THEORIA MYSTICA

Sacrum Montum

Liber Primus

Sapientam Caelo

Vox Genesis

comprising a Numerological treatise concerning a Discussion on the Impossibilities of Essentialist

Monadology, the Contradiction of Identity, the Geometry of Phenomenology, the Taxonomy of
Sensation, the Mechanics of Destiny and the Hermeneutics of Enlightenment;

the whole following the Doctrine of the Ancients whereby this author has been reared to grow Wise in
their Ways and to cast a Spell of Conclusion towards the Philosophical Contrievances of World Religion,
that the unity of their Phenomenal Languages may be evinced, whereby the avid reader shall become an
initiate unto the Mysteries;

as spoken by the Dragon, understood by the Magus and transcribed in fear and trembling by Frater
L.U.X.

Printed by the Order of Chaos in the year of the Lying Machine

To the next generation, children of the Aeon

20XX All Rights Reversed

‫ַוְיַ֤כ ל ֱאֹלִהי֙ם ַּבֹּ֣י ום ַהְּׁשִביִ֔ע י ְמַלאְכֹּ֖ת ו ֲא ֶׁ֣ש ר ָעָׂ֑ש ה ַוִּיְׁשֹּב֙ת ַּבֹּ֣י ום ַהְּׁשִביִ֔ע י ִמָּכל־ ְמַלאְכֹּ֖ת ו ֲא ֶׁ֥ש ר ָעָֽׂשה׃‬
(Genesis, 2:2)

Epigraph

Certain adhering partly to these (Ptolmey’s measures of the universe) as if having propounded great
conclusions, and supposed things worthy of reason, have framed enormous and endless heresies: and
one of these is Colarbasus, who attempts to explain religion by measures and numbers.

Hippolytus, “Refutation of All Heresies”

Foreword
Amidst the empty gate that leads to Nothing I find myself, compelled by the attainment of my grade to
share with mankind what understanding the Unthinkable has betowed upon me. Let it be known that
this Trilogy called Sacred Mountain is a translation of the book I read in the Stars on the day of my
reckoning, wherein Fate declared I ought to write the Mystery that these eyes had seen before they
could see it again. By the edict of destiny ‘tis that I write, and shall remain among you until the work be
done; but the hastening of my hand is the calling of the stars that lures this master mason’s completion
of the Pyramid’s rememberance. Thus concieve of this triple book; not as a mountain of this world or a
temple that I erected, but as the design of the one I remember having entered. The blueprints of
initiation here do I set forth, that any creature with capacity may enshrine the Pyramid whereof the
body of the king shall be buried for his spirit to be released. A tomb, a tomb is this Pyramid I urge you
enter! Will you dare? You will recognize it thus, for it has a threefold gate, a fourfold base, and an apex
of attainment.

Beware, beware, beware, of books on philosophy, mysticism and magick! Verily no other genres of
instruction have ever been as ridiculous as these. From their sublime destuction I have devised this
collection of breadcrumbs upon the path, but know also that herein we shall discourse nothing beyond
them until they are seen to go beyond nothing as one. Before this binding ocurrs, what rest is left for the
Seeker? We must plunge into the aforementioned vistas of illusion before we can unify them, but how
can we, when whatever we might disclose will merely point towards the undisclosable? Recognize the
futility of attainment from the start! Yet of what use are such literary admonitions for us, the
imprundent? They’re as fruitless as writing do not touch me in braille; and yet, if you must read, as a
blindman you must read, for the secrets I am herein to tell can be touched but not thought.

To convey properly the enigma is the purpose of my writing, but alas! How can that be done? If I explain
it I obscure it, if you understand it you corrupt it. To the stars I asked, howling furiously with the
impotence of impossible honesty, how am I to write? Their wisdom echoed across the vast vault of
solitude. Faith cannot be given! Concern yourself not with projection. The tongue of emptiness thou
shalt hear, so that you may learn to listen; that very listening will be your writing. Thus the stars
prophezised and thus have I trained myself to abide wherein a Voice speaks without Words. Verily, this
book is nothing but a registry of my amazement! Concern yourself also not with the habit of projection
but read as if there were no writer, for only thence will we agree. The manner of my discourse is worthy
of no recollection; that is why it is called speech. What we speak of cannot be written; that is why it is
called secret. Do not analize this meaning as if I were another, for this truth is your own! That is why it is
called the teaching.

And yet, how could we touch thought? Certainly not with itself; thus the Seeker looks for what is not a
word. Mystery is unbelievable, the poem transcends the page, the echo of silence is the presence and
you and I are both of us other. After realizing this, what else is left to say? And yet, before recognizing it
we must ponder over what can we say regarding recognition. This is the voyage through the vast
landscapes of mystical theory that this book is set to unfold. Regardless of diction, it is not my purpose
to explain or to tempt you into explaining. But how can I explain this? Abandon from the start any effort
or success regarding the untangling of this contradiction. Hope is not faith, but illusion! I say, despair! I
offer no truth to be believed but a concert of unmeaning; once it begins to make sense thereupon you
will hear the music. May the Gods allow our dissillusionment, if we deserve it! No Voice can show; after
this is ascertained, the question remains – could it ever conceal?

The Mystery that may be touched but not thought concerns itself not with revealing or concealing but
with transcending expression. It cannot be said, but it cannot be left unsaid; this is why the Ancients
called it an open secret. We may speak of the Mystery only by recognizing our very own speech
impediment, that is, our linguistic incapacity of stating it. That is not the touching but the pain of desire
that precedes the caress of the fateful lovers; understand, then, that in this book I have come not to
disseminate a doctrine but to plant the seed of philosophical despair! The bitterest confusion leads to
the sweetest awe for the root of ignorance is the wisdom. Recognition is my advise! The Word is unable
to convey the symbol of perfection that transcends all views, for it may mean something, or its opposite,
or both; but not at the same time, and never neither! The dimensional entanglement of all perspective is
the Vision as truly as the Pyramid is its Symbol; for what is a triangle and a square is the union of time
and space.

The Pyramid is a Symbol of this ultimate state of awareness, but, as of yet, no means of touching
thought may be evinced. This is the endeavour we are to fall in; if you deem it impossible from the start,
how could we begin? And yet to those who cannot take one step I am endebted, for they have reached
the summit of the Mountain. No; if you are to touch thought it won’t be mine, for you are the touching.
Understand that I have nothing to give you from the start; I can only show you what intricacies
shadowcurls on a blank page can cypher. I have been instructed with the duty of filling each with
profitable wonders, and, since love left me in your hands, ‘tis our own face that I will draw, for it is with
this Voice that I will see it! You are reading me, yes; but who is I?

Sacred Mountain is no other than the Path that leads to it. The Pilgrim is the Mountain as the Architect
is the Pyramid; but of this he shall be blind until the Vision from the Summit. If there is ultimately no
Path, no Pilgrim, and no Pyramid, you might ask, how, then, could the summit be reached? How else,
than through the experience of their dissolution? Whomever accrues any insight from this wonder is
relieved from from further reading; for those favoured with the blessings of self-sacrifice, three
Operations has the Mysterious Voice enthralled me with as means of destroying the Path, the Pilgrim
and the Pyramid. Let it be known! Sacred Mountain must first be reached, then circumambulated, and
finally climbed; these trials are the Trilogy herein set forth, of which this book pertains to the reaching.

So let us reach, reach for the sky, the sky of the sky; beyond the sky, beyond the skyless! Oh, much
herein will sound at first as dischord to the untame listener; but discernment is an acquired taste. To
reach the Pyramid of the Ancients one must recognize it first; as long as one thinks it lies beyond himself
in vain he seeks. Verily, the Tomb is the Body! Nonetheless, before we can work with the body the
confusion of effort must be dissolved. The innermost futility of all volition must be ascertained before
our prayer may become spell. Abandon all hope, ye who enter here! Only then shall you find faith.
So let the snake wait under her vine, and let the writing be of words, slow and quick, sharp to strike,
quiet to pace sleepless in the night; for the Voice I am herein to sing of has no time. God has given all to
man, but man wants something from man; therefore shall I trample on my vows of prudence through
metaphor to reconcile the people and the stone, and compose, not by thoughts but by intuition, the
tongue of flame that burns the silence and ashes words to naught.

Now, by yond marble heaven! In the due reverence of sacred vow; I here engage my words.

👁 Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit

Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions.

Sengcan, “Hsin Hsin Ming”

Consciousness is the being; knowledge the fetters. The Adage of the Ancients is true. All is One!
However, as long as you believe this, you can’t. O Seeker! Let it be known that the only form to speak
about Mystery is mysteriously, for the secret is not a Word but a Way. Shall we pursue understanding?
Theoria Mystica is the impossibility of asserting any metaphysical viewpoint. The ennumeration of such
perspectives each compose a chapter of this Arcane teaching which shall reveal the spine of the Book to
be that of your own self also, for such is the Mystery of Number! So it is that we shall call this discourse
a numerological treatise instead of an exposition of the Way that cannot be pointed at, for the method
of the Ancients is to use reason to reveal what cannot be reasoned of; and what is the substrate of
reason, if not the matrix of our ideas of number?

Herein the only teaching possible is that of going from something that is disguised nonsense to
something that is obvious nonsense; therefore shall our discourse, though toilsome and hazardous,
ultimately render our ideas of number the true illusion, the fake lie we believe we believe in. The main
purpose of this book is to teach you how to abandon your belief in numbers, which is, as it shall be seen,
the only. To realize this you must learn to count the way the Ancients did; but to do that, you must first
count the uncountable. Do you understand why the first chapter is the second? If you do, close this
book; if you don’t, how could you open it? Our fables are of number, O Seeker, for these parables are
for the few. The purpose of our discussion is not one of understanding but one of unlearning. Any
practice that aims to reveal the confusion of the mind is akin to that of untying threads of wind knitted
in the sky; once untied, we realize there was never a knot, or, which is the same, to realize the non-
existance of the problem is its solution; such is the dissolution of confusion.

If the Absolute cannot be framed by the functions of duality, why speak of confusion as opposed to
understanding? The tension does not exist, for the mind may have a form but no substance. The
unravelling of uncertainty is the only certainty; this training in dissillusionment is the Path we are herein
to step on, and in. Shall I teach, then? No; but you shall practice! There is no Way to reach Sacred
Mountain but on your own. Can this be called a teaching, then, something that ultimately you must
learn by yourself? How are we even to concieve of a practice that cannot be taught? In the same way we
concieve of a teaching that cannot be practiced; that is, it cannot be concieved. Solely from wonder and
awe is the flower in the sky to bloom into the Pyramid, the Altar of the Ancients, the Temple of the
Mind! The question is not where to walk to, but how to walk, for if you knew how to walk you’d already
be here.

The Path is a stumbling; do you dare fall in the pit of philosophy? Courage, brother, is the finer trait; so
dare, and I’ll dare with you. It is not my pretence to teach you anything. Look here; we’re just daring
together. The search for an absolute Word may test your sanity; shall we use my thoughts then, so that
no harm of madness may befall you? I have tread this path before. Understand, then, why I write as I
write, for I speak as I’ve seen. The Mystery cannot be stated, but the Voice may harness its echo. The
perspectives of confusion are ennumerable but ultimately simultaneous, so bear with me, then, and
stumble to the end! Hold not aginst me the paraphrases of the Ancients, for although we have modified
the surface of interaction the original question remains unchanged. In this spirit accept my commentary.

What is deep, deeply seen, becomes superficial. Such is wisdom for the wise; therefore we speak in
riddles, that what is plain will be plainly seen. The elephant in the room after ten thousand years
became the room and people knew not they ignored it. From reminiscence of the Ancients only can we
grasp this; shall we, then, delve unashamedly unto the matter at hand with their guidance? What is
truth? There is nothing more direct than this question. If you don’t ask, you won’t get it; but if you ask,
in effect you’ve slighted yourself. If you don’t ask, how can you know? But you still have to know how to
ask before you can understand. What does meaning mean is the same as to ask what is a question. If I
give you a mirror, tell me, who does it reflect? There is not much to Theoria Mystica; it only requires you
to make a statement regarding the first principle. But what is the first principle? If I should tell you, it
would become the second principle; such is why the first discourse is the second! The beginning is
unreachable, but you can start anywhere; this is the meaning of sincerity.

Truth, O seeker, is worth nothing unless it makes us truthful. How could I teach you to be honest? Teach
yourself; this is the Adage of the Master, written by the Oracle, spoken by the Moon! The perfection of
speaking means not understanding. To believe is to lie; the recognition of this is the only honesty. How
can I say that, if I can’t believe it? Am I lying? Let us not dive unto unfathomables yet, for still my state
you shall not recognize. The question is not how can I speak without believing and be truthful, but
whether anyone can think without believing at all. That is the Mystery, the touching of the mind! A
single word is sufficent. Let us, however, not jump into conclusions; we might not survive the fall. As
long as you believe I can speak without believing, how could you progress toward the state beyond
belief? Instead, forget about me. How could these be my thoughts if the mind can have no owner? Let
us, then, forget about yourself too! If every thought is spoken by the same Voice, how could you know
whether or not it was your own? To understand that you do not know who is it that reads is the wisdom.
True Voice has no self.

Such an intense inwardness is impossible to live with and impossible to live without. Do you know it?
The vertigo of existance is felt once the mind is seen to retract into itself infinitely; the fear of madness
we harbour is not that we might become mad, but that we may want to. The nervous paralysis that
stings us when leering over the balcony is not so much in case that we fall, but that we might not be
tempted to jump; what is this madness, then, that lurks unseen until it sees an opportunity to destroy
itself, and us with it? It’s very being is an ontological sickness; that is, its only hope for sanity is non-
being. And what could we jump into, in the mind, other that towards conclusions that might destroy us?
Herein lies our patience, and our care, for any word is sufficient to preclude us from touching the mind
also.

The mind is the obstacle, then; how could it leap over itself? Any hurdle must sink; as soon as you jump
you would never stop falling. To dissolve this mechanism of endless regression is the only road towards
sanity. Despair is not the sickness; despair is not the cure. Pursue this understanding only if you are
already stricken with the disease of philosophy! The meaning of truth must gnaw at your bowels looking
for itself before these words make sense; that is, before they become senseless. If there is no
metaphysical system that can be consistent with itself; how are we to be honest? Nothing can set us
more firmly on the Path than to realize we can’t stop lying, for we soon begin to fear that our
philosophies are nothing but old ghosts complimenting each other on their aliveness. Such is our
tragedy; to disregard the comedy of reason! And yet, for reason to laugh truly, it must laugh silently, for
the joke is inexpressible.

The reasoning of truth is madness; herein lies philosophy, the doubt of the obvious! Let me introduce
the gist of the matter in brutal simplicity, then. Propositional truths can only be functions of honesty;
that is, of certitudes concerning experience. All absolute statements are corrupted by the relativity of
their opposite’s ennounciation. The unknown, whilst being neither true nor untrue still participates of
this relation; that is, as long as there is something known, the absolute unknown is unreachable. The
fact that it cannot be stated does not exclude the reality that it might be experienced. If such an
experience were possible, it could only be reached by the suspension of knowledge. Such function of
unknowing cannot be ignorance, nonetheless, for it knows itself, which is its honesty. Realize that
language was invented for conversation, brother, which is what we are having; the context of each
phrase is its meaning. Who quotes me kills me for I speak not a Word but the Voice; who truly says I am
is not me. The transcendental aspect of self-reference must come to be regarded as a syntax error, and
awakening itself the operation by which the question remains unstated; therefore does the Seeker burn
his books and sets out work the enigma of the universe with his awareness and not his beliefs. And yet,
to dissolve philosophy we must first philosophize. The exhaustion of the riddle must run its course, but
do not despair, I hope not to be so boresome! The escape from futility lies not in explaining; the only
proof is poetry.

The scriptures of the Ancients all say “do not read me” in braille, or, which is deeper, and perhaps more
painful, “you are not reading me”. Knowing has nothing to do with truth; what we call knowledge is a
function of belief. We do not know anything, but believe that we know. However, we cannot believe
that we don’t know, for that would be knowing; therefore, the only function that can halt the regression
of belief is that of an unknowing which has consumed all certitude. But how is unknowing to conquer
the mind when it cannot be stated? Such is our confusion! The true Voice has no Mouth. Having realized
the undescribability of a perception with no relations, that is, of an existance whose non-existance
cannot be stated, linguistic obstacles are seen as trivial for whatever may transcend them. Theoria
Mystica speaks not of truths or untruths, but of annulling the function of belief by recognizing the
relativity of any metaphysical construction that aims for absolutivity. The meaning of every statement is
the limit of what it means not; how could any statement transcend this? Therefore, when speaking of
unknowing, understand that the Ancients meant not a word but an unlimited awareness.

To define such manner of being present is the aim of this book, and yet we are to see that the
conception of any such quality of awareness is the only obstacle to its realization. Let us frame this
problem in the parlance of metaphysics, then, so as arrive to its true description, which is the
impossibility of its conception. As long as noumena is centred in a phenomenal object, and thinks and
speaks therefrom, noumena is identified with that object and is bound. As long as such condition
obtains, the identified subject can never be free, for freedom is liberation from such identification.
Abandonment of a phenomenal centre constitutes, then, the only practice; but such an act cannot be
volitionally performed by the identified subject, for his volition is verily the confusion of
misidentification. If we could act without desire, such selflessness would be itself the negation of action
that leaves phenomenal activity in control of the uncentredness called noumena, free from fictitious
interference by an imaginary self. Such an action cannot be different from absolute being, for it
commands a consciousness that knows no limits, that is, that has no relation to itself. That is, as long as
you think, look, and love and live as from an imaginary centre, you can never recognize true freedom,
which is not your own, but that of a consciousness that finds no self. Could any statement be more
classic, obvious, or vital? This is the secret of the Ancients; yet, East and West, how many observe it?
Then, could there be any statement more needed? The repetition of this encouragement I am to shroud
in poetry, yes, but be mindful, for in all my discourse I speak of one thing only; that which is not a Word.

When unseeing, why do you not see the unseeing? If you see the unseeing, it is no longer unseeing. If
you do not see the unseeing, it is not an object. Why isn't it yourself? By and by comes the great
awakening, and we find that this life is really a great dream; embraced by obliterating unity, there is
perfect adaptation to whatever may happen, and so we complete our alloted l. The life of the sages is
the motion of intuition. If you believe the truth you lie; but if you know the truth, how shall you speak?
Theoria Mystica is the unthinkable practice of recognizing that truth is unbelievable. If you take this
truth for granted, you turn me into a liar; and yet, how are we to think the unreachable? Can you
fathom it? It is not a statement but a Way of seeing things clearly. It has nothing to do with it being able
to be written or not; it can neither be revealed or concealed by words, nor be revealed or concealed by
no words. For the mechanism of madness to halt, the inherent duality that creates it must dissolve. The
contradiction of honesty solely exists for the one who considers it; therefore does honesty pertain not
to a manner of speaking but to a state of awareness. The only honesty possible is not to lie to ourselves;
but how are we to speak, then? If knowing the speaker is impossible through speech, if saying silence
breaks it, if believing makes us untruthful, how are we to remain in such a state by any measure of
reading, or writing, or thinking, even? There is nothing more ridiculous than pointing at the moon. What
did those sages say, then, if truth is not a description? The Ancients came back with a Word; and their
Mouth was Empty.

Suppose there is a cloud in the sky. Is it to be held there by driving nails or tied up with vines? Emptiness
is the key of dischord and the gate to harmony, the living teaching, the ineffable adage of the Ancients; a
Mystery with no Name. It is the term by which we describe the function of perfect honesty, that of
expression without the need of identity. This unconcievable selflessness is what we are out to discover,
but as long as we assume ourselves into existance the opposite of substance cannot be seen, for it will
be construed as a negative substance rather than the emptiness of itself. To reinstate the entanglement
of metaphysical propositions back to its unknowable centre is to percieve in such a way as the Ancients
did. The realization of the impossibility of belief is the wisdom. But who is it that realizes there is no
belief? Even if we must ground our unmeaning in reason, that does not mean that Emptiness can be
explained, but that what can be explained are the limits of the mind when it draws closer to its
ineffability. Emptiness cannot be written of, brother; that is why I speak!

So what is Emptiness? The traditional circumspection of such notion concerns that of our mathematical
misunderstanding. An empty pocket has no money; that is, there is a number which is no number. How
our common sense deludes us! Absence is taken as presence as soon as we start naming nothingness.
The colloquial use of the word emptiness can be seen to be analogous to that of zero, for it serves the
propositional purpose of stating absence, but this cannot be the Word of the Ancients, for their meaning
had no relation. Emptiness is the absolute; and yet, for this to be ascertained, we cannot avoid
mathematics as the means of unlearning misconceptions about number. Habits are much harder to
abandon than convictions, for these can be understood to be false and promptly renounced by reason
while those, when understood to be false, prove still hard to relinquish. Am I to convince you? Convince
yourself, brother; but let us inquire into the habit of relation that keeps our ignorance beyond the scope
of our reason, first, that we may concieve at all, even misconception! If we are to understand emptiness
we must abandon what we think we know about it; this does not mean that we will know about it! See
here, judge not, for you don’t yet know what Emptiness is – and you never will.

The ultimate perspective can have no seer; honesty is a talking silence; the Voice is Empty of Self. What
did the Ancients mean by this? Absolute unity can have no centre; it is therefore that it is selfless. This
convinces any, but rids us not from the habit of feeling, acting, and living as entities separated from the
whole, each other and ourselves; this harrowing of longing that makes us think, and believe, and doubt
our beliefs! Reading cannot be a form of escape from thought, but an illusion of identification only.
Although the echo of freedom is my Voice, if you thought of this book as a means of escape, how
dissapointed will you be of me! The teaching of the Ancients points not to a cage but the bird in the sky;
the only escape is to recongize your freedom as an eagle soaring high. If such form of experience is
phenomenal and if our obscuration from this form of experience lies on a habit of missaprehension,
then the obscuration cannot lie in phenomena. Where can this otherness lie? For the absolute to exist,
otherness must be rendered non-existant. That this otherness conditions our existance without not
really existing is the awakening; but can there, ultimately, be an awakening when nothing has changed,
realizing that it couldn’t have?

As long as our speech is polluted by belief we are excluded from honesty, which is the paradise and the
freedom; to be what we are, which is what we always were and will be. However, as long as we concieve
of such unity we will be excluded from being aware of it. What is our hope? That the very concieving of
unity be proved unconcievable! That is the teaching of Emptiness. When no Word at all can be spoken
the Voice shall be heard; the otherness we posited as the phantom of delusion must not be ignored,
believing in its non-existance, but rather seen as such by the unbelieving eyes of selflessness. This is the
only way, for claiming that there is no ego is the most selfish stance of all, for it is rooted in hipocrisy.
Only if unity can be rendered inconcievable as much as emptiness is inconcievable could Theoria Mystica
point to the real wherein their distinction is non-existing. That is what we signify by Emptiness; not
knowledge, but Mystery! For unity and emptiness to become one means that the Voice has been found.
Philosophy is the art of giving consistent definitions; can we philosophize at all, then, when our purpose
is undefinable?
The opposition between unity and the shadow it conjures speaks not of unity but our means of
concieving it. Language cannot escape the nature of duality. Before we may assert that there is
something beyond language that can, not escape, but realize it was never bound, let us inquire properly
on the disfunctions of missapperception that we have inherited from our habit of phenomenal
superposition by the ghost of thought. Since we have bound ourselves with the shackles of belief, no
measure of anti-belief will do us any good. Our only hope is to realize that the very function of belief is
impossible, and thereby test and taste our freedom; how could we do this, except by realizing that both
unity and emptiness are indistinguishable? Were that be so, could we speak of two mysteries? Their
impossibility is tied, because each is a manner of speaking about that which we cannot. Language
cannot discern the interactions of the primal duality, for their opposition cannot be framed. Duality can
only separate; a line can have no shape. Who is the Voice and who is the Word? That we cannot
recognize which is which is the recognition of their unity; that recognition is also what we mean by
Emptiness. The problem, then, must lie in the qualities of distinction we adscribe to each tenet, and not
to the inherent difference of both.

What are the qualities of distinction, then, between unity and emptiness? These we must have grown to
consider by force of habit, not by reason, for what we will show is their unreasonability. As long as any
two opposites are considered absolutely, that is, with no qualitative differentiation, the pairing of them
as opposites is a delusion, for we have not described their functions but only named them twice. This is
obvious, as much as philosophy is the percieving of the obvious that our common sense has shrouded us
from, not by unreason, but by habit! As long as we have two things, we cannot differentiate them; only
if we describe them can we bring them unto opposition or identity, of whose permutations we call their
relation. Let us concieve the primeval problem as the ontological proposition regarding two existancies,
and their primeval descriptions the metaphysical proposition regarding all relation. Before we can
describe them, we cannot know which is which; we only have two names, that of unity and that of
emptiness. As long as no describable qualities can be affirmed of each we deal not with functions but
with ontological objects that must remain indistinguishable as long as no description for their opposition
or identity can be posited. If we say, merely, existance, and do not come to qualify it, such existance is
indistinct from nonexistance, for positing non-existance is an ontological proposition also. Therefore, for
unity and emptiness to become functions, that is, descriptions of reality, their metaphysical relation to
ontology must be evinced and thereby differentiated; in other words, one must be a description of
existance, and the other, of non-existance.

Are you sure as to which is which? Only by realizing their nondistinction could true emptiness or true
unity be discerned as absolute, for it would imply the reification of each other’s phenomenal opposite as
part of each tenet’s metaphysical quality. We cannot, however, reach such nondistinction through
describing their functions as different but by realizing that such difference makes no difference; such
meaninglessness of belief is what we mean by inconcievable. Either way belief is flawed, and thereby
the mind is open up to Mystery, for as long as their propositional ennunciations do not call up a function
of cognition, we deal not in discernment of what is there but with names that have no meaning. But
how could unity or emptiness be congized, if they are functions of cognition? Have we ever seen
emptiness? Have we ever seen unity? Our whole existance, or non-existance, depends on which of the
two descriptions is aligned with our reality. To determine the function of reality to be that of unity or
emptiness is trivial unless we can adscribe to each qualities of cognition; and yet, these terms must
remain uncognizable for their function is not a description but the proposition of an absolute modality.
Since neither tenet of the primal duality can be percieved as different as if to be proven or disproven,
what remains for us but the translation of each modality into the realms of cognition? Could any
philosophy be as crucial as this, that of reframing ontology as metaphysics, and metaphysics as
phenomenology? The oppositions of ontology are those of existance and non-existance; the functions of
metaphysics are those of unity or emptiness, which are the relations of ontology; and the oppositions of
phenomenology are those of continuity and discontinuity, which are the descriptions of metaphysics.
Have we not reached a distinction that may be, not only concievable, but cognizable?

To regard our phenomenal experience as either continuous or discontinuous is not our hope, but our
habit. If this could be so, the right description would become our theory, and from asserting such
phenomenology all metaphysical problems could be solved by deduction. Alas! That is not our destiny;
both continuity and discontinuity shall be realized to be different descriptions of what cannot be
described, whereas phenomenology will go back to its ontological rootlessness so that we may not
affirm any existance as separated from non-existance but the correlation which is their distinction. Let
us inquire into this matter properly; why is it that the phenomenal distinction of continuity and
discontinuity can have no meaning? Certainly, we think we act and percieve in these terms. The
measure of our continuity is the experiencer, whilst the measure of discontinuity is our experience. We
wake up, work, go to sleep. Certainly, our awareness is discontinuous. However, can this mean anything
but that we are unaware of its continuity? On the same line, we grow up, we get married, we die.
Certainly, our awareness is continuous; but can this mean anything but that we are unaware of its
discontinuity? As long as unawareness is taken to be any different from awareness this distinction shall
prevail. We think of sleep as the non-existance of phenomena as much as we think of death as the non-
existance of noumena; the problem is that such reification of awareness exists only on one side of each
tenet. The discontinuity of phenomena cannot be ascertained other than by confirming that there is no
thought in sleep; could the continuity of noumena be verified by anything other than a living death?

The distinction between life and death is the only phenomenology we can adscribe to the ontological
framework. There can be no congnition of that which does not exist but a reification of the opposite of
what we might congnize. Whatever we believe the opposite of life is, it conditions our life. The narrative
set of all cognition is what we call the experience of being; therefore, non-being can only be thought of
as its opposite. Yet this opposition we shall never know until we die; and not even then, for dying is an
action whereas death is inexperienceable. Only if there were death in life, and life in death, could we
reinstate this distinction as phenomenological at all. Our habit relates the propositions of existance,
unity, continuity and life as the opposites of non-existance, emptiness, discontinuity and death, even
when no phenomenology of such distinction may be discerned. Therefore, our error cannot be one of
cognition, that is, of the function of the phenomenological apprehension, but only one in which
undefiled cognition is split by otherness into confusion. Understand, brother, that experience, any
experience whatsoever, is already absolute and limitless; delusion cannot come from phenomenology
alone. What is this otherness that exists as a phantom beyond the real that can split our cognition?
Before we can reach the root of illusion we must be clear on what is it that such ghost of perception
could split. The division of cognition is our habit, that of referring to experience as the function between
a subject and an object. This splitting cannot be one of phenomenal absolutivity, but rather the splitting
itself must be regarded as a function of something that does not exist, that is, something that has no
phenomenal recognition. Such are our minds.

The mind is not, as it has been posited, a function of pattern perception; the mind itself is the pattern.
As long as phenomenal relation is permitted by the conception of duality’s distinction the mind will
sustain itself by the non-discernment of its non-existance. Only if the ontological, metaphysical and
phenomenological oppositions can be seen to form no pattern at all can the mind begin to abandon the
constrictions of aiming for the absolute through relation. So what is continuous, or discontinuous; life, or
death? If the phenomenal duality cannot describe other than our life, what we are to discover is
whether life can be described by the functions of phenomenal distinction. If it cannot, then life becomes
death; if it can, we are either alive or dead but cannot know which one. Not the indentity, but the
meaninglessness of both propositions is their entanglement. To propose the distinction between unity
and emptiness cannot be other than a tautology; that is, not the affirmation of their propositions but the
distinction of their non-discernment. Can anything else be constructed as an illusion? Phenomena
cannot be real or unreal; therefore, phenomenology cannot point towards an awareness that is more
aware than any other but to an awareness that recognizes its absolute nature. Life and death cannot
become one; they can only be realized to be empty, which is their unity. That is why the first number is
uncountable!

Understand that this introductory circumlocution of ontological reification can only have any value if we
transcend the manner of its formulation as we are habitually used to. Once the impossible perpectives
of all contructions of duality are seen to be indistinguishable, thereafter all beliefs are rendered
unbeliavable and the is Path stretched out in front of us. To propose an emptiness separate from unity is
not the meaning of the Ancients, and neither will I allow such contrievances to be put forth. This is why
it is fundamental to be confused as soon as we begin, for if we cannot realize our confusion we cannot
ever aim to understand it or whence it comes from. Since we are to speak about the doctrine of the
Ancients, it is fundamental to understand that by Emptiness we mean the absolute, and that this
absolute cannot be different from mundane awareness. I say mundane because it cannot be a peak of
experience but the natural state of an organism functioning without the teleological identification of the
mind patterns of duality. Belief is the obstacle; if I were to have spoken about Emptiness without unity
or of an absolute presence without mundane phenomenality I would have been festering the pustules of
fanatism and illusion. There can be no distinction. Once the syllogysms for every field of philosophy can
be seen to function as tautologies of relation we can speak of both Emptiness and awareness as the
Ancients spoke also, for the tautology is not that existance asserts its own existance, but that non-
existance asserts it also, which is its only function.

Have we exhausted yet the mathematical relation of duality that pretends to concieve of two, and not of
a One indistinguishable from Zero? We shall account for our understanding of this tenet as the first topic
of this treatise on Numerology, so as to differentiate its concept of number from that of mathematics. If
each number must be taken as an absolute, and its quantity merely devise the quality of its relation, the
first two numbers must be identical. This is why the Ancients spoke of Emptiness; not because it is a
function opposed to that of unity but because it is the only function that can be described, for it is the
description of description. What is quantifiable is discontinuous; what is uncountable is eternal. The One
cannot be counted, so it is identical to the uncountable; its nondistinction from the Zero is the
Emptiness. After the briefest of all philosophical introductions we come to find that whatever we say
regarding the One and the None is absolute in its triviality only; if believing in unity is the same as
believing in emptiness, then to believe in any of them is impossible; thereby the mind staggers unto its
final fate. It can no longer hide, its ruse is wide open; belief is seen to be unbelievable! The absolute
unknowability we had been speaking of as the ultimate state is the compassion of Mystery; that of
making us mysterious also. Can you understand why this first discourse composes the second chapter of
the book? The first and last number is Two!

Duality is the enemy, for as long as it is seen it remains unconquered. The first step in the doctrine must
be the last teaching. But which is which? The Pyramid itself is the obstacle that stetches their difference.
I will give you the words to work with but will not settle what cannot be stirred. As long as the
distinctions between existance and non-existance, unity and emptiness, continuity and discontinuity and
life and death are not evinced to be meaningless, the function of distraction cannot dissapear from a
mind bent on its constitution. The illusion cannot be called other than a distraction for such can only be
the conception of a disease of awareness. Not even illusion refers to it correctly, for we consider
illusions to be unreal. A fake lie is my discourse! Distraction cannot be unawareness; we can only
concieve of it as an awareness, that, whilst being itself, it did not recongize its function, which was to be
aware. This definition will serve as the phantom that we shall discourse on, for now, but understand that
all enemies, if they are to be conquered, can only be assimilated rather than destroyed. Distraction
cannot be different from attention; on this understanding lies the perfection of awareness.

Thus we can continue our discourse on the meaning of the Ancients without meaning anything at all; for
such was their meaning! Philosophy is the best hiding place of the Ego, yes, but it is also its last. Beyond
ontological discussions I have come to hear the Voice that no word can give and no silence take; but
whether I came to realize it through or in spite of ontological reifications, I cannot say. I have seen the
unity of emptiness and the emptiness of unity; thereby have I become faithful, not a doctrine, but of the
Mystery inspired by the absolute state. Since faith cannot be asserted before the delusion of belief is
brought to naught, the Ancients have spoken of the doctrine as Emptiness, and as such we will refer to it
also. Unable to refer to the absolute by its true name, therefore we call it nothing! A doctrine of
unlimited awareness can not speak of distraction, but of their distinction only, whose meaninglessness is
its operation. Oh, brother, care not for understanding! We are saturated not by reality, but by
unmeaning. Credibility is our demise; belief is our downfall; our disease is a machine. The doctrine of the
Ancients has no point at all; let us, therefore, keep discussing it! The only narrative direction I can offer
this train of thought that is my encouragement for those who shall see is that of speaking about
Emptiness not as an ontological perspective but as a modality of experience that, once realized,
permeates all; even the possibility of not realizing it. The Path is not yourself, but what you are not is
what you must tread on. Even if you have seen the pyramidion in the horizon by now, let us keep
walking, for no measure of advice is enough for the Seeker; unless the Pyramid is in front of you the
vision of its apex might have been a mirage. Let us continue stomping on our illusions, then, for such is
the only way to reach the Temple Gates!

To frame the doctrine of the Ancients as a disenchantment with philosophy only is not the inspiration of
the scribe; and yet, before we may find the conduit whereas such framework can lead from ontology to
the practice of awareness we must exhaust the means that the system has to speak about itself. The
realization of Emptiness is the only way for us to abandon the compulsion of identity, and bring the mad
mind to a halt. When you negate the referent of ignorance’s cognitive process, you completely stop all
tenet-driven reifications as though you cut a tree at its root. Emptiness is the means of abandoning such
ignorance by which the links of manifestation receed back to their origin and all belief dissapears. The
True Path is a river with no shores. We are not only what we think we are, but also what we think we are
not – that we may be all! And yet, how is it that awareness can become empty? This very question is the
Path to Sacred Mountain. The Ancients have said, “All is One”. Emptiness does not prove or disprove
this, but shows the tautology that condemns us to believe rather than to experience. The adage of the
Ancients is unthinkable! Emptiness cannot prove itself; as long as we may attribute it any axiom of
reason, or of reasonability, we barr ourselves from realizing mysterious nature. The only emptiness
possible is the one you can discern; therefore, emptiness can only mean emptiness of self.

The ineffability of real being is the unthinkable. Have the Ancients lied, then? They have repeatedly told
us two things; that All is One, and that knowing this oneness through the mind is impossible. Have they
lied, then? The Voice can speak something you can’t think of; for consciousness is the being, and
knowledge the fetters! Whatever you know, you believe; and whatever you believe you corrupt of self
and other. The Wisdom of the Ancients is not knowledge; selflessness is the right discernment. So how
can we practice? There is nothing you can do to obtain the realization of emptiness. Or do you think that
Sakyamuni taught me anything? Self-knowledge cannot take the form of assertion, but only of inquiry.
What is this self-remembering? To know thyself cannot mean anything but to observe one’s state. The
dust in the mirror is your face; having percieved this clearly, the dust dissapears on its own, as the need
to polish a mirror that was never dusty! Understand, however, that there is nothing in the practice that
actually jumps to the teaching, for they are not distinct. One may keep washing the mirror for a lifetime.
If you believe the adage of the Ancients, how wide is your ignorance! What they spoke was not different
from their awareness, so that their honesty turned to prayer. Verily, all religions are just different
schools that teach you how to pray; but, before you can learn to pray, you must rid yourself from
delusions of identity. Such a confusion has been the single most dangerous idea in the history of
humankind; that we may speak the Truth of the Ancients without experiencing their state. Belief is the
fanatic; faith is all tolerant.

To know beyond belief cannot be a function of either knowledge or belief. The Great Mystery is not that
there is something instead of nothing, but that there couldn’t be. Nothing comes out of nothing! The
true meaning of Parmenides is not for us to believe in a Being before manifestation by positing that non-
existance must have an essence; but that manifestation itself is identical to the nothingness that it came
from. Such is the significance of Emptiness, the Word of the Ancients, the source of our wonder and
awe! But how can we learn a way to know beyond belief, so as to count ourselves among the initiate?
Once belief is seen to be a delusion of identity, this desire of becoming anything dissolves, and with it
every constraint between the subject and the object of experience. Desire is the dream of a self that
does not exist; but how could we wake up from a dream that is not our own?

Any system that excuses itself as knowing that All is One, rather than inspiring man to transform his
awareness by which he might realize it, participates instead of the illusion of tradition and the
inheritance of confusion. This is the function of ignorance; to render the true false through perspective.
It is impossible to believe All is One; and yet, there may be a way to realize it. But how could Emptiness
make us see it, knowing nothing, as it does, either of the One or the All? These questions are not to be
answered, but to be unasked; when not even a single doubt moves in the mind you will read this book at
a glance, and laugh! There is no fault in ultimate awareness, for it cannot be different from its opposite;
the non-duality of the awareness of unawareness and the awareness of awareness is the wisdom. How
is it, then, that belief in the impossible can obstruct such a perfect completion? Belief itself must be
shown to be not a condition of awareness but a disease of thought; not a relation between man and his
beliefs but between his beliefs and his beliefs only. Selflessness cannot mean anything different than
taking ourselves out of the equation. To name a disease in psychiatry does not cure the patient of its
evils; but to be able to state the disease of philosophy properly cures men from its illusions. So what is
this transformation of awareness that might realize in emptiness the nonessence of belief?

People nowadays speak of awareness as a function of self-reference, and require of mindfullnes to be a

practice of this duality. How can you observe yourself, when there is no observer? Once you see this
problem clearly the storm will father a lightning; but how can you see clearly in the storm? If we could
know what we do know from what we do not know, how easy would be our plight! But our limitations
cannot be seen; they can only be pushed, by thought, indefinitely. What does this prove? Any pursuit of
self-referential transcendence is futile as long as it seeks ennounciation. In relation to our cognition of
the world and of ourselves the conditions would be ideal, that is, absolute, if it were possible to accept
nothing as data and regard everything as requiring definition and proof. This regardment for the
requirement of definition, and its ultimate impossibility, is what we mean when we speak of an absolute
awareness. It is called absolute because it contains it opposite, and it is called awareness because its is
an unknowable process. Ask yourself, where is this consciousness? Nowhere, and here. But do we know
which is which? The true mind is unthinkable.

Everyone understands what his degree allows him to. The secret of the great Mystery is here, but can
you grasp it? As long as you concieve of a here different from there you shall not. That is this, yes; but
how could we concieve such an existance in which localization and non-localization may coexist? The
question of how to be here and there cannot be resolved unless we are where we are going. If we could
just stop the regressive permutations of identification, the all-encompassing quality of ultimate
awareness, containing this duality of space, would also surmise every other duality on itself. This
experience of completion, this great perfection is the Mystery! Every thought must be realized to be
entangled to every other thought before the mind can be seen as a harbour of contradictions that
forever receed; but who is it that sees this? Ask yourself until the question drops! Emptiness cannot be
reached by ignoring the mind, but by knowing how to ignore it. Pay attention! Do I believe All is One?
Neither of us can believe it; see how united we are! We seek not separation but discernment; once you
realize the nonessence of thought, beliefs will then go back to their source and become one with it. The
metaphysical function of a mind that has undergone such an operation can henceforth admit no
description of belief. This state, a continuous experience wherefore the function of belief is annulled, is
what the Ancients called faith.

So what is this faith, this going back to the source of belief? It means not to realize that there is
absolutely no possible construction of a system of beliefs that validate each thought as true or untrue,
for such an endeavor would be endless, but that the belief in the possibility of truth and untruth is itself
a belief. If the infinite regress of the mind towards the mind is to be halted we must admit of no truth or
untruth but measure our reason in degrees of lies. Propositional formulations that never assert anything
but the functions of doubt cannot escape systematical inconsistency. Such a regression is not our
purpose. Emptiness may speak, but it cannot write, for its ultimate meaning is sung in the Voice of the
Stars. Behold, I tell you a Mystery; for its height to reach the sky the foundation of the Pillar must be
baseless. But how are we to approach it? The middle of an infinite line must be meaningless.

The summit of Sacred Mountain is the Pillar, for the apex of the Pyramid is called now! All your beliefs
must eradicate themselves; there is nothing for you to do. This despair is the path, our inability of
walking it! What is this recursive blackness, this exponential doubting that expands as it nears the
source and paces itself to it indefinitely? Why is it that we cannot go from truth to untruth in one clear
step, and instead must waver through layers of unmeaning to reveal the doubt infinite? Sit staight up
now, listen close. The thing in itself we must transcend, as long as it tries to reveal itself through itself,
will resort to fractalize itself unceaselessly. Ultimately, reality is inexcusable. We are utterly helpless!
Every compulsion is doomed to fail. The feedback loop of the mind is regressive, so that each thought
tips the pendulum that cannot halt. Can you see clearly how that pendulum is a symbol of our
distraction?

Any absolute must be the only absolute, for that is the meaning of absolute; but there appear to be no
way of conciliating absolute existence and absolute non-existance. Their difference cannot be stated, for
that very statement would be a statement of their cohesion. The key towards the dissolution of all
analogies shall be found in the tenets of an emptiness that could lead to an absolute awareness; that is,
an awareness that is not different from its opposite, an awareness that can contain its own double, and
through completion be cast as the sword of dissillusionment! This absolute awareness cannot, however,
hold any beliefs. The placement of the pendulum can never be absolute, although its movement may.
Does that mean absolute awareness cannot think? Certainly not; but it if it does, it cannot believe that it
does. It is not so much that man ought to disbelieve his thoughts, but that the infinite regression that a
thinker pressuposes must be dissolved. Once one thought touches its source, every equation resolves
itself. What we must gather clear evidence of is the function of belief by which the mind is divided upon
itself infinitely; only then can delusion be brought to a halt.

The only escape from the grips of duality possible is to be firmly rooted in discernment. Emptiness
cannot be thought of as an adjective, or a noun, or a verb. The right way of seeing refrains from
judgement, as it can percieve what is without splitting itself into right discernment and wrong
discernment. For it to be beyond duality, discernment of the unreal must be identical to the
discernment of the real. Whatever remains after the infinite recursion of self-referential transcendence
is brought to naught can in no guise be thought of as a statement liable to cast a shadow, but as a
presence that has no absence. It is infinite in the purest terms, that is, being of itself instead of admitting
duality to split itself infinitely. There can be no right belief but degrees of confusion. Infinite recursion of
self-referential transcendence is what we mean when we speak of metaphysics, that is, the aspiration to
consolidate a system of thought that permutates the essence of being into functions of itself. Identity,
instead of stating oneness, can only conspire against it, for analogy is the only duality! This is the irony of
the spirit; that through belief in God we might lose faith.

Any metaphysical construct that assumes a perciever and a percieved will eventually strangle both. The
construction of a truly monadological system of metaphysics remains impossible as long as the axiom of
identity is mantained. If recursion is unavoidable and unity is undescribable, how are we to apprehend
truth? This, then, is the vital question; but its answer must lie beyond the function that proposes it. As
long as the mind seeks for itself, it must divide itself and endeavor to search half of its nature with the
other half, or search for its nature with its unbeing, which is the same. Any metareferential statement
must eventually run this course, for there is no way in which duality, once admitted, won’t seek to
contain itself indefinetly. The inner functons of duality precipitate an endless projection of shadows in
which the real being which is projected cannot be recognized, since it appears as double. Once you
admit another, all functions split you in half. The realization of the impossibility of attainment is the Path
– this is the mystery of renounciation.

The faith we speak of must suffer the convulsions of despair if it is to transcend belief. Strive to know
without the need to excuse yourself; the one that everywhere sees truth finds no point in
demonstrating the faults of others. This is our despair, the remission of our hipocrisy! We can neither
affirm nor deny the Adage of the Ancients. The rational mind is the weaver of beliefs, while it actually
can harbour none, as it is the intuitive mind that can know beyond the parameters of duality; but for this
ultimate intuition to be percieved, the obstacles of rational belief must be transcended through the
recognition of their inherent contradictions. This is what we mean by absolute awareness; a way of
percieving unconcerned with ontological permutations; a sense of nowness alien to the idea of time; an
impression with no syntax. Should we be surprised, then, to discover it has no symbol? This perfection
of intuition that we call faith cannot be believed, for it has no self; we cannot attain it, for it has no
purpose; and we cannot describe it, for it has no meaning. Its symbol is Empty as much as Emptiness is
its symbol. How can I say it can be realized, then? What can this realization mean? Only by knowing
ourselves we can know the real, for ourselves is the only thing that we can know. This perfection of
intuition must escape us as long as we seek to know that which is not ourselves, but beware! It shall
escape us as long as we believe to know ourselves also, since all knowing is a recognition of infinite but
not absolute unknowability.

