article. Tons of baseless assertions, outright misconceptions, and nonsensical claims patched together with enough pseudoscientific words to make it sound smart to someone who doesn’t actually understand mathematics and science.
If you’re interested, I’ve addressed another video by Spirit Science on my blog, before. You can find that article here:
I can’t really understand how you aren’t seeing the “sacred” in all this. Its the math, physics, and alchemy that constructs the very fabric of life and everything on the planet. Numbers don’t lie, nor are they fraudulent. Its concrete fact. EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED. How do you not see this?
Numbers don’t lie, but people quite often do, and they try to make their lies sound better by associating them with numbers.
I certainly don’t deny that “everything is connected,” though I suspect that I understand that phrase differently than you might.
What I don’t see is how things like the “Flower of Life” pattern have any greater significance than being aesthetically pleasing.
OK friend forget this Drunvalo guy. But yes the flower of life is essential as a rudimentary beginning pattern and essential pattern of life. It comes from OTHER much more ancient traditions then Drunvalo. He just copied/ co-opted/ distorted other ideas STOLE them and them regurgitated the mess. Still, yes the flower of life which he did not make up or come up with in any way is the essential pattern of life. Be well.
The pattern, itself, is a fairly simple and fairly lovely aesthetic construction which certainly predates Drunvalo Melchizedek by millennia. However, the name “Flower of Life,” the idea that it is an “essential pattern of life,” and the claim that the pattern has a demiurgic quality are all the invention of Drunvalo, insofar as I am aware.
Can you name a single person who referred to the pattern as “the Flower of Life” prior to Drunvalo? Do you have any evidence that even a single other person prior to Drunvalo ascribed the same meaning to the “Flower of Life?” Do you know of any writings in which the pattern is thought to be “essential to life” from before Drunvalo decided to market his purportedly “Ancient Secrets?”
The Flower of Life pattern is certainly very pretty. However, that seems to be all it is: a pretty pattern.
Thank you for taking a common sense approach to ancient geometry. I am fascinated by it but do not think that the shapes provide magical powers.
It seems that the Flower of Life is pretty and that the earliest record we have of it is 500BCE. There is definitely no proof of its connection to the seven days of creation.
But it does have a connection to many religious symbols and architecture with Asian & Abrahamic faiths.
Also, your statement dismissing Phi as having an influence on the growth of life seems quite pessimistic. Phi is not about turning out perfect each and every time rather it is about nature getting it close to Phi. When it does align, it’s beautiful. When it doesn’t it’s interesting or disturbing.
The connection of geometry and phi provide many connections between Music, Colour, and Proportions that have captured the attention of the worlds greatest artists and architects.
That being said. Again, thank you for aiding the internet in Drunvalo Melchizedek’s cultish claims!
Don’t get me wrong! I think the Golden Ratio is an incredibly beautiful geometric property, and I do certainly love seeing it utilized in art, architecture, and other aspects of life.
My only contention is that people take the concept TOO far. The Golden Ratio is NOT a supernatural thing. Quite the contrary, its incredible beauty derives precisely from the fact that it IS such a natural expression.
Absolutely people take the concept way too far! Haha thanks for your response!
Quite a grumpy article. What’s trash to one man may be sacred to another, it’s quite another thing to say that “Hey here’s something I don’t totally understand, allow me to make sweeping generalizations about everyone else who has subscribed to this idea.”
Box away señor, I’m like Ali & Tyson all wrapped up into one: https://medium.com/@pythagoreanism/is-math-the-basis-of-reality-91d35fab1e0f
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply!
On the contrary, I was not grumpy at all when I wrote this article. In fact, I was rather happy to be able to discuss the topic openly.
The problem isn’t that I’m trying to discuss something which I don’t understand. The problem is that Drunvalo Melchizedek attempts to discuss things which I understand quite well, and that he makes copious errors in that discussion.
I think you’re overestimating your capabilities more than a smidgen.
