Seeking Recommendation Sacred geometry

[Frater ב]

I'm looking for books that provide a foundation for or integrate sacred geometry into magical practices. Does anyone know of any good recommendations?

 

[A.Nox]

Geometry as ritual form (circles, sigils, temple layout), or number and proportion (Φ, gematria, Pythagorean ratios)? Different reading lists.
I work with this kind of magic myself so a few tested recommendations:

Form and proportion:
• Keith Critchlow — Time Stands Still. Built on traditional craft, not aesthetics.
• Robert Lawlor — Sacred Geometry: Philosophy and Practice. Still the standard intro.
• György Doczi — The Power of Limits. Proportion in nature, very clean.

Number and magical practice:
• John Michell — The Dimensions of Paradise. Gematria and sacred measure.
• Stephen Skinner — Sacred Geometry: Deciphering the Code. Practical, well-sourced.

 

[Frater ב]

Hi, thank you for suggesting these materials; they seem exactly what I'm looking for.

Regarding your question, well... I've been a dowser for some years, and I integrate this knowledge into magical and therapeutic practices.

I'm trying to understand the underlying laws of the properties of radionic charts. Since their foundations lie in applied mathematics and geometry, and I haven't yet found a systematization of the properties and rules for creating such charts, I'm trying to derive general rules that provide this basis.

And how do you use sacred geometry in your practice?

 

[A.Nox]

Hi, thank you for suggesting these materials; they seem exactly what I'm looking for.

Regarding your question, well... I've been a dowser for some years, and I integrate this knowledge into magical and therapeutic practices.

I'm trying to understand the underlying laws of the properties of radionic charts. Since their foundations lie in applied mathematics and geometry, and I haven't yet found a systematization of the properties and rules for creating such charts, I'm trying to derive general rules that provide this basis.

And how do you use sacred geometry in your practice?

I use sacred geometry more as structure than decoration.
For example circle for me is not only protection. It creates a field and border. Triangle is not only symbol it gives direction between operator, force and manifestation point. Sigils work because intention is compressed into visual form.
I also work with sequence: point, line, triangle, vesica piscis, circle. For me every step changes the field. I work sometimes with φ, π and Pythagorean ratios too. Operational keys not aesthetic correspondences.
And I agree about radionic charts. Many books just give finished charts but don t really explain why this form works why this number of lines, why symmetry why centre point etc. I think the hidden rules are more important: repetition, focal points, containment, direction, proportion, and how the chart focuses force on target.
So for me sacred geometry is architecture for will.
Are you working with radionic charts mostly from dowsing/therapeutic side, or trying to build more general system of rules?

 

[Frater ב]

I understand exactly what you're saying...

I am aware of the metaphysical importance of sacred geometry as a process of Logosic manifestation and structuring of the various levels of becoming.

Its implication in magic is ultimately an engineering analogous to that which made the universe emerge and manifest materially. This field of knowledge, although addressed in practically all magical-religious systems, is almost always very obscure.

The problem I continually encounter, as I mentioned and you observed, is that there is no good codification of the mechanics behind the applications of sacred geometry and the laws of numbers. At most, there are general descriptions of its use in temple architecture, megalithic constructions, sacred sites, or natural formations, as is often discussed in Feng Shui, for example.

But answering your question, I am engaged in both things... in the therapeutic use of radiesthesia and radionics and in the construction of a system formulated based on the general laws of numbers and forms.

A few years ago I wrote an essay addressing some points regarding the meaning and use of universal constants converted into some systems with which I am somewhat familiar. If you are interested:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I haven't translated it into English, but I think a translator should help you understand it without much trouble.

 

[A.Nox]

I read it thank you. ( I used Google Translator, so let me know if I understood it correctly)

Your text is more metaphysical, connecting Da’at, π, Φ, Tao, Thelema and the idea of the void. I liked especially the part with π as something liminal / irrational / connected with Da’at and Φ more like ordering or harmonizing principle.

In my own work I am trying to go a bit more “technical”. Not technical as science but more operational Like, if circle creates field and border, triangle gives direction, spiral creates movement, centre creates focus, repetition makes intensification etc then maybe radionic charts can be analysed almost like machines made from these basic rules.

For me this is the most interesting part. Not only what symbol means but what it does.

Did you ever try to turn your ideas into practical rules for making charts? Like number of lines, centre points, symmetry, proportions, direction of movement, relation between operator and target?

 

[Frater ב]

Yes, I believe you understood in general terms.

In fact, it is an experimental essay, of a more metaphysical nature. I wrote it even before I began studying radiesthesia.

