Egypt, in other words, was functioning with the exact same topological metaphor as was Vedic India, and Mayan and Aztec Meso-America.
A closer look at this “primordial” or “primary” mystic triad or ternary is in order.
C. The Primary Scission and the Primordial Triad
1. The Primordial Triad
The primordial differentiation, which Scwhaller calls the “primary scission,” is evident in the Memphite myth, which we may understand as yet another “paleophysical metaphor,” i.e., as a profoundly sophisticated physics metaphor disguised in religious terms. There, the primary scission is, as in the Vedic tradition, expressed in the generation of the gods from the primordial ocean, or Nun:
The revelation of Heliopolis… is the mysterious divine action of the scission of Unity in Nun (the milieu likened to the primordial Ocean), which coagulates into the first earth, incarcerating the invisible fire of Tum.
This is the heveanly fire fallen into earth, which in the mystery of Memphis takes the name Ptah. This metaphysical fire produces its effects in nature by materializing the principles enunciated at Heliopolis, but not as yet manifested.
The appearance of Tum implies the becoming of the three principles and the four essential qualities philosophically called the constituent elements of matter, but their “corporification” takes place only upon the appearance of the first Triad: Ptah, Sekhmet, and Nefertum.15
While the emergence of the number four may, at this juncture, seem ad hoc and completely arbitrary, we shall see in a little while that it contains yet another physics metaphor.
For the moment, however, our focus must remain on the emergence of the primordial triad of Ptah, Sekhmet, and Nefertum, for “Immanent in every being is a faculty of numbering that is an a priori knowledge of Number. The very fact of distinguishing between the I and the other is an enumeration.”16 In other words, for Schwaller, implicit in the primary scission is its relationship to consciousness and its Unity-in-Diversity. Schwaller explains the primary scission this way:
Thus, at the origin of all creation, there is a Unity that, incomprehensibly, must include within it a chaos of all possibilities, and its first manifestation will be through division. At the origin of all concepts, there is One and Two, being Three principles where one explains the other, incomprehensible in itself.
…
Here is the divine Trinity that is infallibly found at the origin of all things, all arguments and reasoning; the Trinity that supports everything, the foundation on which the world is built, as everything stems from it.
The original Unity contains all possibilities, of being and of nonbeing. Consequently, it is of androgynous nature.17
We have already made reference to this peculiar “primordial androgyny” — the subject of a whole other book — but again, what Schwaller is pointing out is that in the topological metaphor of the “differentiation of a primordial Nothing,” the inevitability of a OneThree always results: two regions of bracketed nothing sharing a common surface.
Thus we may add the names Ptah, Sekhmet, and Nefertum to our previous table, indicating a common conceptual inheritance lays behind Egypt and the Vedic culture:
1) Ptah =>;
2) Sekhmet = >;
3) Nefertum = >.
Our table now looks like this, revealing the commonality of the metaphor:
>
As already mentioned, why the ancients should so consistently view this primordial differentiation in androgynous terms is the subject of another book which we eventually hope to write, but for now it is worth noting in this regard something else that Schwaller points out:
Do you care to translate this as Father, Spirit, and Son or Osiris, Isis, and Horus? or Brahma, Siva, and Visnu?
You may, but if you are wise and wish not to be led astray, you will say, One, Two, which are Three. This has been represented by initiates for those who need images, so that they may rally around a tradition, and be bound by what is called “religion.”18
In other words, once one comprehends the fact that the assignation of various gods’ names to the topological metaphor is just that, an assignation, then one understands that any assertion of a primordial trinity is, in fact, not the consequence of religious revelation or metaphysics, but a scietifico-philosophical first principle needing no faith, but rather, a kind of belief in the character of the formally explicit metaphor, for that metaphor can be described in the highly abstract symbolisms of topology itself.
Which again raises an important question, one that Schwaller touches upon, and that we have already noted: why do the ancient cultures and civilizations insist on assigning predominantly masculine images to describe what is otherwise understood as an androgyny, including, as he avers, even the Christian doctrine of the Trinity? Again, any commentary on this aspect of the perplexing choice of images would require another entire book in order to reconstruct the process of reasoning that led to it, but it is important at this juncture to point out that Schwaller was indeed alive to the fact that this was both a topological and a sexual metaphor:
Absolute Unity is the hidden God of the Jews, the unknown God who is incomprehensible; the Unutterable of the Egyptians. It is sat, the “Being” of the Brahmans…
…
A surface, the first incomprehensible form, must have at least three sides. Three sounds form the perfect chord; male, female, and issue form the species; two elements and one mean term are the fundament of all reasoning, all aesthetics, all calculation, and so forth.