So after reading your article I’m left with questions, even the comment section didn’t answer these for me. When it comes Edgar Cayce being an influence on Bernie what point are you trying to make? Are you saying Edgar was correct/incorrect in his “channelings” and can you specify the cases and evidence to prove/disprove them? Next is Bernie’s claims to be “one semister away from a degree” since you don’t believe he is educated(or is poorly educated) can you tell me when/where he did, or did not, get the schooling that is in question? Next, what “fairly basic concepts” did he get wrong? You’re making all these claims like a teacher grading a paper but not showing us students how the work is wrong. Next would be his belief in how the universe was created, the void and spheres thing, how is his authority any different than the churches belief in how the universe came to be? And how does that work against him? While his claims aren’t scientific neither is the church’s, but you’re not out hear calling the Bible into question. Next, you say his “sacred geometry” isn’t geometry and the flower of life is “next to useless mathematically” Can you explain the reasoning and evidence you have for saying that? I’m not an expert in mathematics or geometry so just telling me it isn’t geometry and the flower of life next to useless is about the same as him saying it is geometry and is useful, and sorry not reading 13 books to see how the flower of life isn’t in them. I will stop the questions there because I don’t want to seem nit-picky about your words, I’m not a follower of Bernie, or a scientifically minded person, just an average guy trying to keep up with you kids who are at both ends of those spectrums. I would like to hear your opinion on the cells division and how they resemble geometric shapes/patterns and relate to the “seed of life” thing, as far as I can tell that’s the only “sacred” aspect of what he offers, and even that doesn’t seem “sacred” more like how a person from several hundred years ago would describe a complicated scientific process.
Thanks for taking the time to read and to posit some thoughtful questions, Ben! I’ll do my best to answer them.
Only that Drunvalo Melchizedek is not the first person to claim he received strange and wondrous information from channeling or being visited by divine beings without offering any evidence to support that bold position; and that Melchizedek was directly influenced by another such person.
He does not mention the name of the college in which he claims to have been studying physics in ASotFoL. If he has mentioned it elsewhere, I have not seen it. My indictment was not directed at the school which Drunvalo attended, but rather at his understanding of the material in question, whether or not he actually studied physics in school.
I detail these in my article “Drunvalo Melchizedek is Bad at Math,” to which I linked in this post. You can also find it by clicking on Mathematics in the top menu.
You must not be very familiar with my work. I dispute the claims of the Bible quite frequently. I suggest my articles “Why I am Not a Christian” and “On the Resurrection,” for a small sample of that. Even more can be found by clicking on “Against William Lane Craig” in the top menu.
As I mentioned in the article, you can pick up any geometry textbook written in the last 2300 years, and you will not find any discussion of the Flower of Life pattern. Geometry is not the drawing of aesthetically pleasing patterns; it is the analysis and exploration of the properties and relationships of spatial figures.
Some cells are roughly circular or spherical in shape. As these divide, the bodies pass through one another. Two spheroids which separate after sharing a center-point will pass through a position resembling the vesica piscis. Naturally, any pattern based on the vesica piscis will therefore also share a resemblance. As you say, it’s nothing “sacred,” though it certainly is interesting.
Please let me know if I’ve missed or inadequately answered any of your questions!
Hi, read the article and all the comments.
My 2 cents worth on this topic.
1. Druvaldo is definitely a new agey charlatan but managed to popularise this topic in a major way by publishing only a few low grade books and holding some workshops, its quite interesting how big of an impact such low input yielded. So hats of to him. Maybe this shows how gullible the ppl are, or the thirst for this type of information or even that some of what he was on about rang true to general common sense either way he hit a never in the publics psyche…
2. For all the infinite possibilities this universe could have been based on structurally, we have a very defined and elegant system of real universal laws that are both mathematic and geometric in their nature.
For me personally the idea that any alive being in the universe attaining certain levels of consciousness, purely through the analysis of the world around them will find out the same truths, i.e. numbers, basic 2d and 3d shapes will be the same throughout the universe, is quite “sacred”. So if an intelligent alien life-form visited you or I and we showed them the 5 platonic solids, we would have common ground for discussion, hence mathematics and geometry being the real universal language.
So to me the “sacredness” of geometry is in this very essence, not some esoteric newagey bull shit.