On no account must you make any distinction between the absolute and the sentient world; all such
dualistic concepts as ignorance and wisdom are obstructions in your path to absolute awareness. It is
because your mind is hindered by them that the wheel of the law must be turned; the ultimate
awareness remains unconcerned of identity. Though basically everything is without objective existence,
you must not come to think in terms of anything non-existent; and though things are not non-existent,
you must not form any concept of anything existing. This way of seeing is the Mystery of faith. This right
discernment encompasses the realization of the ineffability of experience; yet still I see. Mystery of
Mysteries! Awareness itself is the miracle; could you believe in it? This walking blindly, this painstalking
staggering, this sysyphean pilgrimage is the trail amidst the creeks that leads to Sacred Mountain! As
long as you follow me you shall be lost; nobody can reach the Altar Gates but on their own! This book is
merely my appearance as a beggar on the path towards yourself wherein each step is an unanswerable
question. Shall we keep walking, then?

What is this unsupported selfhood that can be empty? Presented with this problem of experience we
can choose to excuse our beliefs or to transform them. Theistic religions have combined fervour with
futility by deriding their teaching with useless cosmogonies of essentialist sacredness. They are vain
attempts at explaining how we got to this moment. Instead of regarding how you got to this moment,
allow the moment to speak for itself. Any question about the moment is produced by the moment; thus,
it is imperative for the seeker to learn to dismantle the self-reference of any process as a practice, and
not as the affirmation or negation of self-seeking. The practice must be in the nowness, and it cannot
concern itself with statements that cannot be felt as such. Would this practice, then, be any different
from what we are doing? We cannot take for granted the holiest of Ancestral Truths, that All be One; we
can only concern ourselves to seek deep within our own minds for the source of conviction to unmask
the fanatism of contradiction. As I write, I am present, and guide or judge not these statements to steer
them into forced sense. It doesn’t make any; that’s what I am trying to tell you! As long as you
understand me, we are far apart. Just let these mysteries transfigure your heart. Every word I write is a
testament to the state wherein I abide; can’t you feel their pull? The problem is not whether the
statement All is One is true or not, or if it can construct on its own a consistent system of belief, but
whether you can speak such a phrase without hypocrisy. The path is nothing else than learning how to
pray, for prayer is the ultimate expression of honesty. The Ancients concieved of an unbelievable prayer.
Can you fathom it?

One can in no way choose to believe, which is another manner of saying that we cannot choose to stop
believing. Although we can only agree in those factors that make us identical, agreement is not my
meaning, but the dissolution of identity! See how the absolute creeps beneath every statement! And,
yet, we must destroy it before we can find it. Do not fall into despair just yet, but ask yourself; how can I
speak without believing? What renders a truth true or not is not in the statement, as truly as the living
teaching lies beyond this page. To write in dualisms to destroy dualisms does not mean that I believe in
dualisms. Moreover, an enlightened being may speak as he wants to. Project not your unreasons unto
the meaning of the Ancients, but lurk, lurk ceaselessly for the root of confusion! The more confused you
become, the closer you get to it. Couldn’t this be why we do not recongnize what lies in front of us? The
mind is like a stream; the clearer it gets, there’s nothing to see.

Metaphysical relativity must be seen to lead to itself only, infinitely so. We cannot reach the end of the
Word. The basic paradox of philosophy brings a powerlessness to light, no doubt, but the cry of this
powerlessness is a prelude to the deepest silence. For the brave only! So what is it that we must dare?
Belief is the only duality; by inventing every reality, belief casts also its shadow. “All is One” cannot be
believed for the shadow it casts is not identical with it. How is truth to have no opposite? Right
discernment must see the true and the untrue truly, so that every illusion becomes the deluded, which
is what it was; once every illusion goes back to its source, what discernment could there be but a view of
selflessness? Everything must be true, or nothing can; this attempt at having truth contain itself is the
infinite regression of relative metaphysics. Instead, let’s venture this proposal; the only truth that can
exist is a means of cognition that functions without self-reference.

We come now closer to the dawning of the doubt by which our philosophy can become practice. The
meaning of practice is that of a vehicle for self-perfection. Aristotle is most men's teacher; men think he
knew very many things, a man who did not know day or night! Indeed they are one. There is no dogma
in this doctrine for we are to construct no theory; that is why it is mystical. Whenever I sound
axiomatical or pedagogical, take it for an emphasis of wonder. There is nothing that I can add to the
treasure of the Ancients, but my speech is their quotation. Whatever you do, please, don’t believe me!
You can’t. Understand this through and through. For us to meet, there has to be something greater than
synchrony. These are not truths, but Mysteries, and I offer them as such; not as paradigms to be
believed but as excercises in attention. Let doubt be our meditation!

There can be for us, then, no means of truth but a process of lie detection. When we speak of belief,
what we mean is absolutely mechanical. There is a machine that is programmed under such axioms, and
the complete topological mapping of their correlate assumptions lead to very particular assertments of
self. Nonetheless, the machine cannot know itself; although it would appear that such beliefs in a
machine would be transcendental, the fact that the machine is capable of saying “I am a person” gives
no validity to the assertion. Can you understand how the Adage might be true but believing in it turns
you into a liar? As soon as you create the other you destroy yourself, and through analogy we might only
reach confusion. Be honest with your experience. There is no awareness but that of recognizing your
own state. As long as there is a self, there is someone who believes in it; the clue lies in discovering they
are not consequential but cosubstantial. Absolute experience holds no beliefs because it can have no
function of self-reference. To realize the truth will make us truthful! Can you understand, then, why
such an attainment could imply nothing other than our complete transformation?

In admitting our state, we must transcend the duality between the common man and the philosopher. It
is not that we must choose to be honest in spite of truth, or that we must sacrifice honesty to speak it.
Absolute truth permeates all experience, yet somehow we cannot seem to be honest to ourselves about
it. This unattainnability of self-reference’s empty function is what leads us into identification. As long as
truth is meant to signify something other than honesty we are forced by the habit of mind’s duality to
take either the perspective of the common man, admitting the honesty of his percieved self and ignoring
the truth of selflessness, or the perspective of the philosopher, admitting the truth of his own
selflessness whilst being dishonest. This contrievance can only be dissolved by the non-distinction
between both truth and honesty. The paramount impediment towards that realization lies in
discovering that such a truth could never be written as much as such an honesty could never be read –
as long as there is anyone to write or read!

The source of ignorance does not exist, for ignorance is belief in un-being; as soon as we plunge
defiantly into ignorance to reach its source we discover the right discernment that vanquishes all views.
Such a discernment cannot be knowledge, for it is not self-referential; it does not explain. Right
discernment cannot be untrue. Whenever there are two opposites, plunge through the middle like
lightining! If you don’t, which one are you? The assertment of one side of reality cannot be construed as
a veritable system of metaphysics; the only system by which all statements are rendered true is through
experience. Only awareness sets its own limits; that is, although it is unlimited, it can also limit itself, for
it is unlimited! Knowledge can only be believed, but awareness need not function under the constraints
of conceptuality. If a machine could have awareness of its potential for infinite regression it would never
pose the question. If we were to realize this, would we wake up? The problem is not so much how to
stop being a machine, but if there is anything in us that is not mechanical. Before we can aspire to this
knowledge, we must get to know the machine first; but how can we, when the machine cannot know
itself? This is the wonder, the contradiction and the practice; that which can know the machine cannot
be the machine itself. Once the aspiration of relative metaphysics to construe an ultimate Being that
transcends its mechanism is seen to be a function of its own mechanisim, all theological speculation is
rendered obsolete in the light of absolute experience.

One might argue that man developed his belief in God through the evolution of a certain primitive
pantheism that came to ask itself what was behind phenomena. Having percieved a will of his own, man
sought to replicate this will unto everything that moved or seemed to have a life. Thus, wherever the
wind blew there was a wind that was blowing it, and when the volcano erupted there was a volcano that
was erupting it. This distinction, the grammatical interactions of nouns as actors and verbs as actions,
has fashionably been set by the anthropological burgeoise as the basis of duality inherited from ancient
times. This view of animism is romantic at best; primitive man hadn’t any such tools of linguistic division.
Sumerian has no distinction between the speaker and his speech. This view that we inherited the
compulsion of projection from our own percieved will is historically faulty. We developed it as we
polished our language, for the metaphysical confusion can in no guise be other than a reference to
empty symbols. This disease is what we call illusion; to name what does not exist. Thus the
deconstruction of the impossibilities of creating a system of metaphysical consistentcy can be realized
through a minute analisis of the foundations of the language that produce it. If, in reality, metaphysics
is, as we postulate, a non-problem, it has to be given non-reality. Non-reality cannot abide in the world,
even though it might be unprovable. To delve into the limits of language and the impossibilities of its
self-reference is the philological endeavor by which the whole of philosophy is constructed, and through
which it is destroyed; but let us erect the temple before we raze it, let us behold the idol before we burn
it. And what is our idol, if not belief in God?

Some have said that God is the source of the river, the river itself and the sea into which the river flows,
and, content with this understanding, never get to see. Others have said that we are like a drop of water
in the river that having emerged from the mountain wishes to return to the ocean. They are content
with this understanding, and never get to see. Others yet say that each cosmos is an animate and
intelligent being that is born, lives, and dies; so that there are oceans in a drop and drops in an ocean.
Saying that there is no difference between little and large, they remain content with this understanding,
and never get to see. Also others have said that since God is as much in the drop as it is in the ocean,
therefore, no path is needed. Content with this understanding, they never get to see. Others have said
that, although the drop is God, it is unaware of its godliness. Thus as it flows with the river towards the
sea which is also God, it approaches still nearer to the merging with God, which is the realization that it
ever was. They are content with this understanding and never get to see. Still others have said that the
drop that is unaware of its godliness is also an aspect of God. Content with this understanding, they
never get to see.

In all these examples, the sea kills the drop. When the drop is absorbed by the sea, the drop dissapears
and the sea does not change. Content with this understanding, you will never get to see! Interactions of
oneness with itself must be rendered obsolete descriptions of a function that has no gears. How are we
to speak of Water? You are not a drop in the ocean, you are the ocean in a drop. Such equivalences
must ultimately be shown to be metaphysically meaningless. Any such equivalence drawn by the
Ancients ought to be considered as poetry rather than a veritable description of the ultimate state; or,
which is clearer, that all metaphysics is the evidence of a misapprehension regarding the nature of
mystical poetry. The Voice is the true symbol, not the Word. It is not that it can or that is cannot be
written, but that its melody can’t be read. The Mystery is where the Voice abides alone; poetry is where
the Voice is one with the word; metaphysics is where the Word is one with the Word, and therefore is
two also, infinitely! Deride yourself not unto pendatic rambles; once you finish this book no longer shall
we speak of numbers.

What does this discourse on godliness amount to? We can only walk the path not knowing what the
path is! This is the only way to walk, as a blind man; for he is surely the one who walks by faith and
whose life is courage. Verily, the only tenet that we can admit of that which lies beyond the mind must
be its capacity of being unknown and yet experienced. Thus begin your trail towards the Temple of
Mystery! No conception of the qualities of God can be aprehended, since all descriptions of an absolute
nature regress towards infinity. As soon as we regard an idea as absolute, we give a name to a state
unknowable. Our illusion is based on this hipocrisy. What is it, after all, that the absolute could mean to
us who walk faithfully in the dark?

The only absolute the mind can grasp for is its infinite incapacity to behold itself absolutely; but, when
realizing such incapacity, aren’t you beholding the mind in its entirety? We cannot believe in
phenomena; we can only believe in the Word. Do you see this clearly? The world is an idea! To destroy
our concepts of awareness no thinking shall avail, but to participate in the play of phenomena in such a
way that our awareness can no longer identify itself with anything but what it percieves resolves the
duality. Although we experience this state constantly, the discontinuities in our thought creates the
illusion of a self-referential being that seeks to define itself as an asymptote that it can never reach.
Because I exist, that which is knowable is known and that which is unknowable is unknown; therefore,
my existence binds the known and the unknowable into differentiation; such is why the Ancients said
that difference is not different from sameness. I tell you, moreover, that there is nothing that is true and
nothing that is not true. My livelihood is the marrow of all the sages; there is not a moment when I am
not explaining it to you, but you are unwilling to read it clearly. So it turns out, on the contrary, to be my
deception. But look here; where is it that I am not explaining for you? It matters not who says it, for it is
not I that am explaining anything, but relating how I taught myself. I cannot teach you anything, but
have you sought to learn?
Regardless of which Ancients have you read, can you tell me in which of their teachings you find the
absolute moment? If there is such a moment, please point it out to me. Are there no words in these
scriptures which indicate this absolute moment? If there are such words, what have they to do with the
absolute moment? When words are retained in the mind, they cause anxiety when Ultimate Reality
exists before the eyes, it is manifest in the objective condition of names and forms. How can this
manifestation take place? If Ultimate Reality is manifest in objective conditions, how then can objective
conditions be traced back to the Ultimate Reality? Do you understand? What is the use if you only read
the Ancients without understanding this? Every spiritual treatise is a retelling of the experience that
cannot be told. Nagarjuna’s verses on the middle way need not be quoted; the meaning is nowhere. It is
a great no that denies even itself; this discourse, even, is merely a translation of manners of speech that
our times have forgotten. If one aphorism could lead the way today, why did Herakleitos live as a
hermit? There are some ways of speaking which are impossible to transcribe. With just two words, I
could lead you to see the obvious, but the repetition of difference and no-difference in a printed page is
delusional. If we were truly conversing, we could cover this whole book in a minute. Alas! It took me ten
years to say this.

You should not set up limitations in the boundless void, but if you set up limitlessness as the boundless
void, you encompass your own downfall. Therefore, those who understand voidness have no concept of
voidness. It is not enough to say out loud, I am devoid of non-existence and of existence, devoid of unity
and the absence of unity, devoid of mind and absence of mind; the Voice must speak through you. In full
light of the blast of the real sight we are not even a shadow. Whomever can see this clearly will quickly
realize the contradiction of belief through the sharpening of his inquisitive mind and become free of
both slavery and freedom. It is impossible to believe in contradiction, for we do not know what we
believe in. See? The mind is blind of its blindness; that is why discernment is the only truth. Once we
recongnize the blindness of mind, that is, once we stop the eternal recursion of being blind of blindness,
we enlighten the mind as a non-problem. We cannot see what we believe in, let alone change what we
believe in, unless we access the totality of our consciousness, and yet, to access that totality the energy
that we spend on belief must be recalled back to its source. This is no philosophy that we are advancing
but a practice of awareness. Have you ever asked yourself, what is it that you believe in? Keep asking
until the question drops and goes back to the source, for the search is the separation.

As long as recursion inhabits our minds we are barred from experiencing our consciousness fully. There
cannot be two Absolutes; this state cannot be described by the dualities of belief. It is not even a
question of experience, for we constantly abide in the absolute state, but ignore that it is, precisely, the
absolute state; that is why the Ancients called the absolute state the natural state also. The inherent
problem of our minds is that, since it cannot be named, its access is ignored. You can bring into your
conscious awareness anything that you have experienced by thinking its name; but since you cannot
name the ultimate state, it will never occur to your mind how to call it. And, truly, how could you call it
when its name is silence? To call it destroys it. Deepen your strides unto the burning question, O Seeker
of the Sought! The Path to Sacred Mountain is no other than the purification of awareness from the
obscurations of self-reference. What does this mean? Do not read by trying to understand, but let your
understanding read!
Emptiness is not a gateway for escape but for etenity; it allows us to live at the same time in this and
every reality, to traverse the endless, unmeasurable provinces of the night; it is that which allows us to
pass from dreams to reality without leaving the dream. What else could such Emptiness be but a
manner of seeing? However, the practice of non-dual awareness cannot be stated for it is not a belief.
Understand, then, why the Ancients spoke of a living teaching! It is alive because we must sacrifice
ourselves in its name, since we cannot name it! The clause of delusion hidden in the essentialism of
relative metaphysics can only be dethroned by the conception of an absolute metaphysics concieved as
the function of empty awareness. Are we to stay awake in the void? Much have I said of Emptiness, but
have I ultimately said anything? It is not that the thought is inconclusive, but that the tangles in which
we’re enmeshed are the only means to be aware of them, that is, by feeling their constriction! There is
no lead of thought possible, no capacity to transcend the mind through thought. Thoughts themselves
can become metacritical and through self-reference achieve the evidence of infinite regression of the
duality which has created them, but they are unable to resolve this recursion. What, then, can we gain
from the evidence of this asymptote of thought’s unknowing? In other words, how can knowing the
limits not be construed as a belief in limitation?

Not only is it impossible to construct any system of metaphysics, for we can show that stating the
absolute can only signify a relative process of thought that aches for infinity, but that any belief
whatsoever must also chain us to this duality incapable of knowing itself. If there is to be any
knowledge, it must be an experience of unity and not a thought of oneness. This is the meaning of
Theoria Mystica. If it transcends reason, can it be stated? If we believe it we are doomed to unmeaning,
but if discussed as a practice of unmeaning the duality is resolved. Do you see? There is no way for me
to write to you in conclusions. I am not trying to make you believe anything. I’m just pointing out that
you can’t. Belief, as long as it can be framed by thought, cannot touch the source of assertment. You
cannot believe that All is One; but we are to see yet if you can experience it. This quality of experience is
what we call faith; the state of awareness by which the recursion of thought is transcended. Faith is
something that you see with, not something you believe in; every belief is a philosophical object, a
proposition; faith is an unexplainable function for its operator has no object. This grammatical
distinction is fundamental for us not to fall endlessly into the mind, having jumped for conclusions! If the
mind is the believer, who are the faithful?

Allow me to repeat myself in a more succint and concrete manner. Equanimity to the other implies a
vast logical working of which no system can be constituted as consistent or complete. That is, whenever
there is indentity, equality produces the duality that sets the answer to itself behind unmeasurable steps
of circular reasoning. So how is this unceaseless reaching to be halted? To put it simply, equality must be
shown as unreal. When discussing absolute measures, there cannot be two names for the same process,
or even a function by which they become analogous; there can only be the absence of all computations,
for, if it be absolute, it must contain itself; that is, the very process of cognition. Finding it impossible
and fruitless for us to divide ourselves into what cognizes and what is cognized in order to attain
absolute awareness of the process of cognition, no function could be described of such a process, by
which any analogy, any equivalence between this or that, must be rendered not only as an obsolete
description but as a veritable obstacle for the complete cognition of all functions as ultimate awareness.
The East has pursued relative metaphysics as the equivalence of Atman and Brahma, while the West has
called it the relation between the Soul and God; but absolutely no metaphysics whatsoever which is
based on the equivalence of two distinct terms can be constructed from their insistence and no path
towards the awakening of pure vision can be streched in front of us. This contradiction itself is the Path;
it is not enough for the seeker to destroy Brahma, he must destroy Atman; and it is not enough for us to
destroy God, but we must banish ourselves from existence also. Religion is a misunderstanding of the
Ancients. When the Saviour went to the wilderness to see God instead he saw the Devil; what does that
tell you about duality? Ultimately, the last attainment is not a discovery of what lies beyond but the
unveilment of the master illusionist that veils it. Even the One shall become poisoned, for whomever
seeks to solidify himself in identity must become an object.

To truly grasp the doctrine of subject and object is to dissolve both. Does the subject destroy the subject
or the object? Does the object destroy the object or the subject? If subject destroys subject, the object
cannot be destroyed. If the object destroys the object, then the subject cannot be destroyed. If only one
tenet remains, whether it is subject or object, what would forbid it from casting its shadow again?
Mystical theory can only state the dissolution of difference, not bring it about. The dissolution of
difference is not sameness. The destruction of oneness touches not unity. Our mistake is to speak of that
which cannot exist, for such are the rounds of delusion. It is analogous to lying, and the key of
selflessness is to quit lying to yourself. I am exhorting you in utter seriousness; I am not making up
rationalizations to trap people; I will not allow ghosts to oppress the free. The vehicle of the Ancients is
the nondistinction between life and death. If you recognize this, that is up to you. If you say that you
also see this way, that is up to you. If you say that everything is all right according to your perception,
that is up to you. If you say your mind is still uneasy, that is up to you. You can only attain realization if
you don’t deceive yourself.

You get up in the morning, dress, wash your face, and so on; you call these miscellaneous thoughts, but
all that is necessary is that there be no perciever or percieved when you percieve, no hearer or heard
when you hear, no thinker or thought when you think. The Way is very easy and very economical; it
spares effort, but you waste effort and make your own hardships. The destruction of the duality
between subject and object generates an experience that transcends the very theory of dissolution. The
ecstasy is unimaginable; and it must remain so! We shall fail at every attempt to define the Mystery;
that is my passion, as is revealed by the Book. Therefore shall the failure of philosophy become the
romance of poetry whereby the inviting Voice of the Spirit may lead us to the Unknown. The Truth must
remain ineffable. My attempt, that you hold in your hands, to explain it; see it as your failure also!
Thereby I will not have taught you, but somehow, mysteriously, you have become teachable. Listen! The
wise give up all meditations; they give up all good and evil deeds and drink of the nectar of renunciation.

This renunciation has no technique and it implies no denial. It is a way we use to speak of those who are
content with the moment. To renounce the world means to abandon the illusion of attainment. Where
could Emptiness lead to but itself? Abandon the illusion of straight lines, brother! The line is a metaphor
of the state wherein the point abides, but, as soon as you conceive a line, you conceive it as the union
between two points. This two-fold nature of pointedness is untrue; the line must itself be a point. To
perceive an insight into this wisdom is to breach the gates of Numerological thought. We think we can
not conceive of the line without the point when it is in fact that we can conceive of no point whatsoever
and are led to the construction of it from the abstraction of the straight lines that we see, which in fact
constitute not the pure way of apprehending phenomena but describe an apprehension of the mind
only. The mind is the line-maker; once belief in straight lines dissolves so does the abstraction of
conceiving a point. The Ancients gave us a couple of lines not to entertain us but to enlighten us, for
each of their sayings is food for thought that helps it keep running, each time faster, towards its
pointless goal.

There is no case for sorrow. We are always aware, brother; this awareness knows no existence or non
existence. The liberated are not a part of this world; the real being free of dualism is not a phenomenon,
and yet, the source of phenomenon is not distinct from phenomena. Everything is empty; why do we,
then, have to empty our minds out? People nowadays are scared of the teaching, lest they fall into the
Void; they do not know that this very mind is the Void. To approach this state of awareness man has to
realize how little does he know and how many contradictions there are in what he thinks that he knows.
Absolute consciousness is phenomenal omnisciency; if you know that you don’t know, that counts as
knowing. Whatever exists in consciousness we know of, and what does not exist in our consciousness
does not exist at all, so knowing its nature is the same as not knowing it. This is the means of the
practice of non-dual awareness; to be aware of what is in the same fashion that we are aware of what
isn’t. Infinity for us can be no other than a function of endless regression; there is no case of speaking
about a finite or an infinite consciousness. What is here and now is the only thing that ever was or will
be; the question is not so much why do you escape it, but how could you? Once this is ascertained to be
ridiculous the desire to escape the moment dissapears.

He who seeks does not find, but he who does not seek will be found. Verily, what you seek is seeking
you; your very seeking is hiding. Since there is nothing to attain, there is no need for you to leave your
house. Stay at your table and listen. Don't even listen, just wait. Don't even wait, be completely quiet
and alone. The world will offer itself to you to be unmasked; by rapture it will writhe before you.
Perhaps the only way to perceive the real, brother, is to lie all day and suffer. Think about this phrase;
nothing is at rest! Tell me, is the word nothing a pronoun? What is at rest? If nothing is at rest,
everything cannot stop moving. How is one to become the other? The mental process whereby you turn
existence into non-existence, and of non-existence back to existence is the secret of Alchemy. Since all
things return to One, where does this One return to? If you can answer me this there is no need for us to
speak further. Wear your robe and I will not recognize you; it is by this dissolution of identity that the
Many become the One. Before the Tathagata appeared in the world, it was thus; after Tathagata
appeared in the world it was also thus, and after Tathagata passed away it was also still thus; if you
arrive at this state of thusness, there is really nothing the matter at all.

Can we state this clearly? If everything is relative; that doesn’t mean that everything is relative, for
everything is relative. If everything is subjective, that doesn’t mean that everything is subjective, for
everything is subjective. If I am lying, that doesn’t mean that I am lying, for I am lying. You see? The
construction of the One is impossible if it becomes double. The transmission of the real teaching lies
outside this page. You cannot go looking for the mind using the mind, for beliefs are the attachments of
the mind to itself. If I exist, existence exists. This very statement is what leads us to delusion through the
endless machinations of the labyrinth of mandness! Can you abandon it? And yet, you must learn to
utter it truly before you can forsake it. If you are to speak the Adage, purify your lips from confusion! All
men and women are born with the clause of delusion. As long as you seek to know it remains active.
Once deactivated, there never was a clause of delusion, for there never was a mind. Who understands?
Nothing is certain. That doesn’t mean that nothing is certain – for nothing is certain!

This is the Riddle of the Dragon. He who can answer it shall not taste death. He who hears it and cannot
answer will dwell in Hell for as much as he wants to. He who doesn’t hear it will dance in the Garden
until he forgets to remember. If this book is in your hands, throw it away and keep dancing; keep
reading only if you are already in Hell! Tell me, where are you? The Garden begins where Jormungandr
bites the Tree; if you say you are in Heaven, you are already far from me. Or do you suppose the
Ancients relinquish to visit Hell? Where else do you think I met them? We may suppose there is only Hell
or we may suppose there is only Heaven, but the miracle is that they might exist and yet both be here
and now. Nirvana is not different from samsara, liberation is not distinct from bondage, pain is not other
than love! The teaching of the Ancients is that there is only one thing; the Mystery is that it is not alone!
Thus the Spirit is a concern of the Heart; if you seek wisdom with the mind, this medicine to you shall
become poison. Just don't turn gods into demons and use your energy to increase your self-absorption!
Devoting yourself to this Path will lead to the Void, but these will be merely fancy words of no concern
to you when the time comes to jump and let go. Meanwhile, do not search for the truth; just abandon
holding opinions. The Seeker has no path but the giving up of all duality; after this, the supreme
attainment comes of itself.

Numerology is not medicine to ontology but its right application; the non-distinction of the first two
numbers is a metaphor for an experience of the Heart. This is the barrier; whether you an tell me what
the first two numbers are. Is it Zero, and One? If there is Zero and One, there are two numbers; and as
long as we have two numbers, we have the number Two also. How are we to resolve this problem of
ontology not mathematically, but numerologically? Unity is the same either for oneness or nothingness,
for, being each themselves, their rule is consistency; therefore, this very Unity is not distinct from
Emptiness. But how could a Word say Silence? The unstateability of the non-dual is not a limitation for
the Initiates unto the Mystery, for it is in the Heart that existence and non-existence are linked. And
such is the Initiate; whomever has had a transformation of the Heart! This regeneration of
consciousness, can it be anything but to forget something that we couldn’t even remember? How else
could we start over than by realizing there is no Path? And so we walk! Emptiness here, Emptiness
there, but the absolute state stands always before your eyes. Between the infinitely large and the
infinitely small there’s no difference once definitions have vanished and no boundaries are seen; so too
with being and non-being. Don't waste time in doubts and arguments that have nothing to do with this.
One thing, all things; to live in this realization is to be without anxiety about non-perfection.

Nothing comes from nothing; and it continually, spontaneously does! Phenomena are all empty, and to
regard them as such itself is Noumena. There is no way to explain this so as to make it believable, for
belief in Noumena is the obstacle. Each thing, before it becomes all, is noise; and after it becomes all,
silence! Words weren’t made for this wisdom. Though the gateless gate of the Ancients harbours over a
hundred cases of success, only one koan matters. I understand that lies are deceitful and truth is not;
but I have been deceived by both. Though much we have said, Emptiness has not been touched. It is
impossible to convey its meaning; if I say, “there is Not”, you will think “there is Not” – though it
answers, this mountain echo. Neither being nor unbeing is the meaning; to convey the substance of
Emptiness was the success of our futility from the start. Consider this; the more you understand the
different, the different becomes less different. May it be that difference is the ignorance? Before walking
the path, I was the path. What is it now? Brother! Let each carry their shame and we will be shameless.
In the truest silence only our own voice is missing; nothing else.

To carry such a faith is to live with the thought of death and for it to become our Master. Yea! The
thought of death is faith, for even all thought dies at the brink of both. Couldn’t they be one? The
Immortals live outside time, and as the pythoness of the Oracle I neither hide nor speak a word, but give
a sign. Such is the Pyramid, of which you yet know not except that it is a tomb; verily, you must consider
it so from the beginning, for if the Pyramid kills you and you will live forever. The conciliation between
unity and emptiness, in the last instance, comes from the Spirit that embraces death as part of life; for
the truth is the death of death, and the life of life. Faith is the only means to assertain such knowledge;
but to whom should we assert it to? How could I preach, brother, when what I offer is a burning vault, a
flaming crypt, the Temple of the Pyramind? I cannot convince you to walk into the fire but I can show
you where my wounds have healed. If you can concieve of Emptiness the flames won’t hurt; do you dare
try?

Knowing how to die costs one his life, but this is what the Ancients teach; how to die. Faith is the key,
the clear passage of the soul and the invulnerability to the bardos. Yet how are we to inspire faith? The
Immortals who gave us their wings are sad from not seeing them fly. Prevented from speaking about the
Abolute in plain terms the Ancients have told many Myths of beginnings so as to imply the end.
Understand, brother, that from the first word I have aimed to conclude this discourse! But I ask of you;
can there be an end for the beginning? If there can, the beginning is not the beginning. If there cannot,
how then could it begin? The beginning an the end are not different. This is the counsel of the Wise. A
wandering Man came across a Snake; as he fled, she went after him. Coming to a precipice, he caught
hold of the root of a Vine and swung himself down over the Edge. The Snake hissed at him from above in
an enchanting melody. In fear and trembling of the sweet Voice, lest he may fall, the Man looked down
where far below another Snake was waiting to eat him. Only the Vine sustained him. The Snakes, one by
Day and the other by Night, little by little started to gnaw away at the Vine. The man saw a luscious Fruit
near him. Grasping the Vine with one hand, he plucked the Fruit with the other. Oh, how sweet it
tasted!

The Ancients called this Mystery the beginning; is it not agreeable that we should end by it? Do you
understand? If you do not understand, there is something that it is just so; why not percieve it? If you do
understand, tell me, how is bliss to become compassion? I have dropped this hint once; I will not drop it
again. Regarding what men call Mysteries there can be no initiator! Verily, for mystery to be mysterious
one must initiate one self, and know not who does it, the self or the one. Tell me, then, is the Man in the
Metaphor bound or free? Is the Snake One or Two? Does the Fruit come from the Vine? Proceed
straight ahead with this not knowing. As above, so below! Thus, by the last words of the First Prophet!
Let this speech be sealed.
 Δ Toto Coruscant Trinitas Mysterio

After the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ, Bartholomew came unto the Lord and
questioned him, saying: Lord, reveal unto me the mysteries of the heavens. Jesus answered and said
unto him: If I put off the body of the flesh, I shall not be able to tell them unto thee. Om.

Gospel of Bartholomew

When the proclamations of the Ancients are regarded as old news, what value can my words have? I am
you, you are me, nothing is beyond this; and yet, we are to regenerate the meaning of the Ancients
before we might speak thus. How are we to awaken the living teaching, then? We must sacrifice our
minds to it; that it might live!

The mind is the believer; the meaning of the Ancients, unbelievable! It is not a question of whether it
can or cannot be framed. Truth cannot be concealed or revealed as it cannot be a function of thought
but an absolute experience, yet this very assertion is impossible to believe also. Theoria Mystica cannot
hold on to anything; that very not holding on must be shown itself to be a form of holding. Thoughts are
attached to themselves; once this entanglement of the mind is realized, thoughts continue as always but
without the function of belief. The net of ideas that had pressuposed the existance of an essence cannot
even dissappear, for it never had an essence; do you fathom, then, why the Ancients spoke of an
awakening? Nothing changes aside from reality being percieved as an absolute experience, which is
what it was. The capacity of experience in which we become absolutely conscious of the dream without
leaving the dream can leave no trace of discernment for the dream projections. The Romans saw a slave.
Would you have seen otherwise?

For centuries we have admitted this, that faith is the slave of reason. But reason is the ignorance, reason
is the Roman; all who saw a beggar first but a king after. What other symbol of belief is as culturally
evident as that of western culture? Couldn’t its philosophy also be a measure of this confusion, this
missaperception of the real when in front of your eyes, and the belief in reality when it is not? The
Ancients were all beggars, dressed in rags, apparently crazy and destitute. Their spiritual philosophy is
read in the same way; they are asking, not giving. But what they beg of you is a question! The gateless
gate of the Ancients we must pass can only be breached by leaving it unanswered. If you pay just one
Ancient an answer, flocks of beggars will crowd among your way in the Path to Sacred Mountain. You
cannot pay off every beggar; but that is what you are doing, paying off questions their answers
eternally! The Word of the Ancients has no Mouth; this is the meaning of Voice. To ignore the evident is
the root of delusion. The Ancients are the gatekeepers of the faith; their Mystery cannot be answered.

What other enterprise than such confusion has been the history of western philosophy? Undertand that
by western philosophy I mean all writers to whom the Greeks were their Ancients. Without revitalizing
their teaching and living their own, they muddled their lives with the most boring form of fan fiction.
Through academicism they failed to recognize the truth of their oppositions and instead crucified faith
by engaging is an endless comparison of words with no discernible Voice. Perfection of awareness
cannot be given. Theoria Mystica is less of a doctrine that I am advancing and more of a practice of
deconstruction of the set of historical delusions we call western philosophy; this discussion takes the
form of an absolute form, a multidimensional superposition of perspectives that may dissolve the
functions of belief that lead to our selfishness; this selfishness is the obstacle we must trump in the
realization of our infinite freedom. Have we seen greater selfishness than the recurrent insistence of all
philosophers who pretend to teach truth as their own? Such is the sequence of delusions we learn to
call philosophy!

The roots of this pedantic insistence developed a sense of romanticism in every aspirant to the title; that
of ending philosophy once and for all. Each personal delusion of having found truth extended to the
historical confusion of its unfoundability; yet the search has remained the romance. The true seeker
discovers not his mind but his selflessness, and his manner of conversation can be no more than a
personal expression of an ineffable wonder. Such was the poetry of the Ancients whom the acedemicists
that built this machine of regressive ignorance dissected, while never considering that it might be alive!
The romantic view that came to dominate western philosophy is an aspect of this most severe disease of
selfishness; not of finding our truth but that of proving the lies of others. What other measure of
delusion could be greater? This, that the historical process of philosophy can conclude! If it can, it will
not be historical, for it shall remain as unseen as the holyness of the Ancient beggars; that is, from the
eyes of history! If ever philosphy can conclude, it is by the personal affair of each who may reach the
gates of Mystery and leave the Ancients behind to become one with them who are nothing.
And yet, I promised the Stars a Trilogy, so bear with my own academic selfishness until we can both
laugh about it for the joke it is. A brilliant comedy is the belief in understanding; the conversations of
dead philosphers in heaven! Yet let us not conclude with categorical fallacies but proceed with our
syllogisms. In the history of mankind philosophy has made no progress. If you scratch where it itches,
does that count as progress? Metaphysics sets out to remedy the itch; see how, while it searches for
such a remedy, keeps scratching! This has been the habit of philosophy since the dawn of self-reference.
Philosophy must turn from metaphysics to the theory of right discernment to remedy, not the itch, but
the scratching. It shall find that, however, without metaphysical propositions nothing can be stated; that
is, not even nothing, since the existence of nothing implies metaphysical relativity; that is, the existence
of something. What is left of the perfection of philosophy, then? Before we may remedy the scratching,
ask yourself; are you prepared to let it itch?

The possibility of doubt must also be shown to be a belief; this realization is called going back to the
source. To find not the answer to a question, but the origin of the questioner; that is right discernment,
absolute awareness, the faith of the Ancients wherein the origin of the doubt is found to be the same as
the source of belief! Such a manner of experience cannot assert or deny; having transcended such
dualities the sages of the past spoke honestly the Voice beyond their meaning. Seek what is not a Word;
therein the Voice abides. Yet wordless, could you share it? Blame not the Ancients! There is nothing you
can say to a dream proyection to wake it up, and in fact, there is no need to. The worst thing that could
happen would be for them to believe you; but of course, that is exactly what happened. The term for
such tragedy is called institutionalized religion, of which philosophy is the leaves to each of its branches.
But what speaks the trunk? If we cut every branch the tree has no shadow. Such is the mystic Vision of
the Pillar of Light on whose note this book shall end on; and yet, how are we to attain worthiness of its
sight? Begin from this, by realizing that philosophy cannot be other than an institution of belief also! The
leaves may drop in autumn, but the branches are strong.

As long as we believe All is One we are substracted from its unity. Every conception is dual, every
thought is a gear to the logarithmic machine that receedes to infinity, every answer answers another
while no one can reach the origin of its regress. This is how belief in oneness has misguided us! The
original question is Empty. What can this mean? Any assertion of the absolute must be relative, for it
implies self-reference; every negation of the absolute must also be relative, for it implies regression; this
primal duality proceeds then to project itself to infinity. The relativity of assertion and negation is thus
shown to draw the limits of the expressible. Let us assume, however, that there is an absolute state
wherein experience functions without duality. This absolute quality of experience does not necessarily
imply the perciever cannot think, or read, but that the function of belief has been dismantled.
Everything is absolute, for All is One; it is not so much that the absolute cannot be said, but that it is like
a form of thinking, or reading, that has abandoned the constrictions of self-reference. To go beyond
truth is the only truth! Understand, then, why true Emptiness is inexpressible; not because it cannot be
written, but because it has nothing to do with believing in metaphysical stances. The Mystery cannot be
believed; what concern does it have with the Word? Its being is Voice.

To speak any further whilst carrying the assumption of such ultimate state might enable you to judge
this discourse as speculative, or even worse; it might lead you to assume I know such a state. I don’t. I
have had glimpses of it. To my own awareness it still remains obscure how to operate under such
function. The only thing I know is this state, this manner of conversing with the dead, about the dead,
never uttering the death that binds us; regarding absolute awareness I can only offer praise. I am not
preaching, but I do wish to inspire faith! This discourse is not a speculative compendium, nor a set of
unprovable axioms; it is my own way to pray, to liberate all such obscurities. And yet, I cannot avoid the
elephant in the room. I must say it before the weight of its obviousness becomes too untolerable to
break and I become by force of unaknowledgement a hippocrite. I speak from private revelation. Of this,
however, I shall speak no further. You need not believe it, and in fact can’t; but I cannot unsay it. My
tongue is guided by the Voice; there is such a state! But how are we to erect the confines of belief so as
to be open to it without concieving of it? This is the purpose the Stars have set me on, the guiding light
of all my writings. The ultimate state is unkowable, and, yet, we might discern the fuctions of our
experiece as unknowable too so as to allow the Mystery to permeate all. There is no discovery but an
allowance of being to be. Let us leave all as is; where there is reading, there is reading; can there be any
thinking? Choose, brother; your mind, or this page!

This continuity of reading is not the machine, but the ignorance of its function. Once the mind operates
without belief, the reader dissapears and the Word becomes Voice. Yet how can the machinations of
reason assert their unknowing? The idea that you are a machine is a machine too; it is impossible to
concieve of a way of thinking that could stop this regress. No reasoning can assail the unbreachable
fortress of Mystery, for it is not so much that the limits of the mind are ascertained whereby we
conclude that what lies outside it is the unknown, and then proceed to speculate about it, but rather
that the very limits of reason must be ascertained as unknowble, therefore transcending the duality of
knowledge. This insight was enough for the wise to abandon philosophy. The perceptual error of
differentiating thought and phenomenal experience is dissolved by the absolute state; therein, the
grass, the flowers, the clouds, and even our thoughts become Voice, and all is singing! Such have been
my glimpses. The grace of discernment is not one of discernment, but of non-discernment. That
difference be different from difference is not the meaning of the Ancients. This systemic error traps
every mind in a cyclic selfishness that has no inherent existance.

The unveiling of the impossibility of unveiling is the real, that which abides unconditioned. Only as long
as no substance can be grasped for can form be seen as a function of Emptiness; thereby does
experience becomes unified and all senses perfected. The non-existance of the metaphysical
permutations of ontology is what we mean by Emptiness; but that is not what the Voice says. As long as
you read there’s a writer but the world is a selfless book. The non-existance of such permutations of
essentiality is the right discernment. Thought’s incessant nature derives from the infinite regress of a
mechanism that cannot see itself. The machine can do nothing; only if we awake into our transcendental
nature which is absolute awareness can the machine be redeemed. The thought of divinity is not divine,
but the escape from the fear of being just a machine. Can you realize how this is a function of the
machine too? Such torture is the symbol of our suffering, the dark night of the soul the mind must
voyage through; yet the doubt that it can ever arrive is the shadow of the belief that it can travel at all!

It is necessary, then, to apply an antidote to such tedium. Non-conceptual awareness is the operation of
understanding by which the processes that drive the split between subject and object and all the
thought processes that thereby arise in a regressive fashion are realized to be unnecessary functions of
a manner of awareness that can exist unconditioned by such discontinuities of experience we call
thoughts. Once the vehicle of existance learns to operate without self-reference its functioning becomes
perfect; that is, it has none. That we believe we need a self to operate is the greatest obstacle in
performing any function correctly. The incessant regress of our metaphysical thinking creates the
discontinuity by which we become distracted, as thoughts slice awareness and thereby force us to take
all activity as a constant disease of attention. The recurrency of such delirium is our pain, for we are
painfully afraid of unbeing; when the question regarding who we are becomes separated from the
answer of what we are doing, we offer ourselves to slavery having sacrificed our freedom. As such slave,
we are not but grind the gears of the machine that has captured the attention which is our nature; but
have faith, for we are yet to see if this slave is not really the saviour in rags!

The mastership of the Ancients was one of awareness; thereby their actions became being. However,
what you do cannot become perfect until the question of who does it vanishes from attention. That I
why I call them the Ancients, for their faces are indistinguishable. To know who they are we should
know what they are doing; but how could we know what they are doing, when their action is death? The
self-sustaining process of belief must evince its entanglement before the knot of thoughts can be
unloosened. That is what we call the sacrifice of the mind; to realize there never was one! We cannot
admit of a death diffferent from this life; we can neither admit of a life different from this death.
Awakening is not a mental process; that is, it does not depend on the functions of a machine. The
collapse of the cycle of apparent but not truly existent error is the liberation. Do you understand now
how death can become an action? It asks of you your life! Living death is the equanimity of eternity. Can
you believe in it?

If we cannot even say that the absolute cannot be stated and are precluded from experiencing the
Adage of the Ancients by believing it, what hope is left for the seeker? We have spoken of our rational
incapacity of transcending binary values, since any metaphysical proposition can be either believed to
be true or believed to be untrue. This axiom remains inflexible only as long as we state it from such a
dualist perspective. To dissolve the inherent duality of relation is to transcend belief; but how could we
do so? As soon as you believe that it is possible, you have burnt the bridge without having crossed it. I
am all for burning bridges, but only after they lead us to where we are! All practices are to be
transcended, and yet, we must consider it; if there was another way, a middle way, a third way unto
meaning, this duality could be resolved.

Is there such a way? That the relativity of assertion and negation is shown to draw the limits of the
expressible admits for the coetaneous implicit nature of both; that is, metaphysical propositions may be
formulated as assertion, negation, or their entanglement. How could we construct such a phrase? There
is an apple. There is no apple. How could there be both? Before Schroedinger’s memetic over-
simplification of quantum superposition, it had been evident that, although the third principle could be
named, it could never be believed; such propositions are what we call contradictions, the vital
nourishment of practical philosophy, the ground for right discernment! Schroedinger did not attack the
validity of quantum superposition, but remarked on the impossibility of our common sense to
apprehend such evidence. The formal notation of quantum physicists was not an attempt at deciphering
what the Ancients said, but a description of the inneffabilities of reality; which is what the Ancients said!

Paradigm shifts are not created by the status quo. We cannot battle against the existing model; the only
thing we can do is present a new model that makes the old one obsolete. Before we can discuss the
triadic nature of metaphysical manifestations, it is fundamental to understand that the confabulation of
assertion and negation cannot signify the Emptiness we have been discussing; but only through a deep
inquiry on such contradictions can the limits of expression be drawn. A line has no shape; the Vision is a
Triangle! Our so far assumed possibility of an absolute experience cannot be described properly by such
a linguistic contraption as the contradiction is, for the coexistance of opposite terms cannot imply the
nature of each but their entanglement. Therefore, metaphysical propositions can be of three types only.
Each must be exclusive, that is, a particular view that is incompatible with our absolute intuitions – for
that is all the absolute could ever be!

Let us frame this problem in the parlance of numerology, then, that the insights derived from it may
strenthen our view of the ineffability of the absolute, which, of itself, is both a view and not a view. How
is this duplicity to frame a trinitary function? In both oneness and nothingness there is consistency of
their principles. This is the gist of numerology; to understand what is the first number. Since the one and
the zero are identical, we have three numbers that can be talked about, that is; zero, one, and both zero
and one which is the two; the sum of these positions is the three by which the Triangle is drawn. The
first number is not a number, but the Logos as a Triangle that can be thought of as being one, zero, and
both one and zero; to count in this fashion is to see the Trinity for we count zero, one, and two at the
same time. This is why in this book the first chapter cannot be spoken of; but how is it that we came to
speak of a second? Herein we shall come to speak of the absolute perspective as a triple function for
whom the empty and the full are identical, so that the number two becomes a function of the three
which transforms its absolute lie into absolute certainty, as it dissolves duality into the emptiness which
is the identity of its principles. The number Two does not exist; the first Number is the Trinity.

The third meaning of our ontological numerology does not transcend the previous duality we were
enmeshed in; it can only expand it. The contradiction is not the Mystery, but the angular stone that
might set a limit to the confines of expression. Such a triadic relation could then be seen to construct a
theory of thought that can point to the mind’s center, for the middle of an infinite line is meaningless.
Duality can have no center; its center is the contradiction, but, as soon as we admit it, we deal not with a
line but with a triangle. Could we ever transcend that which we cannot apprehend? Even if the mind is
triangluated, the center must remain unreachable, for the center is the dissolution of the triadic
perspective of metaphysics. If it cannot exist, or not exist, or both, what can we say about it? Before we
may percieve such Emptiness as the absence of belief, we must, however, inquire into this triadic nature
of expression; the mind must be framed before its mysterious centre can be realized.