…
It is the God of Gods.19 The world emanates from the God of Gods by the mere fact that “he contemplates his own face,” which is the splitting in two, the scission, the first of all functions: division.This much holds for all living things…20
Note the close connection, once again, between the physical medium in this metaphor, and to consciousness itself in Schwaller’s view. As soon as the first primordial differentiation occurs, there arises, in Schwaller’s words, “generation, cause, and condition of becoming, and hence there is harmony,” that is to say, analogy.21 The medium in effect, in this process, creates information, and becomes par excellence the transmutative “Philosophers’ Stone.” It is because of this constant activity of differentiation, of the endless creation of more and more information, that one may speak of the primary scission or differentiation as being the ultimate metaphor of non- equilibrium, and of the fact that information, once created, is never lost. This is the basis for the ancients’ belief that immortality was less a matter of faith, than of fact, or, as Schwaller put it, “it is impossible to kill a being born within Nature, be it mineral or man,”22 for such creations emerge first as ever more refined differentiations of Nothing; they have specific information content.
Schwaller’s emphasis on number as a function of the topological metaphor and of geometry is crucial. Number is a function because it emerges simultaneously with the first primordial trinity: “it has its function because it exists only as relationship.”23 It thus inhabits that Platonic world of the “eternal ideas,” for number-as-topological function “shows us intelligibly that all proceeds from Unity and returns to it through diversity. This diversity is precisely our world created in the image of the Eternal World’s example.”24
2. The Tectratys, and Pyramids as Analogical Machines
At this juncture, we must consider the origin of the number four, and what its function is within the esoteric Egyptian cosmology. No esoteric symbol more perfectly epitomizes the functional significance of this number than does the Sacred Tectratys of the Pythagoreans, which Schwaller discusses at length. The symbol is simplicity itself:
>
This symbol, as we shall see, contains within it yet more deeply encoded “paleophysics” and is yet another expression of the topological metaphor.
The first thing to observe is that the Tectratys is a two dimensional analogue of a Pyramid; it symbolizes, therefore, the primordial mound or Mount Meru of the Hindus, the p
rimordial mound of the Egyptian Zep Tepi or “first time.” As such, it is a symbol of the primary scission or differentiation and the process of creation as it emerges in the physical medium. “We can already understand,” says Schwaller, “that the pyramid with square base best represents the square (base) of the four triangular Elements (its faces). Four times the triangle — this by necessity is the pyramid.”25
Esoterically, then, the four layers of the Tectratys represents the emergence of the four elements — Fire, Air, Water, Earth — from which the ancients maintained the rest of the world, and all its differentiations, were created by various admixtures and combinations of those four elements:
>
Scwhaller De Lubicz’s Table of Correspondences of the Four Elements with the Pythagorean Sacred Tectratys26
Schwaller comments on this as follows:
Why are the four numbers of the decade called “Elements”?
To answer, we must first of all set aside the arithmetic habit so as to see in each of these numbers, no longer the addition of units, but a new entity altogether, a new unity. There is the unity One, the unity Two, the unity Three, the unity Four. Each is a unity that in turn can give birth as a unity.
…
… the metaphysical Decade and formed matter begins only with the number four.27
Leaving aside once again the “androgynous metaphor” that a “unity” gives birth, what does Schwaller mean by each number being a new entity, a new unity unto itself? And why should the number four signify the beginning of the material creation for this esoteric symbol and doctrine?
Let us recall a remark that Schwaller made earlier, namely, that the elemental symbol for the primordial differentiation or “primary scission” was fire. In other words, Schwaller, the mathematician, is saying that the Sacred Tectratys is a symbol of the topological metaphor, and its first three differentiations or derivatives. The number defines the derivative of a specific set of information, what Schwaller calls an “entity” or “unity,” in the continual process of ever more differentiations. The number, in short, describes a node in the tree of topological descent of an entity from the medium.
But why does four symbolize, in this system, the emergence of the actual material creation? In my book The Giza Death Star I pointed out that the Sacred Tectratys also functioned not only as a symbol of the topological metaphor, but also of the emergence of geometrical dimensions:
>
The Tectratys as a Metaphor of the Emergence of Geometrical and Physical Dimensionality28
Additionally, I also pointed out it can function as a metaphorical symbol of particle physics:
>
The Tectratys as a Metaphor of Particle Physics29
These two charts exhibit the fact that the Sacred Tectratys functions as a symbol of “unified intention,”30 that is, it is yet another legacy from a Very High Civilization with a sophisticated physics. With that in mind, let us look again at the assertion that the material creation emerges with the number four, and is connected to combinations of the four “primal elements,” Fire, Air, Water, andEarth, for these things could themselves be understood as metaphors for the four basic forces of the standard model of quantum mechanics: the strong and weak nuclear forces, the force of electromagnetism, and the force of gravity:
>
The question inevitably arises, why need one stop with a tectratys? Why not have a Pentactys?:31
>
The answer, of course, is that there is no reason this cannot be done. It is, however, important to understand what doing so means: it means nothing less than that the Tectratys-Pentactys symbolism is a metaphor for the technique of hyper-dimensional geometry, as the extension of our previous table showing the geometrical-dimensional symbolism shows:
>
As we shall see in chapter thirteen, there is actually a mathematical technique for describing objects — “solids” — in more than three spatial dimensions, and we shall discover profound cluesthat some pyramidal structures are deliberately designed as analogues — there’s that key word again! — of these things.