If string theory boils everything down to vibrating strings, then surely the study of cymatics ( wave science ) and the resulting geometries of standing waves and harmonics has a lot to do with the way this reality works. So if prime geometries are standing wave harmonics of the “reality frequency spectrum”, I think that also makes them quite sacred and highly important to string into a unified theory of everything 🙂
“Flower of life” is of course a marketing name for the new age, but that this pattern is linked to primary geometries means it should not be simply discarded just because its been popularised by a charlatan.
Will be interesting to hear your thoughts on the subject.
ONELOVE
A
Thank you for taking the time to read and comment on my post!
That’s what it seems to be, in my humblest of opinions. People want to believe pretty things, regardless of whether or not those things are actually true. Too many people are very quick to consider those ideas vindicated when someone that sounds smart to them backs up those claims.
Are you attempting to imply that there’s some way in which the universe might not have had a structure which can be described mathematically or geometrically? Because I certainly don’t see how that could be the case.
To be honest, I find claims like this to be far too anthropocentric in their assumptions. By “intelligent alien life-form” it seems like you mean “an alien life-form that thinks similarly to humans.” In which case, the whole observation is simply tautological and doesn’t really mean anything.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that there are any other life-forms in the universe which have cognition similar enough to humans to have explored mathematics in the way that we have.
I’m not sure you quite understand the implications of string theory. While physicists refer to the objects discussed in the model as “strings,” it would be a mistake to think of them like the strings we are used to seeing in everyday life.
Also, cymatics is just as problematic as sacred geometry. It’s a pseudoscience that tries to ascribe esoteric meaning and value to pretty patterns. There are actual fields of physics which deal with vibration, oscillation, and wave mechanics, and those are most certainly fascinating and incredible, but cymatics is not included in their number.
Oh, I agree. There’s no reason to discard the pattern, at all. We simply shouldn’t pretend that it has any deeper connection to reality or science or what-have-you than does any other simple pattern.
Thank you for the rapid response 🙂
“Are you attempting to imply that there’s some way in which the universe might not have had a structure which can be described mathematically or geometrically? Because I certainly don’t see how that could be the case.”
The universe could have been a myriad other ways… if the possibilities are infinite.
“To be honest, I find claims like this to be far too anthropocentric in their assumptions. By “intelligent alien life-form” it seems like you mean “an alien life-form that thinks similarly to humans.” In which case, the whole observation is simply tautological and doesn’t really mean anything.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that there are any other life-forms in the universe which have cognition similar enough to humans to have explored mathematics in the way that we have.”
To presume in the infinity of the universe we are the only conscious life form is the saddest and most anthropocentric point of view ever… IMHO 😉
I think there is a whole spectrum of cognition exists in the lifeforms of the universe some far superior to human.
Point being that if any universal species reaches human level of cognition (which is rather rudimentary on an evolutionary scale, not being that far from more primitive modes of being in not too distant past), they would find the same core truths of golden ratio, platonic solids, fractals etc.
These things are beyond culture, they are universal which for some people is “scared”. Life, nature and the universe have them embedded as fundamental principals, they don’t belongs to us we just found them.
“I’m not sure you quite understand the implications of string theory. While physicists refer to the objects discussed in the model as “strings,” it would be a mistake to think of them like the strings we are used to seeing in everyday life.
Also, cymatics is just as problematic as sacred geometry. It’s a pseudoscience that tries to ascribe esoteric meaning and value to pretty patterns. There are actual fields of physics which deal with vibration, oscillation, and wave mechanics, and those are most certainly fascinating and incredible, but cymatics is not included in their number.”
Of course I understand its not like real world strings… but the main focus is on the fact that everything is vibrating and oscillating at various rates.
Also in what way is cymatics a pseudoscience? How do you separate it from the wave studies in physics. For me cymatics are not just pretty patterns, but the study of waves and vibration and harmonics in all forms, in 3d space over time in various mediums. Likewise these phenomena would be repeatable across the universe and are not only related to us and our planet.
Anything that has this “universality” is worth studying very seriously and linking into a coherent and holistic collective universal law theory in my humble opinion.