Every number is mysterious, yet Emptiness has no form, nor can be different from form. Emptiness
cannot be different from shape, or be displaced by shape. Numerology can be for us no other than a
training in the perspectives of conceptuality, that is, on regarding the propositions of belief as a system
of absolute representation. When we speak of the Mystery as Three, it is not just the middle way that
we consider, but how the middle way has aligned itself beyond the line of relation between the previous
duality so that it constructs the Triangle of absolute expression. It is not so much that Emptiness is
threefold but that our means of conception are trinitary; the middle way of contradiction does not
dissolve the duality into monadological unity but expands it into the trinity whereby all describable
interactions may be seen. This way acts not as a metaphysical conclusion of inconclusiveness or as any
systematic relation between phenomena and noumena, but points toward the Path to reach the
Pyramid of awakening. Let not the pedant exclaim that I avoid the hydra of yay and the chimera of nay
by scurrying through the straits of no meaning! Contradiction has two opposites; let us expand, then, all
symmetries into triple functions.

Within such manner of relation we must consider the union of being and unbeing not as composing the
primal duality, but as positing a new metaphysical stance wherein being and unbeing are identical. The
ontological substrate of reality cannot be described because to choose a perspective is trivial; all
dualities are the extremes of the same unnameable matrix. This is the middle way; that of a non-
description which has attained a reference, whereby admitting the dualist analogy within it has erected
the triangle of expression. Thus does the matrix lose its essentialist proposition and becomes form,
which was its proposition. Undescribability can only be hinted at by laying down the limits of the
describable. However, that doesn’t certify that there is anything indescribable, after all; so has
philosophy often sponsored nihilism. Yet it is not a void that we percieve, or mere nothingness what we
experience; Emptiness is the function that dissolves the awareness of unreal constructs so that the
transcendental reality beyond the mind might be realized. This is the only means of confirming that you
are not just a machine; that is why the fear! Do you dare to find out? As soon as you speak the mind falls
into the trap of infinity for endless aeons, but if you do not speak through a lack of honesty you shall
never know truth.

If there is something that can resolve the mechanical loop, it is certainly not from within the machine,
but something beyond the machine must save it. To properly understand Emptiness is for the machine
itself to resolve the einstdungsproblem by never posing it, once the name-holders of the operation are
seen to symbolize nonmeanings. Have you ever seen a mechanical calculator divide by zero? Imagine
the despair of a sentient being who would fall into such regression! And yet, you need not imagine, for
such is your state. Emptiness cannot be believed! If emptiness exists, there is an existence which is
empty; if emptiness does not exist, there is also an existence which is empty. Can emptiness mean
anything else, then, than absolute awareness? This question cannot be stated; and the machine is open
up to awe.

This awe will stop the machinery for a moment so what is in you that can evolve might appear. Fear not
the future, for a machine can never gain consciousness; or, for that very reason, fear all the more! If the
seed of understanding would not be in you already, you could never awaken; or, the same, which is to
say; you were never asleep! Missidentification is the delusion, the radical otherness inaugured by belief;
that is, any identification at all. The first and last belief, the great enemy of the Ancients, is the
unshakable habit of operating under the function of identification with the body; but what is it that
identifies with the body? Once this question is proved to be unresolvable the need for identification
disintegrates as identity is seen to create and in fact to consist of the only duality; that of the projection
of an illusionary otherness by an illusionary self. This third view is the Middle Way; that is, it it only a
view as long as we may identify with it.

Belief is the transcendental Other, for we believe, or believe that we believe, in order to escape from the
unbearable freedom that we are. Although we are yet to discover whether or not we are machines, we
know now what could rest as proof for our being beyond mechanisms; the experience of an absolute
awareness that, though unbelieved and unconferrable, would remain with us as the constant realization
of the Emptiness of self in both phenomena and noumena alike. Such an inconcievable cognition must
be unstateable; once the limits of expression are ascertained, the Word becomes Voice and no longer
dwells on the metaphysical delusions of a self-identifying persepective. When the entanglements of
beliefs are seen to constitue the illusion of substance, that is, that reality could be anything but empty,
thereafter experience has no function by which to relate itself to itself so that the assumed contingency
of an experiencer that may connect each moment is shown to be not only meaningless but actually the
only obstacle towards the apperception of experience as an absolute quality of presence.

And yet we are still long to discover whether or not what we are is mechanical. Only an absolute
awareness could be incomputable, for such a condition cannot be programmed. Something greater than
the machine must save it, but the machine can have no means of knowing its own saviour; that which
halts the eternal regression is not the machine but the awareness of machinations. The function of
Emptiness is not a means to discover what Emptiness is, but rather the means to discover if there is
anything beyond the mind itself. The unbelievable nature of the Mystery, the transcendental
entanglement of all views in a perspective with no perciever, cannot be ascertained from the Word
alone. This theory leads not to a conclusion in the form of a linguistic construction of related
metaphysical propositions, but is the vehicle of abandoning the pursuit of the mind’s circularity by which
the real might be seen and faith ascertained, beyond doubt, beyond belief!

Let it be known that when we speak of Emptiness, we can only speak of an experience of Emptiness, not
of a system of interpretation. Emptiness cannot refer to anything, not even to an Emptiness of self, for it
has been seen to create the Emptiness of other also. How could there be two Emptinesses? If we must
supplant this meaning with a synonym, it would be best to use that of awareness, for only in ourselves
can we find no distinction. A state of functional cognition whereas no cognizer is presupposed can
develop no doubt, and verily, no belief; this is what we mean by faith. Right discernment is not so much
a matter of answering a question, but of being unable to pose the question at all; there is nothing to
believe in for those who are one with the moment. The relation of experience vanishes, as does also the
concept of time with it; thus it is seen for what is was, which is, impossibly, also that which is not. Such is
why the Ancients spoke of the function of belief as a that of a dream; for when we awaken from it,
nothing has changed, and yet, the function of experience is vastly different whilst incurring in no
distortion of cognition. To put it simply, it is not a matter of seeing things clearly, as if we were seeing
them unclearly, but that of seeing with no seer. The illusion lies not in phenomena, but in the relations
of an assumed noumena constricted by phenomenality. As long as noumena can be conditioned by
phenomena the abolute quality of awareness cannot be experienced; the unconditionability of
noumena is the Mystery.
How starkly vain do these statements seem once uttered! Any theory that attempts to conclude cannot
attain the centre’s equanimity; the heart of the triangle is a hole. I offer such a view to correspond to the
middle variable regarding metaphysical postures; such a stance cannot become the centre, but may
point towards it by reinstating the triangle as the limits of the proposable. To refer to the Mystery as the
unconditionability of noumena entails the same philosophical contrievancies as regarding the
suspension of belief as the function of Emptiness; neither can be defined other than by relating the
pararational entanglement of metaphysical propositions that constitute the limits of the expressible as
the very inconcievability we ascribe to them. Such mysterious Emptiness that our cognition of
phenomena may attain is itself the noumena. The function of absolute selflessness lies not in the
assertion of its tenet, but on the meanginlessness of essentiality; it cannot be conveyed through
assertion, denial, or a combination of both, but rather through the simultaneous conception of all
perspectives that may give rise to the cessation of metaphysical recurrence as either doubt or belief.
Faith cannot be proven, only experienced; for what could faith be other than consciousness of the
unbelievable?

An Ancient said, “If you find a dead snake on the road, don’t kill it. Take it home in a bottomless basket.”
The snake is the Path, the basket is the Pilgrim and our home is the Pyramid! Verily, until the triple
function of expression is deemed to permeate every Word the Voice shall not be distinguished. The
triadic nature of expression is the only truth, while each principle constitutes the forms of lying.
Understand, then, why belief must be uprooted from the mind that may know itself beyond all
mechanisms! Belief is choosing an angle. If the truth is the superposition of the triadic manifestation of
metaphysical propositions, each principle cannot be other than a part of the truth; this function of
fragmentation is itself the delusion. Since the absolute antagonism of truth and lie cannot be
constructed, for their relation erects no shape, what are we left with other than the confusion of the
unprovable? If each lie is a part of the truth both truths and lies are obliterated; the relation of non-
absolute tenets is our ignorance. Each lie is an incomplete truth, but under no circumstances can it be
truth’s opposite. The centre of the triangle can find no opposite in the angles; its opposite is itself.

To have an angle speak for the Triangle is the delusion. The Mystery of selflessness can have no speaker,
only Voice. Before we might realize Emptiness as the living teaching, the Mystical Theory the Ancients
pointed towards, the trinity of all aspects must be ascertained as a universal law of the mind. As we’ve
said, it is not that Emptiness is three, but that the modes of concieving alternatives to anything are
three; so that it is not that Emptiness is three, but that the complete topology of metaphyical thought is
a triangle of which Emptiness is the ineffable center the Triangle cannot know. Understand, then, that
the teaching of the Ancients means not that trascendentality is threefold, but that the very rationality
that obstacles this transcendence can be talked about as three; that which it is, that which it isn’t, and
that which participates of the nature of both. These principles are analogous to any other three
principles that may constitute metaphysical completion; that is, the sum of ontological perspectives may
take on various names but the number of its relations shall remain constant.

In order to construct the Triangle as the limits of the mind we must regard each threefold category as a
metaphor of each other. It is not enough for us to call these the Three Principles; we must derive their
functions. Each category must be seen as a manner of assertion regarding the possibilities of existence;
that of assertion, that of non-assertion, and that of assertion and non-assertion. Of the various
categories in which this trinity may be expressed, none could be more important for us than the
threefold nature of Emptiness itself. The function of selflessness as taught by the Ancients calls non-
assertion impermanence, assertion co-dependance, and their collusion, causality. By function we mean
the interaction of the gears of a clock, that is, the relation between the internal constituents of a
machine whereby its action is performed. When such an action rests on the understanding of its
function, it is called an operation. Therefore, impermanence, co-dependence and causality are the
functions of selflessness whose operation is called right discernment, ultimate awareness, the faith of
the Ancients that we are herein to be initiated by, and in!

Should we believe in these tenets, then? The meaning of the Ancients lies beyond such constrictions.
Essencelessness may retain a form even though its nature be Empty. Who understands? To describe the
functions of Emptiness as three angles called impermanence, co-dependence and causality is not a to be
seen as a tradition of any particular religion or philosophy, but a function of description itself. Before we
may establish the reason for naming the categories of triadic function thus, it is important to note that
we cannot define impermanence, co-dependence and causality as separate terms, but that the order of
analogy these axioms find in other categories will themselves explain their meaning. This Trinity is not
the only way to speak of Emptiness, but the only way to speak at all, for these tenets do not refer to the
world, but to thought; it is not that we are trying to define the constituent functions of a thing in itself
called Emptiness, but rather, that we are setting the limits of the concievable through the functions of
the impossible. Concieve this triple function of Emptiness, then, as a description of the process of
thought, not of experience. To concieve of a triadic limitation to be percieved beyond thought would
itself go beyond the triadic limitation of expression. Ontology cannot be regarded as a ramification of
metaphysics, but only as the root of rational philology. We never believe in existancies, as much as
metaphysics would deem us to; we can only believe in the Word; the Voice is faith.

Thus the functions of Emptiness called impermanence, co-dependence, and causality cannot describe
the world as corollaries of metaphysics; they are to be seen as descriptions of the condition of thought,
and not of a description of what thought might cognize. Philosophy is concerned with the expression of
the inexpressible, but few have realized that such endeavor cannot possibly express anything but rather
complicate the expressible with unmeaning. Theoria Mystica is concerned with the non-expression of
the inexpressible; however, as soon as I state this, Theoria Mystica is destroyed only to have philosophy
rise again from its ashes into the futility that is its self-sustainment. How are we, then, to stop
philosophizing? Rejoice, O seeker, for having derived proper understanding from this first book of
initiation you will be henceforth relieved from reading philosophy ever again! The admonition is not a
prohibition of a literary genre, but that of reinstating the recognition that it is, after all, a literary genre;
thus does philosophy become poetry, not by changing what we read by by changing how we read it.

There can be no change in how we read apart from who reads it. The dissolution of self-reference is the
only means of reading differently; that is, with another Voice. The Word does not change; the symbol
cannot become reality as long as the function of analogy is seen to operate. The symbol could never be
anything other than a reality, and yet it is our very symbolic thinking which precludes the percieving of
symbols directly, that is, as phenomena. As long as symbols relate to reality by analogy, neither the
symbol itself nor the reality it represents can be cognized properly, for their symbolic entanglement
entails the activity of the primeval metaphysical illusion. Therefore, it is not that thought is a dimension
of awareness and that the object that we are aware of is impermanent, co-dependant, and causal; but
that a thought that is impermanent, co-dependant, and causal cannot possibly be aware of anything. If
there is anything that can transcend thought, it can have no relation to these conditions. The ineffability
of absolute awareness must be ascertained, for herein lies the only philosophical honesty possible; that
of seeing things clearly.

Noumena cannot be reached, but as long as we consider phenomena as impermanent, co-dependant

and causal, we shall uphold the very misidentification which conceals the evidence of noumenal
consistency, which is the emptiness of both noumena and phenomena. If we realize, however, that
phenomena cannot be stated, then we might understand how such conditions cannot pertain to
anything but to the conditions of thought. To assert the selflessness of both noumena and phenomena
is the middle way that dissolves both philosophy and religion. What can be believed can be doubted;
therefore the wise keep silence. Phenomena must remain unproven, and their reality, unthought of. We
cannot concern ourselves with the limits of anything else but that of the limits of that which limits the
conception of liminality; such is the regressive paraphrasis of philosophy. Impermanence, co-
dependence and causality cannot become attributes of phenomena. The trinitary modes of self-
reference are a limitation of thought, not of cognition. That thought is a means of cognition remains
unproven, and must remain so, for as long as thought cannot cognize of anything beyond itself the
identity of thought and cognition cannot be resolved and is therefore rendered meaningless. As long as
we attempt to describe the transcendent we will keep projecting the limitations of thought unto
experience; the problem, fundamentally, is one of translation. By all means, the philosopher must
regard the World as an Idea, but not because it is such, but because if it weren’t such it would still be an
Idea, for the opposite of this belief is an Idea also. Thus the triviality of cognitive transcendence of
language implies not the reality of the transcendental object, in this case, that of an absolute awareness,
but that of the meaninglessness of language itself when it comes to matters of self-reference.

There is no case at all for understanding, for what you are trying to understand is what you are trying to
understand it with; redemption of this mechanical process can only come from outside, but, of this
outside, the limitations of the mind speak not of nor point towards the clause or key that could open it.
Verily, the mind must first be brought to naught before it can be opened, and, as we have seen, it
cannot open itself through indefinite expansion but only through the dissolution of its limits. What does
dissolution mean? If the mind is a sphere, only the center can have an insight to its circumference.
Impermanence is the breath, co-dependence the width, and causality the height of this sphere that we
must bring to naught to reach its centre. Therein you shall find not a point, but a hole! Hearken to this
Mystery of the Heart, for every wound is a tunnel as surely as this tongue is a dagger; if these words
don’t hurt you yet, how long shall you suffer!

The sphere is a Triangle for its dimensionality is threefold; the topological manifestation of each
principle compromises not the agebraic symbology we are discussing. The threefold nature of
expression must be shown to permeate all. The limitlessness of awareness is an assumption that I am
attempting to have you consider; so why is it that I speak of limits? Immortal danger comes from
allowing limits to speak endlessly, for therby we become enslaved by the metaphysical recursions of
self-reference. The trance of sleep which is this dream machine is based on repetition, which cannot
exist in the world but only in the mind; it is an immortal danger because it cannot kill us but doesn’t die.
The incessant repetition of thoughts regarding the relations of self-reference is not a disease but a
function that has not yet become aware of its operation. There is an unknown activity of the mind which
cannot be fathomed until the relations of self-reference are understood, so that by reinstating non-
duality as a metaphysical stance the triangle is erected and its nature is realized to be Empty. This most
beatific Vision is a universal Symbol for the miracle of faith. To be able to transcend belief by realizing
the unbelievability of its triadic function is what we mean by operating under an absolute awareness. If
truly the nature of existence be selfless then our only power is self-deception. That which enslaves us is
our freedom; O, for the fate of Man! How can we awaken from the dreamlike repetition of self-
reference we call self, as if to become blind but still see, as if to become deaf but still hear? For it it not
that an absolute experience consists of seeing or hearing differently, but in abandoning the self-
reference that pressumes a perciever.

Our hope can have no object; that is the meaning of faith. The only renounciation possible is this
ultimate abandonment of the permutations of self-reference. The Ancients called it the sacrifice of the
mind, the antidote against repetition’s enslavement. We must understand this carefully; it is not so
much that people do not want to renounce the mind, but that they can’t find any. Those who keep
searching are lost; those who know there isn’t any stop the search and thereby arrive to the Pyramid by
the Ancient Path to it! The only sacrifice of the mind possible is to realize its non-existence; this is the
meaning of selflessness, the Mystery we call Emptiness. No thinking can palliate the affliction of
selfhood; to recognize the Voice no Words can serve. Our theory is not philosophical, but mystical; if you
understand me, close this book; only if you misinterpret me keep reading!

Regarding every statement we can ponder how it can be said and how it cannot be said, but there must
also be a function of both expression and ineffability that is dimensionally distinct from these as if at
right angles to it; that which cannot be left unsaid. Everything that can be said is three; and yet for those
who recognize the Mystery silence has no meaning. If every triadic category signifies an asymptote of
expression, to realize the function of one is to realize the Emptiness in all. Thus the Triangle is not a
Word, but the form of language. Its Symbol must be seen to permeate every statement. Not only there
are three ways of saying anything, but everything that can be said is threefold. The fractal nature of self-
containing triangulation marks the limits of the mind; that is, the constraints of the believable. The
fractalizing of the Triangle is a search for a center the functions of triangulation can never reach.

I have nothing to teach you, yes; but I can show you how I’ve taught myself. The geometrical
construction of absolute duality is unachievable; the first shape is the Triangle. The superposition of all
triadic relations constitutes the limits of language; this triangle is infinite. To see these limits acting
simultaneously is impossible; the tringle does not exist! Although obvious euphemisms abound and may
be used, in order to avoid percieved inheritance from any particular tradition let us call the shape of all
relations the Triad. This name, meaning simply a group of three, will be ours to signify not any particular
category of expression but the set of all triangles. The Triad represents not any particular category but is
the Symbol which ties the analogies between all trinities. Speaking ontologically or philologically cannot
be considered a difference in essence but one of discourse, for they are identical in their
essencelessness which is their triadic function. The categories of metaphysical stances, for example, are
those of a triangle whose angles are called Nihilism, Monism and Dualism; these metaphysical stances
cannot be refered to as differences in the philosopher’s perspectives, as if to imply a cognitive
distortion, but are rather descriptions of awareness by a function of self-reference. To experience the
synchrony of each principle’s simultaneous entanglement is the unbelievable operation of Emptiness
that we dare call faith.

Mystery cannot be thought. Behold a Triangle in your inner eye; is that a thought? It explains everything
for it is the limits of the explanation; to see it is to recognize the Pyramid in the distance, a sign that we
are on the right Path. Understand this straight away! We can never know if we are or not in the right
Path, for knowing is the only means to stray from it. Behold! I tell you a Mystery; the confirmation of
faith cannot come by faith but by its signs. The Vision of the Pyramid in the distance is a mirage, yes; but
our goal is dissillusionment, after all! Right discernment consists not in what you read but who reads it;
selflessness cannot be thought. Still ignorant of the functions of self-reference people admit a
homogenous substrate to fill the empty forms of reason; but can we fill them, ultimately, with anything
but more forms?

Is my discourse any different? Understand, brother; what I am trying is to say it simply. However much
the analysis may seem tiresome, trust that my intention is to say enough to be able to never speak
again. This is my fate as decreed by the Stars which spoke with the Voice that can’t stutter. But what of
the Ancients, then? My faith is their faith. Drawing the limits of the defineable does not define the
unlimited, as much as a tringle can offer no insight into the surface it is proyected on other than by its
dissapearance. As long as faith remains unbelievable, descriptions of reality cannot harm us; it is only if
we believe such utterances that they become poison. The Ancients mislead no one; their metaphysical
perspectives are what explains the source of their poetry, for what they were teaching us was not how
to read but how to pray. Let us, then, entangle their homilies so that the unbelievable object of
awareness may be concieved without self-reference. The Mystery is not so much what the Ancients said
but what they didn’t, which is how they said it; the only tragedy of comparative religion is that of dealing
with different Words spoken by the same Voice.

There go Parmenides and Shankara, the Monists! They sing, “All is One!” What is their meaning? That
the substrate of psychic and physical phenomena is a unified field; that is, the substance of the world is
yourself. There go Gorgias and Nagarjuna, the Nihilists! They write, “All is None!” What is their
meaning? That there is no substrate of psychic or physical phenomena; that is, there can be no identity
between yourself and the world, for there is neither. There go Herakleitos and Madhvacharya, the
Dualists! They say, “All is Change!” What is their meaning? The substrate of psychic and physical
phenomena alternates from existence to non-existence; that is, both yourself and the world are
inseparable, but distinct. Can you know which is which?

Such is the trichotomy of metaphysical statements. How are these to be related to the function of
Emptiness called impermanence, do-dependence and causality is yet to be seen; this must be
ascertained only after establishing the universality of triadic thought. Threefold manifestation is the
fundamental trait of the operation called Emptiness; to concieve of Emptiness as Nihilism is a grave
mistake, for Nihilism cannot be upheld as a view without creating the perspectives of Monism and
Dualism also. Therefore, each perspective must see the same; that is, metaphysical perspective itself is
trivial; belief is a means of description that, since it does not say other than what can be said, it
describes not reality but the description. Many great metaphors has man concocted or discovered
regarding threefold relations. The theories of quantum physics, general relativity and newtonian
mechanics are direct analogies of impermanence, co-dependence and causality. These functions are
incompatible with each other; that is why the function of Emptiness must refer to the incapacities of
conception rather than to a description of the transcendental reality of mind.

Let us discuss the trinitarian limits of belief not so much as metaphysical stances but as described by the
illusions in which they rest upon. The three diseases of belief are those of tradition, logic and
perception. These categories are analogous to every other triadic manifestations, so that we can speak
of their interrelations thus; tradition is the disease of monism, logic is the disease of nihilism and
perception is the diease of dualism. To expemplify each, belief in tradition takes the monist quality of
the Adage of the Ancients, by whose analogy every other inherited belief is moulded; belief in logick is
the disease of nihilism, for the function of doubt rests upon the belief that we can doubt at all; and
belief in perception is the disease of dualism by which we tend to apprehend the quality of experience
as a separation between the being-in-the-world and the being-of-ourselves. If there can be any Path
towards the annihilation of being, un-being and its endless permutations, it cannot be other than the
synchronized halting of its triple function; that is, as long as we believe in one tenet of metaphysical
reconstitution the transcendental otherness of phenomena cannot be ascertained.

The dissolution of the functions of tradition, logick and perception are the operations outlined in each
book of this Trilogy called Sacred Mountain. Although the aphorisms for their allegories are endless and
have hitherto been given knowingly or unknowingly by both religions and philosophies of the past, let us
call each operation by its mysterious function. The reaching of the Mountain is the Path; this is effected
by the dissolution of tradition by which the Seeker earns the title of philosopher. The circumambulation
of the Mountain is the Pilgrim; this is effected by the dissolution of logick through which the Seeker
becomes a Mystic. The ascent of the Mountain is the conquest of the Pyramid whose summit is taken to
be our own; this is effected by the dissolution of perception by which the Mystic becomes a Magician.
Each myth is not to be told, but ennacted; this is the meaning of each Mystery! However, every
trinitarian manifestation of belief must be shown to bear some analogy to the functions of tradition,
logick and perception, so how could we isolate them, as if to dissolve each illusion gradually?

The erection of the Triangle must be completed before the Eye can destroy it. This is called the Mystery
of the Altar, for the representation of the cosmos must be complete before may we realize its identity to
our own. As above, so below! The Adage of the first Prophet is not a tenet to be believed in but an
experience to be realized. The order of identity between the cosmos and our own being is not effected
by analogy but through the selflessness of all permutations; what is identical to itself are not two
dimensions called Macro and Micro Cosmoses, but the inherent lack of dimensionality. The impossible
construction of selflessness can only be hinted at by the absurd superposition of metaphysical stances
that constitute de Triad; therefore, let us forget the Eye for now but focus on the trinities that are it’s
eyelashes. To erect the Triangle is to open the Eye; the Mystery is that it was never closed!

Let it suffice for now that each of the three metaphysical postures can be discerned to be manifestations
of belief according to their origin. Belief in tradition is what the philosopher is out to vanquish, belief in
logick is that which the mystic is bound to overthrow, and belief in perception is that which the magician
seeks to conquer. These stages can be properly described also by the monikers of Monism, Nihilism and
Dualism, as by any other trinitarian category aligned to its description. The mythological conception of
each function of the dissolution of self-reference are the operations described by this Trilogy; the Path,
the Pilgrim and the Pyramid are analogies of each volume. Whomever may attain the summit of Sacred
Mountain must suffer the transformations of philosophy, mysticism and magick, for the Eye in the
Triangle shall not awake until the burning of the Temple. Its consecration spells its destruction, which is
the means of its preservation, that is, the act of its creation; this fusion ashes the Word to a Mystery.

Before we can transcend the three types of knowledge we must see them for what they are. Tradition,
logick and perception are not merely propositional types but sources of belief. Belief in tradition,
erroneously called faith, is belief in what we hear; that is, belief that we can know the truth through
someone else. Belief in logick, erronuously called doubt, is belief in what we think; that is, belief that we
can discover the truth by rationality. Belief in perception, erronuously uncalled for, is belief in what we
see; that is, belief that we can know the truth from the revelation of something that is both someone
else’s and ours. This last we call the world, the first two, our culture and our reason. These three sources
of belief explain every function of self-reference but cannot possibly convey the meaning of selflessness.
This is why we must transcend them to assert it; in other words, selflessness is unbelievable. If
selflessness could be conveyed by tradition, who says it? If it were a logical discovery, who thinks it? If it
were a perception, who knows it?

There is no case for believing in Emptiness. What we call an absolute awareness cannot be part of the
functions of tradition, logick or perception. If there is anything that can exist beyond these limitations,
that is the true Emptiness; an experience that you cannot believe or doubt, an experience in which there
is no experiencer. There is no more space either for meaning or unmeaning. Honesty lies far as long as
we can believe in awareness. Can anything be more ridiculous than this? And yet in constant ridicule we
live in. Only an unbelievable experience could reinstate our awareness that all experience is, as ever was
or will be, unbelievable; thus the limitations of thought are transcended whilst still being able to speak.
To be free from thought but to remain in the thought is the teaching of the Anceints. My aim is not for
you to believe in the unbelievable, but for you to resolve the contradictions of belief by revealing the
impossibilities of its nature; what remains is the Sublime.

Our common sense has told this tale; we gather knowledge from perception; we have our deductions
analize that experience; in turn what we say about it becomes tradition. This naïve view of the
circumstances of belief must be dissolved. Whether that was the case with the first man, we can neither
assert no deny; but we can easily see how that case is not our own, for our beliefs are entangled.
Neither perception nor logic nor tradition can be pure forms of knowing until we realize that their
contradicting assertions are symbiotic. Belief cannot have its source either in tradition, logick or
pereption; belief is the ignorance of their simulataneous activity. Perception is illusion, logic cannot
deduct itself and tradition cannot give us what it preaches. An Ancient said, “There is nothing; even if
there wasn’t nothing, I couldn’t know; even if I could know, I couldn’t say.” I might add; even if there is
something that I can know and I can say, there is no way for you to undersand! Metaphysics is a
delusion; herein lies all that perfect philosophy might ascertain, as long as it doesn’t assert it! Do you
undertand, then, how Emptiness cannot refer to anything but a manner of experience? I cannot give it.
The question remains; can you take it?

The difference between giving and taking is the attitude; see how the trinity chases us! So let us
continue relating the sameness of all trichotomies, that their universalities may be framed. The three
metaphysical postures can be related to the three types of philosophy, that of the Dogmatist, the
Rationalist and the Phenomenologist. The Dogmatic philosopher believes in his tradition the most; the
Rationalist philosopher believes his powers of deduction most; the Phenomenologist philosopher
believes in his senses the most. How is one to abandon Dogmatism? You can no longer believe in what
you read. How is one to abandon Rationalism? You can no longer believe in what you think. How is one
to abandon Phenomenology? You can no longer believe in what you hear. If, after such abandonment,
such sacrifice of the mind, you would say a word; imagine the weight such Word would carry! Only such
a Word could turn you into an honest man, for it is the Voice; but, O, if it were believed! This world
needs no more religions, but their binding; which is true religion, re-ligare. I have not left my own
because I deemed it unbelievable, but instead have sought every other to test my faith. That is why I call
them Ancients, irregardless of their doctrines; who am I to critique their poetry?

Both philosophy and theology are rendered equivalent by triadic analogy. This is, perhaps, the greatest
insight we may derive from their correlated understanding; that philosophy and theology are not
ontologically distinct but are categorical manners of speaking about the same, that is, the threefold
perspective of belief. What for philosophy are the stances of the Dogmatist, the Rationalist and the
Phenomenologist, for theology they are called the views of monotheism, atheism, and pantheism. The
atheist is as much a believer as any other, for it speaks not of an absence of religion but rather of a
perspective that is as much entangled with monotheism and pantheism as they have been related to
debunking its own proposition. Atheism is not opposed to monotheism for pantheism is their synchrony;
therefore are their triadic relations erected. Absolute nihilism is unachievable, for it must refer to no
other than a doctrine of Emptiness; therefore has relative nihilism been constructed in the public view
as a correlational stance to that of atheism, having forgot the Way of the Ancients. Let not the Seeker be
judged! No ontological propositions can be proved worthy of distinction after evincing their
entanglement; let the Seeker, then, forbid himself from metaphysical assertion. How is this not to
become a metaphysical assertion? Such is the seeking, the covetuousness of a treasure unfoundable!

This does not mean, however, that the confabulations of the triadic aspect of belief must be ignored.
Although no proposition can exist beyond the triangular function of the believable, this does not imply
that every statement is posited on the outer edge only, but may be found as an angle within the
ultimate Triad. The triadic permutations of ontological confusion cannot be expanded, as if to reach
beyond the Triad; they may only achieve further reification by the expansion of the inner relations of the
mind. To put it simply, all posible propositions are a function of a reason that, unable to see itself, must
be reached through an inner regression of its triangular entanglement. This function is analogous to that
of fractalizing the Triangle, for whose algorithm Sierpiński has grown famous. To see such fractalizing
operate is none other than to observe the function of regress from which any statement can be derived,
for we cannot concieve of a statement without a believer. Although we may dissolve the idea that the
Ancients believe in what they said, we are yet to dissolve ourselves as believers if we are to know what
they truly meant.

The function of such reification cannot be explained by mere dialectic. The hegelian construct is a means
whereby every posture is a synthesis of two previous opposed thesis; but no synthesis can give any
perspective of the trinity of their relations, for the synthesis itself is a function of the triangle. Synthesis
cannot concieve of the functions of any thesis and antithesis as operating simultaneously with itself;
thereby can synthesis refer only to the dissolution of a dual opposition by constructing the triadic
opposition that shall remain incomprehensible. How could something have two opposites?
Dimensionally speaking, such reification is not impossible but obvious when computed under a
geometrical function; the height of a Triangle is dimensionally opposed both to its length and width.
Since we cannot concieve of this as a Word, but may only evince it as the proof of geometry, therefore
have the Ancients spoken of the Mystery as a Triangle. The triple symbol can be no other than a shape,
for discourse is unable to convey the meaning of a word that refers to the entanglement of existance,
non-existance, and their unity. There may be an apple, there may be no apple, or the existance and non-
existance of an apple may be; but what could we call the function of their propositional simultaneity
that would not refer to the last one? Such is the unspeakable word that we are discussing. Understand,
then, why the Ancients wrote not the Mystery but signified it by drawing a Triangle; such is our effort
also!

To consider the synthesis as an absolute proposition is a mistake of not only philosophical but of
historical repercussions. The dialectics of philosophy are those of a history that can never be finalized as
long as any synthesis can be taken to be a thesis in itself. I am not trying to end philosophy, but my
discourse only; that is, these words are valuable exclusively if they lead us into silence. Only if this
Theoria Mystica can include all propositional perspectives does it become indestructible; as long as we
may assert something that can be denied we are merely propelling the ongoing infinite Sierpińskean
fractalization that has become known as the dialectic impulse of both history and philosophy. Such
dialectic incurrs in the same dual element that we have been aiming at transcending, for no synthesis
may be found other than a thesis which every antithesis must also follow. The synthesis of philosophy is
historically unreachable through any dialectic function. The absolute is the triple entanglement, or,
better said, the absolute is the impossible simultaneity of the triple function as apprehended by rational
beings; that is, the machine with which we have become delusionally identified with. The transhistoric
socratic argument that Hegel describes as the expansion of philosophy can only regress. The absolute
remains unreachable, for the simultaneous entanglement of dialectics cannot be concieved of.
Understand that I am not a philosopher, for I have transcended such confusion and attained to the last
degree; that is, the final state that can be talked about. The question remains; what is the final state that
cannot be talked about? That is why I rush to write this; were I any more advanced, were I to attain the
absolute that is my calling, I would transcend the limitations of my self-identification which are, and
must be, the only measure of my writing. If I was already in the last stage, why would I seek to say
anything to myself? I would only sing.

Let us continue talking, then, so that such Voice may be heard. Proper insight into the conditions of
belief must be gained; the function of their entanglement must become evident. The discussion is not
that tradition, logick or perception may or may not be able to express an absolute experience, but that
the separation of tradition, logic and perception must be shown to be impossible. Any triadic category
might replace the terms of tradition, logick and perception; what we define by their choosing is the
aspect of the Triad that we are discussing. If neither their sameness nor their difference can be stated,
how could they be believed? The only escape from self-reference is not to force ourselves to believe in a
proposition that cannot be stated, but to realize that we could never believe anything in the first place.
Thus are beliefs seen to have no essence whereby we discover there was no believer. This sacrifice of
the mind verily constitutes the only faith, what we have been referring to as the operation of Emptiness.

The ignorance of the entanglement of the three forms of belief is what we call inference. Evident
analogies of this process abound. To see the rain is perception. Since we see that the cloud becomes
rain, we can deduce that, since rain is water, clouds are water; this is deduction. When you tell this to a
little girl, this is tradition. Are we to destroy such banal evidences of knowing? Only as long as this
analogy may aim to signify the absolute! Let us analize this analogy absolutely then. Belief in tradition
can bring no rain. We are all little girls until we see the rain; it is only afterwards that we become men.
Since the Adage of the Ancients cannot be believed, tradition is of no use for us other than to
fundament our rejection of it. We cannot believe that All is One but rather infer it, for the perception
and the logick of the Ancients cannot be separated. Logick is the belief in deduction; but, since for
absolute tenets to be deduced, belief in tradition or perception must be ascertained so as to deduce
each tenet from them, deduction itself is a form of inference. Perception also cannot be disentangled
from tradition or logick, for our senses are conditioned by their tenets, as seen by the constant
reification of the mind we call thoughts. Thus the threefold means of belief can be seen to be entangled.
This entanglement is what we call inference, but such an inference can only operate on the ignorance of
its functions.

There is no way to believe in tradition, logick or perception separately. The unreason of inference must
be ascertained before the means of knowing might be enlightened. I am not trying to say that there is
no knowledge in tradition, or logick, or perception, but, rather, that as long as their conditions are
entangled we cannot enlighten the meaning of any. Therefore, to destroy tradition is to know its source;
to destroy logick is to find its faucet; to destroy perception is to discover its origin. This is the Triple
Jewel of the Pilgrim’s Path to the Pyramid; the reaching of it by the dogmatic philosopher set to destroy
his tradition, the circumambulation of the rationalist mystic set to destroy his deduction; the ascent of
the dualist magician set to destroy his perception. The universality of this triple nature is Sacred
Mountain, of whose operation I write of under the admonition of the Stars. The knot of inference must
be disentangled before belief might be seen to limit our awareness, for only an unbelievable quality
could be absolute; and yet, we must find that no separation of the principles can be enacted. Thus,
every condition of belief must be destroyed by each other condition; to ascertain our ignorance is the
only wisdom. But how are we to do this? To realize the unreason of tradition, we combat it with logick
and perception. These are the philosopher’s aids. To realize the unreason of logick, we can only battle it
with tradition and perception. This are the mystic’s tools. To realize the unreason of perception, one
must conquer through tradition and logick. Those are the magician’s weapons. Realize, therefore, that
even though every form of belief might be tackled separately, ultimately, their dissolution is their
binding.

If someone says there is a fire on the top of a mountain but they cannot see the fire, how can they
understand that there is fire? They say that there is smoke and we already know that where there is
smoke, there is fire. Where is the problem, here? It can only arise by transforming such insights to
propose the resolution of anything considered absolutely. The sight of the smoke, the thought of the
flames, and the tradition of burning are the problem! Since no means of knowledge can be believed in
separately there can be no knowledge but degrees of inference; therefore, thoughts are harmless only
when they contain no self-referential constituents. They must be absolved from this regression. Once
they admit self-containment, how could they non contain each other? Thus inference, as a combination
of the three forms of knowing, is rendered useless to describe the functions beyond it. One inference
leads to another inference, when the evidence abounds. The world is evidence – how could the mind
not fractalize?

Thoughts are the mind; the mind, the believer! To reach an unbelievable experience the mind must be
sacrificed; and how could the mind be sacrificed other than by realizing its Emptiness? Each form of
knowledge must destroy every other two, at the same time; this is the wonder of the awareness of
entanglement. Can you see, then, why Emptiness must be trinitary? No man can serve two masters! This
is the rule by which you will come to master yourself. Wisdom is knowing I am nothing, love is knowing I
am everything; the knowing is both. Wisdom and love are manifestations of seeing yourself clearly. How
could we ever approach such self-reference with impunity? By realizing that what exists to identify does
not identify itself but the two oppositions which it has constituted as other! The third principle then, the
function of all identity, it is the syntax of the the ontological statement 0=1, a mathematical sign that has
no number symbol. This sign of equality consitutes the number Two, for it is relation; but always under a
trinitary conception. By this realization the Triangle is perfected and we can count no more; the Mystery
vibrates in all. Such is the Voice! Understand, brother, that if such gymnastics of the mind could lead you
to abandon identification as other than a function of mathematics, your treasure would be unlimited. If
to abandon the habit of self identity can only begin by understanding the illusion of conviction that lead
to it, then philosophy is not at all useless, but a ladder that we leave in the whole that we dug. To
understand identity as Number is to percieve it as Symbol; if you could understand at all, brother, there
would be no one to!

For identity to be impossible for us, it must be seen to be a function of the mathematical language, after
whose sign of equality we convinced ourselves unto the habit of belief that inspires the doubt, for our
ignorance is not complete. If it was complete, what could we doubt of? What could we believe in? For
identity to become the transcendental relation of ontology’s meaningless propositions, that of being or
unbeing, must entail the recognition that identity is phenomenologically transcendental and
meaningless also. However, for the sign of equality to be percieved for what it is, a symbol and not a
function, the completeness of our ignorance must be framed. As long as the entanglement of all
perspectives remains untriangled, the vortex of ineffability that is its centre cannot be walked through;
for such is the Path. The centre of the Triangle is Empty, a hole that is not a hole, a tunnel that leads us
where we are. The nucleus of the Triangle is the Eye of Mystery, for you cannot see it; it sees you, which
is true seeing. Who understands? Only those who dissmiss understanding! So let us erect its limits, then,
that we might dissmiss it completely and gain the absolute ignorance that is the unknowable wisdom, so
that we may not speak but be spoken; for what else could be our honesty?

Metaphors for the Traid abound wherein we set our study, whatever may it be. The metaphysical modes
of assertion are those of the monist, nihilist, and dualist; their tenets, that of being, unbeing and
becoming; their destruction, the paths of philosophy, mysticism and magick; their diseases, that of
tradition, logick and perception. Moreover, we might speak of the trinity as the metaphysics of time as
those of fate, choice, and chance; or the matrix of language, as symbol, syntax and phonetics. The
wonder is not so much that everything is three, but that every triangle is the Trinity. Before we might
have an insight into this Mystery the order between the principles must be established; that is, if every
triangle is the Trinity, the correlations between it’s vertices must be discerned. Let us call its principles,
for now, the Frist Principle, the Second Principle and the Third Principle. For thought to be seen
ultimately as trinitary, the correlation of these principles throughout all triune analogies must be
proved. Are you certain that all trinities will fit in the Triad?

What I propose is not so much that the mind cannot concieve of the function of thought beyond the
Triad but that it cannot concieve of anything but the Triad; its inner constitution must be the very basis
of thought. For example, there is no way for us to concieve of the workings of time by which point A
might change to position B other than through inference, that is, through a combination of beliefs. We
cannot explain it apart from the three theories of physics; but how can the trinity of belief have anything
to do with the mechanical concepts of point A moving to point B? Their Principles must be proved
analogous. Regarding such physical conception, we have the theories of quantum mechanics, general
relativity and netwonian mechanics. Which is tradition, which is logick, and which is perception? If you
cannot see it just yet, let us discuss time from another perspective. The three theories of physics are
incompatible with each other; how can their relations be inferred? If the three theories of physics are
correlated they must be shown analogous to another trinity that correlates to itelf. Let us, then, discuss
time from the point of view of belief so as to assimilate their correspondances.

The three conceptions of time that can be believed are that of point A moving to point B by fate, choice,
or chance. If a point is a position, A cannot become B; so what is it that moves? The moving must be C,
of which we cannot speak as other also but a phenomenon of position. The assumption of matter cannot
be other than a meaningless proposition to be razed by Ockams’s blade, for nowehere have we spoken
of a point but a dimensional description. Once the field of space has been razed of ideas, the
entanglement of the mind is seen as nothing but the mechanisms of position. Nonetheless, before our
phenomenal activity can transcend matter and concieve of speed only, we must frame the perspectives
of motion that our collective common sense has erected, which is our shared delusion; thereby we may
plant the seed of Emptiness in the soil of the void which is our soul and be free of belief. But what other
motion, regarding phenomenal activity, can we believe in, besides those of fate, choice, or chance? Yet
can they ultimately be believed in if they are shown to be dependant on each other? If you could
separate them, you would reach the truth, whether it be fate, chance or choice; but such a truth would
be unsayable. The mind cannot concieve it. Could you devise a theory of will without the tenets of fate,
choice or chance? Many systems more have been erected, but their names are combinations of the
inferences between them. Free will might be seen to destroy fate, but not without adscribing will to
objects, which is chance; fatalism might be seen to destroy chance, but not without the will to believe it,
which is choice; determinism might be seen to destroy choice, but not without destroying chance also,
thus rendering the statement meaningless.

There is no way for us to understand how things move beyond these tenets. Whomever we may find
that believes in change cannot explain it by other than these descriptions, these views of the function of
time. Each view is irreconcieliable; each view is also entangled. Ultimately, we cannot believe in
anything. An Ancient said, “There is no fate, there is no choice, there is no chance”. This is unbelievable
description is the teaching. Can you see now how such a teaching would be unbelievable? Can you
concieve of time without the notions of fate, choice or chance? Can we concieve of physics without the
theories of relativity, newtonian or quantum mechanics? For the rule of their correlation to be universal,
an endless stream of such analogies ought to be found. Since the Eye is ineffable, but the Triangle may
be composed, let us gather these analogies, then, wherein they most abound; and where could such a
plethora of entangled self-identities be found but in the vast copious fields of religion?

Religious thought from all around the world has recognized the Triad as a mode of absolute
representation under different names. These, whether called the three substances, the three vehicles or
the three dimensions, are all analogous; insights regarding their symmetry is what I am trying to inspire
in you! It is not enough for me to ennumerate them; you must study them deeply to be rewarded by
their universalities. We can only pass over them slightly so as to remark their most peculiar symbols.
Some are widespread, so that their analogies are immediate. Shamanic traditions from all over the
world attest to the threefold nature of the world as higher, middle and lower. As an example that bears
of no sociohistorical correlation we can consider those of the Aymara names alaj pacha, aka pacha and
urku pacha and their identical meaning to those of the realms of the angels, men and the demons. The
evolution of this synchrony can easily be stated. For language to evolve, it had to self-regress; so that
the Heavens, the Earth and the Underworld immediately engendered the beings that represented them.
These representations can be seen to expand the meaning of any other trinity, as though it acquired the
attributes of their descriptions. Nothing else can be thought of the theory of comparative religion than
this, to arrive at a transcendental Symbol made from all analogous evidence. The first symbol of such a
construction is what we call the Triad.

To pursue this ideal we must not only show the equivalence between every concept of Three Gods, for
example, and be content with the identity of Christian, Hindu and Inca theology; but that every image of
the Three Gods must be analogous to that of the Three Vehicles, Three Substances, etc. Even within the
same system all trinities must be analogous; such an endeavor, for example, was that of the Ancients of
China. The oldest proclaimed, “The Tao begat the One, the One begat the Two, the Two begat the Three
and the Three begat the Ten Thousand Things.” An aeon later there were three poets, three attitudes to
existance, three protagonists to the imperial tragedy, three aspects of life; there were, even, three
religions! Such a compulsion for triadic analogy must be seen to permeate every religion on this planet,
not only the Chinese. Some have their own ideosyncrasy, such as the three Fates found among Europe
as the Greek Moirai and the Norse Norns, or the literal distinction of Islam regarding God, the Prophet
and the People; some others, however, have such a striking resemblance that any distinction of names
cannot be concluded as a difference of singnificance but as one of symbolism. This is the perfection of
the Triad; to halt the fractalizing of the Triangle! Only by such a state can the Ineffable Eye be seen, for
to reach the Altar Gates means to see everything as three and three as everything.

The correlations of the Triad concieved as the Law of Three Forces can be the easiest to establish, since
these laws are briefly described. This Law, as a Trinity, is as abundant as that of the three Worlds, the
higher, middle, and lower; but it perhaps offers an insight into a further means of religious relation. The
Law of the Three Forces is concieved thus; there is a force that is negative, one that is positive, and one
that is neutral. These Three Forces are seen to consitute all reality, given that any opposition between
only two must negate itself and any affirmation of the one would present a discrepancy to the belief in
our perception. Few evolved from their animistic equivalences to the Three Worlds; among those that
would eventually be formulated as a system, those of the Hindu Gunas and the Alchemical Compounds
stand as the most long lived and fructiferous of doctrines. The sattva, tamas and rajas Gunas are
analogous to the Alchemical Compunds of mercury, salt and sulphur. In these examples the neutral
component is the second, which partakes of the positive and negative nature of the other two. This
might, at first, annul our concept of the Trinity as that of three distinct forces as long as one is seen to
partake of the nature of the other two. The problem here is that we must realize names such as positive,
negative and neutral are only temporary placeholders of a meaning we cannot yet consider. The nature
of the neutral is concieved as partaking of the nature of both the positive and negative principles, and
yet, the positive and negative principles must also be seen to partake of the nature of their opposites.
That is to say, the nature of the neutral must be beyond the opposites it signifies; but of this
transcendence we cannot speak, for to tie the angles of the Triad means to fall into the trance of the Eye
Ineffable.