However, we can safely say at this stage that, from the esoteric viewpoint, pyramids are analogically-conceived hyper-dimensional machines, for as Schwaller has pointed out, they are three dimensional versions of the Sacred Tectratys, and all the multi-layered symbolism and implied hyper-dimensionality and subtle physics metaphorically embodied in that symbol. As it is a symbol of the primary scission, of the primordial differentiation within the physical medium, as a symbol of the topological metaphor itself, this means that by implication, they are analogically-conceived machines designed to manipulate the information-creating processes of the physical medium itself.
Are there other indicators that pyramids can function as such devices? A trip to Giza will provide an astonishing answer.
>
Rene Adolphe Schwaller de Lubicz
1 R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, Esotericism and Symbol (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1985), p. 26, and R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle: An Introduction to the Wisdom of the Temple (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1985), pp. 66–77, emphasis in the original.
2 R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle: An Introduction to the Wisdom of the Temple (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions, 1985), p. 7, emphasis added.
3 Ibid., p. 8, italicized emphasis added, boldface emphasis in the original.
4 Scwhaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 9, emphasis added.
5 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 9.
6 Ibid., p. 34.
7 Ibid., p. 10.
8 Ibid., p. 40, emphasis added.
9 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 10.
10 Ibid., p. 22, emphasis in the original.
11 Scwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 21.
12 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 11.
13 Ibid., p. 14.
14 Ibid., p. 18, Schwaller says that “The dialectics between Ego and Self is the enclosing wall that separates unitary paradise from the universe of creation,” or in other words, the “either-or” way of construing the metaphor results in a separation of “Ego” and “Self,” whereas the other method of construing the metaphor does not.
15 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 41.
16 Ibid., p. 43.
17 Ibid., p. 75, emphasis in the original.
18 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, pp. 76–77, emphasis in the original.
19 Schwaller notes that this “God of Gods” is, in Egypt, known as the Neter of Neters.(Q.v. p. 78)
20 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 78, italicized emphasis original, boldface emphasis addded.
21 Ibid., p. 113.
22 R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, Esotericism and Symbol, (Inner Traditions, 1985), p. 20.
23 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 67.
24 Ibid., p. 69. For the implications of the Platonic turn (περιαγωγη) from the images of the physical world to the ideal world of “mathematicals” or, to put it in terms of the metaphor, to topology, see the table in my The Giza Death Star Deployed, p. 91.
25 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 85.
26 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 82.
27 Ibid., p. 82, italicized emphasis in the original, boldface emphasis added.
28 Joseph P. Farrell, The Giza Death Star (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2001),p.210.
29 Ibid., p. 211.
30 For my conception of the “unified intention of symbol,” see my The Giza Death Star Destroyed (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2005), pp. 49–52, and my The Cosmic War (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2007), pp. 75–80.
31 Schwaller de Lubicz, The Egyptian Miracle, p. 93. Schwaller points out on this page that the Pentactys is the origin of the Pythagorean 3:4:5 triangle.
12
THE GEARS OF GIZA:
THE CENTER OF THE MACHINE
; “There is no doubt that within the Pyramid’s fabric are encoded many scientific laws and formulas,
but the preservation of such knowledge can scarcely have been the only
motive of its builders. Its numerical properties must surely have had some
practical purpose in relation to the form of science
which the Pyramid was designed to serve.”
John Michell1
Giza lies at the center of the machine that was the world grid, for as we have observed, the ancient world prime meridian, and the placement of so many sites on the world Grid, are oriented with Giza being the prime meridian, and more specifically, with the prime meridian running through what would have been the apex of the Great Pyramid. Giza is, so to speak, the transmission gears at the center of the “machine” of the Grid, a great alchemical machine to manipulate the Grid itself.
But Giza and its pyramids are more than just gears in a machine; it is also an alchemical working of a very different sort, for they have exercised a transforming fixation on the human imagination itself.
As was seen in the previous chapter, the Sacred Tectratys of the Pythagoreans provided an entrance into a consideration of the profoundly analogical nature of ancient thinking, and suggested that the Pyramid builders — at least of Egypt and Mesopotamia — may have been conceiving of the structures as analogical machines to manipulate the physical medium itself. The Tectratys, we also observed, could also be understood as a symbol of the techniques of manipulating higher dimensional geometries, and thus, the symbol, as a two dimensional analogue of the Pyramid itself, implies that, from the esoteric perspective at least, the actual pyramids of that part of the world may have been intentionally conceived as hyper- dimensional “machines.”
Grid of the Gods Page 30