“Oh, I agree. There’s no reason to discard the pattern, at all. We simply shouldn’t pretend that it has any deeper connection to reality or science or what-have-you than does any other simple pattern.”
This pattern is a circular matrix that can yield other primary geometries, anything that links to the core geometries like the platonic solids, by proxy has a deeper connection to reality. IMHO
The platonic solids are the definitive corner stone of reality, science and what-have-you too 😉
Cheers!
Even if the possibilities are infinite, that does not imply that any of those possibilities might have a structure which cannot be described mathematically or geometrically.
We’re certainly not the only conscious life form in the universe. We aren’t even the only conscious life form on the planet. We do have a unique presentation of cognition, however, owing to our biological evolution, social development, astronomical location, and a host of other factors. Even given the breadth of the known universe, it is highly unlikely that the particular circumstances which brought humanity to its current cognitive state would be duplicated elsewhere.
Cymatics is pseudoscience because it ascribes ad hoc esoteric properties to pretty patterns without any semblance of an identifiable and falsifiable methodology. Wave mechanics, in contrast, does not deal in esoteric notions, follows an identifiable methodology, and makes falsifiable claims which can be and are tested.
No, the pattern is a simple construction of circles. It does not “yield other primary geometries.” Patterns are not geometries. Geometries are studies of the rules and relationships which govern spaces. You are talking about pretty shapes and pictures, not geometries.
For example, the Platonic Solids are not geometries. They are a description of the specific consequences of one particular geometry– Euclidean geometry.
No, the Platonic Solids are not the definitive corner stone of reality, nor of science, nor of much else. The Platonic Solids are simply a consequence of Euclidean geometry.
Idk how hard you looked into this but you can see that that it’s the same pattern that cells divide to and that might not be significant to you but seems kinda sacred in the sense that it’s the primodial creation pattern that we ourselves are created with from 1 cell to billions in a materialistic view that’s about as sacred as it gets don’t you think
Some people mistake skeptical snideness for cynicism.
And you have the typical snide tone of the arch-skeptic – eg “ol’ Bernie”.
Being unable to see through metaphor is a failing, not a feature.
Religious loons get holier-than-thou, skeptics get cleverer-than-thou.
It’s ugly, and it just makes you look a dick.
What tone do you suggest I take while addressing a fraud who fleeces people out of their money while pretending to be knowledgeable about mathematics and philosophy? Personally, I find such a person to be reprehensible, and my tone reflects that.
I have no problem with metaphors. My issue is with Drunvalo Melchizedek’s poor understanding of mathematics, completely made-up historical claims, and overwrought philosophical proclamations.
It is ugly, I’ll agree. Whether or not you think I’m a dick for the manner in which I write about a pseudoscience-peddling con man is not really of much concern to me.
I’m glad to see these discussions of Drunvalo’s work. I found his books to be fascinating, but once he discussed having money miraculously dropped off at his cabin in the woods in the middle of the night- not once but twice…I was saddened to recognize a charlatan. Forget ancient geometry…the cabin was 20 miles from the nearest store. There is NO WAY a long-lost friend could find the way, in the dark, to that cabin. After the second infusion of money, the wife (wisely in my opinion) left. From later readings it appears Drunvalo had quite a way with women- charming and attentive..fathered quite a few children he rarely mentions. Interesting man indeed.
Thanks for taking the time to read and reply! Drunvalo latches on to people’s desire to believe that there are hidden mysteries that defy mainstream scholarship, and instead sells them complete crap.
– Everything in the universe is based on the law of duality.
– All Life and all forms of life are built on patterns. With no exception. This is an essential universal law.
– These patterns – their “growth” is governed by two fixed ratios: phi (φ) and pi(π) which represents the feminine and masculine themes in the universe, respectively.
– All pictures of sacred geometry shapes are merely a 2D representation of a 3D model. Which is one of the the major causes for misunderstanding.
What do you mean by “the law of duality?” I know of no such law in either philosophy or physics– unless you are referring to the law of bivalence.