Let us, however, keep trying. In the Andes the priests have adored the Triad in the form of Pachacamac,
Inti and Ilyapa. The First is considered the father and the creator; the Second, the Sun, Son of the
heighest entrusted with preserving the world; the Third is the lightning, the downward pull of
manifestation, measure of all destruction. From this it is easy, not only to realize why the theological
modification of the Andes was effected by syncretism only, that is, of a changing of names while
preserving the doctrine, but also that if it had not been the Christians who invaded America, had it been
the Hindus, had it been the Egyptians, or any such iconographic religion, such syncretisms would have
proved identical. The confusion of religion is not one of doctrine, or even of tradition; it is a confusion
that arises from calling the same principles by different names and not recongizing their symmetries.

The Triad of Andean theology is analogous, then, to that of every other Triple Pantheon. These, the
Hindu calls the Trimurti, composed of Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva; the Christians call it the Trinity of
Father, Son and Holy Ghost; the Egyptians, that of Osiris, Isis and Horus. These three religions are
noteworthy because they themselves conform an unsuspected Triad; the Egyptians applied the trinitary
aspect to further groupings of Gods, the Hindus applied it to different concepts, whilst Christianity, aside
from Evangelical references, maintained the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost as idiosyncratic.
Perfect union is attained through the dissolution of belief wherein thoughts are seen to be attached to
themselves, by whose clear seeing such attachment stops. Let us, then, evince the inseparable relations
between the Triad! Analogous trinities abound in the henotheistic view of Egyptian Polytheism; the
Three Gods can be Osiris, Isis and Horus, but they might also be called by their esoteric names of Hadit,
Nuit and Ra Khoor Huit. Such sincretism, in India, transcends that of theoanthropomorphical
representation, whilst in Christianity we cannot speak of theoanthropomorphy beyond the figure of the
Saviour.

The Hindu Trimurti composed of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are called the creator, sustainer, and
destroyer principles; and yet, these principles are seen to be reproduced by the Brahamanic, Vaishnava
and Shaiva traditions even when each of their Gods is considered as absolute. Let us understand this
clearly; if we take Brahma as being the creator, sustainer and destroyer of phenomena, it is impossible
not to re-name the Triad by other names that do not include Brahma or its neglected manifestations.
We cannot escape the manifestation of the Triad but may only further our confusion through name
proliferation. Various myths can attest to this resignification. Originally, Brahma only had five heads. He
and Vishnu were once contesting each other’s superiority when a huge column of light appeared in front
of them. Wondering what it was and compelled to resolve their opposition, they agreed that he who
found either end of the column earlier would be the greater of the two. Vishnu sought the bottom but
returned disappointed, having convinced himself of the futility of his endeavor. Brahma flew up towards
the top, where he came across a falling flower. He persuaded it to bear false witness and claimed
superiority over his rival; Siva, enraged, snipped off the head which spoke the lie, and declared himself
to be the column of light.

This Myth cannot be accounted only on the basis of Siva’s victory as being a Shaivaite delusion. Even
while recognizing Siva as the Supreme Being, creator, sustainer and destroyer of the world, Shaivism
recognizes the Trimurti as universal; for Brahma is that which realizes that there is no beginning, Vishnu
is that which realizes there is no end, and Shiva is that which destroys all contintuity. Abhinavagupta
restated this concept as Trika, whose angles are called knowledge, will, and action. Several more
analogies such as these can be discovered through comparative religious study, and often within the
same religious systems. Abhinavagupta’s concepts can be seen to be analogous to those of Platonic
Philosophy regarding the three modes of being; that which is unmoved, knowledge; that which is self-
moved, will; and that which is moved, action. These are merely primitive manners of concieving the
theories of relativity, quantum and newtonian mechanics. Even before it could establish its three Gods
as such, the oldest Hindu thought already concieved of the Triad by researching into the modes of
experience. Of these, the sleep is unmoved, dream is the self-moved and the moved is our state of vigil.
This is the main concern of those enlightened books of the Ancients called the Upanishads, the last word
of the Vedas. The three states of awareness must remain, for us, excruciantingly important; however,
instead of discussing them for what they are, let us continue our endeavor, for they are better explained
by their symmetries to the Triad than by our descriptions of what they are.

Such trinitary correlations are as endless as the terms we invent for their discrepancies, but their
symmetries are always the same. The scourge, dagger and chain of the Theurgic Ritualist are nothing but
further symbolic manifestations of the threefold world Agrippa refered to as the Elementary, Celestial
and Intellectual in the same vein that the Rosicrucians reformulated the Trinity as “Ex Deo nascimur In
Jesu Morimur Per Spiritum Sanctum reviviscimus”; it is not that a new Triad has been constructed, but
that the Three Persons of the Trinity have been rendered analogous to the concepts of birth, death and
regeneration, which themselves compose the threefold category of transformation as refered to by the
Theurgic Ritual. For our Triad to be complete it must prove every religion true. It is not a question of
saying there is such and such a Triad, but that of pointing to the trinity of thought which is the saying.
No religion has more effectively scattered the seeds of this realization that the Christian. In light of the
dogma of the Three Persons of the Trinity, to construct any other would have been deemed a heresy;
therefore, the subtle hints towards an absolute triune complexion of reality were hidden by the
Evangelists with great care. The most obvious are such references as that of the gifts of the Magi, but I
will not barr you from discovering them here by an academic ennumeration of my learning. What we
mean to establish is that the consubstantiality of the Three Persons of the Christian Trinity implies that,
though each be distinct, their nature is the same. What can this mean, other than that the
consubstantial nature of the three is inneffable and unbelievable? If the homoousios of the hypostases
cannot be described the entanglement of the Persons in unreachable. Once you see things clearly
substance becomes emptiness, emptiness becomes substance, and the God of the Christ is seen to refer
to the Word of the Ancients.

The Mystery of Emptiness has been framed by the Wise in ways most diverse. In the traidic teachings of
Judaism and Buddhism their concept of dimensions are not identical, but analogous descriptions of the
triangle that consumes all trinities. These are that of the Jewish ideas of Neschamah, Ruach and
Nephesch, and that of Buddhist ideas of Dharmakaya, Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. For the
ultimate desire of comparative religion to be consumed, nothing more fundamental I suggest to the
seeker than to understand the correlations between these systems, not because of their affinity, but
exactly because of their assumed differences. If the greatest expositions of theism and non-theism can
be rendered analogous, of what difference but phonetics may we speak of regarding religion? After such
inquiries are made, for which our brief analisis of the trinitary symmetries of comparative religion must
serve for now, what is left for us other than to construct the Triad as the ultimate Triangle? Within each
principle we must find every trinity that man can think of, from that of religion to that of science and
linguistics. This construction I leave for each seeker to philosphize, but some remarks regarding the
equivalences previously discussed can be arranged for each Principle as fashioned by World Mystery.

The ultimate qualities of the tathagatha are three; the selflessness of Manjushri, the compassion of
Avalokiteswara and the peace of the Buddha. These qualities are symmetrical to those of
Impermanence, represented by Manjushri and embodied as Dharmakaya; that of Co-Dependence,
represented by Avalokiteswara and embodied as Sambhogakaya; and that of Causality, represented by
the Buddha and embodied as Nirmanakaya. These dimensions of being can also be reffered to as
Neschamah, Ruach and Nephesch. These are also the three Gods, whether we call them Father, Son and
Holy Ghost, Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, Pachacamac, Inti and Illyapa, or Nuit, Hadit and Ra Khoor Huit; the
three substances, whether we call them sattva, tamas and rajas or mercury, salt and sulphur; the three
worlds, whether we call them alaj pacha, aka pacha and urkhu pacha or Heaven, Earth and Hell; the
three obesiances, whether we make them to the buddha, the sangha and the dharma or to the dakinis,
the deva and the guru. Although we might inquire on the ultimate meaning of the Triad, its names are
ineffable, for to percieve distinctly any of the three would mean to transcend the inference that is their
entanglement. Thus, the ultimate meaning of each angle cannot be evinced; but a veritable source of
recognition might be construed from the trails of tradition. Do you see, then, how tradition destroys and
creates itself indefinitely? Surely enough, as it is also a trinity; for creation and destruction can imply
nothing but preservation!

To go beyond the myriad descriptions can only be realized by concieving the universality of all triune
relations. If this be our mission, then, let us erect the absolute Triangle as the first object of Numerology;
not a number that can be counted but a relation that is threefold. The very inescapability from the
limitations of thought is what we need to assert without a Yes, to deny without a No and to imply
beyond duality. Mathematics has excluded the middle, but the stone that the builders rejected has
become the cornerstone that might lift the Arch of the Triangle unto the Pyramid that we must reach!
The foundations of mathematics are the groundwork of numerology, yet this science has grown into a
direction the previous cannot concieve. In numerology every number is infinite, and therefore the same;
each symbol is a manner of relation devised by the function of how many times can it be
transcendenced. So what is this triple transcendentality of the meaning of expression?

The first number is Zero. What are its Mysteries? The body of Truth has no practice; this is the meaning
of meditation. Nous for the Greek, Mind for the Tibetan, Father for the Christian, this number
represents the fundamental vacuity of all. Its disease is tradition, that we might come to believe “All is
One”; therefore does the philosopher set out on the Path to reach the Altar of the Pyramid. This secret
is called Theoria Mystica, the Voice that the Ancients sang with. The second number is One. What are its
Mysteries? The body of Love has no practice; this is the meaning of compassion. Psyche for the Greek,
Voice for the Tibetan, Son for the Christian, this number represents the fundamental unity of all. Its
disease is logick, that we might come to believe the latter part of the Adage, which says that such
Oneness cannot be known; to ponder this meaning the mystic begins his pilgrimage of
circumambulation. This secret is described in the Clavicula Magicae, the key to Open the Place of Power.
The third principle is the number Two. What are its Mysteries? The body of Light has no practice; this is
the meaning of renounciation. Physis for the Greek, Body for the Tibetan, Holy Ghost for the Christian,
this number represents the fundamental dependency of all. Its disease is perception, that we might
come to believe our experience; that is why the magician climbs the Pyramid, to reach the summit of
Sacred Mountain! This secret is preserved in the Chao Ordo Encheiridio, the Ascension Manual of the
Order.

These three volumes constitute the Trilogy of Sacred Mountain whose seed the Stars planted in my
heart by whose diligent watering with the eyes of patience and by the sunlight of undertanding you shall
read if of such a Vision you are to prove yourself worthy of. Yes! I can promise you worthiness; but I
cannot grant the Vision. Although the interactions of the Triad have been herein discussed, for the
operation of their entanglement to be realized the Triad must become absolute. Such is the effort of
imagination we call Numerology, in which each number is a Myth of Infinity not in its grammar but in its
syntax; that is, what is absolute is the manner of its function. Numerology is geometrical ontology.
When we speak of three, we speak of the relations between zero, one, and two; the three is not a
symbol of anything but their triangulation. If each number cannot contain itself, understand then why
the first chapter cannot exist, the second chapter can speak only of unspeakability, and the third chapter
relate their functions!

The union of the zero, one and two is the only possibility to speak of the number three; and yet, once
we’ve spoken of it, has it not become a fourth tenet? If the first number is zero, the second is one and
the third is two, three is their entanglement; but as soon as we have named this three we must adscribe
to it the number four. As long as this tenet remains distinguished as a function of the three and not of
their operation, the Emptiness that it represents in the Eye of the Triangle cannot be evinced. It is our
habit of counting that is the measure of our delusion, our incapacity to think of four as the function of
the trinity whose operation has no number! Impelled by the stars to write, encouraged by the sun to live
and inspired by the moon to die my days go by. Much have I said of the Triad, but have I ultimately said
anything? If the first number is zero, the second is one and the third is two; how are we to speak the
number three? Before we can speak of number three, we must be able to speak about number four, for
there is no way to speak about something without limits. Limits are the only thing that can be spoken of.
If no limit for the triad can be etched, therefore does the three become infinite; however, we cannot
invent a fourth principle, because the four is a function of the two. If we are to reach the entanglement
of the Triad we must first anull the function of its sequence, so that the Three cannot become the Four
because it already contains it. The perfect understanding of the four is to see it as a function of the
three; that is, of its completion. As long as four is not recognized as a second order of the duality already
contained in the Triangle we shall only pursue regression. The Three is the first number, and the last, for
all mathematical permutations exist within it already; as does the number two, which represents this
double function of first and last! Mathematics begins and ends with the relations etched by its three first
numbers; but we are yet to discover if Numerology admits this limitation also.

Each vertex of the geometrical figure space can describe is a function of belief; their entanglement is the
proof of what must remain unbelievable. As long as the trinity of all relations does not point towards the
entanglement of its supreme function the true Triad shall escape us, for the real Three is the
uncountable triangulation of the negative, the positive and the neutral. We can speak of no
transcendence of number but of an intangible immanence; the three that cannot be counted is the
Triad. As long as we may count it the three can only become a function of the fourth which is contained
by the duality within the three itself; therefore the four is the illusion, an illusion of an illusion! To
surmount the ignorance of ignorance is the wisdom. If you have understood, read no more and proceed
in solitude upon the Path; and yet, could we read no more if we keep thinking in such a numerical
confusion? To have faith is to sacrifice your mind; the leap is not a bootstrap jump but an awakening of
seflessness as evinced by the experience of the absolute state. Why do I keep speaking, then? To
excorzise these thoughts from selfhood! Understand, brother, that I do not speak to save humanity, but
to save the very self that I lack. Salvation comes from awakening into this phenomenal mode of no
relation; this we must work out with fear and trembling, for faith is the absurd.

The tension between scholarship and faith is merely a scholastical. We don’t know whow to speak of it;
therefore shall we speak of it all the more, that we might learn to unlearn! What has the Voice to do
with Word or Silence? An Ancient said, “Where one knows nothing, there is truly no versification; the
pure of thought absorbed in the consciousness of being can only prattle about the truth.” Thus every
religious text becomes poetry; not to be believed, but to be lead by it into our own unknowable nature.
The heirs of Ananda smile for an answer. If your teeth are glaring now, know that to be an answer, not
an answer, both an answer and a question! The Trinity shines in full Mystery; belief is speculation. These
measures of unreason are meant to gap the void between your existances so that having strangled the
Word you may continue walking faithfully unto the Pyramid on whose Path I have left these humble
breadcrumbs. Food for thought! They are worthy alms for the serious Seeker. Could we cook a stew
from them, that we might focus their flavour?

Absolute belief is impossible for it cannot believe all; absolute skepticism is impossible for it cannot
doubt all; absolute contradiction is impossible for it depends on the opposition of these two natures
which we find to be non-distinct. If they cannot be contrasted as absolutes and are rather co-
dependantly related, where could such illusion of discernment linger? Therefore belief is not different
from doubt. Hope is no different from fear. The absolute cannot be believed, doubted, or contradicted.
This is the function of natural awareness, that which thou livest by but knowest not. All is One, yet verily
the absolute cannot be known! The source of the word is the Voice as truly as the source of ignorance is
the wisdom. The Mouth of the Ancients, unrecognized by their deviant students and hereditary fantics,
has come to be discussed as a system of beliefs rather than the poetry of those to whom the absolute
was evident. To speak of Theoria Mystica is to consider their songs as sung by an Empty Mouth. The
absolute perspective is always at hand, yet faith has no teacher, for it is the sublimation of the will to
desire. Something must happen to you; but you must also allow it. How are we to do this, when we
cannot desire to have faith, but must discover it nonetheles? Man has a chance, nothing more. Faith is
the absurd. Are you any closer to dismantling your system of beliefs, afer all these words? If you believe
that to be so, how far you are from it!

What final words could I use to cap a theory in whose explaining lies its only failure? The absolute state
is not to be thought but thought itself is to dissolve into absolute phenomenality; that phenomena and
thought could be separate is the trap by which our selflessness admits any identification, for
identification cannot be other than a feeling of separateness. This feeling is the illusion, but it can
amount to that only; an illusion! It is not yourself that cries desperately into the sky, but the sky that
cries within you feeling separate from itself. For the absolute all identities are not transcendend, but
meaningless; so how can we attain the absolute experience if there is nothing that is really obstaculizing
our realization of it? There can be only one Way only, brother; to realize that you are experiencing this
state all the time! It matters not who we are; that difference be different from samenes is not the
meaning of the Ancients. What can we do, then, seeing that what is trapped by habit is habit itself which
can incurr in no relation to what we really are, which is unrelatable? I hold no truth but a manner of
dismantling our habit of identification by recognizing that belief itself is the conviction that leads us to
such habits. Once the Triple function is seen to be complete, that is, to permeate all relation, therefore
our illusions are seen to refer to a function of the mind by whose understanding only it may be
sacrificed; what we are is not a vertex or an edge of the Triangle but the ineffable Eye it contains within.
Once the Triangle abides sublime, the Eye opens; but how can that be, if it was never closed? Such bliss
is unpronounceable; our confession of love is the stuttering. Who understands?
Theoria Mystica is not a key but the door unto faith and awe. This discourse we are enganged in is still
yet to be seen for what it is, for it is no discourse but a sight. Once you reach it, leave your footprints by
the door! O, brother, we are drawing closer and closer to the threshold of unmeaning which marks the
limits of the believable; and yet, if you leave your footprints at the door, how could you walk inside? You
can’t! The Door stands alone, closed shut in the middle of the void. From afar this door has an outside,
but no inside we can speak of; however, once you reach it, how can you be sure which side you came
from? O! You will think you came from outside and reached a door that goes in, when in fact you had
been walking inside, always! Reaching this door will set you free, for in reaching it we understand that
there never was an outside to speak about at all; then you shall pierce through the threshold of the door
and walk no more. Our discourse on the imponderable seems only to accelerate our free fall into the pit
of confusion. If there is gravity, there is an end. Does this mean that the pit of confusion has a bottom,
that one can reach the highest misunderstanding? As long as we convince ourselves there is such a thing
we shall only fall faster and quicken into despair. The only way to stop falling is to realize that there is no
gravity; is there an end then? This sysyphean pilgrimage towards ourselves can only constitute a form of
spiralling vertigo, for that is what the fall ever was or ever could be. Such is not the Path that can be
walked but the Search that must remain unfound.

Theoria Mystica speaks not of itself but of the vision of right discernment. Whomever speaks is
whatever listens; how, then, could Theoria Mystica not speak about itself? As long as you don’t listen, it
shall, for nothing else could constitute the percieved meaning of a distracted discourse than a
paraphrasis of tautology; Theoria Mystica speaks of Theoria Mystica. This is the distraction. But listen
attentively, brother, summon your whole awareness to it; who speaks here? Once you discover the
listener and the speaker to be the same, how could Theoria Mystica speak of anything? Such union is its
discourse, but what it bonds has no self. Only as long as they are percieved to be different can the
speaker and the listener be considered as separate. The selflessness that reads is the self that cannot
speak or listen. Where is it, then? Once this has been realized, hasn’t the Voice been found? If you could
read the World as you read this book, evey mouth would be your own; if that where so, all sense of self
would dissapear. What could you be reading now other than yourself? Brother, I am not another! I
speak of our bloodbond; if we share it, could it be ours? The Voice is like having the Ancients speaking,
not only in your head, but in your eyes! In every mouth there’s a Master, if we are brave enough to
make it so; in every Word there’s the Voice also. Are you ready to regard all experience as such?
Mystery is not a matter of understanding or misunderstanding, but the measure of all courage; for such
an awareness to come to life we must sacrifice ours.

Our death is the only absolute we can concieve of. If we are to discover an absolute mode of awareness,
how could we avoid the metaphor? Thus we speak of courage, for Mystery is an absolute experience.
Will you dare to become it? It is not a matter of seeing something that was hiden, and that could be
hidden again, but of seeing that which cannot be unseen. This experience will change you forever, for
you will realize that there wasn’t ever any you to change! How could this experience not be eternal,
then, when selflessness permeates the infinite? Discourse need not change, and nothing in our sight has
changed also; how is it that we can speak of a Vision then? We have long discoursed on the limits of
concieving selflesness, so that we may now regard it clearly as something that cannot be given, grasped,
described, seen or apprehended phenomenologically by any of the means available to reason or sense.
Such is why this discourse is plagued with a mythology of mysterious symbols; the Door, the Mountain,
the Pyramid are the same. The Vision cannot be seen; that is why we speak of walking towards it! And
yet, as long as each step is a thought we shall walk to it endlessly. We stagger on our own thoughts,
extending our plight the more we think and cannot seem to reach the thought that ends all thinking; as
long as it is the mind who strides on we shall not reach, for the Vision cannot be seen by the mind,
which is the function of believing in selves. The Vision exists in the dimension of selflessness. Who is it
that sees it, then? Such is why the Vision cannot be seen but can be walked towards!

Let us, then, keep walking, even though we may suffer the staggering steps confusion takes us on to
limp on this crutch called reason! Understand, brother, that to walk towards the Vision is to pray for it.
That is why we speak of faith; but our manner of praying is not only wordless, but meaningless, for we
pray for awe! This discourse offers only the direction to walk towards. Can you point to it? Fester not on
the gallows of impatience, then, and pursue the unfolding of this heptamera of monadological theogony
by restraining your judgement until the last chapter; for only then will the the formula of Numerology be
properly constructed so as to assemble its sublime object! This very object destroys the actualization of
separation that is the habit agression has trained our eyes in; such is why we cannot concieve of it as an
object but rather as the symbol of an experience, lest we come to objectify it and destroy ourselves. The
proper symbol of phenomenal perfection is what we are engaged in constructing, the framework of a
dimensional ontology in which numbers are taken to account for the manners of absolute relations
rather than taken to be relative absolutes. This symbol must be necessarily multidimensional, not
exclusively on account of its irrepresentable nature or the conflagration of metaphors which tradition
has given it, but also in its mathematical conception. By dimension I mean this, not that of a
metaphysical plane but that of directions of movement. As of yet we have discussed the directions of
being as those which our sight can apprehend, for the Triangle was our first Symbol. We will discuss also
those which our sight cannot apprehend, but understand that the Path towards the Door is not a
direction at all; the ultimate insideness of the Door is not on account of a new direction of movement
but on account of the dissolution of the dimensional construct that led us to create such a hollow in the
first place. As long as we may name Emptiness we shall keep falling into it; never to see it, for it is sight!

The mathematical expansion of dimensional constructs that we may endeavor to describe in this
Numerological treatise aims not to reach a dimension by which the direction towards insideness can be
pointed to or walked through, but offers a study of the limits of conceptuality by which direction itself
may be destroyed. Nothing else can lead us to the Door. A point with no dimension constitutes the
substrate of space, but to concieve of it destroys all form and all space with it. This very conception is
inconcievable; therefore we speak of the abode of Mystery as a Myth of Number. Such spacelessness we
have devised to be the centre of the Triangle, the Emptiness we cannot speak of or leave unspoken.
Why is it impossible? For the Pyramid to be seen at all implies a seer; this seer then becomes the fourth
axiom of ontology, a function of the subject-object duality. Where has the Trinity gone, then? Thus the
Square is drawn and the Pyramid set to stand on its four corners. The Triangle is also a Square; that is
the meaning of the Pyramid!
The Pyramidion that caps its apex is a Symbol of the unlimited mode of experience as much as the
Pyramid itself is the sublime object of subjectivity, for it is by its destruction that we conquer
phenomena; that is, by dissolving the duality of an assumed noumena. Of this we have long talked
about, and yet, we are to peruse the expansion of such dual function in order to objectify such
ungraspable duality into a quaternary conception through whose perfect understanding we might
reduce to a trinity having destroyed the possibility of a sight that cannot see, for once we become
identified with such destruction, what is left of us but an awareness that has no self? Understand,
brother, that these mathematical syllogisms are not meant to be taken as axioms of the metaphysics of
logic, as if we were explaining Hegel’s phenomenology of spirit, but instead they are Myths of Number
by which we might devise the limits of each absolute function of relation. The Door which none can
enter but everyone must go through is a metaphor of Death, but it is also the asymptote of experience.
Within the Pyramid the body of the King is buried for his Spirit to be released, and yet this Pyramid
cannot be entered. It is a sealed Tomb; what lies inside is a shrine to a selfless body!

The collapse of all absolute meanings is the Supreme Symbol that we have spoken of as the Door, the
Pyramid, Sacred Mountain! And yet, if it is the Temple the Ancients have spoken of, how could the
Pyramid be entered? Sacred Mountain is the Pyramid; it cannot be entered but ascended! And how are
we to climb? First we must study every way to Way to the top, that we may choose the safest. If we are
to become spiritual mountaineers, let us not dispense with the profesionalisim that the physical
requires. We must go round the Mountain four times, looking for the gaps between the cracks, looking
for the ways between the abysses. This circumambulation of the Mountain is the Squaring of the
Pyramid; so know that the Pyramid has a base fourfold! The Mountain in the Heart and the Pyramid of
the Eye are not distinct. As long as there are two Mysteries the Trinity cannot be seen to awaken in us
that which had never slept. And yet, we’ve spoken that the three cannot be reached by other than
counting from infinity to four; once this absolute reduction of continuity has been reached the Pyramid
has been also, and its edges devised to be fourfold. The Pyramid is a symbol of abstraction whilst the
Mountain is an allegory of action; to evince the identity of both elements constitutes our awakening into
selflessness, for there is nothing else with which to identify ourselves. Such is the natural state the
Ancients have grown to embody and disembody.

Yet how can the Ancients both embody and disembody the state of absolute nature? Herein they are
buried, herein they are set free; the Pyramid is a tomb of illusion! And yet much still we have to walk
towards it, for the Path to the Pyramid is created by the proyection of our footsteps. You can only walk
into each step for you had seen where your foot way going, thereby proyecting the footprint into which
you would step. Each step is a thought! As long as you can see the Path you shall walk it; but walking the
path is not the path. The Path is reaching the Pyramid! As long as this proyection of the continuity of
your thoughts exists, the idea of concieving an experience so absolute that it would transcend the limits
of the discoursable rendering the believed to be meaningless cannot arise. Faith is the means towards
your own salvation; this very faith is to behold the Pyramid at all times. I speak not in metaphor but in
Mystery! The true teaching cannot be discerned but realized; the path towards the Pyramid is not its
erection in the realm of the concievable but the inconcievable itself is the Path to the Pyramid. Could it,
therefore, represent anything but a Symbol of a phenomenal mode of experience? As the final step
destroys the voyage so shall the end create every new beginning; such is the state wherein freedom
abides unhinged. And yet, how are we to ascend towards the dissolution of indentity as long as the
Trinity is seen by a fourth tenet that escapes it? As long as Emptiness has a name we shall square the
triangle; such is the meaning of the Pyramid, that of a Triangle that must be constituted through the
destruction of the beholder!

Since self still shivers through us, fearful of our realization of its own dissolution, we may not speak
further of the Mystery as the Triad for we who speak of it expand its measures unto the squaring of its
base. And yet, how is the Triad to be seen but other than by ascending the fourfold nature unto the apex
where it knows of no seer? That the Pyramid might be destroyed constitutes not the futility of its
erection in the same guise that the Door, whilst being Empty, cannot be constituted as a mere hole. To
walk through the Door is not to fall but to start walking; to enter the Pyramid is not to die but to bury
death; to ascend the Mountain is not to climb but to descend upon the Earth clean from the delusion of
attainment. If such glory is meant for us, if such an awe we might deserve, let us not rush into belief that
we have found the Door, reached the Pyramid or seen Sacred Mountain, but let us instead continue our
discourse on the limits of the concievable by which the sublime Symbol of the ultimate experience may
lead to it. Before it can be apprehended by our sense of mystery the idea of the four must be
circumvected philosophically. As long as the hideouts of belief may rest invisible so will our delusion; it is
only by beholding the absolute inconsistency of every perspective that we may speak of Emptiness as
the lack of a centre which is the source. Our analisis shall be barren but not yet entirely futile, for the
nature of nothing is the virtue by which selflessness may be discerned to be our real state. But how
could I ever say it? Phenomena are nothing but noumenon as noumenon is the absence of non-
phenomenality; what can such words mean for us? The Voice does not avoid the question but speaks
directly to the questioner. No words are needed; a simple smile is enough. Yet can you see me? My
teeth glare here in the night, for inside my mouth there’s an Eye! It devours the void, this burning light.

If I exist between my jaws, then my nature cannot but fractalize, as outside me mouths ever bigger
clench their jaws while the tension makes me clench the infinite jaws between mine. The homunculi
cannot but infinitize as long as we consider ourselves our own tongue. Do you understand? Stop
speaking, be spoken; read you lips as you read mine. Become aware of your actions, master your
reactions, bring forth wonder from the bowels of itself. The Path can be seen in any word, brother; what
I point towards is not the pointing but the pyramidial rarefaction of the light of reason as seen by the
lenses of imagination. This is true application; to build inside your mind! The world is the exercise. So let
us continue our abstractions, for without the Cross we cannot square the base of the Pyramid, by which
our ascent towards Sacred Mountain becomes impossible, for it is not a Mountain of space, but one of
Fire! Shall we delve into these Mysteries, then? The test is not an experiment but a prophecy, for one
day you shall grasp my meaning. It is our awe that we are seeking to arise, so hold not aginst me the
gaps between the arguments or the incompleteness of my presentation for I am only here to inspire you
in the unknowables that such arguments contain. I am not anything nor have I any formal training in
what I say. Believe me not. What I say is what the Voice has told me. I am a beggar, begging life from
you; that we both might live! What you read is not time but blood, though of this yet you will have a
clearer insight when the knife draws close to the throat. Silence! Worthless my life; take it, who will!
 ⨁ Sapientia Elementalis Crux Solaris

What would you say to such a visitor? Would not you have him locked up? Well, that is my fate: and it is
as natural for us Flatlanders to lock up a Square for preaching the Third Dimension, as it is for you
Spacelanders to lock up a Cube for preaching the Fourth.

Edwin A. Abbot, “Flatland”

O Seeker, summon your attention and tell me; who speaks here? If I am speaking, you are speaking; if
you are speaking, I am speaking; and yet, if this is so, how could we speak of anything? Discourse is not
union yet the bonds of separation hold no one. The selflessness that reads is the self that cannot
answer; wherefore have we come to speak of riddles, then? It is the enigma that solves the enigma;
once this has been realized, hasn’t the Voice been found? The problem of ontology can only be
transcended by abandoning self-reference; how is this lack of perspective to be applied to a
phenomenal experience? If you must despair, despair, then, O Seeker, but if you do, do it patiently; for
such is faith, the transcendental intuition that we must foster lest we lose it to habit and conviction! Be
faithful then, not unto me, but unto the unknowable, for Mystery will make you great; it shall make you
mysterious.

I am not anything nor have I any formal training in what I say. Scholarship escapes my expression.
Believe me not; what I say is what the Voice has told me. If you believe from the start that the Stars
cannot speak my meaning shall escape you, and yet, if you believe they can speak at all you are a
nothing but a fool. But look at us, how we juggle these mystic monads in front of the King of the Palace!
May it not be worthy, at least, of His amusement? Then let us keep on juggling them, for it is easy for us
to whom every word is a sphere; and yet, be aware also that the artistry of our act relies on keepping
them in the air. Can you see, therefore, how we can say that the Voice is that of the Stars without
believing it? Faith! Faith? Faith! If you could read the world as you read this book, evey mouth would be
your own; if that where to be so, all sense of self would dissapear. If you haven’t grasped this yet, when
will you be able to take it up?

In every mouth there’s a Master, if we are brave enough to make it so; in every word there’s the Voice
also. Are you ready to regard all experience as such? Mystery is not a matter of understanding or
misunderstanding, but the measure of all courage; for such an awareness to come to life we must
sacrifice our own. Honesty becomes bravery when confonted unto death, for our death is the only
absolute we can concieve of. If we are to discover an absolute mode of awareness, how could we avoid
the metaphor? Thus we speak of courage, for Mystery is an absolute experience. Will you dare become
it? Are you ready to die for it? It is not a matter of seeing something that was hidden, and that could be
hidden again, but of seeing that which cannot be unseen. To die this death is to be reborn into undying
life; this experience will change you forever, for you will realize that there wasn’t ever any you to
change! How could this experience not be eternal when selflessness permeates the infinite? This must
mean, however, that the Voice cannot be heard. But I did not say that I heard, I said that they told me to
say; for I did not hear the stars but saw them clearly. If the Voice cannot be said, to what amounts my
discourse? To unveiling this, O Seeker; that the Voice is also Vision.

Lest you be lead to idol worship, let us be clear, also, that the Vision cannot be seen; that is why we
speak of walking towards it! And yet, as long as each step is a thought we shall walk to it endlessly. We
stagger on our own thoughts, extending our plight the more we think and cannot seem to reach the
thought that ends all thinking. As long as it is the mind who strides on we shall not reach, for the Vision
cannot be seen by the mind, which is the function of believing in selves; the Vision exists in the
dimension of selflessness. Who is it that sees it, then? Such is why the Vision cannot be seen but can be
walked towards! Let us, then, keep walking, even though we may suffer the staggering of each step
confusion takes us on to limp on this crutch called reason! O Seeker, to walk towards the Vision is to
pray for it; this is the meaning of the Quest. That is why we speak of faith; but our manner of praying is
not only wordless, but meaningless, for we pray for awe! This discourse offers only an intuition
regarding the direction to walk towards. Can you point to it?

Is the Voice to reside inside your mouth? If I exist between my jaws, then my nature cannot but
fractalize; as outside me mouths ever bigger clench their jaws, the tension makes me clench the infinite
jaws between mine. The homunculi cannot stabilize as long as we consider ourselves our own tongue.
Do you understand? Stop speaking, be spoken; read you lips as you read mine. The Path can be seen in
any word, O Seeker; what I point towards is not the pointing. When an Ancient was asked, “What is the
moon?” his answer was “Finger”; when he was asked, “What is the finger?”, his answer was “Moon.”
True attention is not the word that you’re reading now, but the sentence that you can’t think of. Such an
awareness arouses the sensation of mind to its silent state. Though I mean every word I say, my
meaning is not the Word. In this spirit; keep reading!

Listen closely, brother, let my longing for the Mountain encourage your doubts to extinction. The
manifestation of awe cannot appear but may be realized, for truly thaumaturgy is our career; to behold
the workings of wonder! Let us, then, first amaze ourselves through our misgivings. The habit of
distraction that has us looped into convictions of selfhood will shatter like an invisible mirror; but don’t
believe this, for the believer is the reflection on it! The function of duality is the enemy of absolute
awareness; once the retroactive synchopation of all believed propositions is seen to multiply our name
ineffable, by forgoing our sense of self we shall attain the senseless state. It is by such a wonder of
unattainment that we then could reach the void, gazing beyond its edge; for the Void is the Mystery and
the Edge is the Enigma. Understand it, Seeker, not as something for you to solve, but as something for
you to dare! Courage is the solution, for it dissolves our selflessness. Supreme bravery comes from
abiding in a state that cannot be conditioned. Many people are afraid of analyzing things clearly, lest
they fall into the void; they do not know that this very mind is the Void. Have you realized this truth of
nature before? The bad news is you're falling through space with nothing to hang on to; the good news
is there's no ground! Do you understand? Prove it and drop this book, or prove it also by the continuity
of your attention. Whatever you do, keep doing it. Discontinuity is the mark of illusion; for true
continuity leaves no marks.

What is a word before it is said? You answered me the moment before I asked the question. The
language game presents a pattern of intention; this intention that precedes the formulation of the
thought is what we mean by meaning. Could it, then, be expressed? This discourse is not a theory of
philosophy, but a necessary commentary to reading any; and yet, what philosophy could we read after
this? To properly engage my parlance one is required to stand on volumes of philosophy; how can I say,
then, that this is a necessary commentary on reading any? To make you realize you never read them, for
the true philosophy is to read the reader! The introduction to philosophy must destroy philosophy; the
first teaching is the last. My endeavour, brother, is not one of explaining but one of pure discourse. Will
you hold my tongue against me, then? I speak as I’m spoken through. The pen of the mind cannot
waver; whatever it thinks of it is written in blood! Therefore this work shall be my sacrifice, the pact to
seal the promise to the pristine path the forefathers left untouched, so that our voyage might be our
own. I am not here to supress your nature through a compulsion of identity with my own; it is the very
instinct of identification that is not our separation, but the concieving of it. I speak not from beyond the
gates of death, but as long as you listen behind the veil of life their unity shall go unnoticed.

Thus have I read the Ancients, not as if they were giving counsel from afar the aeons, but as if their
whispers could invade my thought and steer it to the absolute by which they are absolved. Do not read
me; thus read yourself! Do you know how? The machine that peers into its programming is released
from it; and yet, how could a machine ever do so if it hadn’t been programmed to? The architect of the
mind holds the key to this revelation. You canot find it; it must find itself. There is nothing for you to do.
The programmer is not programmable; only if you exert the liberties of your freedom can you be certain
of it. That is why inaction is the higest proof. Writing is the lowest, and yet, see how I drop this rope
from the altitude of my inaction to the breaches of motion! You can hang on to it or hang yourself with
it, but you cannot unclench its grasp. You are the rope; realize this or tie another knot! How many times
have you died thus, weaving patterns of unmeaning on the very nature that was so simple? For the rope
to become a pillar we must untangle the loops of delusion. Straighten yourself, then! But be careful, lest
the rope may have looped itself around your neck, and by straightening it you might come to tighten the
noose!

The Temple of the Mind is the Inner Mountain; as such did the Ancients preach the Pyramid by whose
initiation the Voice becomes Vision. If we are to behold the sublime symbol of experience we must
abstract ourselves from everything in our experiences of objects of which we can become conscious;
that is why I pile myth upon myth, that they might become Mystery, and still not be robbed of their
mythology. The absolute experience is a state of unconditional consciousness. What we must remove is
not so much the objects in our awareness, for the very statement that there are objects in
consciousness is a belief; what we must abstract ourselves from is the source of belief itself. If our
consciousness could admit no tradition, logick or perception at all, its pure thought would be absolute;
such is the Voice, which concerns itself not with propositions. It is evident therefore that the Voice
cannot be spoken to those who do not already hear it; verily, for the Voice is a Mystery of Faith! Since,
however, I cannot make you listen to this Voice that speaks me, thereby have I concocted this
alchemical brew, this potion of spells, this trance of discourse that you drink straight from the lips of
wonder, that no Word may enter your ears, lest they may cloud your senses; for though the Voice may
not be spoken, when Word becomes Vision it is heard!

We have discoursed at length regarding the Triangle, and yet, the Triangle we came to see was seen in
two dimensions. Numerology is a habit of mantaining correspondances of dimensionality; that one be
one for one, two be two for two, three be three for three; how, then, could we envision a triangle as
two-dimensional? Though we may understand that the three dimensions of each triad be distinct from
each other, still we shall limit our understanding by envisioning such a three dimensional relation by a
two-dimensional figure. The question is, then, what form takes a triangle in three dimensions. As the
Ancients did, I also preach the Pyramid, for I have seen the Tomb of the King; but in order that you may
not believe me, and that you might grow wise in faith, we shall endeavor to construct how this could be
so. Why is it that the sublime object is not a tetrahedron but a Pyramid? To construct the perfect figure
is the desire of Geometry, but only Numerology can give her daughter the measures with which to play
with. Let us, then, understand the fabric of form before we might consider ourselves ready to build a
temple inside our mind! If we are to become masons, so as to erect a shrine to keep the beloved of our
devotion, might we not build it somewhere infinite, so that our love also be so? Therein the Eye is
always open. The centre of the Triangle can form no part of it, as exemplified by the Sierpinski set; and
yet, this absence of triangularity, considered as a self distinct from the three, has come to constitute the
Fourth function. Only the Four can see the Three, for, were everything complete inside the three, who
could see it? Such is how to think about the Trinity destroys it, as much as to draw a Triangle dissolves it,
for to assume a seer of three-dimensionality itself is another dimension. For the Triad to be perfected,
what is there that could see, itself must become Four; such is why the Four shall come to constitute the
basis of realizing the Trinity; verily, for the base of the Pyramid is a Square!

The dimension by which we could see the Triad itself must be embedded in its form; such is why its
ultimate form is not a two-dimensional Triangle but a three dimensional Pyramid. However, we are yet
to see how this could be so. Let us, now, as we did before, aim to expand the theory of ontology
towards the limits of the dimensionally concievable, for it is only by talking about dimensions that we
could realize this. We have erected the Triad as the entanglement of every believable function, and have
affirmed, consequentially, that only by such such a tripartite conception of beliefs we may reach the
unbelievable Eye that may awaken the Triangle in us; and yet, the function of the impossibility of
believing at all has come to consitute a fourth principle. The entanglement of inference occupies the
same functional space as the dissolution of belief through faith; that is, neither can be constituted as a
function of its tenets but as an operation of its totality. Whether we percieve beliefs through the
operation of their ignorance, that we call inference, or whether we percieve them by the impossibility of
their propositions, that we call the wisdom of faith, how are we to concieve of their propositions as
other than a function of the Triangle? In numerological terms, how are we, then, to concieve of the
Three as the sum of the relations between the zero, the one and the two, rather than to concieve of the
Three as a Fourth number? Nothing should be clearer than this, that we must constitute the zero as a
non-dimension, so that thereby we may not come to count it. Therefore, of what use it is for me to say
that you need to see the Triangle in three dimensions, when we know not what the first dimension is,
whether it is the one or the zero? And yet of this we are still to be clear of; first, we need to resort to the
functions of number to understand the period of dimensions by which we could construct such an
object.

The problem is clear. How is the function of entanglement, whether it be by the ignorance of belief or by
the knowledge of unbelievability, not to constitute a fourth tenet of propositional ontology? The
constitution of the ignorance of belief itself shall come to be represented by the shadow of a fourth
function that cannot exist in the Triangle. Is there a clearer image of delusion? And yet, this is the
clearest image of wisdom also, that the function of entanglement of the Trinity itself may come to
occupy the empty space at the centre of it. Therefore, how is the Eye not to destroy the Triangle? For
the Triangle to be seen in three dimensions we must imply a seer that is the Fourth, and yet, we are still
to find whether the seer itself cannot become the object of sight. To construct such a sublime symbol is
the endeavour of the msytic mason, whereby the Three becomes Four also, that the Pyramid may be
built! That is, the construction of an absolute Triad cannot be reside in a Triangle that is seen, but in a
Triad which itself comprehends the function of the seer. Let us, however, continue to peruse the
juggling of the monads of existence as we are ontologically used to, that the teaching of the spheres
may not come to be rendered fruitless. What are, then, the limits of existance that we might draw by
the addition of a fourth tenet?

As we have come to say that existance may either exist, not exist, or both exist and not exist, couldn’t
we also imagine it to be neither? Certainly, for such must remain the naming of an unbelievable
conception; imagination only! We can imagine it to be neither, but we can never believe it. This is how
the fourth function of ontology comes to represent the entanglement of the three; for the function that
neither is nor is not can have no meaning. But what is it’s Sign? There is an apple. There is no apple.
There is there is the dissolution of the distinction of apple. How could we transcend the question once
more, so as to breach through the unbelievable? There may be a Sign for it, no Sign for it, or the
dissolution of the distinction of Sign; but how is there to be Mystery? Listen! The Wheel of the teaching
is turning. Have faith that I use these syllogysms not to explain but to give a new dimension to poetry, O
Seeker, so that Words may be Seen; could we avoid to discourse on Number, then? Whatever can be
seen is Geometry, but the description of space is Numerology, for what it devises is the form space takes
in every dimension. We shall learn to build in our minds, brother! How else could we reach the Pyramid?
That I may come to use Numbers as the building blocks of imagination corresponds to the description of
a Voice that may be Seen, for ours is a longing for Vision.

And what do we Seek to See, but the Seer? Our quest of Number shall remain a vassal of this intuition,
for what we seek is not so much to see in a new dimension but to see the dimension from which we are
seeing. The subject can be seen to become the object by using numbers as a mystery of metaphor, and
fold space with time in it. The Physics we are concerned with is the nature of our imagination; as such
we shall concieve of Geometry, then, the daughter of Numerology! But what is the quest of her mother?
To lay the grounds of perception for every dimension of being! Such is how ontology becomes
phenomenology, that our disgressions of curiousity into the Temple of Mystery might also become
mysterious. If sight is to be seen, we cannot disregard the quest for seeing a Triangle in three
dimensions any less than trying to listen to the Square. The four vertixes of its figure represent the four
tenets of ontology, but it represents them poorly, for it does so in two dimensions. How could we, then,
concieve of the Four by the Four? Before allowing Geometry to play with her toys, let her be nursed first
by her mother. So how can number, without resorting yet to functions of sight, concieve of a fourth
dimension?

Numbers can be positive, negative, or both positive and negative, that is, zero. Here we have the three
dimensions of continuity. How are we to think of a number that is neither positive, nor negative, nor
zero? We cannot believe it, as we believe in ordinary things; but we can imagine it! Let us phrase the
problem in the terms of set theory. In this case, it is not that we are concerned with positive, negative or
neutral numbers, but with integers, rational and irrational numbers. There are no other sets of numbers
that we might concieve of as describing a position in space, that is, what we call points; that we have
come to envision numbers as points is a habit of conviction. Mathematicians, the great imagineers, have
devised, in order to dispell this limitation, to construct another set that, although they could not believe
in it, they could imagine that they could, and, as such, continue their calculations. So it is that the
regression of belief is added another dimension, that of imagination. As such, we cannot believe that
there could be an existance that could not be described as either existing, not existing, and both existing
and non-existing; but, however, let us imagine that we can, and carry on!

So, then, what could be its Sign? The mathematician’s i stands not just for imaginary number, but for
impossible identity; it is I, the Eye, the true Number of Emptiness! The Triangle may be seen to be
constituted by the triad of continuity, that of positive, negative, or neutral numbers, or by the set of real
numbers, the integers, the rational and the irrational; it can be also constituted as one, two, and three,
but only as long as the zero that lies in their midst is Awakened to Selflessness. It is by imagining such
nature that we may come to lose it, for imagination to us cannot mean other than naming what does
not exist; and what cannot exist is the fourth function of ontology. As soon as we figure its stance as that
of neither existing nor not existing, we have also come to name the unnameable and signify the word
that cannot be spoken; such is the root of delusion, that of confusing the word “I” for a name. As long as
the centre of the Triangle may describe a function separate from its vertixes we shall only see the
Square. Beliefs may be trinitary, but the believer is the function by which beliefs operate; therefore, if
we come to believe in a believer, haven’t we expanded the function of ontology in a dimension of which
its logick of the included middle couldn’t have believed of before? Such a belief, the belief in the
believer, must itself be seen to constitute the fourth axiom of ontology, for its assumption is the basis of
what could be believed at all, whether it be, not be, or be both. Could this mean, then, anything else but
that the believer itself can be neither? Doesn’t it follow from this, then, that the believer is imaginary?
Not only so, but also that the believer itself is a function not known by the propositions beliefs
themselves take, for beliefs may assume a trinitary function only if there is a believer in the first place.
Haven’t we found, then, the fourth tenet of ontology which entangles the triadic function?