Descending from the most abstract levels to the most concrete ones almost always implies understanding the nature, and at what levels of manifestation, functions, and effects a certain force-principle operates. And here begins the whole problem! Because arithmetic, geometry, and mathematics in general are as vastly abstract as they are truly concrete. Therefore, a solution of continuity is necessary, that is, a systematization of general principles and rules applied through certain formulas to a given purpose, in this case, radiesthesia itself. This is the Gordian knot I am trying to cut.

Your analogy between radiesthetic charts and machines is very appropriate. Primarily because "machine" is one of the meanings of यन्त्र (Yantra).

The basic elements of geometry—point, line, surface, volume, etc.—are a starting point, but they are not sufficient to explain the properties and functions of radionic chart emissions.
For example: Draw a circle and you will, in fact, have a field; add a point and you will have a focus; divide the circle from the point into 3, 7, 13... 360 parts, etc., and tell me what each numerical division causes in the field, what energies are catalyzed or converted by it, what their functions are, and at what dimensional levels they correspond, with which elements, and what their concrete effects are... in the physical and metaphysical realms, etc. Continue and draw four more circles within the first circle, and add squares to the divisions, and multiply this gradually until it is no longer possible. Then try to formulate exactly and with experimental demonstrations the... The effects of all this...do you understand the problem?

That's exactly why I intend to devise a system that addresses these issues in both a technical and metaphysical way.

 

[A.Nox]

Yes, I understand the problem
This is exactly the difficult part...Basic geometry gives the alphabet but not yet the grammar. Circle gives field, point gives focus, line gives direction etc but then the real question starts: what happens when we divide, repeat, rotate, multiply or combine these forms.
I think maybe the first step is not to explain everything at once, but to classify functions.

For example:
circle — field/ontainment
point — focus
line — direction
triangle — relation and manifestation point
square — stabilization /material frame
spiral — movement/ transformation
repetition — intensification
symmetry — balance or mirroring
division of circle — distribution of force

Then after that one could test numbers separately. 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13 etc and see what changes in the field. Not only by tradition but by actual use.

I agree that without experimental work it can become only metaphysical theory and this is not what I am looking for I am more interested in the rules behind the machine.

 

[Frater ב]

Well... we have at most a syntax, but we don't have a grammar, much less a semantics. Almost everything is left to speculation, and that bothers me a lot...
And also note that a function in mathematical terms is an F(x). Which necessarily implies the description by logical steps of the solution of a problem that is partly known and partly unknown.
And if we want to problematize even further, note that we are still dealing with notions derived from a model based on Euclidean geometry...
Therefore, the continuity solution I mentioned necessarily requires philosophy and an experimental method, or everything becomes a labyrinth with no way out.

 

[A.Nox]

Yes, precisely.

We have the basic elements and maybe some rudimentary syntax but we still lack a functional grammar — repeatable rules of combination — and clear semantics: what a given configuration actually produces in the field.

This is why experimental method is needed. Not academic science in the conventional sense but systematic, repeatable observation. Does circle + point give a different signature than circle + triangle? Does division by 4 stabilise the field in a different way than division by 7? … When patterns repeat consistently, they stop being only speculation and become operative rules.

I agree about Euclidean geometry too. Most occult diagrams are built on it as a base layer but operative magical space probably does not behave only like flat Euclidean space. So Euclidean forms are necessary alphabet and first syntax but not the whole system.

For me radionic charts are best approached as language and machine at the same time. Language because forms combine according to rules. Machine because they are built to produce directed effects... Without grammar and testing we stay in elegant speculation. Beautiful but not enough…

Have you already mapped any specific combinations or numerical divisions that produced consistent results in your own charts?

 

[Frater ב]

Well, yeah...

The worst part is that I got myself into it, it became an obsession and I can't get out anymore... haha!

And yes! I've already created graphs starting from geometric figures modified by applying angle bisectors, reflection symmetry, rotational symmetry, etc. And I understood from this that the degrees generated by angles are one of the keys to understanding the properties of geometric and volumetric shapes.

 

[A.Nox]

Well, yeah...

The worst part is that I got myself into it, it became an obsession and I can't get out anymore... haha!

And yes! I've already created graphs starting from geometric figures modified by applying angle bisectors, reflection symmetry, rotational symmetry, etc. And I understood from this that the degrees generated by angles are one of the keys to understanding the properties of geometric and volumetric shapes.

This is interesting especially the part about angles. For me angle is where geometry starts to become function not only form. Point gives focus, line gives direction but angle gives relation between directions. So degree can work almost like a key defining tension, opening, restriction or distribution of force.

I am curious if you noticed any difference between reflection symmetry and rotational symmetry in practice... Like one being more stabilising, and the other more dynamic/circulating.

Also if you want to continue deeper feel free to message me . This topic can probably become too technical for the main thread very fast.