No, life is not built on patterns. Life exhibits patterns. Of course, the same could be said of non-life…
Pi and phi do not “govern” anything. They describe particular ratios in geometry, and it is certainly not true that they describe all of the patterns of life. Furthermore, the claim that these numbers represent femininity and masculinity is entirely nonsensical and betrays a lack of understanding of precisely what we mean by numbers.
The idea that these patterns are 2D projections of 3D figures does not, in any way, alleviate any of the issues which I noted in my post. Even on such a view, people are still conflating baseless assertions about pretty pictures with actual geometry.
There are engravings all around the world of the flower of life, in temples and old church’s so your clam that there is nothing sacred about them is false
The fact that the pattern is pretty and was thereby utilized in places of worship does not imply that the pattern, itself, was regarded with any sort of reverence. Once again, prior to Drunvalo Melchizedek’s work, I am not aware of a single source which ascribed any religious, esoteric, or otherwise sacred meaning to the pattern we now refer to as the Flower of Life.
I truly admire you, BoxingPythagorus. You have a lot of patience. I find beauty in geometrical shapes, but that doesn’t make them sacred. I wish people used the brain they have to understand how the world actually works, instead of making it fit into the way they wish it or want it to work.
Thank you for the kind words! Unfortunately, understanding the way things actually are can be quite difficult. It’s far easier to simply make up stories about the way one wants something to be, and that is obviously very enticing.
Tons of people have given flowers and water falls holy significance. In fact, most people before the spread of judeochristian religions, held such things to be sacred, some going so far as to deify such things. Whoever wrote this has a narrow world view. Look into Shinto, Ifa, Santeria, Vodou, aboriginal Australian beliefs, mesoamerican beliefs etc. They literally have spiritual personifications water, flowers, even rocks and other seemingly mundane aspects of life. Geometry was clearly sacred to the Egyptians and the Mayans and the Aztecs. It even plays a significant role in hindu beliefs. Now this Drunvalo Melchizedek does make some off the wall claims, that are hard to believe, and he charges for “sacred” information, but that doesn’t negate everything he says. Geometry is sacred. Underlying reality is composed of energy arranged in geometric patterns. Ever seen a crystal lattice, or the structure of electron orbits … geometry.
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply! Unfortunately, you seem to have quite a few misconceptions, both about me and about this post, in particular.
I don’t see how this is relevant to my post, at all.
How do you figure?
While I might argue that this is not quite so clear a fact as you seem to believe, it’s not really relevant. I quite explicitly state in the article that I am discussing the modern Sacred Geometry movement and not the views of ancient cultures on mathematics.
I have never claimed otherwise. I am quite clear about the claims which Drunvalo has made which I find disputable or outright false. I am also clear about the statements he has made which I’ve found to be true.
I have! Lovely things with elegant mathematical descriptions. That has nothing to do with this article, though.
What is wrong with these people?! Boxing Pythagoras I applaud you for your patience with them. I wish I had your talking skills.
Thank you for the compliment! As for the proponents of “sacred geometry,” for the most part they are sincere and well-meaning. They often just don’t understand that there is a rather important difference between ad hoc speculation and reasonable explanations of the world.
Pingback: Making Music Visible: What is Cymatics? – Teknologism
Some truly incredible comments here.
I agree with your points about Drunvalo and sacred geometry, and I applaud the effort it took to write this article and the other thorough one linked, but I disagree with some of what you’ve said (in the comments) about what can count as sacred, which is down to personal opinion and not something that can be disproven.
I agree that there isn’t anything supernatural about geometry. However: one commenter said that the universality of these geometric principles—the fact that people around the world and across history (and maybe even aliens, I guess) can discover the same truths through analysis of the world around them—is sacred to them. Another commenter said the same of pinecones, sunflowers, shells, and other patterns found in nature. You can factually disprove false mathematical claims used to swindle people, and you would be right to do so, but what people find worthy of reverence, awe, and respect is entirely personal and often variable (and while I’m not religious, the same goes for one’s relationship with their religion and spirituality). You can’t say that they’re wrong; you can hold a different opinion, but you’ve still entered the realm of opinion and belief, and not fact.