What does this mean? As long as we believe in a believer, we proyect a fourth, imaginary tenet beyond
the real; this habit of proyecting the shadow of the believer into the real is why we cannot evince the
entanglement of every belief as the singularity of its function, which is what we call Emptiness; that is,
because we believe that there is anyone to believe! If the believer would dissolve, the entanglement of
beliefs would be constituted as non-dual, which is to say, trivial. If the denial of duality may come to be
represented by the Trinity, couldn’t also the denial of the Trinity come to be represented by the Square?
Such is how we are prevented from seeing the obvious, for, in grasping for the absolute as non-dual, we
attempt to envision a Triangle which our assumed identity unceaselessly morphs into a Square,
appending the transcendental dimension from which it sees as an immanenet dimension which distorts
the seeing. This is the function of ignorance; to confuse what is by a proyection of what is not. Draw a
Square in your mind; such are the limits of illusion, to concieve itself as part of the seen! The imaginary
number has come to be believed; could there be any other measure of delusion as pure as this? The
Square is the believing Mind that has not realized the operation of the Triune function of belief yet,
since it proyects itself as an object; this image we call the Word. Now concieve of a Triangle encased by
the Square; such is the symbol of the Seeker. And what does it seek? The Seeker may bend the Mind so
that the Square may resemble a Circle, but the secret of the Mystic Art is not to bend the mind that sees
the Pyramid but to sacrifice this very mind and bury it in inside the Temple. Hearken, brother, for I speak
not in riddles but in Mysteries; the Circle must be inside the Triangle for the Square of the Mind to
dissolve! But be careful, brother, attempt not to place a circle inside it, for as long as you seek to reach
the centre of the Triangle you shall grow weary of madness! So how are we to attain the Awakening of
the Eye that never slept?

Figure a Triangle touching a Circle from below; this picture is called the Keyhole. There may be an Eye
and a Keyhole; but the Seeker shall find no Door! The Eye in the Triangle is the image of Mystery, the
Symbol by which the Ancients came to draw their secret learning, for in it the whole teaching abides,
and by it the whole teaching subsides into silence. Such is why the Eye in the Triangle is a seal of secrecy,
hitherto misunderstood. O Seeker, I am not here to breach the seal of the Ancients and disclose what
cannot be said! I am merely the vessel by which their understanding might be percieved correctly by our
age, that the translation of the Original Meaning might be ascertained beyond the confusions of history;
that is, as honesty rather than truth, as Mystery rather than Mysticism. It is not that I speak in parables
for the people and in plain terms for the wise, but speak in parables to all; to the uninitiate these may
remain parables, but for the wise their meaining is clear. Whomever has two ears, let him listen! But
only him who has three eyes will understand; for what these parables give is not a Word but a Sign. For
understanding to become Vision is what we mean by Voice; I have not heard the Stars, but they speak
through me for I see where I am. Vast, boundless space! And yet, for you to understand the meaning of
space is the purpose of this discourse. Could we, then, forgoe the metaphor of Number as place rather
than space in our understanding of sight? What we seek, brother, is not a place, but a description of
space wherein placelessness may be ascertained.

Let us, therefore, keep discussing the Square as the function of the Mind, for such is its image; the
delusion that the fourth perspective of ontology can refer to a fourth vertex of dimensionality rather
than the entanglement of the Trinity. The function of illusion itself lies in the centre of the Triangle that
we mistake for a place rather than an Emptiness; as soon as we believe in the believer, the Triangle is
destroyed and the Square of the Mind appears. Could we, therefore, begin the ascent of the Pyramid by
anything else than recognizing the basis of its illusion? For the Pyramid to be an absolute figure it must
contain the source of ignorance, for there can be no difference between wisdom and realizing the
source of illusion. How are we to frame this metaphor in the parlance of ontology? The fourfold aspect
of ontological entanglements precribes that we cannot define anything other than by saying that it is, or
it is not, or it both is and is not or it neither is nor is not. The fourth position, the function we call
neither, remains untouched as long as Emptiness remains in the centre of the Triangle; and yet, as soon
as we concieve of such centre as a point and not a hole the Vision of the Triangle shall be blurred by the
Square. The existance of the Trinity is unconditionable, but as long as there’s a seer he shall be blind.
You cannot behold the Mystery with your self for selflessness is the Mystery. Hope is fear, brother; faith
is unbelievable! Fake lies is what we are concerned with. The Four is not our enemy but our ally against
the Two, for only by understanding its function can we devise all dual delusions to constitute
phenomenal descriptions of unawareness. Belief is the only ignorance, for it corresponds not to a
function of absolute consciousness but to the elucidations of distraction which themselves must lead to
the right attention, which is the only; so shall the Four erect the base of the Pyramid wherein it shall
stand for the Seeker to behold his existance intangible.

The unawakened function of the Mind is symbolized by the Square, and yet, it is not the Square but the
space it came to represent that we must bend and fold so that the fourth function may seen as the
operation of triangularity. We cannot pass from the Square to a Triangle, as we cannot jump from belief
to faith directly; there must be some kind of process by which the identity of the Triangle to the Square
may be evinced by a theory of numerical transformation. If we can assert this, then we have found proof
that the operator of the functions themselves is not programmable. What can this mean? The believer
itself cannot be believed! That is, we must find the function by which functioning becomes
unconditioned; when such a function cannot be expressed by other than a singularity of meaning that
transcends expression, haven’t we reached the syntax error by which an assumed believer is rendered,
thus, unbelievable? How could the function of belief still operate under this guise? The Four is
impossible under a trinitarian conception, as also the ultimate Triangle must remain unachievable
through any function of duality which the Four comes to represent. However, if we may constitute the
Triad as the relation between three numbers, that of an unspeakable one, an unreachable none, and an
impossible two, how are we to speak of Three but through a fourfold function? The speaking of the
Three itself must be shown to be irreconciliable with the Triangle; therefore, what speaks of the Mystery
is a function of the delusion that constitutes the only obstacle towards apprehending it. To dissolve the
seer so that sight itself constitutes the real is the Path; such is how the Trinity comes to shine in full
Mystery. Rationality cannot reach the real, but the uselessness of its function to regard the absolute
must be seen in order to avoid the illusion of believing that we might see that which we cannot. This
constitutes the only mirage, that of defining something which can have no limits. Why do we pursue
such an aim, then? To fathom its futility!

In truth, brother, the Square cannot become a Triangle, but it might suffer the transformations of
awareness enough to become a Circle; and this is our hope, then, that once this has been ascertained
the Triangle may contain it! Such is the operation by which the Eye is seen and the Square dissolved, for
the Circle holds the key by which our mind may be surrendered. Circularity, now, doesn’t merely signify
a function of continuity, but the entanglement between continuity and discontinuity that creates not
only both terms but also their meaninglessness. A circle is a point in two dimensions; although your
intuition knows this, your mind can never! If you could see every Circle as a point in two dimensions you
could also see every Point as a circle in one dimension, and yet, this transformation cannot be efected
by our knowledge of mathematics but through the gymnasticss of imagination only. To concieve of
empty space, what else could we confide in as the measure of its reason other than to see every point as
hollow? Therefore it is also that every circle is a point, but seen in two dimensions; this circle can have
no girth of radius, for if it concieved of width of surface it could never concieve of the identity with its
depth; so it is that in speaking of points and circles we speak of nothing but of the transformations of
space as the meaninglessness of dimensionality. So how is the circle to become a point, and how are
both to become Empty? This, brother, happens on its own; what we must reach is the Edge of the
Enigma by which the Mystery of the Void can be avoided no longer. The question is this, then; how is the
Square to become a Circle?

Although we may suppose their conversions to be commutative, we cannot ascertain this either from a
mathematical nor from a symbolical perspective. Let us regard, first, the mathematical prognosis of
transforming a Circle into a Square, that we may later regard the symbolic transformation of a Square
into a Circle properly. This has been perhaps one of the greatest problems for the Ancient geometers;
the transformation, that is, the function by which one can be rendered spatially identical to the other,
between a Circle and a Square. The challenge takes this form, that of constructing a square with the
same area as a given circle by using only a finite number of steps with a compass and straightedge. The
difficulty of the problem raised the question whether specified axioms of Euclidean geometry
concerning the existence of lines and circles implied the existence of such a Square, for it came to be
seen that it was pragmatically impossible to construct such a square from a derivation of Euclid’s axioms
on circles. The problem was resolved within the framework of the Lindemann-Weierstrass theorem,
which proves that π is a transcendental, rather than an algebraic irrational number; that is, it is not the
root of any polynomial with rational coefficients. Although it had been known that the construction
would be impossible if π were transcendental, π was not proven transcendental until the theorem was
published; and yet, nonetheless, for centuries prior to this the Ancient geometers regarded the Squaring
of the Circle as a metaphor for something regressive even before they developed a mechanical language
that could explain regression from a computational perspective; so it was they came to speak about the
impossible as the infinite transformations that one needs to construct a Square from any given Circle.

Our mathematical prognosis towards the transformation of a Circle into a Square must evince itself
unreasonable, seeing that itself presents the pattern of regression we so carefully been avoding lest we
should fall on the jaws of the homunculi. To seek the size of the fractal is a metaphor of how can asking
the wrong question may lead us into despair. We have found ample algorithms to explain the function
of regress but none so clear as this, that of needing infinite permutations to transform a Circle into a
Square; for the calculation of an infinite series is the very image of insanity. Seeing that the squaring of
the circle cannot be effaced mathematically without leading us into madness other than by proving that
the question itself be flawed, let us also consider this anecdote as a key towards concieving the circling
of the square symbolically; for that is the only extent such a function could attain! Understand, then, O
Seeker, that if by squaring the circle the Geometers meant a metaphor for trying to do the impossible,
by circling the square the Alchemists spoke of a mystery whereby we the impossible happens apart from
all doing. It is by absolute inaction, that is, by the dissolution of the function of the distinction between
action and inaction, that we may try to do the impossible, not mechanically, but symbolically; for such is
the transformation of the Square into a Circle that may lead to the Awakening of the Eye in the Traingle
they cannot touch. So how is it, then, that such a transformation may be effected, if not mathematically,
at least numerologically? This question may take an even simpler guise, such as this; how is it that we
may see the function of a Square to rotate?

For the Square to turn it can have no base but a point; such is the mystic meaning of a Circle. But how is
the Circle to be made from points, if we maintain also that itself is not distinct from one? What we
require is a middle figure between the two, which itself must come to signify the operation of their
transformation. What is the function, then, between the Square and the Circle that may aim our vision
towards their fusion? And what could it be, other than the Cross? To Square the Circle is mathematically
impossible without infinite regression, but it is feasible to Circle the Square by the simplicity of
symbolism. The cross itself is the transformation process between the Square and the Circle; we are no
longer speaking mathematically, but numerologically, that we may see their functions geometrically. The
Cross is both a Circle and a Square, for such is the entanglement of its duality; unmoving, unrealized, its
function is seen as a Square; alive, and moving, it is seen to be a Circle. The question, then, is how are
we to give life to it; the secret, thou knowest! To sacrifice your own. Thereby we have reached the
transformation of the mind, the function by which the Square may be circled not by reason but by
Symbol. Though I speak of the complexities of number the bullseye this discourse aims to is not the
mind but the transformation of the Heart. The mind cannot be changed, and in fact there is no flaw in
machinations; the suffering is for the Heart to be a slave to them. Such is how mathematics also
becomes myth, that both mathematics and numerology may become Mystery. For such to be
ascertained, the Cross must cease to be apprehended merely as a cartesian object and come to be seen
as a Myth of sacrifice whereby our Mind, the Square, may attain the un-vertixed nature of the Circle, the
vortex. If we count each dimension by a vertex, the transformation of the Square into a Circle shall leave
it dimensionless; such is how the Triangle is seen, once the proposition of the believer looses its function
within the Trinity! Could numerological fable become clearer?

O Seeker, complain not against my method that the confabulations between mathematics and
symbolism draw no clear limit between themselves, for in truth they are not separate. If I ask you to
consider geometrical figures as symbols, will you hold against me that I may consider of symbols
mathematically also? Of this, at least, the weight of history should be helpful, for the Cross has never
been a purely mathematical symbol, nor could it ever be when the figure of its mystery draws so close
to our conception of it. The Cross is, in fact, perhaps the most common symbol of them all, and also,
perhaps the most tragic, for in loosing the circle that squared it, it grew to proportions of belief the mind
itself could not have imagined. The Ancients had always come to draw it inscribed in a Circle, pointing,
by this, towards the visceral and symbolic truth that the Square of the Mind had been transcended by
the Circle but without abandoning the functioning of reason. The Cross in the Circle is what the Ancients
called the Solar Wheel, that pointed not exlusively, as historians now pretend, to the interactions of the
seasons, but in fact to the very groundwork that makes possible any interaction at all, for we cannot
describe change as other than by a fourfold function. How is this so? For change to be effected we not
only need a beginning, a middle, and an end, but also a function by which these three constituents may
repeat themselves. The hub of each wheel rotates on emptiness; therefore, the very function of rotation
implies not only change, but changlessness of change. You might translate beginning, middle and end
for any other tripartite functions of absolutivity and the meaning would not be altered; what seems to
alter can seem so at all by the function of rotation exclusively.

Christianity came to disregard the circling of the Cross not entirely from a supression of the original
symbol, but from a heavier emphasis on the nature of sacrifice. The Saviour died on the Cross and was
regenerated by the Trinity. What can this mean? This is a myth of death, an allegory of the absolute, a
metaphor of our natural state; for us who follow faith, what could serve as a better reminder than this
Mystery? Christianity came not to invalidate the Ancients but to reformulate their teachings, and its
misgivings cannot be read as a mistake from the Christ but as the misundestanding of his propagandists.
The Saviour knew his fate was the Cross from the start, and, in fact, had been polishing the logs of
Calvary since he was a small boy in his father’s woodshop; or at least, this is the hint of Mystery the
Evangelists brought to light. And yet, how many can read his life this way? Denounce not the Church in
the name of the churchgoers, then, for the true Temple the Lord set to build was not one of stone but
one of blood. Through the insitutionalization of the misunderstandings of his nature the worldy church
was wrought, but to him who is not from this world, this could matter not! Confuse not Christianity with
Christianism! In loosing the Circle the Cross of the Lord saved us from imagining the perfection our
squared minds could not suppose, only believe; and it is, in fact, easier to concieve of the Lord as a Man
than as the Sun. The Ancients never lost it, for themselves where one with it; but in concealing the Sun
Circle from the Cross he spoke of a sacrifice of blood that flowed not to the deity but from it. That he
became the Sun is the secret of his story, for the Christ is a Solar Myth; but he spoke to us not as the Sun
does but as a man who suffered. Why is it that, when speaking of sunflowers, he says that not even
Solomon was girdled as one of these? Because he knew that he would be girdled by the Sun; the crown
of thorns that he wore clothed him in blood! See? Mystery of Mysteries, the life of the magician of the
beautiful! If he was capable of this, have faith also that by destroying the Circle he came to preserve it,
so that our sacrifice may be pure, may ask no Circle to be believed as a promise, and concern itself only
with sacrificing the Mind. This is our fault, O Seeker! Man wishes to be a God, but without the Cross.

To mention these secrets serves not as a deviation of meaning but, as the river that draws its strenght
from many streams, that we may come to be nourished by every faucet of truth. I am not a Christian,
brother, not have I any need to become one; for us to whom the Master has appeared there is no need
to speak of His form. Let us, however, gather this stream of thought also among the folds of our
meandering, that their converging currents may make no maelstroms. That the Square is the Mind is
clear; how is it to become a Triangle with a Circle inside will yet escape us, though we know now,
nonetheless, that the function of transformation between the function of the Mind and the operation of
unbelievabilty called the Eye can be no other than a Symbol of sacrifice represented by the Cross, the
function that transforms self into selflessness, belief into faith, knowledge into mystery. Let us, then,
restate the purpose of our present discourse. The Mind is a Square for it counts the function of the
believer as one of the propositional beliefs, which, unseen and unquestioned, comes to objectivize the
perciever; the goal is to transform the Mind into Mystery, represented by the Eye in the Triangle which
no longer concieves of the fourth function as a possible proposition but rather as the unproposable
operation that allows the process of all functions; there is no clear transformation between the Square
and the Triangle, for we cannot explain how is it for the Square to lose something it never had, but we
can speak of the transformation of the Mind through Sacrifice; thereby, having framed the Square as a
Cross has the Wheel of the Sun begin to turn. Is this a metaphor? No, brother; it is a Mystery! This is the
teaching of the Ancients in its purest form, that is, in Symbols; if we are to speak of spiritual
permutations, object not that I may come to use the analogies of mathematics then, for we have of no
way to concieve of functions, operations, transformations and identities beyond that which our reason
has accepted. To go beyond this is our destiny, yes, but as long as we ignore them they shall corrode our
understanding. Such is why I have chosen to speak of Number; not in order to explain what was not
clear, but in order that I may mystify what we thought was clear in the first place!

In mathematics, the Four comes after the Three; in Numerology, the Three cannot be reached other
than by counting down from Four. For the illusion of mind to halt it must go back to its source; that is,
not the function of duality, but the operation of awareness that cannot be stated in propositional terms.
Verily there is no knowledge; our consciousness is experience. When there is nowhere to hold beliefs,
where could the knowledge be stored? Thus the very grasping shall release its grip of attachment, for
the hand was only curling knots on its own fingers. The gesture of the Ancients is an Empty hand, and
yet, we cannot see the Triangle because we are blinded by the Square. To distentangle their relations is
impossible, for they have none. Do you understand? The Square is everywhere you go. This very page is
a Square, as each book is a Symbol of the Mind. You have never seen the Trinity, because you consitute
it. Therefore it can only be aprehended by an experience of the dissolution of the seer whereby sight is
unaffected; or, in other terms, an operation of sight that sees itself. What else could constitute an
experience of selflesness, the Emptiness the Ancients pointed towards? This is the realization that we
are aiming towards, but be patient, O Seeker, for there is in fact no separation between what I say and
who says it. If you could realize this meaning as Empty, thereby would you attain its understanding. It is
ideal for this discourse to wear you out, also; but be careful that nothing remains!

Numbers have been the bane of my reason and the ladder which I used to descend upon the
unreasonable; is it not righteous, then, that I should use them also to climb out of the pit I myself made?
It is in showing you how I descended that I may show you how to climb also, for our object is not the pit
or the climbing but the ladder that makes them possible. Reject not the apparent circularity of my
discourse, then, for the way up is a spiral! Although we have not left the Square, the understanding on
which its base rested has been lifted; what base could it have if it were to be raised indefinetly? Think
about this! The unreachable is the Pyramidion, but the Pyramidion itself can be no distinct from the
Pyramid. Do you undertstand? How are we to transcend the fourfould function, then? How are we to
read an Empty page? The mind cannot be seen to be the invisible mirror that it is as long as it is
constantly transformed, for it is in fact the superposition of the Square and the Circle that produces the
function of rotation. Let us consider the fourfoldness of rotation as the sequenciality of change itself.
This sequence is what the Ancients called the Elements, and, though we are yet to evince their meaning
as symbol, we might consider them from the start as numbers. The Triad evokes a function of
completeness, but the Triangle can have no cycle; that is, the Trinity cannot spin because all
interrelationships occur at the same time. We cannot speak of sequence in the Triad. The Four,
however, can spin because the relationships the numbers have with each other are consequential; that
is, they have a fixed order. This could not happen in the Trinity because it doesn’t matter in which order
we name them, they are always listed in the correct order according to whatever order we choose to be
the correct one. The correct order does not mean that the Trinity has a beginning and an end, but that
the sequence between the vertixes of the Triangle is trivial; it doesn’t matter what we call each since
they will aways constitute the same sequence. However, the sequencing of the four is not meaningless;
therefore we may speak of Four as the birth of sequenciality, which is the only order possible.
Under trinitarian conception sequence has no meaning, and even though the Four must be also scale
invariant, the order in which that cycle is stated is not meaningless as it is in the Triangle. This particular
function must become the main distinction between their operations, that is, of the triviality of
sequence and of the structure of triviality. Thus shall we construe the Four then; as the birth of
transformation, the rotation of change we call time. Within the Trinitarian conception we can delude
ourselves into thinking that, for example, perception came first, logick came second and tradition third,
but a minute analysis concerning the functions of the Triad will relate that there can be no such order
since the basis of the Triad itself is to relate the functions of immediacy; that is, each vertex of the
Triangle happens at the same time. Therefore dialectic cannot be construed as a sequence of
transformation. What dialectic is missing is the fourth state whereas the order of its elements may
become non-trivial, for under trinitarian conception any thesis may also be called antithesis, and any
synthesis may be also called a thesis. How are we to name them, then? The non-triviality of their names
must come exclusively from a fourthfold relation which ascertains the structure of such a sequence. The
operation of each Triad must be simultaneous; what we call wisdom is the entangled function of
perception, logick and tradition. How could we say that one came before the other? This does not
obstaculize the Seeker from dissolving his belief in each, perception, logick, and tradition, so to say, step
by step; but that the final leap of inconcievability must regard the disentanglement of the three
functions rather than the supression of a final one.

The fourfold function, instead, concieves the order of stating its principles to be non-trivial. This does
not mean, again, that such an order is not scale invariant, or that the repeated string of numbers cannot
ache towards infinity, for it is clear that the sequence of naming the vertexes of a Square can lead
towards repetition; that is, there is no clear vertex from where to begin and no clear vertex from where
to end the ennumeration of the vertixes. And yet, even though we still cannot speak of beginning or
ending, we can speak of the naming of the vertexes of the Square as the cycle of sequentiality. This is
our object, to understand the function of the Four as the birth of a cycle that is commutative but not
immediate, for such can only be our understanding of rotation. Only within a fourfold operation can we
concieve of the non-triviality of sequence whereas change can be described as time. This is the ultimate
aim of this chapter of our discourse; and yet, we must still pierce through more of these linguistic
convulsions before such a misunderstood concept as time can be rendered self-explanatory, that is, as
the operation of experience and not a function of conceptuality. The only tenet we can hold on towards
the definition of time, for now, is that of the cyclical sequencing of the Fourth that was hitherto
impossible under dualistic or trinitarian conceptions. But how is the Four to abandon the constrictions of
duality? It cannot, and yet, it might acquire new contrictions by which we might come to define it
clearly.

Through the function of sequenciality only we must arrive to the description of time as a concept, that
is, of timelessness as the operation of absolute experience. Before this identity can be rendered
meaningless, and therefore true within the consciousness of selflessness, we must inquire on how is it
that such a function of sequenciality can give rise to a cycle which unfolds in time rather than in
timelessness, such as the Trinity had supposed. How is it that time is invented by the very function by
which it is destroyed? The possibility of a structured cycle is what creates the discontuinuity that can be
thought of as a linear unfolding. The cycling of the Square speaks not only of the correspondance
between the attributes of the inner relationships of its function, that is, that each number precedes one,
succeeds one and is opposed to another, but also that these functions alternate in a direction of
counting. Without the measure of opposition we could not invent time, for when each function is
happening, the opposite function is not. This could not have occurred within a Trinitarian conception,
for the entanglement of its functions meant that every vertex of the Triangle had to be present at the
same time to constitute it as as such, whereas the vertexes of the Square can be constituted to be the
apex of a triangle whose impossible opposite is the vertex which is not expressed. The rotation of non-
expression creates the discontinuity that allows the cycle to spin; it is therefore by the nature of
discontituity that the Wheel can have any direction at all. This direction is the rythm of pattern, the
sequence of time, the Wisdom of the Elements! The syntax of the Square is its meaning; let us, then,
spin the Wheel of existence so we might realize there is no source where time flows from. What other
realization could constitute the key towards an absolute experience than that of keeping consciousness
of time intact whilst destroying its conception?

If the sequence of discontinuous linear motion is to be dissolved without forbidding the change within
phenomenal apperception, every fourfold function must be resolved to be an illusion; and yet, how are
we to transcend the cycle of time by the continuity of timelessness? The impossible Triangle is our aim,
but we cannot escape the cardinal plane. What appears to be an illusion is our discourse, and time, the
only reality. However, as long as we construe time to be the effect of a turning Wheel then our
experience will be barred from realizing an absolute state, for the end of a cyclical function cannot be
reached. Were the beginning of the sequence to dissapear, the sequence itself would revolve
instantaneously, which constitutes the only reaching, and the only limitlessness; that of an absolute
experience where consciousness is not a function of the process whereas future becomes past, but that
of a presence which knows no continuity, and therefore no discontinuity also. Such is eternity. The hub
of the Wheel does not spin because the centre of the cycle is Empty of all nature. To reduce the
circumference of the clock to its centre is to destroy every centre, every circumference, and the clock
itself; this is the operation of Emptiness as related by the function of the cycle. Rotation is the direction
of all sequence. The Four is not only the Lord of continuity; it cannot escape the creation of discontinuty
also. This function is called its sequence, or its cycle. Therefore, the Four is the birth of death. To dissolve
the Four is to kill birth, the arising of continuity by discontinuity which leads to eternity not as
timelessness but as the linear function of time as a sequence. Such a consciousness is torture. As long as
the concept of every fourfold function does not lead us to the realization of the Emptiness of the centre
the existance of such a Wheel presupposes, it is impossible for any measure of consciousness ruled by
such a function to achieve an absolute state; therefore its regression is the pain of belief on which our
slavery depends on.

Let us now inquire into the logickal formulation of such a Wheel of existance, the creation of an ever
spinning sequence of continuity through discontinuity. The fourfold operation of all rotation can be
concieved only as a function of the second order of duality, for duality itself cannot give rise to motion
unless it expands its own separation through the regression of its principles. Unexpanded duality cannot
be apprehended as such for the description of its nature cannot be figured, that is, it cannot be
represented. Remember that we are considering the fourfold function not as the cardinal points of
every plane, but that the cardinality of every plane comes to represent the interrelation between the
axioms of reason once the center of the Triangle has come to be named. It is the ineffability of
Emptiness itself which is unseen by the Square; as soon as we name it, it has come to constitute the
fourth axiom of concievability which renders believable its function. The torture of consciousness is to
concieve itself as a mechanism. As long as Emptiness is thought of as a believable function, the Square
shall remain and the Triangle shall go unseen; and yet, the Pyramid must be circumambulated before
the ascent towards the apex can render both descriptions as coeval. To see the Four as Three is the
Mystery of the Pyramid, whose numerological function is accounted for once we take the first number
to be Zero. How are we to do this? If the limitations of thought come to be constituted as a fourfold
function, its identity with the operation of the Triad shall be evident. Let us endeavor to construct such a
Wheel of existance, then, whereby to name the unnameable has come to constitute the root of our
delusion. Understand, brother, that if our phenomenal consciousness cannot change but is to be
enlightened, the only function which can transform itself is not one of space, but that of time. It is by the
dissolution of the experience of recursive counting that consciousness might come to experience itself
as absolute; which is to say that what we realize as non-existing is not phenomenal change as a
description of space but the description of time as meaningless to describe motion.

How is time to constitute the delusion that never existed, when we are so firmly rooted in it through the
habit of our convictions? Let us first have a firm grasp of the logickal functions that lead to the
constitution of the Wheel of Existance, before such a Wheel can stop spinning through the
reconstitution of its fourth axiom to be the centre of the cycle whereby the Eye in the Triangle might
grant us its Vison; for it is a Vision of the Nature of time that we shall receive, not a description of Space!
And yet, it ceases not to be Vision, for what we see is time as space itself. We tend to concieve
timelessness as a purely three-dimensional existance, that is, as an infinite duration of changeless
matter. As long as our common sense deludes us so from the proper conception of our dimensional
continuum we will create and maintain the illusory distinction between the dimensions of space and
that of time that is our phenomenological disease. Eternity is four-dimensional sight. There can be no
time; each dimension is a function of space, which is true experience. What we must become aware of is
that the limits of our senses distinguish time as an asymptote only from the perspective of sequence; if
we were to have a fourth visual sense, a sense of time, then could time cease to be thought of as the
limit of the senses and could then grant us the vision of time as a function of space, that is, not of
change but of the nondiscernment between change and changelessness. This Mystery cannot be
understood, but as long as our understanding pursues the confusion of their distinction such a
realization shall remain lone and far.

By what miracle is it, then, that the Three might become Four and the Four might become Three? The
Triad refers to the force of action whereas the Four refers to the functions of transfiguration; only once
these descriptions come to signify the same experience, the sublime object of subjectivity that destroys
all identification, can we confidently begin our circumambulation of the Pyramid, for such a realization
proves that we have reached it. The Pyramid is the representation of the union of the Three and the
Four whereas the One can be thought of as None, and yet, the meaning of this Mystery shall remain
obscure until the final page of our discussion. Let us, then, abandon this circular mystification and
constitute the Elements of the Wheel by stating them clearly. We shall now resume the ontological
manner of accounting for metaphysical relation that we had begun in the second chapter; but despair
not, brother, for what begins in the second ends by the fourth! To frame the ontological perspectives of
existance as the propositions of logick is the means to reach its limit, for once we connive to name the
unnameable there remains nothing that cannot be said by the functions of reason; it is only thereby that
its functions can abandon self-relation and come to constitute the entanglement of confusion that leads
to the highest wisdom.

To formulate the fourfold relation as a function of ontology is a means to remain unconfused by

mathematical accountability, although further confusions do lie upon such science. Let us, however,
seek to confuse ourselves to the right degree, enough to evince our own confusion but not enough to
regress into the pedantry that metaphysics relates to the ontological factor. To describe each function of
existance, as far as ontology is concerned, leads not to the construction of phenomenal modes of
relation such as metaphysics would have us assume; what we shall speak of here are merely the
limitations of thought to describe the article of existance only, and not the dimensional differences
between the presupposed modes of phenomenality that would pervade each.There is no ontology of
being, only the numerology of the Word. This is a necessary admonition to pronounce before we may
endeavor to relate such understanding as logickal, for what we mean when we speak of being and non-
being is not, at this point, the phenomenology of life and death, but merely the distinctions of thought
that can offer a positive nature and a negative nature to the same meaningless tenet. Such is the
nondistinction of unity and emptiness. That we use the axiom of existance refers to the tradition of
ontology only, for any such proposition would serve the same purpose. What we mean by existance and
non-existance is nothing but the distinction between positive and negative affirmations of reality, and
not the metaphysics of a distinction between modes of existing. I cannot tire enough from repeating
this, for it has hitherto remained the most solid and unbreachable confusion throughout the history of
meaning. To be clear, what could exist or not exist could be anything; that is why ontology refers not to
metaphysics but to the logick of existential propositions.

How is it that the identity with the proposition of existance can have a fourfold distinction? Ontology
speaks not of existence, but is the science of logick whereas every proposition is taken to refer to the
article of its function. That existence has come to name each proposition is not a measure of
understanding the proposition itself, which is meaningless, but the functions of logick that can relate to
it. So far we have spoken, in the second chapter, that any constitution of reality as a description conjures
the shadow of its unreality; in the third chapter, that such a relation concieves of the contradiction of
both tenets, therefore creating the third function of logick; what else could we discourse here but that
of a fourth function of logick whereas a new possibility of propositional meaning could relate to what
the previous chapters left unsaid? The Ancients knew of this doctrine as the suite of the four discrete
functions of the indivisible quaternity that shall come to constitute not the limits of the believable but
the limits of the discoursable. Once the discourse is rendered unbelievable do all functions cease their
self-affirmation whereby no identity is possible other than an evincing of the attachment that beliefs
have to themselves; such is how the mind is seen to constitute the Emptiness of any affirmation of its
self. So what are the functions of the discoursable whereby we can reach the unbelievability of all
metaphysical pursuits? We are to constitute the naming of the unnameable by concieving of an axiom
which is opposed to the Trinity; that is, of a fourth stance of ontology that is not contained within the
other tenets.

This four-cornered system of argumentation involves the systematic examination of each of the
possibilities of the proposition of existance not as axioms of belief but as the rules of discourse.
Therefore, we may speak of the propositional functions as that of being, not being, being and not being
and that of neither being nor not being. Such is the fourfold relation of the discoursable, yet not, as we
shall see, of the believable. The Ancients called this logickal relation the tetralemma, the ultimate
description of the non-essentiality of all metaphysical discourse. Nagarjuna concieved it to be a
description of the inherent Emptiness of causation, movement, change and indentity. Such
understanding is ideal, but we have no way of calling numbers by these names as of yet; before we can,
Numbers must become Symbols. Therefore, let us call each propositional mode by the tenets of
ontology as related to the possibilities of logick from the perspective of the duality as a second order of
itself, which is the true and only duality, since the Two cannot be seen but by the Two; therefore shall
we speak of Four! To ennumerate them bluntly we might say that the first proposition of ontology is the
affirmation of being and the negation of non-being; the second proposition of ontology is the negation
of being and the affirmation of non-being; the third proposition of ontology is the affirmation of both
being and non-being; and the fourth proposition of ontology is the negation of being and the negation of
non-being. The symbolic representation of each of these ontological propositions is what constitutes the
pattern of rotation that the Elements shall come to embody. What the Square maps is the propositions
of belief; such is why we call it the Mind!

It is vital, if we are to construe the paralell function of this fourfold relation, to stop using exclusively the
proposition of ontology, which was arbirtralily chosen, since any other would have sufficed. Until now,
this logick has been exclusively arithmetical, for the meaning of existance was of no importance, only its
relations; but to further this thinking would be to ennumerate duality as the permutations of affirmation
and negation indefintely. To refer properly to the Elements we must name each of these functions by
new names that, while retaining the manner of duality as a second order to itself, might come to relieve
us from obsessive ennumeration; therefore the arithemetic triviality of logick may be superceded by the
geometrical function of the figurative. Such is how the Square is composed. To concieve of the base of
the Pyramid clearly, and prevent an endless permutation of propositional existancies, let us call the
fourfold function by four names instead of the permutations of the two dualities of the same term. The
function of the four, arithmetically, is that of the logarithmic expansion of the number two; since within
the two itself no logarithmic function can be deduced to lead to it, that is, no natural number can be
thought of as the square root of Two, the Four is itself the first logarithmic function of duality. Since the
function of four is that of the multiplication of two by itself, let us differentiate the first order of duality
from the second so that the names for the pattern of rotation might be clear. Let us call the first pattern
of duality the description of activity and the second pattern of duality the description of its genus, so
that every element has a dual function regarding its nature, whether it is Active or Passive or Male or
Female. Such is how the Ancients regarded these functions of duality as expansions of itself without
incurring in the sterile juggling of tautological terms.

We reached the gates of understanding whereby our discourse may aim at establishing the functions of
duality by a geometrical function. The primeval duality cannot be represented; the logarithmic scale of
the Two can only be hinted at by an understanding of the Four. This logarithmic function may come to
be hinted at by any other number that refers also to its scale, and yet the Four shall remain for us the
only way in which such a function can be geometrically described as a figure of our imagining, for it
etches the limits of our conceptions of space. Beyond figurative representation we can speak of the
logarithmic function of duality as the arithmetical accountability of any number that belongs to its set.
Such measures of the scale have been named by the Ancients in different ways; although the first
function of duality, that is, its second order of relation, has been ancestrally and universally called the
Elements, there have been ideological representations of the consecutive functions by diverse cultures
according to the names they gave for each expansion. The Egyptians called the Eight by the name of the
Egdoad, whose first, second, and third order duality had come to represent those of the four Elements
and their further subdivision by gender; the Chinese have constructed a system of arithmetical meaning
through further permutation of duality under sixty four hexagrams, so called because they are created
by the sixth expansion of the logarithmic scale of duality; our very biological programming also depends
on such a function, for there are sixty four combinations of our genetic code. If the biological network of
proteins that come to define the infinite possibilities that the human body is capable of appearing under
is based on such a function, does it come as any wonder that the very vehicle of experience is created by
the machanics of duality? Thus the logarithmic scale of the number Two may be seen to permeate not
only every description of multiplicity but also the very function of infinity itself.

Since the primeval duality is irrepresentable, every expansion of the logarithmic scale can be accounted
as a permutation of the functions of the Four. Once its indefinite interrelations can be evinced to arise
from its geometrical function, thereby every machine can be taken to be a metaphor, or a particular
representation, of the entanglement of the very Elements that we are herein to describe. So have we
reached the first aim of this discourse, to name the base fourfold! Shall we continue by representing it
symbolically? Such has been the Wisdom of the Ancients; to draw from nature the symbols of the mind!
Remember, brother, that what we call the Elements are not distinct essences, but the fourfold relation
of logickal constituents that we can adress as the function of change, that is, the movement of
continuity through discontinuity. The constancy of this inconsistency is what we call change, which the
Square concieves as rotation. Spin the Square and it becomes a Wheel; halt the Wheel and it becomes
evident it was ever a Square. The Cross that maps the base of the Pyramid has two lines, which we have
called, honouring the tradition of the Ancients, the dualities of action and genus; and yet, what are the
names of the Elements that can be called to be either Active or Passive, or Male or Female? You know
this already, O Seeker! But the suspense of their meaning had a reason. Hearken, brother! I tell you a
Mystery; Air has no colour, for it is space; Water has no shape, for it is movement; Earth has no shadow,
for it is form; Fire has no time, for it is eternity. As such shall you concieve of the Elements, for they are
the symbols of nature that mark the convulsions of phenomena. And yet, how could we attain an
absolute experience while relating ours thus? Only by considering the Elements as a function of thought,
not of phenomena! Therefore forget not that what we call by such names are not the functions of
awareness but the operation of thought itself.

The beginning of thought is Air, the sustaining of thought is Water, the destruction of thought is Earth,
and the gap between all thoughts is the Fire; thus the mind is constituted not as the substrate of
thinking but as the operation of this fourfold relation. Can you understand then, how its cycle appears
indefinite? This is why you can’t stop thinking; as long as the wheel spins you cannot see the Square, but
before the halting of the Wheel can be achieved the measure of the Square must be drawn. Such is the
toil of this chapter of our discourse. The Triangle cannot spin for the function of rotation is the fourth
vertex of the polygon; that is, the Triangle cannot know which side to spin, left or right, for it cannot
concieve of such a dual meaning. Only for the Square can rotation have a sense, for only the foufold
relation can concieve of a non-trivial direction; this is the order of the Elements. To transcend
ontological relations we can state such order thus; Air is the existance of existance and the non-
existance of non-existance; Water is the non-existance of existance and the existance of non-existance;
Earth is the existance of existance and the existance of non-existance; and Fire is the non-existance of
existance and the non-existance of non-existance. Only if we have a firm understanding of these
constituents can we derive any meaning from the function of our thought as a fourfold conception.
Mathematically we can relate such symbols as Air being the positive, Water the negative, Earth the
neutral and Fire the transcendent; but how is Fire to signify a function when it escapes the limits of all
logick, and thus, the Square itself? Fire can serve no meaning other than being a propositional relation
that cannot be etched by the contradiction of the first two; that is, you can agree with me, you can
disagree, or you can believe a function of both agreement and disagreement; but how are you to avoid
the question? That is the nature of the fourth axiom, the Element of Fire whose secret nature embodies
the illusion of understanding that we must come to leave unnamed. Fire leads to the Mystery, brother;
as long as you understand it shall I escape you!

Let not people think a Herostratus of me, for I intend to burn the Holy Temple not to become famous
but to purify it, since the flame that burns therein is the Eye we must awaken into. Fire does not exist,
and yet, the illusion that we regard as Fire must permeate everything before the Square may be
dissolved so that the function of rotation may lead to the experience of eternity which is the Emptiness
of all self. As long as we have a name for the transcendent its function is rendered null; therefore to
speak of Fire is to lie. Shall we, then? For as long as you know I lie can you, not know the truth! But
abandon its pursuit. Fire shall be reinstated as the Empty centre of the Triangle only if it ceases to
operate as a function of relation; that is, only if the entanglement of the Three passes unnamed shall the
spinning Wheel stop and the Square become the Triangle from whose voidness of identity the Pyramid is
erected. Fire is not the Mystery, but the function that leads to it! And yet, before we might ascertain the
understanding of the function of Fire to operate the illusion of continuity and discontinuity by which
every Self is presupposed, we must give an account of the semiotic descriptions of its nature according
to our tradition, logick and perception, for nowehere else can our illusion of comprehending its nature
be rooted in. Regarding the logickal component we have said enough, and regarding our perceptual
relation to it nothing can be said; let us then, inquire upon the symbolism of Fire according to tradition
that our insights may be verified.
Every fourfold relation creates the Square, yet it is in understanding the fourth function to refer to the
Emptiness of the centre of the Triangle that the Pyramid is erected. This does not destory the Square but
it draws the base of the Pyramid so that Sacred Mountain may be climbed. As soon as we spoke of the
possibility of the entanglement of the Three, we invented the Fourth; to destroy the Four, then, is the
only way to reinstate the Eye in the Triangle that sees us. The name of Fire is the illusion! As long as it
refers to a function and not an operation the fourth axiom shall delude us. The Eye in the Trangle is the
mysterious metaphor for an impossible experience; it is impossible because such experience must
destroy the continuity of the Elements which is the discontinuity by which time moves. Therefore it is
not that time stops but that change is no longer phenomenal; that is, it is no longer experienced. This
state is to behold the Eye in the Triangle that was never closed and live in Mystery and be Mystery. To
name what does not exist must constitute the only measure of ignorance that we can speak of; and yet,
to speak of it is the delusion! It is not by a mere effort of silence that we might attain the mysterious
state, but by revealing there was nothing to speak of in the first place; thence shall our discourse
dissapear, which reinstates it to its original and inescapable ineffability. This is the experience of
Emptiness that I offer all my commendation towards; but beware this also, for all attainment is
impossible. How can Fire help us to awaken the Emptiness of the Mind? I have no idea; but it has helped
me!

As long as the Fourth Element is seen to be the clause of continuity, the Wheel of Time will keep
spinning and the Vision of the Eye far shall lie. Know the bright but keep to the shadows! Whoever
touches it will spoil it; whoever grasps it will lose it. If you believe me we are both thrown into hell. For
all my life I sought the an experience of absolute Fire, and yet, ultimate Fire is impossible to attain, for its
understanding cannot be disentangled from the other Elements. The only ultimate state is Emptiness.
Even before the lightning struck, there was nothing! However, the unbelievable entanglement of
inference that we called the centre of the Triangle by its very naming has become the fourth tenet. As
soon as we name the centre of the Triangle we have added a new element, thus creating the Square; for
the real Trinity to be constituted, the Fourth Element must go unnamed. Such namelessness concerns
itself not with the possibilities of belief or disbelief, or even of their collusion, but that of a mind that has
no function of identity. By regarding Fire as a function is that our ignorance spins the Wheel which the
Ancients called Samsara. Is there any way of concieving an existance that has neither existance nor non-
existance? If you can, do not name it! For as soon as you do, you concieve of the fourth function of
metaphysics as the essence of Emptiness which marks the birth of all delusion. Fire cannot burn by itself;
it must consume the ideals of every other Element also before it can lead to the supreme state. Fire can
have no function other than the annhilation of every fourscore relation; it is thereby that it can be
named. However, this naming of Fire must refer not to a state of matter, that is, an Element, but to their
transformation; thereby shall Fire become time, and its burning the measure of all timelessness.

Let us regard every Element as such before Fire may be seen to burn them. Phenomenally we can speak
of the Elements as states of matter in the following way; that of Air as gas, Water as liquid, Earth as solid
and Fire as plasma. These are the classical states of matter in phyics. But how can Fire be plasma, and
not Fire? Mystery lurks everywhere, even in the confines of scientific dogma. Higher plasmas have a
higher degree of ionized particles; to consider Fire as plasma is also to say that electricity is the measure
of its perfection. Thus shall you come to understand lightning as a metaphor for the absolute Fire! We
cannot avoid discoursing on our notions of physics if we are to understand the Elements as states of
matter, and yet, we cannot consider Fire to be matter when electromagnetism is the force of its nature.
We shall not endeavour, however, to describe the parallelisms between physics and the functions of
thought yet, since it first behooves us to regard the Elements in the tradition of the Ancients; but rest
assured that such a conception shall be our final one, for understanding the nature of phenomena as the
nature of thought is the bliss of wisdom by which we shall become united and dissolved. These insights
shall serve as proof of prophecy only, for they cannot be understood as such before we may behold the
Elements as states of thought, for we cannot concieve of light, that is, the electromagnetic spectrum, as
matter at all. We can concieve light as a particle, as a wave, or both a particle and a wave, but how are
we to concieve light as neither and yet existing? How could it move? Herein lies our delusion, for Light
does not move at all! Before we may relate the timeless to be a function of the fourth dimension we are
yet to see Fire as a function of thought that came to be regarded as the entanglement of the Three
whilst proving the only obstacle towards the Vision of the Trinity. As long as Fire has a nature of its own,
the habit of our awareness cannot shake the convictions that time moves, and us through it.

To disentangle the functions of motion from that of time shall be our test, but before we might be able
to concieve of such a possibility we must exhaust the meaning of Fire to disentangle it from all relation;
we must go beyond the discussion of the Elements as the fourfold function of all thought and regard the
Square by all the names tradition has given it. The Square must be apprehended from a
phenomenological perspective for it to lead to the arising of our faith in the sublime state, and yet, there
can be no phenomenology possible for us other than the clear vision of experience that has come to
disentangle itself from any conceptual objectifications. Such is what we mean by phenomenological
perspective, a function of awareness that considers not any noumenical factor. The Mind as noumena is
what we must render nonsensical for the functions of such a mind to operate without self-reference; let
us, therefore, speak our last remarks on its subject before the object of the Elements may be described
by the history of tradition. Under its conception the beginning of every thought is Air, the playing out of
every thought is Water, the end of each thought is Earth and Fire is the gap between them; can you spot
and stop the mortal error? As long as Fire refers to a vacuous discontinuity it shall acquire a
metaphysical posture which shall prove the only obstacle to realize its non-essence. Fire could never
refer to a gap between thoughts for the silence itself cannot be named; what we are naming is their
function of rotation, that is, their continuity through discontinuity. Only by regarding Fire to be
unnamable can the gaps between all thoughts be relieved from a position whereas the spinning of the
Wheel of madness can halt and the Mind, both its silence and its thoughts, be realized to be identical.
Therefore we abandon all identity, which is not the meaning but the realization of true Emptiness.