But speaking of opinions, mine is that I think people should just let themselves admit they think shit looks cool without feeling the need to elevate or justify the validity of that belief to themselves by projecting some greater significance onto it. You can just say it looks cool. It IS cool. It’s okay. It doesn’t have to be deeper than that.
Thank you for taking the time to read and reply!
In the article, itself, I completely acknowledge that these things can be sources of awe, respect, and wonder. I explicitly state that the same can be said of things in nature like waterfalls and rainbows. I tried to be very clear in saying that I was certainly not objecting to that being the case.
I was objecting to the use of the term “sacred” not due to its connotations of awe and wonder, but for its denotations of religious significance. Again, as mentioned in the article, even among proponents of Sacred Geometry, no one is worshipping the Flower of Life. No one claims that Metatron’s Cube is dedicated to the gods. There are no rites or rituals surrounding these things. They are not the basis of any sort of religious practice. The principles of Sacred Geometry are not “sacred” in the sense that the Eucharist is sacred to Catholics; or that the Five Pillars are sacred to Islam; or even that geometry was sacred to the Pythagoreans.
That’s all I mean when I say, “Sacred Geometry is not sacred.”
Sacred geometry is a necessary term because our culture has stripped away the sacred aspect of geometry that has been recognized for millennia. In ancient times there was no sacred geometry, it was all understood to be sacred and evidence of a fundamental design to the universe that is consistent with the human experience. Sacred geometry would have been a redundant term **for them**. Not so much today.
I don’t know how long it has been since you attended a public school, but the geometry books I studied in school were cold, sterile, and devoid of any human meaning. There is no mention of the importance of geometric symbols throughout human history in art, religion, surveying land, building megaliths. Everything beautiful and human about geometry has been stripped away and we’re left with a terribly boring and dull exploration of proofs that are disregarded the first day of summer break.
The term sacred geometry is an expression of a larger issue of our society: nothing is sacred anymore. Not the ore of the Earth, not the baby in the womb, not even the very air we breath and water we drink. It is all a commodity or organized in some way to protect the status quo, the same status quo that is driving things like global warming, the drug epidemics, and youth suicides. To be blunt, your version of geometry isn’t good enough. We must use terms like sacred geometry to differentiate between the study of the dull and lifeless proofs and theorems and the study of life, nature, the cosmos, and reality.
You don’t have to call it sacred and that is absolutely your prerogative. You’d be in the majority, of course, as we live in a world devoid of anything sacred at this point. It is all up for grabs, just name your price.
I think you may have misunderstood my point. Yes, there are aspects of geometry which have been considered sacred by particular cultures through history. And yes, geometry plays a role in the sacred aspects of many belief systems. However, neither of those is what Drunvalo Melchizedek and those he has inspired mean by the use of the phrase. Rather, the modern apellation of “Sacred Geometry” seems to be applied to pretty patterns which are ascribed arbitrary and nonsensical esoteric value.
If you want to learn about the importance of geometry in art history, you should study art history. If you want to study the importance of geometry in religion, study religion. If you want to learn about the importance of geometry in building megaliths, study archeaology and anthropology. If you want to actually understand geometry, study geometry. When Euclid wrote his “Elements,” around 300 BCE, he didn’t include anything about art, religion, surveying land, or megaliths, either. The applications of geometry are not what gives geometry meaning.
If you think that it is possible to properly define and understand Sacred Geometry without first understanding geometry, I’d say you have things precisely backwards.
Thank you for this ongoing thread. I really like this section of this reply :
“If you want to learn about the importance of geometry in art history, you should study art history. If you want to study the importance of geometry in religion, study religion. If you want to learn about the importance of geometry in building megaliths, study archeaology and anthropology. If you want to actually understand geometry, study geometry. When Euclid wrote his “Elements,” around 300 BCE, he didn’t include anything about art, religion, surveying land, or megaliths, either. The applications of geometry are not what gives geometry meaning.
Please visit my website.
hierogeometry.com
I agree that Drunvalo’s teachings on Sacred Geometry are very flawed but to ignore the vast amount of history on the subject is ignorant. Euclidean geometry is based on geometrical truths that exist as foundational building blocks and come way before you get to something like the flower of life. Don’t ignore the fact that so many of history’s greatest thinkers were obsessed with sacred geometry. Like Da Vinci, Pythagorus, Kepler, Newton, etc
I haven’t ignored anything of the sort. I have an exceptional love for the history of geometry. I learned the ancient Greek language in large part to be able to read Euclid and Archimedes and Ptolemy and others in their original language. I’ve spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours reading and discussing the development and philosophy of mathematics from antiquity through the middle period to the Enlightenment to today. The very name of this blog is a tribute to the Pythagorean way of thinking about geometry.
The manner in which thinkers like Pythagoras, Da Vinci, Kepler, Newton, and others viewed the relationship between the sacred and the geometric was fundamentally different from what Drunvalo Melchizedek does. Drunvalo takes aesthetically pleasing designs produced through geometric processes and ascribes to them spurious and arbitrary meaning. The great mathematical thinkers of the past began with an understanding of principled mathematics which they then sought to apply to wider philosophy. These are wholly different processes of thought.
Language was invented.
Your whole current perception is dependent on language. It’s language that creates the illusion of physicality when there is none. It is language that creates the duality of the senses.
All science is an extrapolation of the invented languages.
Drunvalo is expressing that; the actual reality can only be expressed here in our abstracted terms via what we are calling geometry.
This is because we have a bias for the the sense of sight.
I completely agree.
I’m not sure I understand what this is supposed to mean.
Science isn’t so much an extrapolation of language as it is a particular manner in utilizing language to describe the world around us.
Drunvalo doesn’t make any such claim in the Ancient Secret of the Flower of Life.
Hi there. It is implicit in the text because Druvalo is talking about accessing the actual reality (he calls it the heart).
One issue you may be having is mistaking the human intellect for intelligence — it isn’t.
Language is the cause of your perception (or feeling) that any physical thing exists and that it is separate from anything else. — You’re always experiencing what isn’t, because of language.
The best teacher for this type of enquiry is Byron Katie. But you really need a very open mind for these things.
Looking forward to your reply.
In what way am I mistaking human intellect for intelligence?
Language is subservient to perception. It is not the other way around. Perception is a necessary precursor to language. It is impossible for language to exist without perception. It is physical experience which informs our language.
Hi
Language is subservient to perception.
It should be yes!
But that’s not what has happened here. Here’s an example:
The food at the restaurant on the hot tray. It has nothing to do with you. Yes? Then the waiter puts it in front of you. Now you say it’s “my” food. Then you eat it. Now you say it’s “me”.
This is false perception. It has happened and it continues to happen.
Belief in language is muddying the lens of perception to such a degree that it creates a false world.
Human intellect or logic is not intelligence. A deepening of perception is required. A deepening of perception can lead one to experience what Drunalo is talking about. The biggest block to this is reading his book! Ha
I have never– not even once in my life– said that food which I have eaten is now “me.”
I honestly have no idea what you are attempting to say, here. I asked you to give an example of how I have been confusing human intellect for intelligence. You did not give any such example. Instead, you have stated that perception needs to be “deepened,” which seems to be a completely nonsensical statement. The act of “deepening” something refers to increasing a physical dimension of that object– increasing its depth. Even if you are using the term metaphorically, it is entirely unclear as to which aspect of perception you consider to be the “depth” which needs to increase.
This DM guy you speak of a joke yes for claiming he made an original thought in something of such scientific proven magnitude … but clearly you know little more than he. He merely copied Plato, da Vinci, the pharaohs, every mathematician who has tried to figure out the “flower of life” mathematical design. This design/partern/equation is in every atom, every cell make up. Every flower. Every eye. lol.
The Flower of life is the very make up of life & not new to this chap. Funny you don’t know its origin when a Google search would have made your article not be pushed out in the world to make me (with kindness) feel so bad for you. You wrote well. Better than I hear so I hope you can delete.
We forgot how to build pyramids, for a decade or two how to go to space. For two years we forgot how to feel safe to travel or even go outside & play together. I hope all who saw this can forget it for you sake quickly.