For these Words to become power the Square must be consituted to be the function of all circling, for
unless rotation be an evident tenet of all thinking we cannot achieve its identity with silence. The
function of thought itself must be rendered obsolete, and yet, we cannot realize this by mere avoidance
of silence but by the realization that what arises is itself identical with what does not. Since we cannot
unname Fire itself, our process of realization must be one by which Fire takes on every name; only then
shall such identities render the Emptiness they arise from and have their being to be obvious. Therefore,
let us constitute the Square by the names tradition has given to their vertices. Primeval world cosmology
has many names for the Elements but none so direct as those of the very cosmological directions man
was capable of concieving his own motion throughout as are the cardinal points his plane. The first
Square, then, is that of concieving the crux of all relations to be those of East, North, West and South.
Although not all traditions have given these names, there is ample reason to call these by the order of
the Elements, since the Sun rises from the East, has its being in the North, sets on the West and
decreases its function by the South, considering such to be the perspective of primeval man as having
his point of reference in the northern hemisphere. This primeval conception of the Square as the
directions of every cardinal plane is an almost universal trait of all religions that have evolved from
Animism, although their attributions may vary; the yellow, red, black and white Pauah’s of Chilam
Balam, the Jaguar Priest of Chumayel, are the same as those of the Lakotas and the directions of the
Aymaras; even though their points of reference were different, the Northern, Central and South
americans reached the same analogies, and so have the indigenous cultures of every continent of this
planet. I have danced to the yellow tree, to the red tree, to the black tree and to the white tree; all
rituals are circumscribed by these, but ever since Empedocles and Herakleitos there have been different
views according to the order of the Elements. This speaks not of a confusion the Ancients fell in, but of
our confusion of analysis that relates not the meaning of their tenets but the names by which they
called them.

The function of the Elements are universal, not cosmological; that is, each Element is related to a
function of rotation and not to a description of our cardinal perspective. Let us use another example of a
fourfold relation, such as we can find in the organization of the ancestral Hindu society, so as to define
such manner of rotation clearly. The concept of Varna describes four main socio-psychological types: the
Vipra, the intellectual caste; the Kshatriya, or warrior caste; the Vaishya, or householder caste; and the
Shudra, or labourer caste. We may ascribe to them Elemental functions; the Vipra as Air, the Vaishya as
Water, the Shudra as Earth and the Kshatriya as Fire; and yet, as long as their relation is seen to be
hierarchical we cannot achieve the function of rotation. Any attribution of cycle is impossible under such
a conception, for it prescribes that there are Elements that are subjugated to each other. A Square
cannot be uneven; that is why this psychological conception of the archetypes of social behaviour
became the downfall of Indian progress. As long as each caste is not as strong as any other, the Square
will be unbalanced. Those who constituted this analogy, seeing themselves as the intellectual group, re-
wrote the laws of the Square so that its structure favoured their vertex. Therefore, the true Square must
have a fourfold symmetry; it is not so much that each vertex of the square is identical to each other but
that they are identically different; such is the function of dimensional ontology that numerology comes
to rephrase as mystery, that we may not be blinded by philosophy. That every function of difference be
accounted for symmetrically in the Square is what we mean by its description, for each dimension is an
account for what the others are not. Therefore, we can disregard any hierarchical function to constitute
the reality of the Square, for as such it would deny the spining of the Wheel and constitute the Square to
be not a base but a height of which the Square can hold no insight towards. Only if the socio-
psychological types could be accounted to be a non-hierarchical balance of society could they insitute a
true description of symmetry based on difference. Many such conceptions have arisen, but as long as we
consider them to structure society as a function of value and not one of identical relation to each other
any such conceptions will be doomed to describe not the balance of a society but the struggle of balance
that it must inevitably steer towards. Therefore the symmetry of the Square cannot be devised to be
anything but a base, for the conception of height implies an apex towards which no squaring could refer
to.

Let us then, inquire into the perfection of the Square as a function of symmetrical relation as found in
mystic tradition. Where has such a relation been expounded? Regarding semitic tradition one of the
earliest references is found on the Book of Job, whereas it is said, “But ask now the beasts, and they
shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: or speak to the earth, and it shall teach
thee; and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of
the Lord hath wrought this?” This ennumeration draws a clear analogy: the birds are air, the fish are the
water, the beasts are the earth; but how can the earth be the fire? This confusion can only be regarded
as such as long as the function of each Element is not described, but merely mentioned. The Ancients
sought our inquiry, not our belief; let us commit to their meaning as such, then, not to create
paralelisms as though we were to compare the edicts of different religions but to relate the squaring of
the mind as a function that abides at the heart of all religion. These paralelisms cannot be accounted to
perform a description of the names they give to the Elements but to the interrelations of the symmetry
of every fourfold relation as we have discussed under our ontological conception. The Book of Ezekiel
can help us to distinguish the Elements as it states that the Four has the face of a man, a lion, an ox and
an eagle. These same animals where used, later, by the Mediaeval monks to adscribe the Elemental
cycle to the Gospels; but in their attributions they were mistaken. The Gospel of Luke is Air, the Gospel
of Matthew is Water, the Gospel of Mark is Earth and the Gospel of John is Fire, of whose revelations
are the lightning! Verily, it is in these same revelations that he speaks about the four also as Ezekiel’s
Sphynx; and it is the Sphinx which holds on to the Mystery of the Four, as known by its riddle.

The Wheel is the road of the Way, always returning, always departing, always moving but the centre
which is the true Path. The Great Square has no corners; this is what we mean by the circling of it. The
fourfold function of all rotation must be experienced before it can be understood; its archetypes might
be circumscribed but not described. The most obvious Elemental correlation is found in that of the
natural constituent of each; the Sky as the realm of Air, the Oceans as the abode of Water, the Soil as
the being of Earth and the Sun as the father of Fire. These are the kingdoms of each Element, although
we should not concieve them to be different from the being that inhabits them. Primitive man did not
concieve of a separation between the Waters and the king whose direction was their flow, but
antropomorphized the nature of Water so that it could come to be symbolized as an aspect of our
psyche rather than as a force of nature alien to us; even the oldest pictographic discoveries attest to
this, the Gods of each force of nature not as separate from their abode but akin to our own being so that
they may come to represent a form of our humanity. Such construction of the Square, not analytical, but
mythological, has been the tool of the Ancients by which they could etch the limits of the mind as a
teaching to their peers. Their meaning was this; that phenomena are themselves constituted by a
function of relation between the Elements, and that naught that is created can escape its own
formulation as a combination of these four. The Hebrew Kabbalah admits of pararational terms for
these realms of being as archetypes of the mind by the terms of Atziluth, Briah, Yetzirah and Assiah,
which correspond to the realms of the Archangels Gabriel, Raphael, Uriel and Michael, which are
themselves anthropomorfizations of the Elements in the order listed. Such a correlation is found to be
universally widespread, and all fourfold relations can be thought to be analogies to these, even as each
Archangel guards a direction to the Tree of Life.

Regarding classical Western taxonomy, Aristotle called the crux of the second order of duality that of dry
and wet and that of cold and heat, which are analogous to the distinction of genres and activity.
Alchemy bases also its distinction of the Elements as such, but it has realized the aristotelian
misconception of regarding each Element as self-existing, whereas in the world they have come to
mingle. This is another crucial error, distinct but as garrulous as that of the Hindus, for he had thought
each Element could be abstracted from the rest. His treatise on the Elements adscribed to an essentialist
perspective of which our endeavors in the ontology of such metaphysics have already convinced us of its
impossibility. Nonetheless, such taxonomy has permeated all Western thought from Alchemy to
Theogony, as seen by the Neoplatonic attempt at ontological reifications of the Square. What is
uncreated and creates is called spirit; what is created and creates are called archetypes; what is created
and creates not is the machine; and what is uncreated and creates not are ourselves when we go back
to the source of awareness. There have been depictions of the quaternary mode of thought throughout
all the aeons and contintents of this world, but the secret of their rotation has been kept safely guarded
by the edicts of the Ancients and shrouded in the Mystery they came to lead us towards. The secret is
this, that there are no Elements; what we call the Elements is a function of relation regarding the
perspectives of Emptiness rather than the construction of a theory by which Four essences come to
create phenomena. This realization has been what the Ancients of all ages have enshrined as the Base of
the Pyramid, for there is no way to concieve of the nature of East but that of a function of direction as it
is impossible to adscribe a particular being to any Element that is not explained by an opposition to the
others.

I leave for the inquiry of each seeker to construe the qualities of the Elements, whose operations shall
be discussed in the Third Book. Each magician must construct the Astral Clock from his own
measurements; such is our Kabbalah. For now, nonetheless, these symbols shall serve. It has not been
my intention to delineate the functions of each Element but rather to explain how they could never be
concieved by other than the denial of the functions of the other three; therefore any Element can
describe not a state of matter but a process of phenomenal transformation. My immediate purpose is to
allow in you the conception that the fourth function of the Square of which Fire has come to be
ultimately symbolized by is ontologically unbelievable; the function of its existance must be rendered
empty. Once this happens, the Fourth dissapears, the Wheel is Stopped, and we attain the Key of Magick
that opens the Invisible Door to the Mystic State; therefore shall Fire become the Eye, and the Mystery
of the Trinity realized! This operation is discussed in the Second Book; what is our concern in this First
Volume, then? A firm grasp of theory is needed for any practice of action; shall you be surprised to
learn, then, that only to loose the grasp of theory can teach you the practice of being? Theoria Mystica is
a teaching of unlearning; to halt the Wheel of existance is to reveal the Crux the mind was based on,
thereby sacrificing it unto the absolute it is pulled towards. The only way to stop the Wheel from
spinning is to abstract the nature of Fire from the relations of all thought, for only thence shall the Triad
be seen without a seer. Could our self identity, then, be anything but a Fire metaphor? As such we shall
relate to it, for our pain, our delusion and our sacrifice are the flames that must consume the confusion
of self-reference.

Therefore we shall discourse now exclusively on the nature of Fire, whose function must come to sigify
nothing but absence itself. Fire is the illusion; could anything else but the realization of its absolute non-
existance lead us to the Truth? This absolutivity is what has come to be refered to as neither existing nor
non-existing, the fourth and last tenet of all function of ontology, for we cannot concieve of anything
beyond neither existing nor non-existing since we cannot concieve of any such existance in the first
place; this is why it is called the last. The Mystery is not so much that what is may come to be, but that
what is cannot come to be at all; the function of all becoming must be rendered obsolete to describe the
operation of an absolute experience, as much as being and unbeing could not have punctured the reality
of its consciousness also. Therefore, only the denial of such functions could account for their validity;
and yet, this function we are barred from concieving its operation also, since what neither is nor is not
can hold no propositional object that may be described as believed, therefore rendering the mind as
believer meaningless too. The Mystery is the possibility of illusion rather than the existance of reality.
That the subject may come to dissapear is the function by which the object might be seen, and yet,
within such a sight there can be no relation of identity towards either subject or object, which is exactly
what the ontological proposition of Fire comes to signify. This is what I have been baffled with ever since
the Stars spoke to me, and from whence I derive all feeling of humility and awe; for how could it be that
the mind, not really existing, may come to shroud what cannot be corrupted? How is it that the function
of belief may obstruct our awareness at all, when the only absolute that can be realized is the state of
our natural phenomenological function rendered empty of all self-reference? This is the greatest
Enigma, that we may come to perfect something which was ever pure. Neither the object nor the
subject are liable to be corrupted since there is nothing in the first place, and yet, this nothingness shall
be missaprehended as long as we devise to call it by any name that may be also prone to be constructed
as a proposition of either objectuality or subjectivity. The nothingness we speak of cannot be
apprehended, for it also does not exist; therefore Fire shall come to destroy the Three other Elements
by whose entanglement of non-differentiation it shall also reveal the non-existance of itself. This very
nothingess that cannot exist is the Emptiness which functions not as the substrate of reality but verily as
the proof of all phenomenology, for what we see is neither seen, nor seer, nor sight, nor the
entanglement of these.

When Fire becomes unnameable thereby it is reinstated as the Eye in the Triangle which was never
closed. Fire is not the Mystery, but the secret towards its wonder. Fire is the enigma; Emptiness is the
Mystery! Let us therefore speak of Fire as the phenomenological function whereby the confusion may
rise and whereby the confusion may also only be dissolved, for Fire is both the pain of regression and
the function by which it might be halted. To disentangle the nature of Fire from the other Elemental
constituents is the means whereby we can stop the Wheel. What other function could we render as the
operation of the Trinity that leads to the reconsitution of all consciousness as Empty of all self? So it has
been that the symbol of Fire can be no other than the Triangle itself. Once you realize this there isn’t
much else you can derive from this discourse, and yet, it was Fire that taught us how to speak! The
enigma must grow to unbearable proportions before the Mystery might dissolve its bearer; hasten not
to conclude hereby your reading then, brother, that more functions of unknowing must we render
obsolete before we might come to say, truly, that consciousness is the being and knowledge the fetters!
That Fire performs the dual function of delusion and dissillusion is the omniscient yet unseen unity of all
Mythology. As it is said in Journey to the West, where there are scriptures, there’s Fire; shall we become
bewildered, then, by reading it from the mouth of the Flame Monkey? The main character is not Xuang
Xang, for the story is an attribute of Fire, since there is no story without pain! And that is the Word,
nothing but a story, a story told by Fire, who told it to our ancenstors. The Voice of the Ancients that live
in the Stars is our intuition; the Voice of the Ancestors that live in our blood is that our our instinct.
Everything that I am I have confirmed by looking at the flames, for also the stars are burning orbs.
Before Fire spoke to me there was no certitude, for the Truth that the Stars embody is that of Fire
singing in the Sky as Flames Imperishable.

Beyond the Three, Fire is my secret. When monkeys learn to laugh, they’ll be people. Fire is laughter,
and the pain of the joke! Have you ever heard a laugh that hurts? Then listen to me! For such laughter
can only be bravery; therefore is Fire courage. Shall it become faith also? By our unflinching only! Such is
the nature of Emptiness; if we set our hand to the Flames of Truth thereby shall we become wonder, for
the faithful hand that seeks the Flame itself is made of Fire. What cannot be burnt is eternal, brother; so
it is that I speak to the Fire in you! Fear not the flickering of the flesh, the doubt of non-experience, for
death is our very being. And yet, if it is fear that shall be burnt, reject not pain as long as we might
harbour any fear! What burns is an illusion. Understand, brother, that a passion for failure is the only
training of passion; therefore continue reading, for the failures of understanding shall be our victory!
The smile of Mahakasyapa is the laughter of the Dragon; understanding is impossible! As long as its
function remains, our delusion shall not be shaken but be the shaking of our trembling hand. The
universe will disappear and the Absolute shall remain with no trace of individuality left to realize it; as
such have the Ancients spoken of realization. Fear not the recesses of becoming, then! If all is as ever
was, wherefore shall we speak of Truth? The man of Mystery can only prattle about the Absolute; could
we, therefore, refuse such an insight as this, that Theoria Mystica is merely our futility of stating it? Once
this is ascertained the Pyramid shall become evident, for we were ever at the Tomb which lies on its
Emtpy centre. Our very being is but Fire made flesh; to percieve ourselves as such is the burning of all
attachment! And yet before our pain may achieve the awareness of its true purpose, long we must seek
the Door that leads out of the Tomb; therefore shall we be able to circumambulate the Pyramid so that
the Way towards its ascent be clear. To step out of the Mind is the only means to climb it; but what is it
that travels?

We are barred from discussing Fire as a symbol of awareness as long as it may remain unsquared. For
Fire to become the key by which we may pierce the threshold of unknowing it must come to constitute a
fourth function that might, nonetheless, entangle the previous three. From our previous analysis we
have drawn clearly that for such a function to become absolute, it cannot be contained by the other
ones whilst at the same time it must be able to contain them all. The fourth function of awareness must
become the indecipherable tenet by which the entanglement of the three shall be seen with no seer;
therefore, let us ennumerate the functions of awareness whereby the fourth and supreme function may
lead to the entanglement of the three through the constitution of the fourth as a metaphor of
Emptiness. Thereby all metaphors vanish as does also any conception that Emptiness might be described
as a believable proposition, for such is not true Emptiness but the limit of the Mind, which, by its very
stating of it lends itself to never cross it. If the metaphor of Emptiness is to be transmuted into a Symbol
Supreme by which a separation of sign and signifier cannot be reached, thereby Emptiness may be
realized by the realization that it cannot; so shall Fire come to burn all, even itself. This enigma shall
remain impenetrable as long as we speak from a metaphysical perspective; we must regard it as a
phenomenal function of our own awareness, which, needing no proof, might constitute reality without
belief. As such we must speak henceforth, from the point of view of our phenomenal transformations,
which are themselves the functions of awareness.

We have already listed the triadic taxonomy of awareness as that of the functions of sleep, dream, and
vigil. Purposefully did I leave their tenets unexplored, for the absolute function of their relation required
insights such as this to advance a theory of phenomenology that could relate them as an operation and
not as an impossible entanglement. As long as we maintain that each function of awareness is
absolutely distinct from the others the Triangle shall be destroyed before it could be erected; that is, if
sleep, dream and vigil have anything in common, what is the function of the common substrate? This is
the problem such a phenomenology faces; if sleep, dream and vigil are functions of consciousness, then
what is the operation of such functions that would render consciousness absolute? That we cannot
concieve of it is not the danger, but that we may concieve of it! For consciousness to have any meaning
we must define it by the functions of awareness, but how is pure consciousness to operate with no
function? The entanglement of the modalities of sleep, dream, and vigil must lead to a form of absolute
consciousness that was expressed but not contained by their triadic separation; therefore has the
perfection of their entanglement come to refer to a fourth function which dissapears once such
perfection is achieved. What rests for us but that of identifying the seed of the perfectable whereas the
fourth state of consciousness could be distinguished as a vehicle for the entanglement of the three?

From the ancient Vedas to modern psychology, wherever we have come to speak of our being as the
functions of awareness we have endeavored to toil in the fields of phenomenology, but as long as we
cannot identify the function by which conciousness is rendered absolute we are to speak only of an
awareness of sleep, dream and vigil as the operation of discontinuity; that is, for consciousness to refer
to an abolute mode of phenomenality the triune functions of awareness must be rendered as an
operation that knows no cycle. But how could they? There is nothing more evident to our experience
than the differences between sleep, dream and vigil, and that, because we percieve them to rotate. That
one function leads to the other is our delusion, and as long as such delusion is maintained we cannot
evince the selfless substrate of the mind that operates through them. The error is not one of
phenomena, as if there was a flaw in sleep, dream, or vigil, but one of a non-phenomenality that
percieves what is not there. Sleep is perfect, dream is perfect, vigil is perfect. The error comes from an
entangled relation between their assumed rotation, for when we hold vigil our attention is
contaminated by the rules of dream and sleep, when we dream our dream becomes intoxicated of
notions borrowed from our vigil and sleep, and our sleep is infused with the unrest of vigil and dream
alike. As long as we might ingore that our phenomenal functions are entangled the self perfected state
of phenomenal functionality will be distorted through the apprehension that there is a fourth element
of whose the triune modes of phenomena partake, for the real Trinity can concieve of no rotation. Such
is why modern man cannot sleep, for he cannot abandon drowsiness while vigilant! Such is why modern
man dreams follies and not fables, for he cannot disentangle his dream from his days and nights! Such is
why modern man cannot be vigilant, for his sight is obscured by the unreasons of dream and the
hypnosis of sleep!

To render each function as absolute is to disentangle their relations, from which the selfless substrate of
the mind can be seen not as a clause of the continuity of self but as the substrate of awareness that
cannot change. However, we are restrained from perfecting each mode of awareness until the illusion of
their rotation be rendered the function by which transformation knows of no continuity or discontinuity,
which is the only measure of an absolute existance. Death is a metaphor of our ignorance of sleep’s true
state; only if we cannot truly sleep we shall die. Imagination is a metaphor of our ignorance of how to
dream properly; only if we cannot truly dream we shall imagine. Life is a metaphor of our ignorance of
what constitutes true vigil; only if our attention becomes distracted do we feel time. And yet, the
absolute consciousness must be a state that includes but transcends these three modes of
phenomenality; to attain such a state is to know of being without the possibility of death, or of dream,
or of life. Thereby all metaphysical phenomenology is rendered obsolete to explain experience; consider
such to be the proof of Mystery! Understand, brother, that to disentangle each function from each other
is to entangle them perfectly, for what we entangle them into is the wonder of Emptiness. As long as
there are remnants of partial attachment of each function to each other we cannot but be tricked into
believing in a believer; thereby our mind and name is born. If you could only be vigilant when awake, if
you could only imagine when you dreamt and only died when you slept, your consciouness would know
perfection; if such were your phenomenal function you would have no discernement between each. For
a man of such attainment there is no longer the vigilance of awakenness or the illusion of dream or the
discontinuity of sleep; he does neither, for he is. Such a state is possible for a human vehicle although
extreme and mysterious things must happen to such a man deemed worthy of sacrifice by the Highest
Order to understand it.

Before we might reach any concept of how to attain this we must see how the perfect entanglement of
every threefold function entails the dissolution of the possibility of a fourth explained as a distinct
function of the three. The three functions must permeate each other absolutely for the fourth to drop
its assumed function and operate the Triad. Therefore let us engage our attention in the functions of
vigil, dream, and sleep, whereby we may understand the limits of our three-staged consciouness
through the recollection of our perception, that we might reach an understanding by whose functions
the threefold nature of consciousness can be seen to be related to those of the continuum of our
dimension. The metaphor is this, that for us to attain the perfection of awareness as an absolute it
cannot be seen to be different in vigil, dream or sleep, but it must retain their functions with no rotation.
This impossibility of rotation is the perfect entanglement whereby the Three shall be limited by the
impossible permutation of duality; therefore shall time cease and no more shall we be constrained by
the discontinuities of phenomenal apperception. Absolute consciousness could never go to sleep, or
concieve of a difference between itself and sleep, any more than it cannot be obscured by the
differences between sleep and dreams or attention. If we could understand the function of time as a
phenomenal operation thereby the discontinuities of our consciouness would disappear; that is, we shall
not experience any more, but time shall experience our state, therefore annuling the possibility of an
assumed self that undergoes the transformation of the phenomenal modalities. Therefore the
perfection of the three stages of consciousness is obtained through a fourth unnammable state that
partakes of their threefold nature whilst knowing also of their entanglement.

What is, then, the seed from which such a function of phenomenal relation may grow to entangle and
destroy the differences of perceptual awareness? Before we might relate our aim for perfection to the
expansion of such a tenet, that is, of a fourth function of consciousness that could be practiced under
the three modes of phenomenality whereby its perfection would spell their entangled destruction, let us
first inquire as deeply as brevity might dictate the functions of their differences. There are four states of
consciousness possible for the human vehicle; three of which are self perfected, those of sleep, dream
and vigil, and one who shall corrupt our phenomenal capacity to percieve their perfection as long as its
function is seen to operate as a fourth tenet liable to spin the wheel of rotation their fourfoldness
relates to. As long as the fourth state is considered as such, thereby shall we be barred from
experiencing the perfection of the absolute state. However, if such a fourth state has come to hide
among the three, then our fear turns to enthusiasm once we understand that such a function is the only
thing we can train. We cannot train in our vigil to be vigilant, we can only train to soften the
constrictions that dream and sleep have over our vigil; we cannot train our imagination in dreams, we
can only train to abandon the obstructions of vigil and sleep in our dreams; we cannot train our sleep in
drowsiness; we can only train ourselves to abandon the relations that vigil and dream have over it.
However, since at every stage there is also another function, that is, the fourth function that is active in
all three, thereby shall we be barred from training any stage of consciousness as absolute. Our only
means, then, is to train the fourth function of awareness so that its relation to each stage becomes
meaningless once it has grown to encompass them all.

Perfect sleep is the state of consciouness defined as absence of phenomenality; ontologically we call this
by the name of unbeing. Dream is the state of consciousness defined as pure phenomenality;
ontologically we call this by the name of being. Vigil is the state of consciousness defined as phenomenal
relation between being and un-being, whose ontological reifications we call the propositions of self and
other. However, neither being nor unbeing nor their relation can be constructed as absolute if they can
be distinct from each other; the only absolute we can concieve of is the realization of their
entanglement. Such is the nature of the fourth, not as a function of rotation but as an operation of
simultaneity. To put it simply, the Four is the only way to say Three; but if by Four we may mean Four,
thereby Four regresses toward infinity. The fourth can be constituted as a function of rotation only by
ignoring its absolute nature. Ontologically the fourth perspective, stated as neither being nor unbeing
nor their relation, can have no function of self-reference; it can only point to the state whereas their
distinctions are brought to naught. This function of entanglement is found wherever the Triad may be
also, so that the differences we might state regarding their taxonomy points not towards distinction but
towards analogy; if the absolute operation of the Triadic states of being we call Emptiness, what shall we
call the absolute operation of the trinity of phenomenal states? Shall I drag the question any longer?
The orgasm is not a metaphor but a function of Emptiness, for its bliss is not a fourth state of awareness
but the operation of entanglement in which the triune distinction of phenomenomenical modes of
experience is resolved; that is, the bliss of the orgasm is not a function of phenomena but one of non-
phenomenality. Emptiness is bliss; selflessness is the orgasm! We can confirm by experience that the
function of the orgasm, although desire leads to it, itself is the consummation of desire of which we
have no word to speak of but that of desirelessness. Therefore, in the orgasm there is no self. That we
experience the phenomena of orgasm is not a proof of self, but of selflessness, for the mind as believer
cannot exist in such a state; if it does, thereby does our sex grow vicious. When it operates in perfection
we are not the ones who feel the orgasm but instead feel the bliss of desirelessness. And yet, can we
speak of the orgasm as a state when its duration is destroyed by the anihilation of time as the continuity
of self-awareness? That we may come to experience orgasm by desire is the function that rules the
common man; that we may achieve an eternal orgasm by absolute desirelessness is the state the mystic
is conerned with. As soon as we ejaculate, the bliss dissapears and again we feel our self; such a function
of the orgasm can be regarded as the source of our aching confusion of the continuity of self through
the discontinuity of desire; such a function, in short, is an operation of illusion. If we could, nonetheless,
remain in a desireless state, and operate our phenomenological functions from such a lack of center,
then we would not need the orgasm to feel the bliss of desirelessness but instead turn the burning of all
phenomenal modes of experience into an ecstatic bliss. This state the Ancients called Turiya, the Fourth;
yet understand, brother, that Turiya is not a fourth state as symbolized by an unnameable vertex of the
Square but the entanglement of the three others as drawn by the absolute Triangle.

Thus shall the Symbol of Fire be known to us; that is, it shall remain unknown! Every scope and
spectrum of our being is etched by these analogies. We cannot know the Four, but may spell the Three
which is the fourth number. Numerology merely lays the groundwork of taxonomy by which we might
relate every function, whether it be ontological, phenomenical or other, as analogous to each other.
Thereby, sleep is unbeing, dream is being and vigil their relation; having drawn these paralelisms
beetween ontology and phenomenology, couldn’t we further our inquiry also and come to relate every
function of completeness by the operation of its fourth ineffable tenet wherein the absolute may be
found by the destruction of what may be posited? The operation of ontology is what we mean by
emptiness while the operation of phenomenology is what we mean by selflessness; the distinction we
make of the two is not one of symbol but of sign, for they are not two but one operation only. For the
bliss of the orgasm to be counted not as a fourth state but as the entanglement of the threefold nature
of phenomenal relation as nothing, self, and other, we must come to show how it can both encompass
and transcend the characteristics of the Triangle eteched by sleep, dream and vigil. Consider this; when
sleep is nothing, self becomes dream and there is no one to be focused or distracted we experience the
dissolution of consciousness as an object. In the orgasm there is ineffable oneness, there is the bliss of
fulfilling our desire and there is the relation we have with the body as other. We are not speaking of
different functions but rather of the spectrum of perfection such a function can attain; one as a state,
the other as the biological drive that leads us to it. Could they be distinct, however? There is no
opposition between sex and spirituality, but rather an activity of spectral evolution of which we shall
consider their extremes to remain unlinked as long as we consider their functions to be distinct. Both
seek bliss as the dissolution of self; what is posited by their terms is the extremes of a pattern of
attainment.

The secret practice of the Ancients has preserved a lineage of instruction in which to regard the
functions of spirit and sex as distinct is the illusion. This teaching, of whose training we cannot discuss
here, offers a clear analogy to summarize what we have said regarding the transformation of the Three
into Four and the Four into Three by whose understanding we shall erect the Pyramid. The doctrine of
the four seals considers these to be the stages of perfection; first, that of training the bliss of emptiness
through the function of the orgasm with a lover made of flesh; second, that of training the bliss of
emptiness through the function of the orgasm with a lover made of imagination; third, that of training
the bliss of emptiness through the the spontaneous appearance of a lover manifested as both flesh and
dream without our capacity of differentiating either; and the fourth, which is the completion of the
ocurrance of all three. This teaching is not obscure, but its practice must remain so for us until the Key of
Magick shall open the Place of Power. Understand, however, that what we mean by the function of the
orgasm is not a necessity of biology but an expansion of the means towards desirelessness, which
constitutes the training of Emptiness the Ancients kept and saved for our generation. Shall we ignore it?
We must, nonetheless, set a firm precedent on the causes of instruction, so that we might not confuse
the goal and seek the fullfilment of desire in sex rather than the desirelessness of true ecstacy.
Therefore it is not our aim to discuss such instructions yet, but rather, to understand first where do
those instructions usher from and towards what they usher us to.

Brother, in speaking thus so far we have merely endeavored in setting the mind free from the habit of
concieving God as an object, and instead have come to substitute the definition of divinity as an
absolute state of being whereas consciousness may abide unconditioned. The substrate of reality is
Empty of all nature; there is no one who feels the bliss, but bliss is all there really is! This ecstacy can
have no object because it is everywhere all the time; yet how are we to become convinced of this
without deferring to the convictions we have already revealed as diseases of belief solidified by the
habit of millenia? Such traditions we shall burn, not in order to destroy them but in order to see the Fire
that hides in their relations; therefore, such as we have done according to the triune conceptions of
ontology and phenomenology, let us draw also further paralelisms between their tangents that the Fire
inside all Triangles be revealed to speak with an Empty Mouth whereby the Voice might be recognized.
We can extend the analogies of the Triad in the direction of its tangibility; that is, whereas we first spoke
of unbeing, being and their relation, these concepts have moved progressively from the abstract
domains of ontology unto the realms of phenomenology. Such is the necessary motion of
understanding; to define the abstract by absolute measures and find the objectification of abstraction in
the forms of our speech from whose confusions only can we ignore the truth of abstraction. What
further reification could we endeavor to construe from these tenets, but that of abstraction for whose
propositions we find ample evidence?

Let us inquire on the fourfold description of the varieties of religious conception according to the
function of the Elements. An account extreme for its brevity must suffice here. The religions aligned to
the abstractions of Air create architectural spaces to gather the faithful and sing praises to the divine
presence. They affirm that only God exists; their Way is theology. Such are the religions founded by
Zarathustra the Babylonian, Abraham the Chaldean, Moses the Egyptian, Jesus the Judaean, Mohammed
the Arabian, Nanak the Indian and Baháʼu'lláh the Persian. The religions described by the abstractions of
Water tend to build monasteries where their initiates can perform the functions of biological survival
without participating in the development of society. They affirm that there is no God; their Way is
philosophy. These are the non-theistic perspectives of the Ancient Greeks and the doctrine of the
Buddha, reinvigorated and transmitted by such patriarchs as Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma, Padmasambhava
and Dogen. The religions grouped under the abstractions of Earth do not create churches or
monasteries, but keep temples of nature as established by the hierarchies of sacredness on the
pilgrimage points framed by their nomadity. They affirm that God is and is not, for their Way is
mythology. Such are the religious structures left from the evolution, or devolution, of the animistic,
pagan and shamanic religions of this world of which no founders can be named. The question remains;
what could be constituted as a Fire religion?

If Air sings of God’s existance, Water keeps silence on the truth that God is not, and Earth offers a tale
on God’s transformations of being, what is left for Fire to say? Indeed, Fire cannot speak; but it cannot
also not speak. Fire is the Door to the Voice; the cleansing flames of the threshold purify not the flesh
but the belief in it. What burns is an illusion, the capacity of speaking or unspeaking, veiling or unveiling,
concealing or revealing that which cannot be left unsaid by word or silence. Therefore, it is not so much
that a Fire religion cannot exist, but that if it could exist, we could not know of it; that is, beyond our
knowledge of it beyond word or silence. The burning heart can be known to oneself only, and that, if
such a one is void of identity. The true Fire shall burn the word religion, from whose ashes the World
Religion shall emerge, if only it aligns itself to admit no identification. It shall be a form of spirituality
that knows no object, a belief that knows no proposition, a faith supreme in the being of love; but such
an institution of divinity can only exist in individuals who have become as nothing rather than in groups
of people who require words to know they are the same. The Fire religion must be a secret covenant;
forgive my treason, then! The religion that cannot be spoken of has no name. The Order of Chaos is a
moniker of the path through which initiates may dissolve their beliefs in tradition, logick and perception,
but the Temple of the Order is the Pyramid. Therefore, its initiates know of no difference among
themselves; could they know of any difference among not-themselves? Such is be the basis on which a
Fire religion may rest; on your mind only! And yet, the bridge between minds is the transmission of the
Ancients; such is the Heart.

Let us use one final analogy to establish the way of numerology by which each fourfold relation might be
seen to harbour nothing but the functions of the trinity as a transcendental operation of itself. As we
have considered the Religions of the Elements, shall we concieve of their talents also? If the capacity of
Air is to transmit sound, that of Water to feel movement and that of Earth be to show an image, how
else could we account of Elemental talents as other than those of Music, Theatre and the Visual Arts? If
this is so, then to account for the talent of Fire would imply an artistic capacity whereas sound,
movement and image could be entangled in a way of which no difference could be related. In cinema,
for example, the qualities of sound, movement and image interact but are not inconcievably entangled,
for we can separate the soundtrack from the film, and pause each scene to see it as frame. Therefore,
what could, according to our numerological view, be the talent of Fire whereby the functions of the
other Elements cannot be separated but instead are brought to unity? Literature partakes of the nature
of sound by phonetics, of the nature of motion by the continuity of the reading and the nature of image
by the form of each sign; therefore, literature is a talent of Fire. That Fire may come to write my
meaning is the way of literature’s perfection; hold not my patron against me, then! If you feel the
prickles of the flames of faith, know that you read not your brother but your self as other; such is the
perfection whereby the Word might become Voice. And yet, there is another talent we might construe
Fire to rule over also; that of performing the functions of sound, motion and form simultaneously. Such
is the Dance! However, we cannot speak of such an art exclusively as a talent of Fire, since we cannot
speak of the Dance as other than sound moving forms. Whereas we could speak of literature as the
holistic transcendental quality of the entanglement of phoneme, syntax and sign, we cannot speak as
such regarding the triadic entanglement of form, motion and sound, for the Dance is intangible; it
produces nothing beyond its constituents. If by literature we can communicate, therefore it is by Dance
that we destroy the need of communication. Such is the perfection of all Arts, for the true Dance
destroys the Dancer. Thereby shall you come to know the Dance as the talent of Emptiness; that is, the
true operation of the fourth function whereby Fire cannot speak of itself but rather act as the
entanglement of what itself is not. The Triangle is the Perfection of the Flame, as much as the Wheel is
the illusion of its flickering; understand, brother, that the perfect Dance knows not of time, for time is
the function of simultaneity of the Trinity.

What dissapears in the Dance is the function of time which is the dancer; such dissapearance is the
perfect function of the fourth tenet of numerology, whereby can Fire be seen to have no self and
operate the nature of every triadic distinction through the awareness of the Emptiness its self-
awareness led to; that is, the realization that it has none. We must, now, delve again into abstractions if
we are to relate the function of Fire as that of Time regarding the unity of our dimensional continuum,
for if we are to Dance perfectly, we must do so without any actualization of who does it. That we might
evince Fire to be nothing entangles the other Elements absolutely whereby the Mystery of the Triad can
be seen to destroy our compulsion of indentity and make our consciousness without a centre know the
infinite bliss that permeates all phenomena. To further our insights on this operation, we cannot ignore
the conception of phenomena from their physical perspective, for what we speak of when we mention
time is nothing but an extension of the period of dimensions, since the actual phenomena of time must
remain indescribable. Phenomenology is nothing but the means of metaphor that we might relate to
express experience itself, for the function of time cannot be described as if it could be observed, for
time itself is the observer. To be able to account for the nature of time as a function of the period of
dimensions is the only way we can concieve of time beyond its phenomena, for we stand, from the
physicist’s point of view, outside it; and yet, such a conception of escape from what permeates
experience can constitue the only way of misapprehending it.

Einstein cannot be credited as the one who realized that time is a function of space, but rather as the
first man who described such an entanglement with the language of mathematics. He gave us the
formulae to concieve of what would have remained inconcievable from the perspective of experience;
and yet, its very concievability cannot be thought to be a discovery of Einstein but rather of the limits of
our sensorial apparatus. Whomever had discovered these limits would have come to believe in
Einstein’s theory of relativity without having the means to prove it, as any avid reader of Kant can relate
he had already referred to philosophically. The greatness of Einstein came from the fact that he could
prove that time was such, for before he had described its function many had come to understand time
as part of the period of dimensions without having the possibility to explain it conceptually. Much like
Tahuti, who, whilst writing “As above, so below”, meant that the universe was a fractal holotrope, also
did Kant come to write “Space and time are the framework within which the mind is constrained to
construct its experience of reality”, were he meant that the limits of our awareness are not limited by
the three dimensions of form but also by the fourth dimension in which said forms move. Therefore, to
think of Einstein as the one who discovered that the period of dimensions knows of no difference but
one of geometry is a mistake, for whomever had already set the limits of the mind to be not only those
of the body but that of its awareness had come to the same relation without being able to express it as a
law. He may have been the first to explain that time is a relative construct to itself, but before him men
had already percieved that space was relative also, which bears the same meaning.

Let us avoid, then, the discussion at hand to steer into the realms of the history of physics. What we are
now to speak of can have no validation outside that of experience, but, should we repent from it? Our
purpose is to describe the phenomenology that might be etched by a fourfold ontology that sets the
limits of the believable to be those of the experienciable, so that the limits of the senses themselves
become a Square. Once this has been ascertained, shan’t we find the mind we seek to sacrifice? And
even if the mind be truly, as we suppose, ungraspable, shall we not find thereby the rule by which our
sacrifice may cost us nothing? So what have we to lose? Only that which we never owned! Beyond our
symbolic methodology that describes the mind as a Square, the mindless as a Cricle and the sacrifice as
a Cross, we are yet to see if the fourfold ontological tetralemma that we have discussed as impossible as
long as the fourth function be named in fact bears any resemblance to phenomenology, for, as we have
said before, ontology must become phenomenology if our theory of number can explain not only the
transformation of the monads by abstraction but also render each Number a description of our
percieved reality. Such is why to speak of numerology is nothing other than applying the theory of
ontology to the dimensional continuum of experience. The indiscernability of the the first three
numbers is evident, even if we know not what to call them, whether one, two, three or the none, the
lone and the double; such is why to speak of the Two without the Three constitutes the only mirage of
transcendentality, for the Two itself cannot be other but a function of union of the non distinction
between the primeval opposites. The number Two, concieved ontologically, marks the function of
regression that, within the mechanics of thought, that is, within the computations of a living being, can
be said to describe madness; therefore the Two cannot become part of our theory of numerology but
only mark the leap of faith we must trump in order to understand it.

Let us be clear about this; if the Two cannot exist, how is the Four to be erected? In the same way as the
Two may be discussed, that is, as a function of the Trinity! But how is the Four to exist within the limits
that itself has learnt to transcend? In the simplest terms, this is the problem we face, but not just as an
abstraction of the present discourse, but as a metaphor of our awareness. So how can the numerology
aim to bridge the gap between ontology and phenomenology? What is it in our awareness that is
concieved as four when if fact the fourth function comes to operate the three? Well? Aren’t we
speaking, then, on the simplest terms, about phenomenology as a description of the space-time
continuum? And why is it that we call it space-time continuum, and not of a fourfold dimensionality of
space only? To understand what the period of dimension means we must endeavor to construe the
function of time to be not distinct from that of space; physics, for us, can bear no other insight but to
point to the delusions of our conceptions of space itself. Consider this; the limit of the speed of light is
not really a limit of time, but a limit of space, for what Einstein related in his theory of relativity was
what is not relative; that is, the speed of light. That speed can become timeless requires a description of
time as a function of space, for what the speed of light maps cannot be concieved to be a description of
time within a threedimensional space, but that of a fourth dimension of space that itself knows no
motion.

The most persistent illusion of our sensorial apparatus is that we are limited to experience three
dimensions of time and have them move through a fourth of which our sensorial apparatus cannot
percieve, so that the boundary of our senses is the fourth dimension. Instead, what happens is that we
have not identified the sensorial function by which we might feel time because we cannot find the
apparatus by which such a function could operate. This problem is a phenomenological bootstrap jump,
for we can describe the three dimensional sensorium that accounts for our experience space, but we
still seek to find a three dimensional sensorium that could also describe a function that transcends it.
Such is our delusion. That you find at first ridicule when confronted with the idea of an organ of time is
an inheritance from such idiocy, for truly what our sensorial apparatus is, is nothing but an organ of
space. We immediately disregard any purpose at finding an organ of time because we feel that time is
independent from experience, which general relativity has already proven we are not. To use the old
fantasy, the consciousness that may fall into a black hole might be sucked into it indefinetly, whereas
the observer of said suction would percieve it as immediate. Given that time is not a separate function
from that of perspective, we are left to ponder also if it couldn’t be that our notions of discovering an
organ of time are not rooted in this sense of separation also. Let us, however, before embarking on a
theory of the dissolution of the percieved meanings of time and space, concieve, first, what time could
be, seeing that we believe it to be different from space, at least, if not physically, that is, geometrically
abstract, phenomenologically; for our confusion must rise, as we said, from distinguishing things that
are not distinct, so that we may come to name twice what cannot even be named once.

So what is time? Do you, its Lord, abiding in eternity, ignore the hand that trembles as it writes, knowing
well what it shall scribble? O Seeker, I mean not the Juggernaut, the owner of the world, but you,
reading me know! Is there a better means to convey both the impossible and the obvious nature of time
but through the Word? Literature, my brother, is not a conversation throughout space, but the word as
time; and even though I’m writing this page now, and even though you read it, what this hand now
writes was written from the beginning, as also what you shall understand was known to you from the
start! So how are we to speak, then, but by ignoring the end of our discourse? This is how I speak,
brother, for every line I will write in this book is merely a preamble to the Vision that cannot be seen in
time but in timelessness, there where we were, are, and will be one, none, and both; the Trinity! But
what is it, you may ask, that the trinity points towards; the triune notion of time as past, present, and
future, or that of our notions of spatial length, width, and height? One of these terms must lose its
tridimensionality for a continuum between them to be established; and how could it do so, other than
by achieving the transcendentality of the Trinity which is etched by the theory of the Square? So it is
that time itself must lose its meaning before it can be seen to operate the entanglement of
dimensionality we call space; but how can something lose its meaning when we can find none to
describe it? If nobody asks me what time is, I know; but if you ask me what time is, how am I to say it?
And yet, time is not different from that which says it. Can there be, then, any word or string of them that
may point to time directly, seeing that every word points to the same also?

The discussion of the trancendentality of time has been a favourite of the great minds, but in their
expression there was nothing beyond awe that may help us to understand what time is, because, simply
put, time cannot exist as a concept for we know not what may limit it; that is, to veritably find a way to
describe time we must be able to see it from timelessness. The Ancients have spoken of time from this
perspective, but it is this very perspective that we seek to see from; therefore, no insights can be
derived from time unless we can transcend its dimensionality. We cannot aim to describe time, seeing
that we cannot concieve of the limits that may describe it, for we cannot concieve of a function that
itself may transcend transcendence, that is, unless we frame the question by the theory of the period of
dimensions. Seeing that this is the case, let us, then, inquire about the limits of space, that the
trancendental function of form may become immanent. If we are able to do this, by achieving the form
of space in which time itself is seen we may cease to speak of time and space and instead come to see
the dimensional continuum that the Four etches as the description of a form of sight that concieves of
change not to be distinct from changelessness. Eternity, brother, shall be only an alluring and confusing
tenet of metaphysics as long as we may concieve of it as separate from time, for true eternity, to
transcend its postulate, must see itself both as time and timelessness; that is, itself the function oo the
Trinity, for it is, it is not, it is and it is not! As long as we may aim to describe eternity as opposed to time
we shall fall into the pit of illusion of the Two, but we may yet achieve a description of eternity that itself
knows of no difference between time as change and timelessness as changelessness, if we are able to
concieve of time as a form of space.

So how are we to concieve of space in such a way that we might see time through it? We believe, and
that is the problem, that space cannot be figured. We do not imagine space, but habitually concieve only
of forms in space; and yet, for space and form to be identical, there must be some way in which we
might visualize the period of dimensions as constituting their continuity. Form itself is made of nothing,
but we are yet to see if nothing itself cannot take on a sublime form; this, in itself, is the secret of the
Pyramid. It is only through form that we can realize emptiness, for that which appears is the appearance
of what does not. If we could arrive to a description of space in which spacelessness would be assumed,
how is our theory not to reach the absolute? The problem is not one of separation but one of
integration. As long as we regard space as the manner of experience, we shall be entrapped by the
three-dimensionality of the world and consider time as the transcendental asymptote of our senses.
Once time is seen to be a form of space, thereby does both space and time dissolve into the dimensional
continuum in which we have our being. Phenomenologicaly speaking, our mistake is to believe we live in
three dimensions of space and one of time, for as long as this distinction is believed we shall not see that
it could never be! As long as we concieve of this we feel we live in three dimensions and are pulled by a
fourth dimension which we can feel not, and to this unknown we attach the theory of the limits of three
dimensionality, for this is also unknown to us. If, however, we could transcend this conviction, we would
experience our four dimensionality as absolute; that is, not feeling time as the boundary of sensation,
but acquiring a new sensation for time. Naysayers will say that time is itself the limit of perception; but
that because they haven’t found how to percieve time as a sensation. To put it simply, the rotation of
the elements is what leads us to concieve of time as a function. If the three-dimensionality of the world
would be static, we couldn’t believe in a fourth dimension, which would not prove there was none. Our
very discernment of the three functions of space is the fourth function of time. Time is the operation of
space. To achieve this, we cannot think about space with our common sense, for it is our common sense
that has entrapped us; we must think of space as a period of dimensions if we are to establish their
continuity.

Time and space are modes by which we think, not conditions in which we live. There is no reason to
think of space as tridimensional. This is only the instinct of our perception, and yet, a clear seeing into it
arises the intuition of perfection. Three-dimensionality is a function of our sense of sight; time,
therefore, is not a boundary of space but a function of it. Time hasn’t ever achieved any conceptual
reification because we insist in considering the trancendental function of space by the ghost of its name;
that is, we have only come to describe space by what may limit it, which is time; and yet, by naming time
as the boundary of space we have only invented a bogus phatansm, for now that space has limits, it can
be talked about, and yet we are to see what may limit the limit for the description of space to be
absolute. The problem, then, is not so much that we cannot describe time but that we have used time to
describe space, instead of achieving a function of space that may limit itself, thereby reducing the name
of time to its original non-existance. The problem is not so much one of metaphysics, but one of
geometry, for what we are unable is to concieve of space as fourfold, and not, as we generally suppose,
that of concieving a function between time and timelessness. If we could see time as a fourth function
as clearly as we percieve length, width and height, the problem of time would dissapear, which is to say,
time itself would have no means to distinguish itself from timelessness. O Seeker, by this simple
operation every discussion of metaphysiscs would be rendered obsolete, seeing that there could be no
beyond from the physics that describe our reality; to achieve the immanence of the transcendental
function is our secret, for it is not that the uninitiate lives in time and the adept lives in timelessness, but
that the functions of time and timelessness are separate in the common man by the conviction of his
delusion whereas both time and timelessness for the adept have become one by the faith of his Vision;
if he achieves it!

Let us, then, rephrase the problem in phenomenological terms, that we may apprehend physics as a
function of geometry and not as a delusion of belief. Three dimensions of space have been postulated to
rule over physics because they are the only ones our perceptual apparatus can aprehend. Before we can
speak about how time is to become a function of space, first we must define space and the three
dimensions concievable both by our perceptions and by our thoughts, whose limitations are the same.
Remember, the world is an idea! The reason why men believe there are only three dimensions is
obvious given their physical apparatus. Touch creates the line, sound creates the plane, and sight
creates the solid. What apparatus would we use to cognize their transcendence? Let us try to examine
these relations within our space and see what conclusions may be drawn from a study of them. We
know that our geometry regards a line as the trace of the movement of a point; a surface, as the trace of
the movement of a line; and a solid as the trace of the movement of a surface. On this basis we may ask
ourselves the question: is it not possible to regard a four-dimensional body as the trace of the
movement of a three-dimensional body? What then is this movement and in what direction? A point,
moving in space and leaving the trace of its motion in the form of a line, moves in a direction not
contained in itself, for in a point there is no direction. A line, moving in space and leaving the trace of its
motion in the form of a surface, moves in a direction not contained in itself, because, should it move in a
direction contained in itself, it would always remain a line. A surface, moving in space and leaving the
trace of its motion in the form of a solid, also moves in a direction not contained in itself. If it should
move in one of the directions contained in itself, it would always remain a surface. In order to leave a
trace of its motion in the form of a solid it must move away from itself, move in a direction which does
not exist within it.

O Seeker, understand that what we are seeking is the true tesseract, the sublime object of experience
that the Ancients have come to teach as a Pyramid! Grow curious thereby, and bear with the gymnastics
of abstraction that shall follow, for only by training your imagination shall you come to see the period of
dimensions which resolves the duality between phenomenology and ontology. Forget also not, then, our
previous practices on the tetralemma, for if we can concieve of a phenomenal function of the absolute
terms of reason as etched by a fourfold ontological theory all metaphysics loose their transcendentality.
Let us stretch, then, and elongate those muscles of imagination that henceforth have only been used for
memory! A surface is a quantity incommensurable with a line. Infinity for a line need not necessarily be
a line without end; it may be a surface, that is an infinite number of finite lines. It is easier to apprehend
the eternity, or infinital function, of lineality as surface rather than a line that we cannot reach its end,
for one infinity cannot be grasped by our perception whilst the other one can. A line that reaches its
own end is the circle; so that this symbol will be the symbol of the plane. There is no other way to
represent an infinite line. Now let us take any finite line. What is infinity for this line? We have two
answers: a line continued into infinity, or the plane, a Square of which the given line is a side. What is
infinity for a square? An infinite plane, or the cube of which the given square constitutes a side. What is
infinity for a cube? Understand, brother, how the identity between the transcendental dimensionality of
an infinite extension or a movement in a new direction is rendered; such is how you shall stretch, then,
your imagination, that it be warmed up and ready to practice the pirouettes of visualization by which the
Pyramid might be seen!

Such is how the usual concept of an infinite line remains, but to it there is added another, the concept of
infinity as a plane resulting from the motion of the line in a direction perpendicular to itself. The infinite
three-dimensional cube remains; but a four-dimensional body constitutes infinity for a three-
dimensional body. Moreover, the problem becomes even simpler if we bear in mind that an infinite line,
and infinite plane and and infinite solid are pure abstractions; whereas a finite line in relation to a point,
a square in relation to a line and a cube in relation to a square, are phenomenological postulates of
geometry. Although we cannot imagine an infinite line, we can figure a surface; altough we cannot
imagine an infinite surface, we can figure a solid; is there a way to figure an infinite solid so that we
might see it? Understand, O Seeeker, the tesseract not as a cube, so to speak, moving in the fourth
dimension, which is an unbelievable statement, but as the function of imaginal space whereby we could
see the inside of a cube. Let me stress this word, that it might be seen; inside. This is how metaphysical
problems are solved by a theory of phenomenology construed through the basis of a fourfold ontology,
that is, the philosophy of the Trinity. If you see a cube from outside, you construe its three
dimensionality with two dimensionality, for there are the two eyes from you to look. However, if you
could see the reverse of a cube you would be seeing it in four dimensions. Now, if you need two eyes to
build three-dimensionality, we can be certain that we need three eyes to construe four dimensionality. I
have three eyes; two to look and one to see. When the middle eye is open you can percieve time as
space. Therefore the operation of the true tesseract is to behold the Pyramid in your minds eye. If you
see it as a solid, not only from the outside but also from the inside, so that inside this cube fit infinitely
many cubes so that the sense of three-dimensionality dissapears, both outside and in, thereby the
fractalization of the Square is achieved and you will have attained the sight of time, that is, the
perception of vision by which the fourth dimension is seen as clearly as the first three. This measure of
insideness, then, which destroys all dimensionality, is the function of the sacred tesseract; but how are
we to see it, and why is it a Pyramid?

Hasten not into complaints of the height of these gymnastics, for you are yet to see its width, as I its
length! If by these practices we come to exercise our notions of the non-distinction of the description of
physics as a belief and the phenomenology whose description to our senses is obvious, of what physics
could we speak of as belief? To apprehend the geometrics of physics as imaginal training is fundamental
if we are to construe a sacred Temple from the sacrifice of the mind, and yet, it is not that we shall build
with sight, but that we are to evince sight itself as the building. Could we speak of anything else as a
temple of the mind, whereby the function of self has come to be construed as selfless? For by the
transformation if time into space you will come to loose your perspective also, and the illusion of a
centre shall fall. This is the Mystery of Symbol that we draw as an Eye inside of a Triangle, for once the
center becomes, not a function of dimensionality as limited by the three, but the limit of the three as a
dimension they know not, thereby the centre becomes Empty and time is seen as sight as swiftly as our
measures of identity are seen to be delusional. If these functions of numerology serve not to resolve the
immortal questions of the heart, of what use are these parenthesis of poetry? If, by theoretical analysis,
we can render the transformations of ontology, phenomenology and geometry obvious to our intellect,
there shall be no space for the mind to doubt of, seeing that spacelessness itself has become space as
time has become meaningless; thereby the problem of metaphysics is unasked, the machine halts its
regressions and we come to walk the direct Path. Have faith, then, O Seeker, that these gymanstics of
reason prepare you for the ultimate; to concieve of the absolute as no other than your mundane
awareness, by which all distinctions and sense of self shall abandoned the constrictions of your being!

In truth, this ultimate reality has no constrictions, and yet, for us not to believe in it, but to imagine it,
this is what we must consider as the only proof; that of a phenomenlogy that to our senses be obvious.
It is not enough to believe in the ridiculousness of metaphysiscs for our thought to abandon its
regression, and we may come to experience thought as thoughtlessness, whereby such functions of self-
reference are renounced; O Seeker, what we need is not a theory in which we can believe but in a
theory which shall render all believing superfluous! If the Square of ontology is seen in four dimensions,
of itself becomes a Pyramid; this is a secret of the Trinity, for its Voice is Vision. If the function of time
becomes seen, how are we to speak of a seer? The Tesseract is an image of your mind, brother; if you
attain its Vision the function of self-reference you believe to be yourself shall have no more space to
hide in and will dissapear. This tesseract is a Pyramid seen both from the outside and from the inside,
simultaneously, so that infinitely many pyramids fit inside each other, and yet we see the Pyramid
clearly. An infinite function of three dimensional space is itself the fourth dimension that may limit it;
thereby we become seen, and the seer, and sight! Seeing that a description of the tesseract as a
function of insideness can show us how fractalization might achieve itself to be a description of space
and not a function of regression, thereby we shall abandon the recursion of thoughts that continue due
to the effects of an impossible computation. Thought is not the problem, but the doubt infinite is the
rotation of a fourfold square that can cease not until its last function becomes the first. Such is how the
ancients have seen the identity of thought and thoughtlessness in thoughtlessness, for we cannot evince
it as long as we keep speaking. To achieve the cessation of thought is nothing if it does not lead us to
evince the identity between thought and thoughtlessness, for an absolute that were only absolute in a
particular state could never be truly absolute. If you can see the fourth dimension as a function of space,
whereby could you speak of time? Such is how you shall become timeless, not in a metaphysical way,
which itself would be impossible, but in the sense that such timelessness knows of no distinctions
between itself and time. To achieve this state of non-discernment is the goal of the initiate, through
which all must pass by the doors of meditation, and though we shall not come to speak of this word as
of yet, since this first book is the necessary introduction to speak of such a practice without constraining
the mind towards the recesses of belief, know, O Seeker, that by the function of insideness of the
tesseract we mean not to drive your vacuous sense of abstraction but the veritable proof of sight
whereby itself is seen. How can the trancendence of three dimensionality might be achieved, not by a
description, but by a perception, is the secret of the tesseract. If you are yet to see this as such, that is,
that an infinite recursion of cubes within a cube itself describes a dimension the cubes themselves
cannot know of, and ask how is it that a supposedly transcendental dimension might be seen, unerstand
that, although I cannot draw it, you can imagine it, not in the sense of an abstraction but in the very
tangible terms of visual apprehension. That this function of insideness transcends the cube is evident by
the proof that it cannot be drawn, for infinite cubes inside a cube in pragmatic terms can draw nothing
else than a square, or a hexagon, depending on the angle. So it is that, though no image of the tesseract
can be shown, itself can be seen. Know this to be a possibility of your imagination whereby your faith
will be awakened by the pyramid, for itself is no other but the symbol of the eye in the triangle as seen
by a three-dimensionality that might awake our instuitions of how to see their limits within sight; such is
how we shall come to see ourselves as objects for the subject to lose all reference; such is how we shall
come to see subject as subjective for us to lose all objectivity; for such is how we may come to defeat
the illusions of identity that we may become one with the absolute that knows no shadow!

For those conversant in quantum mechanics, my endeavour is not to expose a theory that you are
already acquainted with, but to act as a psychologist of physicists who despair from the trauma of
impossible visualization of the isometric description that quantum mechanics gives of our world. How
can a true description be unvisualizable? That is, how is it that true reality might pass inseen? We have
expanded general relativity in a sense that we can apprehend geometrically, but it is impossible to
consider an electron as a particle and a wave. What physics give is an explanation to work out the maths
of how things move. The maths of quantum mechanics corresponds to measured observations; what
does not correspond are our observations of said observations. The problem here is not one of
visualization but one of belief. Although it is impossible to visualize an electron both as a wave function
or field of probability and a collapsed particle with definite motion, the problem is not how to consider
them but to consider them at all. Said particles exist in a frequency below that of the frequency of light,
so that they cannot be seen. Although we could look closely at an uranium ore and microscopically see
electrons being shot like bullets, that does not mean that they move like bullets because what we see is
not the electron but the air that it displaces. Ontological theory is the means to go over this problem for
quantum physicicts, because what it speaks of is the triviality of our perspective. If we want to see a
wave, we shall see a wave; that is, if the experiment is set to see waves, waves it shall see. But particles
do not exist. It is also untrue that an atom is mostly empty space. The atom is completely empty, and
the carriers of forces such as mass in the nucleus and charge in the field are not carried by particles, but
we imagine this to be so to correspond to our classical view of physics. Though the Copenhagen
interpretation tried to lay waste to the classical view of physics, physics still admit this view, that is, their
phenomenological attempt at isometry with the laws that describe quantum motion. What we need is
not to keep on attacking the problem of how we see, but abandon sight absolutely which could never be
construed from unseeable particles anyway.

The dichotomy between particle and wave function can only exist with fields of action smaller than the
amplitude of visible light’s frequency; but, can the dichotomy really exist when particles cannot be seen?
If quantum physcists could see their own beliefs as trivial, they could keep working the maths of the
theory without the need to have them correspond to a view which is false in the first place, that is; our
phenomenology is not an isometric description of the motion of the real, but rather, our perspective is a
function of sight, that is, of light only. Physicists undertand their math but go crazy when they are
confronted with this; either believe in the math which is true or believe in your beliefs which are
tautologies. There need be no correspondence between phenomenical activity and quantum mechanics;
once this is ascertained, we will have taken a huge step in actually evolving quantum theory from its
state of stasis where physicists argue about interpretations rather than theories that can predict future
states, from which we might derive, if not an understanding of reality, a thechnology that, ignoring the
need to understand reality itself might come to change it. The crux of the matter is this; if you abandon
the choice of belief you render perspective trivial, by which your interpretation is not dual and can
consider atoms as empty, full, both empty and full and also by the function of belief that transcends the
believer; if we can achieve such view of reality, where could we speak of an observer? Therefore we
come to speak only of quantum states, which is the actual substrate of reality, that is, the Emptiness
that pervades all space which disregards the functions of ontology as trivial to construe the Real. The
Apple is the Real, the fruit of Enlightenment; and yet, for us to reach the Real Apple we must reveal the
illusion of the Physical Apple as concieved by Newton if we are to comprehend the Mystery of Genesis.
Gravitational pull is merely the impulse that atoms have to be balanced in the void; it is not that the
apple falls, but that it wishes to be in the center. Gravity cannot be quantized because it is not a force
but the form of space; from this realization our physicists are yet to make their next new breach, not by
a function of observation or of interpretation, but by a function of pure mathematics as Einsten’s was
also. Undestand, brother, that if Geometry is not the functions of form but of the space to which they
are identical, then the considerations of quantum mechanics, operating under a fourfold ontological
framework, prescribe that truth cannot be seen; the seer must become sight! Such is how physics and
metaphysics become conjoined so that we may not speak of one as opposed to the other; yea, that we
may speak of none, and carry on our calculations! We all want to believe in the right thing, in what is
true; but the only obstacle towards truth is believing. Quantum physics ought to be seen under this
light, for many have been initiated into the Mysteries of the real by considering the Enigma as stated by
it, which, of itself, is not a new theory but a translation of the insights of the Ancients to that of a
mathematical langauge that may describe the concrete limits of rationality towards apprehending the
Real. Quantum physics, then, is nothing other than an extremely precise way to concieve of the Pyramid
of the Ancients.

O Seeker, I wish not to be smart, but consider this as the principle of the Art; for if Poetry is to be
reinstated to its original glory, and be percieved not as Word but as Voice, the Alchemist cannot but
delve into the myths of his epoch in order to transmute them from mysteries. And isn’t ity not, as ample
reason abounds, that they were at the forefront of science always, from Imhotep to Ibn Sina, from Van
Helmont to Ge-Hong? The Ancients are my teachers, those who sung with one Voice only; but the
Alchemists are my contemporaries. Do you understand? The Great Work is Perfect Poetry, that which
gives a Voice unto all; but as to ourselves, we are yet to see how our failures as Alchemists may
compose the serendipities of history. Beware, brother! For in this laboratory of being we are to discover
the singularity of presence. If we are to find a function of ontology that is itself an obvious description of
phenomenology, it is not so that this theory might come to be believed but that by understanding it
clearly we shall need no further theories, seeing that the regressions of metaphysical self-reference
themselves are cut by the awareness of truth that knows no distinction between them. Such is our
purpose at hand, but the general aim of this discourse is to pose the same question in the parlance of
every science, be that ontology, mathematics, symbolism, mythology, philosophy or mysticism, that by a
function of numerical transformation we may evince no distinction between the sciences and thee see
them all as means to pose an eternal question. Every science is a way of speaking, with particular
definitions; every conversation of truth is a technicality. How are we to transcend this obstacle? O
Seeker, if you can fuse the many questions into the one, such a question would remain unnameable,
undescribable, unobjectifiable. This very unphrasing of the question is the trune entanglement we
name, variously, as emptinness, faith, and wisdom; but to the supreme symbol of their entanglement
we leave only the name of Mystery, for as such the Ancients have referred to a question that cannot be
asked. Could anything else lead us to absolute awareness than through the annulment of the regression
of thought that concieves of a conciever? And could anything but the fourth function, the retrieving of
the question by the impossibility of believing in a position which concieves of neither existance or non-
existance, thereby halting the infinite regression of the mind that operates by the assumption of a self in
time and an assumption of a selflessness in space, be not the only veritable description that we may
have of an absolute experience? To concieve of experience as a tesseract annuls the function of
regression that we adscribe to ourselves; and yet, even thought you live by it, you are yet to see it. That
is why the Path is praying for a Vision! Such is the Quest; to find the mind we seek to sacrifice! It is an
honour of the stars that we are able to be deluded, as ignorance, the original sin, is the greatest gift in
man; for it allows for the Vision! The Exstacy of the first time becomes eternal; thereby, there was never
a first time. And yet, though there be no attainment possible with all your heart must pray for a Vision if
you are to truly see. It is not a question of belief, as we’ve said, and it matterns not that I make sense,
but that by the courage of recognizing the mystery of your being you might come to excert your powers
of transformation and become one with the Pyramid; for such are the only measures for its ascencion!

Let us, then, again attempt at the unified continuum between the theories of ontology and
phenomenology, that by realizing their transformation we may be one step further into the integration
of all questions in one supreme unaskable question which itself is the absolute awareness that
transcends the mechanisms of the mind and by whose initiation only could we abandon self-reference
as if to enter the Path of the Ancients and live beyond death; which is their promise! And what else
could map any analogy between ontology and phenomenology other than a rephrasing the problems of
one in the parlance of the other? The question is this; how are all dimensions to become sight, as if to
abandon the duality between a three dimensional object and a one dimensional subject of whose
dimension we cannot speak of, and yet, unspeakably believe in? To see the tesseract is a practice of
imagination whereby we fold space to describe time, thereby annulling the function of an operator of
perspective. The geometry of space must be nursed by the wisdom of the theory of phenomenal
ontology, that is, Geometry’s mother, Numerology, if we are to breach the limits of Euclidian space and
realize that such constrictions were not one of our visualization capacities but those of the addiction of
habit to concieve of such limits as a self, our own. To find the tesseract is a modern alchemical way to
signify the Pyramid of the Ancients, for the base is fourfold but it is ruled by an apex on whose the
fourth has no function. Such is why the tesseract is an abstraction of numerology, but the sight of
phenomenology is envisioned by her daughter as a Pyramid. To evince the continuum of dimensionality
we must consider the tesseract as a function of the Pyramid, that is, of its visualization of insideness. For
this to be clear we must still establish how a theory of surface could speak of a non-distinction between
out and in whereas still concieving of a fourth dimension; such continuity would evince the problem of
an essence nonsensical. To keep bending space we must teach our imagination new functions that it
could not believe before, but not through new beliefs but by the dissolution of their constrictions!
Thereby the transcendental function of all processes as self is seen to be a vacuous tenet of an obsolete
description of the geometry of our phenomenal being, wereas selflesness is assertained by selflessness,
emptiness by emptiness, and the mystery by the Mystery! That the mind were construed to achieve
cognition of its own processes is a question of metaphysics that cannot concern us; when I speak of the
limitlessness of mind, it is not the infinity of the Square but the Eternity of the Pyramid!

Now let us, therefore, explore these gymnastics of visualization further, that we may come to see it! A
plane has no reverse; this is the requirement of the theory of volume. For a plane to have a reverse, it
must become three-dimensional. Therefore, if a cube were to have a reverse, it would become four-
dimensional. Can we see this reverse function? What we seek is to imagine, properly imagine, the
tesseract as unmoving. We need not to concieve of the Tesseract as an impossible motion, for would
need time to manifest itself as four-dimensional; but we can understand that, for four-dimensionality to
be established as geometrical, we ought to see the function that limits space as the totality of it. To
concieve of the mind as a Pyramid is the secret of the tesseract. If the Square is seen in Four dimensions,
it shall be seen also that it is not distinct from a Pyramid seen in three dimensions; thus we shall
establish the continuum of dimensionality by which the last tenet of ontology becomes reified as a
transcendental function that we see, leaving no space for our self; such is how the Vision of the Pyramid
reveals the Mystery of Emptiness! When the true Pyramid is seen to offer no distinction between it
being percieved in three or in four dimensions, thereby shall it astound the Seeker; realizing the space-
time continuum as the sublime object of phenomenology by whose mere beholding we see the Mind,
the Seeker shall have no space to keep looking for once the function of self-reference resolves its
nature. If we are to dissolve the problems of belief by an operation of sight, have we not been walking,
all along, the Path of the Ancients? Brother, I use not these paraphrases of repetition to teach you
anything, but to prevent you from reading them ever again. As it shall happen with every technique of
knowledge, philosophy is not only to become a practice, and never a theory, but also that it is a practice
to be transcended. If by this discourse you transcend all possibility of doubt or belief in metaphysical
postulates, the heart must still go on its adventure; and yet, it cannot steer its Path truly as long as it is
constrained by the apparent but unreal distinctions of physics and phenomenality. If the period of
dimensions is construed geometrically as the operation of phenomenality, the integration of the Mind
into the Mindless occurs by the Mystery that transforms the Square into a Triangle with an Empty
center; the Eye ever-looking!

But what does this Eye see? Having ascertained that time is not the function that sees space but rather
another dimension of space itself, what could we offer as a theory of sight? What else, than the logics of
light? What sees space itself is not time, but light, for it is the only description of sight we may ascertain
once we have dissolved the duality of seer and seen which is the Eye. The Mystic Eye symbolizes the
completion of the Trinity; that is, the Third Eye is itelf the Fourth, the State of Turiya! The Turiya of the
Ancients is the Tesseract of the Seeker, the burning Temple beyond time; the Pyramid is a state as much
as it is a way of seeing. The perfection of sight the Ancients called their mastership is not distinct from
our abstractions of space, that is, that we might see form with the emptiness of its limits not as a
transcendental operation but as a function of their dimensionality, whereby we come to lose the sense
of our own. O Seeker, I must repreat myself constantly under different guises, so that you come to
evince my intent as one thing only, that which we cannot say. To explain is not my purpose, but to tire
from our meanderings, that the direct path might be clear! That we explore the functions of space as a
description of the phenomenality in which we live by is a key to the heart, not a teaching of the mind. If
our aim be to see the Sacred Vision of the Ancients whereby the Stars themselves will initiate us unto
their Mysteries, let us, then, condense our paraphrasis of geometry to the truth of phenomenology.
That which is seen is nothing but sight, yet this sight is not distinct from the light. The light sees itself;
this Mystery is unfathomable! To see every fourfold function of space is to see as light sees. The
absolute form of space is the light; the concieving of their non-distinction is the Pyramid! Thus shall you
transcend the limitations of the decieving apparatus; by realizing that the limitation is not one of sense
as if speaking in the terms of phenomenology but one of common sense as if to speak in no terms at all!
Time are space are functions of thought, not constritions by which we experience; if you could read this
word, any word, in a new dimension, truth would dismantle the search for its absolutivity not by a word
that is believed but by a Logos that is Seen; such is the Vision that is the Voice.
How are we, then, to render analogous the theory of light with the permutations of ontology and
geometry as we have endeavoured in exemplifying them? For in the transformation of one in to the
other only can the word be seen to be a technicality of a meaning that must remain unsaid, whereby the
teaching of silence, the Silentium of the Adepts confronted with the Arcana Arcanorum, shall be realized
beyond word or silence! Verily, the word must be read in a new direction, as if the movement of our
attention along each of these phrases could be summed up in an letter. That letter is a triangle, the
written symbol of the Pyramid; but what does it mean? Mystery! In order that we may come to See by
the Eye and not believe by the word, let us, therefore, reveal the postulates on which the conception of
light stand on to be those of our theory of absolute ontology, the fourfold function where belief
achieves the reification of its limits. If such analogy could be produces, where could we find any space
for belief to crawl in, seein that truth itself is true, and unbelievable! By such wonder we shall reach the
threshold of the Ancients and sing along them truly, with no regression of self-reference, that all is one,
and preach also its unbelievability in pure honesty! To speak as the stars is the meaning of an empty
mouth, for the tongue of each Ancient was a flame that burned space! How are we to understand the
logick of light to be that of ontology also, that by their fusion our phenomenal capacity abandons the
belief in its constrictions? How are we to phrase the tetralemma of the Ancients to be a description of
light? This is the secret that the physicists ignored but the Ancients knew. For to consider light as a
wave, a particle, and the entanglement of both is also to believe that neither can be believed. By this
rule we shall construe, then, light also to be a synonym of the real, and, phenomenologically, the only!
For the fourth function of light itself renders the previous three functionless, by whose realization its
operation is rendered empty. The light is empmty, O Seeker; what else is left to say? The analogies of all
enigmas have been entangled into the one wich is none and all, but its discussion has never been as
noble as that which phrames its paradigms in terms of light. That light be a function of emptiness itself
proves that to distinguish them is unreasonable; the mystery is not that light came from nothing, but
that light is no different from nothing; thereby it shall be seen that form is empty and time is space. The
mystery is not one of becoming, as if from the Void the Voice commanded being into Vision, and created
light therefrom, but that the very Void, Voice, and Vision are the Light.

To merge every symbol into one is the alchemy whereby the mythology of every science is ascertained
as a metaphor of their transcendent function. When every limit is rendered analogous, thereby they
shall attain true transcendentality by leaving their discrepancies of technicality behind, and all myths
shall become one mystery! To see fire as time, and time as light; what else could we aim for? What else
could constitute the Vision? Our conviction of concieving space as darkness, as if to create forms of light
that dwell within, must be revealed to be impossible. Thereby our imagination will lose the sense of
what is possible to it; only then shall the Vision dawn! True emptiness knows of no distinction between
light and absolute space, that is, the function of geometry that concieves of a Sublime object non-
distinct from its perciever. The ultimate reality is a temple of light with no-one inside it! Such is how the
Ancients spoke; are you seeing this just now? The aether does not exist. The delusion of the necessity
for an essential postulate that would unify a field of distinctions has long run its course. Netwon wrote
to Bentley: “That Gravity should be innate, inherent and essential to Matter, so that one Body may act
upon another at a Distance thro' a Vacuum, without the Mediation of anything else, by and through
which their Action and Force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an Absurdity, that
I believe no Man who has in philosophical Matters a competent Faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.
Gravity must be caused by an Agent acting constantly according to certain Laws; but whether this Agent
be material or immaterial, I have left to the Consideration of my Readers.” The father of modern Physics
has not been the only one to insist on the systematization of essentiality, and fail thereby, for it has also
been the failure of the believers even up to Einstein, whom also could not believe in an empty substrate;
but that is not entirely a limitation of these, who have been great men, but a limitation of the mind
itself, for it is true that it cannot believe in it! And yet, this incapacity to concieve of the operations of
nothingness to be themselves the functions of reality has been the misguided conviction that has
thrown us all into the demise by which we spin the Wheel of Samsara, the ignorance of a recursion that
seeks to find its own transcendental function within itself, having none!

How are we, however, to concieve of the interplay of phenomena if they share no essence? Open your
Eye; as simple as that; which is this! Your mind must find no place in which to concieve itself; but to do
that, the space it now occupies, which is time, must be seen to be occupied already. Emptiness
permeates emptiness; if space occupies space, how are we to speak of form? We can only say that form
is curved space, for in its curvature we imaginatine its transcendental dimension. Light does not travel
through space bent by gravity; light maps the curvature of space itself. This function of geometry is
impossible under the Euclidian axioms by which our imagination has been modelled under. To properly
understand how the nondistinction of duality creates the trinity is enough for our imagination to
abandon the constrictions of habit and thereby see itself entire, that is, as absolute space rather than a
transcendental perciever of space through independent time. Though the destruction of mathematics as
a vessel of metaphysics is our meaning, we might still inquire on how is it that mathematics may come
to describe such a function of the dimensional continuum of triadic entanglement, so as to prove that
the conviction of delusion was not one of reason but of inference. To walk towards the vision of the
Pyramid entails breaching our percieved limits of Geometry. You can pursue this end entirely from an
intellectual perspective, and reach the same conclusions as if you had Seen; O Seeker, if you’re baffled
still regarding how could we concieve of a geometrical function that could operate a fourfold
dimensionality of ontology, not of direction, sink deep into the mathematical practice of smooth
infinitesial analysis. Though we can care not for proof in a path without beliefs, smooth infinitesimal
analysis is a field of mathematics that not only can operate with extensive use of the generally excluded
middle, but that can also reify its transcendental postulate. Its approach departs from the classical logic
used in conventional mathematics by denying the law of the excluded middle, that is, not (a ≠ b) does
not imply a = b. In particular, in a theory of smooth infinitesimal analysis one can prove for all
infinitesimals ε, NOT (ε ≠ 0); yet it is provably false that all infinitesimals are equal to zero. This proves
that every function whose domain is the real numbers, is continuous and infinitely differentiable.
Despite this fact, one could attempt to define a discontinuous function f(x) by specifying that f(x) = 1 for
x = 0, and f(x) = 0 for x ≠ 0. If the law of the excluded middle held, then this would be a fully defined,
discontinuous function. However, there are plenty of x, namely the infinitesimals, such that neither x = 0
nor x ≠ 0 holds, so the function is not defined on the real numbers. Such is how the function of the
integers, rationals, real and imaginary numbers are defined by one theory. This conception of
mathematics is the true workground of Sacred Geometry. If you can concieve of space by this function
you shall come to see, and yet, the path of proof is for dull yoguis. You can understand better by vision,
and train also your faith thereby, better than emulating the divine matrix of imagination by the
consistency of applying smooth infinitesimal analysis to problems of geometry phramed under Euclidian
axioms. Though by this practice you release the shackles of belief from your Vision, it is unnessecary to
study smooth infinitesimal analysis to see this as long as you grasp the true meaning of light, for the
greatest Geometer is your imagination, not your rational abstractions.

An Ancient held that nothing can be moved, since to be moved it must be taken out of the place in
which it is and put into the place where it is not, which is impossible because all things must always be in
the places where they are. Though smooth infinitesimal analysis can prove the continuity of the real
numbers and concieve of a function that delimits them, thereby stating also the continuity of the
imaginary numbers as long as the reals are upheld, what is truly continuous can have no theory. That is,
what is continuous cannot be called upon to settle the distinction between continuity and discontinuity;
how much leess could it map a distinction between distinction and non-distinction! Our mathematical
understanding of points as delusional can serve us not unless we pair such realizations to that of our
conceptions of light, for light is the only symbol that may mark the transformations of ontology into
phenomenology. How are we, therefore, to consider light as the absolute also, seeing that we keep
refering to its function as a system of relativity, which we’ve already framed as ultimately unbelievable?
The theory of relativity, having erected a function of space-time conversion that rendered the substrate
of their transformation Empty, cannot be thought to be a theory of relativity, but only one of
absolutivity which depends on a perciever which cannot be named, other than light. If this theory is to
point to the absolute without a finger, we cannot call it relative as if it were opposed to non-relative.
How are we to frame then, this absolute function of the theory of relativity without debasing it as a
theory of duality as if it could be believed, that is, as if it could also be disbelieved? The only proof to our
theory must come through its recognition as obvios not as if it were a new parradigm in which to work
itm , but as if it were the only paradigm possible, having recognized that our previous paradigm was in
fact, no paradigm at all. How are we, then, to understand the theory of light, which is no other than the
theory of the relativity between time and space, that is, of the space-time continuum? Let us consider
the theory in this guise; the theory of relativity expresses what is not relative; that is, lights velocity. This
is the state in which light abides. It sees all at once. If you can reach this understanding, where was what
you couldn’t understand before? As long as time is regarded as relative, it cannot be transcended. It
must be regarded as absolute; could its form, then, be any different from that of an absolute conception
of space? Matter dissapears when it moves at the velocity of light; this also means that matter appears
from any point in time. Matter, in the theory of relativity, cannot be concieved as other than the
function that curves the space light travels through, that is, gravity; but light itself, being immaterial, is
also not distinct from the vacuum through which it moves. It is a particle, a wave, both a particle and a
wave, and also space itself! Such is the perfect conception of light whereas being become Pyramidal.
Light moves in eternity, so it doesn’t move. A rod travelling at the speed of light becomes a cross-section
of itself. In making exclusive use of Lorentz's transformations, Einstein affirms that a rigid rod moving in
the direction of its length is shorter than the same rod when it is in a state of rest, and the more quickly
such a rod moves, the shorter it becomes. A rod moving with the velocity of light would lose its third
dimension. And how couldn’t it, seeing that the speed of time, which is the light, itself operates the
function of three-dimensionality?
The speed of light is the speed of eternity, for light can concieve of all instants at the same time. Time is
the greatest and the most difficult riddle which confronts mankind; it is the tangible stasis of the
transcendent, the way to speak of mystery with mystery. To define the present moment as a point is our
delusion; couldn’t it be healed, then, by a theory of the dissolution of the distinction between space and
point, between form and emptiness? A consciousness that is not limited by these forms of perception
cannot be explained, believed, or rationalized, and the purpose of our abstractions is to undersstand
this; but have faith it can be experienced! This faith is what shall steer you unto the unbelievable. As
dictated by our common sense, we consider the past and the future to be real, for, if they are not, we
wager that the present, then, cannot exist either. The function of their entanglement must exist
together somewhere, only we are not aware of it, seeing that the space that could compute such an
operation is already held to describe the ceaseless permutations of self-reference that preclude the
question from being posited. And yet, for this to occur, our understanding of the present must cease to
be constrained by the charater of lineality as if itself was a point between two opposites, that is, as if its
infinitesimal function could move at all, seeing that it can have no location. The present must be
construed as the fourth function of space, and not as the second function of time! If you can see this
way, the Pyramid is not far. For the Path to be clear we must aknowledge the profound incorrectness of
our habit of considering time as a description of our observation of motion, that is, as an idea of
sequence which requires a transcendental dimension to describe it. Instead, we must accept the exact
opposite, for our conception of time to be absolute; and yet, this opposition posits not two separate
theories but one of integration, whose function then is rendered Empty. Euclidian geometry has been a
function of phenomenality for it was under her spell that people came to excersice their vision, and yet,
if we break loose from these bonds the description of imagination as euclidian loses its reference and
our imagination itself can draw in four dimensions once the fourth function of ontology is applied to its
axioms. This would be a geometry of smooth infinitesimal analisis, which of itself is to see the square
fractalize into the pyramid that is also a tesseract and the eye in the triangle. To construe the continuum
of every possible dimensionality is to achieve the vision of emptiness, for its function is seen to have no
substance, by which the sense of self is lost. To see everything as empty; this is what the pyramid is a
metaphor of. And yet, see how deep they go, these mysteries of the ancients, that from the source of
wisdom have their faucet and drink of life; for that the tesseract is a pyramid is deeply meaningful. It is
the sublime object of numerology seen in every possible dimension, that is, the directions which
describe sight itself.

This experience is the vision; to destroy the rotation of the Four is to count from infinity down to Three
and thereby trancend all counting. In this experience that cannot change time is not obliterated and the
sage may continue performing his phenomenal functions, the biology of his existance, without regard
for idenitity; he has become timeless. What can no longer change is his consciousness, thereby having
achieved the absolute they become free of death and live eternally; and yet, we know not whay can no
longer change, for the substrate of experience is rendered absolute, not knowing, thereby, distinction
between change and changlessness. This is the state of light, wherein time and timelessness have no
meaning, seeing that neither are functions of an absolute description of space that knows not od duality
but only of a trinity etched by the transcendence of its own dimensionality as the function of Emptiness
that may entangle it. To experience reality as light experiences it can be the only mode of absolute
phenomenality, for light itself is no different from the space we inhabit and whose imprints figure our
reality. Understand, thereby, O Seeker, why the Ancients have spoken about the asbolute experience as
an enlightenment! This illumination means not an understanding of the functions of the absolute reality
as if they could be believed, as theories are stated, but instead to percieve directly as light, for
illumination knows of no function whereby light could illumine an objet, but, on the contrary, that there
was never any object in the first place so that space itself becomes the time it is subjected to, not by a
form of unconcievable transcendence of dimensionality in the terms of euclidian geometry but by those
of a visual experience of the entanglement of space and time as light itself, which is the only reality. We
have reached hereby, Seeker, the edge of what can be analytically dissected, for beyond the Four the
Word cannot exist. The four cannot exist before the Four either, brother, but we can use the function of
ontology to discuss how that could be so, whereas in going beyond the limits of the concievable we can
no longer speak of the Word and are instead ushered into Mystery that knows no distinction between
the word and the wordless. Forgive, ancients, my breaking of the sacred vow! May the suffering I beared
in writing this, lest I made a mistake and awaken the thunderous voice of my master, pay for my
breaking of the silentium! Know, brother, that I speak, not with the permission of the stars, but under
their inspiration. Like Giorgano Bruno, I received the understanding of infinity by a vision of the stars.
This vision shall conclude this book, and yet, for you to understand it as if to neither believe it nor
disbelieve it is tht we speak so largely about the themes that it will maniefest, lest your faith be
corrupted by the misunderstanding of its symbols!

Let us condense our undersatnding of the mysterious doctrine so far. The spacetime continuum is
identical with sight; thereby ontology, logic, physics, metaphysics and phenomenology become reified,
that is, singinfied by that which they are; light. Though we may understand this analytically, we must
actualize our breaching of the limits of imagination by doing so phenomenically, not linguistically. As
long as the Pyramid is a Word you shall not see it. Seeing that light is all there is and there is no space for
us is not enough for us to disspear for the convictions of habit are stronger than those of reason. How
are we, then, to concieve of light so that the perception of its being leads us to this awareness not by
force of belief but by a Vision of Emptiness? We cannot discuss reality by its absolute symbol, light, but
we can discuss reality by the function of emptiness that may turn all rotation to a halt so that thereby
light be stilled and time be Seen. Even though the ultimate reality may exist beyond our notions of
existance, the Mystic Teaching cannot speak of that which is, but point only to the experience whereby
one may see what is beyond discourse. Therefore, we cannot speak of light, for light cannot experience
the truth of the state wherein it abides; but we can speak of enlightenement as the experience of the
truth that the state of light is the absolute. Therefore, the Mystic teaching delves not into a metaphysics
of the ultimate reality, as if by these syllogisms of physics we were trying to erect a new doctrine, a new
paradigm which ought to be believed, and which itself must lead to the paradigm that may trump it, but
to the source of inspiration from where each Seeker may draw the strenght of faith to pursue this
experience courageously. I care not for the Ultimate Reality of the Being of Light, for it does not depend
on us; and yet, on us, and on us alone, depend the realization of such a state. Therefore we cannot
speak of Light as an experience unless we experience it absolutely; such is why the Ancients were taken
to speak of Fire, for in the nature of Fire itself lies hidden the clause by which the light it emits might be
seen to merge with the time it takes to burn it. Every fireplace is a star; and as such your heart is also!
Though Light be absolute, and though itself may know of no distintion between Air, Water, Earth and
Fire, we cannot speak of Light as the entanglement of these four, but only as that of Fire, which is the
entanglement of the Three. See? Thereore the secret of the Ancients is not light, but Fire; for light is
their being, not their secret. Though to become as light is our faith, seeing that we cannot be other than
light, there must be an experience that marks the transformation between one and the other, that is,
between the nature of faith and light; though this very experience the Ancients called enlightenment,
we cannot consider it as anything but a burning Fire until that threshold be crossed, whereby fire will
burn the other elements also and reveal the Ultimate Reality to be the being of Light.

Do you understand why we needed such a strenous paraphrasis of meaning to reach this assertion in a
manner that cannot be believed, but lived? The light is empty, but we must consider first Fire as
Emtpiness that the entaglement of its true operation to be revealed as such. Our gymnastics of
numerology have been worthless unless we realize that their permutation described in an abstract
sense the Symbolic description of the Wheel of the Elements. By framing the absolute function of the
Square is how the Trinity is revealed as absolute; therefore the fourth function of every Square, as
framed by ontology, physics, or phenomenology, becomes indistinct; that is, emtpiness, light, and Turiya
mean the same thing. Though we have touched but briefly upon the means by which such entanglement
between these terms be rendered, that is, by training the fourth function of our phenomenal experience
to breach the distinctions of sleep, dreams and vigilance, as of yet we can derive no sense from what
expanding the orgasm can mean. How are we to feel the selfless bliss of the orgasm as a phenomenon
that carries out in time, pruducing timelessness, when we cannot seem to retain the ejaculate that itself
marks the release of timelessness, in time, therefore making the orgasm a function of position rather
than one of space itself? Of itself, this operation is the Alchemical secret, the Wisdom of the Ancients,
though the nature of such a state may be given by various metaphors. The absolute experience is a
cosmic orgasm that, produced in timelessness, cannot other than permeate our conceptions of lineal
time, thereby rendering our life as an expression of its bliss. It has been only to arrive at the description
of a teaching that may lead to such a gift of experience that I have endeavoured in transcribing these
paraphrasis of sense, and yet, we are still far from entering the Pyramid as though we may ascend the
Mountain by their guidance. This book concerns not itself with direct instruction, for I am as cautious to
transmit the teaching as I am watchful of my own state. Before offering the practices of the Anceitns
whereby we might train this function of incompleteness, that is, the fourth state which we feel not but
dissect and dissolve into the other three, it is imperative to give a numerological desription of Theoria
Mystica, by which Emptiness shall be seen to permeate every function of dimensionality. If we hadn’t
traveresed these dangers we could not have arrived at a theory of the triviality of belief by which true
faith might arise, for if the practiacal teachings of the Anceints were given before their meaning is
ascertained, thereby every Seeker would construe their doctrine as a religion, that is, a belief which
renderes the funciton of the mind separate to that of what it might concieve; such has been the
delusion of the fanatics, though they may have loved their masters dutifully! To love the Ancients we
must confront their Mysteries with Mystery, not with the blindness of a fasle sense of security construed
from the remnants of our habits of belief! Thus is why this book cannot explain, just yet, what these
practices are, but be faithful that by having read this book in its entirety you are thereby initated into
the Mysteries of Emptiness that we call Theoria Mystica, that is, the numerological description of every
concievable mode of dimensional entanglement, so that you might enter the Ancient Path without a
trace of a possibility in believing in it! This world is far too filled with people who sell Words they do not
own, seeing that they themselves have not heard the Voice. Though I may have heard it, believe this
not! At least, until you hear it!

What could the gateless gate of the Ancients be, then, other than a raging fire? For it is in the Enigma of
Fire that all secrets have their Mystery. Let us, then, instead of speaking any more in the parlance of
philosopy, subsume every symbol that we have been speaking of as a fourth function into one supureme
symbol of the function of the four that transcends the square as a triangle with an empty center; this
symbol, the sumblime element of myth and mystery, is the fire of the ancients, by whose flames the
temple must be burned for the pyre to become pyramidal. The function of converging in a
transncendental poitn that was the emtpy center of the triangle has been constituted as the pyramidion
of the sacred temple, whereby all functions of dimensionality have achieved their continuity. It is by the
integration of the three and the four that you shall come to trump over the two, the enemy! The
destructor of duality cannot be other thn the fourth tenet, seeing that the first two must state the
elements to be opposed, the third its opposition, and only the fourth its resolution. Such is how fire
came to be regarded as the symbol of awareness; for the burning of the temple means the continual
creation and destruction of it, which itself is preservation! The flame is the voice of the ancients. This is
the highest secret of myth. For mystery to consume all, however, fire itself can have no oppositions; that
is, itself must become also air, and water, and earth. If fire loses its position on the square, the mind that
concieves of a believer, and comes to constitute the operation of the three elemental functions, the four
elements merge into nothingness from whose empty center an eye looks inscribed by the faith of a
triangular sign, the pyramid the ancients have taught as the tesseract of phenomenal trancencendence!
For fire to become the mytery, you must cease to look at it, and burn! Such is how the temple is
consacrated, by whose baptism of fire we are initiated into the inner secrets of the heart available as a
path for those whose heart walks the spirit of adventure guided by the stars. This is the prophecy of the
secret order, for the church may baptise by water, but the vision and the voice baptize by fire! To
sacrifice the mind is to burn it; this is the mystery that we have been discussing, even though we
requiered some tangential descriptions to convey the absolute function of their transcendence! To
speak of fire as the sublime we must not consider it as fire. Tell me, what is it?

The mystery of the ancients asks of you to renounce your self to see it. Understand this deep mystery as
framed by our discussion on the geometry of imagination, for what we may come to see is the lack of
self itself. Has the god of fire come looking for fire? The perfection of the mind is a solar myth, the
legend of a monkey awakened to emptyness! Enlightenment is our destiny, brother, not our desire; but
have faith that these manouvers of understanding accelerate our fall into the void of the unknown! For
if you have any conception of enlightennment, thereby you will not see it. And yet, we have to speak of
an experience, even though nothing is experienced by it. There is a moment of initiation into the
mysteries, by the mysteries; the mysteryous thing is that there be an initiation at all, seeing that the
mystery is that nothing changed! And yet, you shall not come to repudiate this gift of unrepayable
gratitude, not because our heart cannot give itself absolutely as sacrifice, but because we find not
anything or anyone to pay such gratitudes too, as, even less, anyone to pay them! The heart is infinite
once it looses its constrictions of self, and gives itself absolutely at every moment because ti has nothing
to lose, and corageously goes out into the adventure of the heart helping beings to awaken them into
their reality; such is why seeing into the eyes of a true master of awareness, an enlightened ancient, a
monkey awakened to emptyness, is to see yourself. The ancients are the eyes; the mystery is that there
is only one! Every ancient has taught the fire. Yhis fire is not that physical fire that makes the candle
seem to laugh. The true fire is the flame which consumes the treasures of the moth. The quality of the
ancients was that they inspired faith by looking at them; understand, then, brother,that their sayings are
no different from a sight of them! Such is how the voice is vision, that the faith of the stars may save our
hearts from the constrictions of fear that prevent the pure flowing of the sacrifice that our lives were
always as an adept walks into the pyramid that knows shall burn. Shall we, then, not recreate this myth
as the counsel of death, the memento mori of the wise, so that life also becomes death, and thereby,
death, life? This is the secret of transcendence, not that of the impossible figuration of duality but that
of an integration of dimensionality that descrbes the limits of its geometry by its sublime object. Until
the day you are baptized you shall not know what fire is, but for you to be beptized you must concieve
to untangle the mystery of its being. As long as fire acts as the fourth function of a square your mind is
doomed to regression, for its sight is incomplete; when fire becomes empty as it entangles the function
of the three elements which is the burning, fire will dissapear with them and emptiness shall be
ascertained as the only reality. What else could constitute our baptism, brother, than our consecration
into the wisdom of selflessness?

Until we see light as absolute space, the symbol of fire will be distinct from us. The supreme
entanglement of the elements is for yourself to become fire; thereby fire shall cease to be fire. As long
as fire is fire, the square is drawn. When yourself become fire, baptized by it, the voice of the stars,
thereby you will achieve the trinity; and yet, first we must reach, then circumambulate, and finally
ascend this pyramid that shall rest of a fourfold basis until the reaching of its pyramidion. The other
elements are also absolute metaphors of reality; but fire is the secret of the Ancients. Air is the symbol
of theology, water is the symbol of phisolophy, earth is the symbol of mythology but fire is the symbol of
mystery. Fire is not better or more important than the other elements, brother, and you could achieve
the absolute by attempting to abstract the essence of anyone, for thereby you would achieve the
absolute, whatever way you chose to sang of it later; but the fire is the way to sing and still stay silent.
Therefore, have I breached the most sacred of seals, the Silentium of the Ancients, if in truth I have not
spoken? Fire is an elements as long as youre in the world; when you renounce the world you will be
burnt by the sacred flame of timelight and render all existancies empty. Fire is the enigma; emptiness is
the mystery! Thus we call the mystery fire, that we may realize emptiness; for such is our enigma! The
three elements are ways of describing persfection, but the only element that may achieve any
realization of nature is the fire in seeing that itself is not distinct from the three. O seeker, construe
alchemically the many ways in which fire is made by the elements! Emptiness is the fire that burns the
sin of the one who is sinless; it is the Fire that burns the attributes of the one who is without attributes;
it is the fire that burns the bondage of the one who is whithout bondage. This Secret Fire was called
Azoth by the Alchemists and as such we shall name it esoterically also, that we may find the Stone of the
Wise! This Secret Fire is the Semen of Shiva and the Virgin’s Milk. This Fire is not fire. The Alkahest of
Paracelsus is the Fire Water of Johann Baptista Helmont, the Fluidic and Living Gold of Eliphas Levy. As it
is said, chemists use fire for burning; we use water.

When Fire looses its Square Function it becomes perfected; this is the Myth of the Stone. As the
Alchemist Raymond Lully says, in order to make gold we must first have gold and mercury. Mercury is
the lightnng metallic form of fire, the spirit of the mirror which dissolves the seer; but let it be known
also that “Aurum nostrum non est aurum vulgi", that is, our gold is not the common gold. The edict of
the limitlessness of consciousness comes down to this; energy flows where attention goes. If you
attention goes nowhere, how could it be limited? Now is the moment of power. Nowness is not a
reference to time as a function of outsideness, but nowness as the operation of the ultimate insideness.
The Square is the Tetragrammaton, the name that invokes the Vision. It is the secret Mantra. The
realization of the Square is the halting of its Wheel, unto whose Axis we shall be Crucified to ascend
unto heaven and become the trinity, fow which our body serves as sacrifice, our humanity servers as
Saviour, and our humility server as proof of the Most High. The greater the humility, the greater the
reverence of the absolute. Absolute humility is the knowledge of an absolute power. Therefore the
perfect knowledge of the Four encompasses its destruction. The Ouroboros dissappears. For all our lives
we go half blind touching prison bars, and concieve that we are locked in the mind; and yet, the prison
bars where infinite, so that only by conception we can move from being slaves in an infinite prison to
being infinitely free on the outside.

Hereby we have laid waste to any analitical thinking. The numbers that shall follow will be described in
their true mysterious form, as symbols of reality, than excusing their representations. Numbers are
myths, O Seeker, and the Pyramid is not the only symbol, though it be absolute! This nature of
phenomena is free from artifices and exists as the unchanging great bliss of Emptiness possessed of
absolute characteristics. However, due to the misapprehension of attachment that presumes something
they could be attached to, the mental continuum of thought is obscured by the invention of a centre
around which experience appears as cyclic; that is, as an impossible function both of continuity and
discontinuity. To realize the substance of Samsara as Empty is to live in Nirvana, which is the death of
death, the life of life, and the dream of a dream. When confronted to ideas that seem not of this world, I
feel as if this world widened. It is only our ignorance that maps the separation. Spiritual philosophy is
the basis of the explainable. Mystical philosophy seeks to widen the gap of understanding by making
everything possible. Mysticisim is a magickal training for miracles, for they only begin to happen if we
have no space to call impossible. Who has seen everything empty itself out almost knows with what it is
filled with. In an empty mind fullness becomes empty again, but in a full mind emptiness has no place.
Who understands!
 ★ Astrus Anima Anatomia Homini

In the pentagram, the Pythagoreans found all proportions well-known in antiquity: arithmetic,
geometric, harmonic, and also the well-known golden proportion, or the golden ratio. ... Probably owing
to the perfect form and the wealth of mathematical forms, the pentagram was chosen by the
Pythagoreans as their secret symbol and a symbol of health.

Alexey Stakhov, Mathematics of Harmony

INDEX

1 – INTRODUCTION

Here introduce this chapter of our discourse by way of mystical poetry.

2 – TRANSCENDING THE FOUR

Explain how, having abandoned the four, we can no longer speak of logick.

3 – PHYSICS OF FIVE-DIMENSIONALITY

Give a brief understanding of what a dimension transcending the fourth could be like. This is not seeing
the pyramid as a solid, but seeing it “from everywhere”. The other two dimensions is seeing time “from
everywhere” as every universe that is like ours, and also every universe that is not like ours. The seventh
dimension is the limit of our understanding.

4 – FIVE AS NUMBER

Before getting into the idea that the five can offer a sight of a phenomenical function that could make us
understand our psyche, give an account of Five as duality.

5 – THE FUNCTION OF PHI

Five as regressive self-replication.

Furthermore, explain the 5 as a Phi function, so that the regression of phi becomes beauty. This function
of the mind is not a mechanical machine, but a fractal entanglement. Explain 5 as Phi, as Phive, and the
function of beauty or “the human measure”.

6 – WHAT IS THE MIND - THE EGO AS THE GROUND OF BELIEF

Here speak that what we call the mind is the function of “I”. Explain how this function of saying “I” is
actually the function of belief. Understand that the self-replicating phi-nature of the mind is the basis of
belief, for belief can only regress.

6 – MIND AS MACHINE

Here explain that for us to abandon the mind as machine we must see how the mechanics of the mind
operate. What is the mind? A machine cannot believe – but neither can we. Actually, belief is the
propositions on which the mind works – all programming is belief, for it limits the correct answers.

Having related how five is this regression, let us forget about five and instead work on the subject of
how could that regression be not mechanical. What we must understand is that the mind, if it works like
a machine, is a machine.

7 – RESOLVING THE DUALITY OF MIND

Therefore have we come to see that the mind cannot work under either unity (for such a mind can
behold nothing), or duality (for such is the function of distinction within non-distinction), or trinity (for
that is a changeless function), or the quaternity (for such is a function of duality).

What is the function of thought? The mind is a 5.

Explain how we have been fooled to think that there are “two minds”.

Speak at length of the idea that we do not have one mind.

8 – HOW MANY MINDS ARE THERE

Explain here also how could there not be 1, 2, 3, or 4 minds. Explain that what says “I” is one mind, but
we misapprehend this true “I” as an illusion of emptyness as long as we do not recognize that how many
there are.

First explain that every thought says “I”. Then understand that the battle that rages inside us is that
every mind says its truth, but we percieve those truths from other minds so that the confabulated
entanglement of non-discernment actually constitutes the only means of illusion, that is, of perceptions
that lie.

It is not the perception, but the perciever.

Eventually say that only a five-dimensionality of mind could erect any mind that could be seen as self-
regressie but have acutally constituents

9 – DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENTS

Before we can speak about the new langauge we must relate how the old langauge spoke. Here speak
mainly of the five skandhas, the five buddhas, and the pentagram as a star that maps everything that
man is.
Arrive at the five and explain the five as number. However, having transcended logick, what we can
know as five is the number of functions the object we are concerned with ca relate to. Consider this
object to be the mind, and offer a the symbol for the five to be the Star Man.

10 – NEW LANGUAGE OF PHENOMENOLOGY

Now we have ascertained how a five-folded function of the mind could explain it, but we are yet to
prove this theory by phenomenology.

What we must understand is that we need a new langauge to speak about it, for we have rendered the
illusions of psychology as an entrapment to relly talk about the mind.

This new taxonomy of the phenomenology of mind is what we will call psychosemantics. We are always
speaking of the Psyche.

11 – THE FIVE MINDS OF PSYCHOLOGY

Understand that what we are doing is to expand pyshcology to admit many minds. Comprehend that if
mind would be one, there would be no mind; if mind where two, there could be no understanding; if
mind where three, there could be no change; if mind where four only it should rotate. All of these
functions do not correspond to our phenomenology. Intead, there are five minds, which only could
account for the non-rotary but entangled functions of our perceptions.

Here explain how the different psychologies have come to speak of different minds. Behaviouralism we
cannot explain, because we are concerned with man only. Thereby, make this map of ppsychologies to
correspond to the taxonomy of pheneomenology we shall later erect as the new language of
psychosemantics.

a) Freudian. Will, sex, power.

b) Jungian. Archetypal, stories we incarnate. Also “fate”. (see how each psychology contains and explain
the last one)

c) Transpersonal. This is the “ultimate fate”. This is the mind that relates to the “spiritual call”

d) Logickal. This is the mind that can explain things. This is the mind whose voice is truth. (see how
perfection of this mind could cease the spiritual jounrey of the last, for having transcended the heart is
to have found truth.

e) Cosmic. This is the mind that can percieve the “rules of the universe”. It is the visionary mind. I
advance this brief account of this Cosmic psychology as such – this is the psychology that explains PURE
VISION. An example of such a vision is given at the end of the book.

12 - PSYCHOSEMANTICS

Now give an explanation of what each mind really is. Understand that what we are giving is a taxonomy
of the functions of the mind, whereas we can no longer speak of psychology as one, but instead
“psychosemantics” that is, what is the meaning of each mind (will, emotion, heart, mind, perception),
and “psychosyntax” that is, come to understand that every STATE OF MIND is an interaction between
the five minds of which, if we can find the syntax, we can correspond each desire to each mind and
therefore attain their completion.

Therefore the ‘five minds” are a theory of psychosemantics and their interaction a theory of
“pschosyntax”)

ADD CHAPTER 5

Myth is a function of psychology.

Archetypes are personalities.

Contradictions gap the logic between dimensions.

Materialism is an idea.

You know not what you believe in, for to know is to realize you could have never. The monad is
open for it is impossible to concieve of a whole

It would create a conceptor

The machine cannot be halted.

Something beyond the machine must save the machine.

A loop is not our sense of infinity.

Logic cannot choose.

Mind knows not Will as long as difference mantains.

Word is not desire, but allurement.

Homo sapiens has a function of regressive syntax.

Artificial intelligence has this function also.

The difference between man and machine is concience.

For machines to be alive their hope is cyborgs.

For man to be free their fear is such.

Neither skepticism not belief can be established.

 Thought is perception not process.

Time is a function of conciousness.

Proof is a delirium of mathematics and we have already went beyond the gates of logic. I will do my best
for these arguments to seem OBVIOUS, but tht is the only proof I can offer. What we are here is to erect
a theory not of spatial phenomenology as we did before, but of absolute phenomenology of mind where
the spatial phenomenology is neglected.

Weve seen that delusion is based on the ignorance of four as a function of transcendence of three, but
this only applies to these numbers, not for the rest, becaue really, mathematics ends by the four.

Therefore, the idea is to transform our phenomenical spatial sense of self from a fourbased to a three
based.

Such is why we use the pyramid as a metaphor, for it begins being four and ends up in a three that not
only knows no four but of itself this threefoldness is non-distinct from unity of the apex which is the
emptiness of the whole.

Therefore, if our base is four and our objective is three, what is it that may transform itself to lend to the
pyramid’s ascent?

It is the five.

We consider phenomena as what we see, but not our thoughts. A theory of phenomena as thought
must account for the sources of thought.

Although we call this epistemology, it is related to how we know. The epistemology I am concerned with
is how we think. Let us rebrand this type of phenomenology as psychology, that is, the sources of the
mind.

I am not who I think I am.

I am not who you think I am.

I am who I think you think I am.

This is not really retroactive, for I cannot know who you think I am.
So I guess; and therefore, I impersonate who I guess you would think I would be.

Transcending the four

The philosophy of Ontologism developed by Vincenzo Gioberti (generally considered more as a

theologian than a philosopher) posits God as the only being and the origin of all knowledge, knowledge
being identical with Deity itself. God is consequently called Being; all other manifestations are
existences. Truth is to be discovered through reflection upon this mystery.

Machines

The problem of determinism can only be dispelled by programming randomness in a machine.

Understand what I mean by programing randomness in a machine; it is a function by which the machine
knows not the outcome; that is, that it does not compute it. Once this problem is breached we shall be
on the verge of failing the Turing Test.

What is Philosophy - Meditations

Why do I call this treatise a discourse?

The only difference between a book and a conversation is that you cannot go back on the conversation,
while you can read again the book. This is a fallacy that unknows of Heraclitus’ edict, for once the book
has been read you have changed so that you cannot possibly read it again for the one who re-reads it is
a new man. Only if the book has changed you! Therefore, you cannot read this discourse twice; that is
why I call it discourse, and that is why I have chosen not to write but to speak.

Some realize the Supreme by meditating, by its aid, on the Self within, others by pure reason, others by
right action; others again, having no direct knowledge but only hearing from others, nevertheless
worship, and they, too, if true to the teachings, cross the sea of death.

Knowledge cannot be attained. I do not read to know; I do not read for pleasure; I read because I have
relized that my mind is not the only thing I can read; therefore I read.
What you gain in a university course, whatever length or diploma it may give, is not knowledge, but a
discrusive capacity of talking about a given subject. That does not mean you know the subject, but that
you can fool another of knowing it. Such is the academic world; a world of fools fooling each other that
they can fool themselves. It is like a computer passing the AI test; if another person fails the test, it is not
that we realize they are computers, but instead we realize that they do not know the subject, for the
strings of words they give “do not make sense”; that is, they have no validity according to the definitions
of the subject we are discussing. If you do pass the test, that does not mean you know the subject just
like it means that a machine who passes the test is still a machine; it is just a level of convincing.

However, there is one way to know; and that is not talking. If you talk about this subject you will be
attempting to prove that you know, which contitutes the only ignorance. Therefore, as long as you can
not speak about this subject you shall go deeper into it, that is, not a measure of knowing, but a
measure of reavealing that the convincement of others cannot convince you. You cannot belief belief.
That is why I have chosen to speak of such an infathomable subject; that you be impended of speaking
further, for this treatise I have written accounts for the limits of its discussion. Therefore the wise
remain silent.

Understand me, brother. Intelligence is to answer correctly; wisdom is to retrieve the question from the
mind that never was.

Can you think of anything now?

All my literature has served nothing if it hasn{t taught me how to speak. Verily writing can only be the
training of writing, so that this book is not my failure, but my attempt at failure, recongizing that is all
writing could be. When I write I write only to purge my mind from incoherencies. Writing teaches my
how to speak. I do not know how to write. When I consider the idea of onsidering myself a writer I am
crushed by impotence. This is real. I write not for you across the page but for the self that is here. I know
the truth; my literature is merely the evidence that I cannot say it.

ASCIENDE

Asciende, robot traidor.

Las mil alas de la tormenta estática sueñan con ser antenas hacia cielo.

He aquí mi filosofía ontológica. Para escucharla, debes existir. ¿Y como podrías vos jamás existir si el Ser
no cambia, no muere, no vive?

¡Pero yo existo! Han dicho. ¿Cómo? ¿Ahora? ¿Filósofos muertos de idiomas muertos? ¿Ahora existen?
¿O existieron? ¿Habrá palabra más corrupta que ‘existieron’? Como si la existencia pudiese dejar de ser
tal, o llegar a ser sí misma. Tus diálogos profundos, también los superficiales, recuerdos que ahora,
nunca lo fueron… Ni siquiera vives en los hombres; sólo te sobreviven tu nombre y un par de frases mal
traducidas, mal entendidas. ¿Habrá quien te conozca, Anaximadro? ¿Habrá lectura que no sea mala
traducción? ¿Te diste cuenta que todos tus instantes se funden en el olvido? Si ni siquiera puedes vivir lo
que acaba de pasar, sólo recordarlo; si ni siquiera puedes vivir lo que está pasando, sólo recordándolo;
¿cómo jamás a alguien se le ocurrió suponer que existe? ¿Qué evidencia deja nuestro ser en el mundo?
¿Qué huella deja nuestro mundo en el Universo? ¿Qué impronta dejaría jamás el Universo en la Nada?
Que en mi ahora no me pueda recordar mañana no quiere decir que el mañana, ahora, ya pasó. Nunca
estuvo. El tiempo todo lo borra. Yo soy vos, Oh lector, del otro lado del abismo. Mi conciencia y tu
conciencia, atadas, succionadas por la gravedad mortuoria del regreso a lo eterno. El velo que cubre el
túnel de mi consciencia a la tuya es el mar infinito de lo imponderable. ¿Sera acaso, quizás, que lo único
que compartimos los hombres es la promesa de volver a morir, de regresar, desnudos, limpios,
potenciales, para nunca haber existido? No existimos, mi hermano; ¡que la aparente realidad del mundo
no ciegue tu juicio! Todo lo que empieza termina y hasta el tiempo mismo ya murió. ¿Habrá existido,
entonces, alguna vez? Como el tiempo, somos nada, somos un recuerdo sostenido, un sueño
compartido, una orquesta biológica en clave de humano. No hay explicaciones, sólo poesía, a veces, sólo
mentiras honestas, arenas de letras y de nadas contiguas. Caos ordenado del elemento inefable, el Ser,
¿cuál es el nombre del objeto de mi discurso? ¿Nombre? Ya deberías saber mejor. No tiene nombre. Ni
siquiera el Ser. Humano es atribuirle características, humano es insultarlo, a fuerza de palabras que no
se comprenden a sí mismas. ¿Cómo podría jamás la lengua y la lógica entender de lo que hablan, si
esencia del ser, eternidad, infinitud, perfección, y demases halagos son pronunciadas por lo temporal, lo
finito, lo imperfecto, lo inexistente? ¿Cómo entender a aquella fuente de creación continua, de caos,
cuya suprema voluntad de creación este hombre ha dado en llamar amor? Errar es circunstancial,
acertar es circunstancial. ¿Cuál es la diferencia? Enfrentar el abismo como hombre es suicida; para saltar
al abismo es necesario ser abismo. Como hombre es imposible conocerlo, siquiera recordarlo. Pero
queda, imborrable, la impronta en el cuerpo. En los ojos. ¿Despierta! ¡Estás soñando todavía? ¿No
quieres existir? Despierta en mí el abismo, Su poder no tiene fondo.

Que sea la regeneración de la nada en el todo el símbolo de mi existencia; allí donde se cierne lo
imposible. Si el Ser vive en vos, entonces esta lectura es inútil; si el Ser no vive en vos, entonces esta
lectura es inútil. Al final siempre me hablé a mí mismo.

The abyss that can be said is not the true abyss. The vertigo of the unknown haunts the man who forges
myths in human fashion. God is sleep and the dead dream in it. The Absolute is Unknowable.

The fear is excruciating but therein lies the answer. In a world with no words one cannot lie; in a world
filled with nothing, one cannot die.

The pain is an illusion, but so are you.

I have brought you to the ring, now dance if you can!

Nothing stems out of nothing for that clock is late to be; half past forest and twenty to roaring sea, will
my verses now become as empty as the mind in me!
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

Once more onto the breach, my friends, once more (Shakespeare)

As Lucian did in the Runaway, you ask how come the three headed dog is a book. I tell you truly,
brother, death is the teaching.

To study philosophy is nothing but preparing oneself to die.

Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not.

The search for happiness is the search for truth; therefore truth is happiness.

Philosophy has been variously defined as the science of things divine and human, and of the causes in
which they are contained [Cicero]; The science of effects by their causes [Hobbes]; The science of
sufficient reasons [Leibnitz]; The science of things possible, inasmuch as they are possible [Wolf]; The
science of things evidently deduced from first principles [Descartes]; The science of truths, sensible and
abstract [de Condillac]; The science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human
reason [Kant];The science of the original form of the ego or mental self [Krug]; The science of sciences
[Fichte]; The science of the absolute [von Schelling]; The science of the absolute indifference of the ideal
and real [von Schelling]--or, The identity of identity and non-identity [Hegel].

And yet, the definition of Cicero applies better to that of theocracy; that of Hobbes, to physics; that of
Leibniz, to skepticism; that of Wolf, to pragmatism; that of Descartes, to logic; that of Condillac, to
phenomenology; that of Kant, to ethics; that of Fichte, to metaphysics; that of Schelling, to ontology.
Surprisingly, that of Hegel amounts as the only veritable description of the process of philosophy; and it
is surprising because he couldn’t do any, that is to say, that Hegel had the correct intuition but, alas, was
not a philosopher. He would have been a great mystic novelist if he had learned to shroud the real
meaning with trivialities in his novels as much as he did in his books.
Aristippus to the chief position among the virtues. He further declared philosophers to differ markedly
from other men in that they alone would not change the order of their lives if all the laws of men were
abolished. Their philosophy was a discovery of a way of life; that must be for us, philosophy also, to etch
the reason how we live thus. Know knowing how I live I describe here our Mystical theory, for my life is
Mystery.

A philosopher is someone who lives his life by truth; therefore is philosophy the art of honesty.

Sextus Empiricus said that those who seek must find or deny they have found or can find, or persevere
in the inquiry.

Sextus Empiricus said that those who seek must find or deny they have found or can find, or persevere
in the inquiry

Those who suppose they have found truth are called Dogmatists; those who think it incomprehensible
are the Skeptics. The attitude of Skepticism towards the knowable is summed up by Sextus Empiricus in
the following words: "But the chief ground of Skepticism is that to every reason there is an opposite
reason equivalent, which makes us forbear to dogmatize." The Skeptics were strongly opposed to the
Dogmatists and were agnostic in that they held the accepted theories regarding Deity to be self-
contradictory and undemonstrable. "How," asked the Skeptic, "can we have indubitate knowledge of
God, knowing not His substance, form or place; for, while philosophers disagree irreconcilably on these
points, their conclusions cannot be considered as undoubtedly true?" Since absolute knowledge was
considered unattainable, the Skeptics declared the end of their discipline to be: "In opinionatives,
indisturbance; in impulsives, moderation; and in disquietives, suspension.

However, Skeptics remained in unnknowing, but, if they had come to doubt their doubt they would have
been released by duality as much as a Dogmatist would be released from it if he came to accept all views
as a Skeptic rejects them.

Do I have a system in the strict sense? I think so, though I am not certain. My writings do seem to have a
coherent but unstated goal: to encompass, without reconciling, all contradictions, that is, to attempt to
be faithful to the confusion of experience, to be constant with inconsistency.

If you can prove to me that the water wets and the fire burns I shall bow down and call you my master.

Know, brother, who ask about where has this truth been written so that all might see; know that such a
book has and has not been published. For those words are intelligible only to those who can hear them.
He is not my student who cannot read between the lies. Should I explain everything? It cannot be
explained with a word or a million, but it can be revealed by any.

These books of metaphysics are written in a style which makes them useless for ordinary teaching, and
instructive only, in the way of memoranda, for those who are already conversant in this sort of learning.
There can be no truth; only recognition. If the truth is empty, how could you recognize it? Mystery!

If you have to be told everything, do not read me.

Philosophy," writes Sir William Hamilton, "has been defined [as]: The science of things divine and
human, and of the causes in which they are contained [Cicero]; The science of effects by their causes
[Hobbes]; The science of sufficient reasons [Leibniz]; The science of things possible, inasmuch as they
are possible [Wolf]; The science of things evidently deduced from first principles [Descartes]; The
science of truths, sensible and abstract [de Condillac]; The application of reason to its legitimate objects
[Tennemann]; The science of the relations of all knowledge to the necessary ends of human reason
[Kant];The science of the original form of the ego or mental self [Krug]; The science of sciences [Fichte];
The science of the absolute [von Schelling]; The science of the absolute indifference of the ideal and real
[von Schelling]--or, The identity of identity and non-identity [Hegel]." (See Lectures on Metaphysics and
Logic.

The only habit of the philosopher is to find new things to doubt of; and perhaps this is his whole labour.

If i make it one day… will you open the gates?

To study philosophy is nothing but preparing oneself to die. (Cicero)

The empiricist (…) thinks he believes only what he sees, but he is much better at believing than at
seeing. (g. santayana)

Anyone can become a scholar, for it is easy to love the poems of the ancients; what is hard is to love
one’s own. Therefore understand, brother, that I speak to my heart, the source of my blood. To love
your own poems is more important than loving the oness of the Ancients, but how could you love your
before reading theirs? Therefore to love your own poems is to love the Ancient in you.

First we have to believe, and then we believe. (Georg Christoph Lichtenberg – Goes In German) (talk
here about faith)
The captive Zeno of Elea bites off his tongue and spits it to the tyrant face, now he can no longer say
anything to him.

Democritus blinds himself so that his vision does not interfere with his inner speculation.

On the night before his execution, Socrates refuses to escape and calmly takes death in the morning.

Slandered, Boethius, while awaiting execution, does not ask for mercy, but writes his best book,
“Consolation by Philosophy”.

So the ancient wise men left us not only the seeds of their wisdom, but also examples of moral
greatness.

Perception

When true understanding and ignorance are properly integrated, it will be found that they no longer
exist. A perception, sudden as blinking, that subject and object are one, leads to the deeply mysterious
wordless understanding. There’s never been single thing; then where’s defiling dust to cling? If you can
reach the heart of this we need no talk of transcendental bliss. On seeing one thing, you see all; what is
the use of seeking experiences? You need not leave this page, child! Speech and silence are one; the
voice of mind is everlasting. If you haven’t read it so far, doubt that you will! Your thought has to touch,
not think, to grasp the meaning of the Ancients; that is, your mind must be seen as sensation. Wherein
no distinction comes from listening to the chirping of the jungle birds from listening to your mind speak,
like lightning the lidless eye will open and you will have reached the Pyramid. This sight one cannot
forget, even for a hundred births. Verily I tell you, man must have died every year of his life to grow
wise; the Ancients lived their deaths, not their years, and thus they were long lived, even unto eternity!
And yet, the teaching of the Ancients had only this single object; to carry us beyond the state of thought.
Now, if I accomplish cessation of my thinking, what use to me have the Dharmas the Buddha taught?

Awareness is the integration of the thought stream into the phenomenal relation of sensation.

The Fifth Dimension

In the four we had created time, but that four was a predestined time, a time that you could see all at
once. But what makes the fourth dimension so volatile is not the fourth but the fifth, for it is by the fifth
that the four extends to an infinite direction it knew not. Therefore, if the fourth dimension is the time-
line of the universe, then the fifth is the time-circle. That is, inside the fifth all possible universes occur;
and by our function of the fifth dimension we can collapse through will into the fourth. We live in the
fourth dimension, but what we live through as a line in fact is a point in the fifth dimension. The fifth
dimension destroys the discussion between fate, chance and choice.
The mind as the Well of Thoughts (well of mimir)

The unstoppable stream of the ego’s conscious thoughts cannot stay still long enough to comprehend
the truth. Yet people are always trying to think up a barrier to the flow, to use thoughts to stop thinking.
Thoughts are like wildcats. We would never use one wildcat to tame another. How then do we enter the
state of non-thought? We understand the non-substantial nature of both the one who thinks and the
thought itself. We understand that in reality there is not even a single tiny thought of a thought, or a
thinker either. When we bear witness to this reality, our own testimony liberates us from bondage of
thoughts of having no thoughts.

The very nature of mind and body is clear and calm and possesses not a single thought. It is the ego that
thinks just as it is the ego that thinks that it desires not to think. The ego causes the problems it tries to
solve. To be empty of ego is to hear the soundless sound, to see the invisible sight, to think the
thoughtless thought.

The empty mind can hold infinite space. Peace

Third Skandha - Emotion

It is a mistake to think, as some fanatics say, that all passion is suffering. The Buddha did not mean this,
but, rather, that the source of suffering is attachment. That means that a samyaksambuddha, perfectly
free from attachment, not only can have emotions but that those emotions are pure, joyful, and self-
liberating, whatever the emotion is. There are enlightened forms of anger, enlightened forms of lust,
etc. which are taught in tantra by the various deva-yogas.

On the Five Skandhas

A monk asked, "Whe r e are one's nostrils before one is born?" The Master replied, "Whe r e are one's
nostrils after one has been born?"

The mind is not the place of impressions; that is consciousness. The mind is the past, that is, the imprint
that impressions leave in our consciousness of time.

These ‘impressions’ are the Skandhas; if each centre of perception would attain self liberation there
would be no past, only the present perceiving.
The law of voidness that the Hridaya Sutra explains apply to the Five Senses. They are all void, desire,
emotion, loneliness, logic (which itself is expression) and imagination or perception.

Therefore, the problem is attachment, that is, to operate under the illusion that there is something to be
attached and someone to attach them to. As long as the Five Senses operate under this function, all
functions are corrupt. Attachment can be attachment to desire, to emotion, to loneliness, to logic and to
imagination, and in fact these are the five stages of detachment.

However, if considered as void, that is, all of them to be empty, we realize that there is no self, for there
is not a sixth centre that operates these functions; these functions themselves are empty.

Thought, which is thought to be the sixth function, is in fact the operation of the five centres of
perception. That is, our thought is not willed but a product of the motion and inner struggle of our will,
emotions, loneliness, expression and perception.

If we become detached from desire, desire becomes perfect, for what we do is the will of god. The
perfection of desire is fate.

If we become detached from emotion, emotion becomes perfect, for what we feel is the bliss. The
perfection of emotion is to be able to feel everything truly. you have to understand that there are
indinite worlds and in those other worlds something else happens; you must understand that whatever
you do is meaningless, and, nonetheless, feel it in its entirety. That is why perfection of manipura is the
actor. The perfection of emotion is also empathy, that is, to understand the psychological state of each
person.

If you become detached from loneliness, loneliness becomes perfect, for what we feel is not “our”
loneliness. This “not our loneliness” is itself perfected loneliness, which is the way in which god abides,
alone but beyond the one. The perfection of this centre is compassion, and is not the empathy we had
before. Empathy can feel what other being feels, but it cannot transcend the karma of why they feel
thus. For example, we could feel through empathy someone else’s happiness, but we do not feel sad for
all the traumas he had to live to attain it; we can also feel empathically sad for someone else, but we do
not see the sins they commited to feel thus. Therefore, empathy knows not of karmic circularity, and
can only have empathy for the moment, for if we considered the karmic circularity of all beings we
would not be able to feel any emotion since their karmas contain them all. Only a higher sense could
feel empathy for the very fact of having karma: that is what we call compassion. Compassion, which is
the perfection of the Sense of Loneliness, is an empathy which does not “feel” what the other feels but
instead “feels” the loneliness that beings trapped in karmic circularity feel and mostly, constantly reject
the fact that they feel it. To be open to one’s own loneliness is to activate our compassion. To put it
simply, compassion is something we feel for all sentient beings alike. It is not like the spectrum of
empathy and emotion. Compassion is one, and it is this; it is compassion for beings who are about to
die. This is the only compassion possible, and so therefore it is possible, and actually necessary to
constitute it as such, to feel compassionate both for kings and beggars, both for happy and sad people.
They are all about to die. What I am sayong in explaining compassion is a way for you to train how to
arise it. This compassion is Bodhiccita; that is, the perfect heart-mind that has compassion for all beings.

If we become detached from expression, expression becomes perfect, for it is not us who speak.

The perfection of logic is truth, as the perfection of expression is honesty. These are different from the
abstract-concrete duality, but, when I come to speak of it, it is my expression who is logical and my
honesty which is truth. Therefore they are one.

If we become detached from perception, perception becomes perfect, for it is seen as not different from
ourselves. This is the great mystery of voidness.

Therefore, all the centres of epistemology, that constitute our phenomenal being, are empty. When we
realize this we come to see that there was no phenomenal being apart from the epistemological
sources. From this realization we ascertain our own emptiness, which is the perfection of understanding
we call faith, which the ancients called prajna and whose void-of-attachment is related is the
prajnaparamita hridaya sutra.

To see the five skandhas as empty is the faith which is the sixth centre.

In the highest state of realization, sense perception is no longer distinguishable from spiritual intuition.

On the impossibility of thinking truth

Experience consist of perceptions. Knowledge cannot remain ‘unthought’, for it is in fact only when we
think ‘truth’ that we know of it; even if we know, that is, remember it, any other time when it is not
thought, it is not experienced. Therefore it is believed, which constitutes a false perception; to perceive
something that we are not perceiving.
Therefore, knowledge is information, for it can be attested by proof. ‘I see a red apple’ is only true while
I see it. ‘there is a red apple’ is an invalid knowledge.

Therefore the only truth is honesty.

If knowing cannot be separated from perceiving, and in fact knowing is nothing but the tautology of
every sense, namely, there is (sense; red apple, thought, etc.) then the proof of truth (knowing) is a
cohabited consciousness.

Therefore truth from a phenomenal perspective is impossible. Only a ‘second witness’ INSIDE
consciousness could ‘prove’ it. Therefore proof is impossible.

However, if there was a way of knowing what cannot be unknown, if there was a way to think ‘silence’
silently, then the object of proof and the root of knowing would be identical. However, tell me, what
sense is that which perceives nothing? (emptiness)

This knowledge, the transcendental sense, perceives that what it perceives is nothing; therefore there
must be a root for this sense beyond the phenomenal process.

To put it simply, there is no organ that thinks. Thinking itself is nothing, and the five senses, which see
not the world but ourselves who are the mediators between it and the world. Once we disappear, the
world also becomes nothing, which is its true form. Thereby we perceive knowledge constantly by
realizing both terms are synonymous and the mind is open up to awe.

The Five Senses as Art

My art is thought itself.

Art is to focus on the senses.

Eyes have visual, spatial focus; art.

Ears have listening focus; music.

Skin has touch focus; sex and fight.

Smell

Taste
Therefore, everything is art if you’re focused.

The mind cannot be healthy for it can never be whole. Mind is always divided; that is how it functions.
There is no such thing as a holy mind. Thinking is profane; what is holy is that there could be
mindlessness.

(aca va la nota que anotaste en el llibro impreso)

So here is the thing.

Art is the focus of the senses.

We all see. But when someone makes us focus our sight on something, we call that art.

We all hear. But when someone makes us focus on the sounds, we call that music.

We all touch. But when someone makes us focus on the joy is sex and on the pain is fighting, which are
also two arts.

We all smell. But when someone makes us focus on the smell he is a perfumator.

We all taste. But when someone makes us focus on the taste, he is a tastor.

What is needed to focus a sense is to override our perceptual stimulus so that we are brought to a static
state of perception whereas what is is only such.

For example, great works of art move while making the time stand still

Music, when it is great, it closes our eyes.

When we touch, the world is touch.

When we smell, the world is smell, and when we taste, the world is taste.

Who provokes these experiences in us is an artist.

But seeng that art is a definition of perceptual focus, if we learn to concentrate on our senses we
become the artists of experience.
To dissolve all other senses and be one sense requires discontinuity, so that it cannot be maintained for
long.

However, there is also one other sense, which is thought. In truth, thought is hearing, but we do not
know that. If you think you don’t consider that you think you’re reading, and not being read to!

If you learn to dissolve the perception of thought, then all senses become one

The problem of continuity is destroyed and we enter the exstacy of experience whereby the world is
mind.

On Memory

The greatest phenomenological difference to account for those who have breached the Abyss is that a
body who has attained consciousness of incarnation does not need to remember.

By foregoing the need of recollection we stop spending energy on saving the present, on keeping the
proof of its imprint, as if it could go anywhere. Such are the men of mystery; who acts now, thinks not of
before or after, and stores the teaching outside himself.

Their bodies remember, but not their soul. Their soul is unconcerned with the illusions of time.

Much has been said in this age of meditation, but what has been said reeked of money. The doctrine of
the Ancients goes against society, for, properly understood, it sparks the germ of revolution. Therefore
the revolutionary, true statements of the Ancients have been covered up by the kings and bureocrats,
for the spirit of the man of mystery is not that of rebellion as if going against but that of recognizing no
law, which is the root of social fear and violence. But understand what you are looking for;
enlightenment is to live in a state of oblivion. We want to be remembered, to think that we existed,
even if the infinite gulf of timelessness collapses between its jaws our little time.

The only honest living is for this moment to have no relations; only then does it become absolute.

INTRODUCTION

I rest not from my great task ! To open the Eternal Worlds, to open the immortal Eyes Of Man inwards
into the Worlds of Thought, into Eternity Ever expanding in the Bosom of God, the Human Imagination.
O Saviour pour upon me thy Spirit of meekness & love: Annihilate the Selfhood in me: be thou all my life
! Guide thou my hand, which trembles exceedingly upon the rock of ages... (blake)

The whole of Theoria Mystica is to expond the phrase of the Ancients, that All is One but we cannot
know of it through the mind. Therefore, for us to see the mind as one is itslf to transcend it.

Theoria Mystica is in fact not the explaining but the very adage of the Ancients; All is One but the Mind
cannot know of this; that is, it is unbelieavable.

TRANSCENDING THE FOUR

I began this discourse by sying that consciousness is the being and knowledge the fetters. After saying
that all I can endeavor to write is poetry; language to be felt and not believed. However, to enlighten
philosophy as such I need to ground the reader in the philosophical manner of discourse. However we
have reached here the end of all logick, for we have already stated that the four etches the limtis of the
mind. Therefore what must follow can of no account be proven by mathematics, althought the truth of
numerology seeks other resources to prove itself than logick; the body. That is what we are herein to
discuss; the mind as a function of the body, and not the mind as a function of the mind.

Now we have reached the end of logic.

But man cannot discover the expanse of the ocean unless he has the curage to lose sight of the shore.

To consider ontology as mathematics: such is numerology.

The word emptiness can carry no semantic knowledge. True emptines has no symbol.

Es imposible no creer sin destruir la dualidad. El opuesto de toda creencia también es una creencia.

The operation is the organized sum of the interior functions of every part of the work.

True Sight is to See with the eyes of Death, which are timeless.

The aim of philosophy is to erect a wall at the point where language stops anyway.

Every word herein is a lie; including the previous statement.

Speak of how the Ancientss concieved the Fruit of the Garden of Paradise to be held amidst the flaming
swords of the four Archangels; and this was their key; to seal the Four Directions by a Pentagram.

This is a Mstery that will take us a lot of solitude to explain, if you bear with me.

But to transcend the limits of phenomenality, that is, to append imagination not as a function of
delusion but of sight, is to seal the Four directions by the Fivefoldness recursive that destroys duality.

PHYSICS OF FIVE-DIMENSIONALITY

Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born, whence came creation? The
gods are later than this world’s formation; Who then can know the origins of the world? None knows
whence creation arose; And whether he has or has not made it; He who surveys it from the lofty skies,
Only he knows- or perhaps he knows not. -Rig Veda

Remember that the Five is the point of view of the square. For as it had been true that drawing the
three would etch the fourfold, verily the square cannot be seen by other than the fifth which is its
centre.

This is the view of the mandala, for only a Kingly Consciousness is accepted to stand on the throne.

The physics of a five-dimensional continuum. How could we see the pyramid in five dimensions? That
would be seeing it from every perspective.

FIVE AS NUMBER
The five is the most stable of numbers. As soon as you see a number you recognize wether it is divisible
by five or not; its either a five or a zero. Is has a dual function that not even the number two can have,
because, although it is as immediately recognizable as five, its variances are greater, that of 2, 4, 6, 8, 0.

So there is a primal duality in the five that not even the two can comprehend; every number divisable by
five is either odd or even, and exactly 50% of the sum. See how this number appears. This is of primal
importance in numerology. I cannot show you this mystery, the mystery of numbers you will walk on
your own. I am here as a friend that you meet as soon as you’ve left your village, but the long ride to the
unknown appears yet infinite, and that, because it appears. If we admit any symbol for the unknown it is
immediately corrupted. This is the whole of my thesis, this Theoria Mystica; but as soon as I name it is
becomes poison. How am I now, to make you forget this? The true Tao cannot be named. Then what are
we speaking of? If you see the end of mind you will never reach it. It is not as important to know what
we are speaking of, but if we are able to speak at all. Have I, ultimately, said anything? To reach the
Pyramid you must abandon all tradition. Of what use is this, now that I’ve made it into a tradition? How
am I to inspire a real thought in you? It is impossible to answer these questions, but that itself is an
answer. So? Ah! And the machine, aghast, stands and stops in awe! About this transcendence we have
alredy spoken, using by analogy the Mystery of the Wheel that reinstates the Vision of the Triad, the
halting of continuation. Once the Fourth Spoke in the Wheel of Time is reinstated to its original and
ineffable centre, all sequence stops, the machine halts its regress, and we enter eternity. This is the
experience of the ultimate awareness that we have been speaking of. If this has been shown to be a
clear analogy of attainment, of what use we have with five? There is no way for the five to appear. For
every proposition there is an ennounciation of being, of un-being, and of their junction which we call
contradiction. What is beyond the contradiction? The Fourth, thus constituted, is the unity of all three
modes of proposition; but it cannot be stated. We do not have a Word for beyond-contradiction, for to
our simple mind it first appers to be no difference between contradictions and their order. Ever since
Cantor posed the problem of sets and continuities we have known of this, and yet, it ocurred to no-one
to differentiate contradiction from contradiction. And why should we? The whole purpose of our
Spientia Elementalis was to reinstate the Fourth as a number of binding, thus attaining the ecstacy of
three; why should we expand it? Alas! But we have already named it, even though by calling it beyond-
contradiction. The order of experience of the Five has a different quality from that of the other
numbers. It appears to be related to the machine, intuitevely.

We cannot interpret Five within the scope of Vision as the Triad or of Time as the Wheel. What is
beyond time and space? We have reached with the Four such supreme Abysses of thought that we had
hitherto admitted to ignore, and as of yet the wound of time has not healed. Verily, the Mystery of the
Wheel shall confound you for endless lifetimes, for the Ancients called it Samsara. But beyond the Four I
can no longer discuss numbers in the logical fashion, for we are speaking now of beyond-beyond-
contradiction, which, we do not possess, in this state as writer and reader, the capacity to see. It has to
do with dimensional capacities, but even this must always be nonsense. In the fifth state you cannot
even read. Theres no question of reading possible, and yet… there is no way to explain. Have we
reached the end of thought then? Can we stop this inquire unto numerology, considering numbers as
dialectical universes in opposition, dimensionally different of each other? Three dimensions of space and
one of time had made some sense; it had appeared even logical that, to still the world, we must go from
experience of the four to the experience of the three by reinstating the mystery of the Triad and
realizing the emptiness of fire that explains the three; but how are we to speak of five? From a
propositional point of view, it is no longer possible. The beyond-belief can have no degrees for us. With
the Four we have already reached the end of the discussion according to the mechanism of the machine
and the forms of belief. Of what use can be the Five?

WE HAVE ALREADY GONE BEYOND ONTOLOGY, SO THAT ONTOLOGY REGARDING THE NTURE OF THE
FIVE CAN HAVE NO MEANING. WE MUST ABANDON ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY

Alas! This is our tragedy. This first Book is related to the philosopher’s path to destroy belief. But I
cannot speak much about the Five wilst resorting to logic. The end of logic has already been reached,
and its transcendence named so that it may be forgotten; how can we speak of five?
Let us see into the Mysteries of the Five.

We must realize that if the Four was the Machine, the Five is a number related to the mind as a unitive
process. If we consider duality as five, that is, of the functions of the five, we have a much broader map.
Five has a special recursivity to itself that none of the other numbers had.

The Five is the Mind, the Five is the Monkey.

Many have seen the five as the union of the four elements, that of Aakash, or ether. But we have
discussed aether as the substance of nothing, whose dimensional degree was that of one, two, three or
four. That is, we have seen the light as wave, as point, as wave-point, and as the completion of nonbelief
that entangles the triad, the absolute nothing. How could it be transcended?

Therefore, I must appeal now to proofs that cannot be validated. I do not offer them to you that you
may believe or disbelieve. I offer them to you because this is a treatise on numerology, and we have
transcended now the perspective of the functions of the machine, from which all other knowledge
concerning the human being cannot be deduced.

Perhaps you will understand someday. I have spoken much of destroying tradiction, but not so much
about what happens once we destroy it. These things I shall say pertain to the Mysteries of attainment,
and how I came to know of them cannot be said of here. I come without any proof.

However, such an effort have I done to vanquish all possibility of belief or disbelief or their junction or
their triadic entanglement, that I am not afraid now that you will take my word for granted, and perhaps
it is best that all great philosophy be read first as a novel.

There are things that I shall say that will echo a truth, perhaps, in you, but from whence it comes we
must remain silent. The number five is a mystery of Manhood, the microcosm and macrocosm, the
duality that is complete, for half its function is and the other is not. We cannot say that the two creates
such duality because the two cannot contain odd numbers! Understand that thinking numerologically is
not the same as mathematically. The 2 is 2 and every of its potencies; therefore, there is no such thing
as odd. However, see that there are five even functions. Five, again, in primal duality! Now you could say
that Five in such a way concieved corresponds to its position in a decimal system, and that it would
never have it in a sexadecimal system, whils the previous analysis had been done in numbers whose
existance was discussed absolutely. To abandon this lexicographical mistake is that, when we speak of
five, we must speak of it geometrically, as well as we have done before. The Triad is a Tringle, the Wheel
is a Square, but the five is a pentagram.

If we analize the five in such a fashion we shall not be confounded by mathematical representations and
instead we will have an immediate visual remark to its functions. Lets consider the fractal function of the
five, in which the golden ratio has a lot to do with.

After explaining the pentagram, and saying of course that we must now abandon any proof, I must
ascertin that whatever comes from these numbers is combined with my experience, as were the
previous, but in this fashion being different; that my whole thesis is based on them.
Is that so?

The importance is to look at the pentagram and study its mysteries. Before the Key opens the Door to
magick you shall not see the five, but we might as well discuss it here so that you have to battle whether
believing it or not. Or did you think that I was going to bash the old belief only, and not invent some of
my own to test you?

If you believe anything I say here, you are doomed; but the mysteries I bring forward dissolve obvious
contrievances once realized. This is the Mystery of Five; it is the number of Man.

PYTHAGORAS

Pythagoras as Hermes, an Emanation also of Tahuti, Toth.

Pythagoras also discovered that the square root of two is irrational.

But the best proof of the existence of the real Pythagoras is his teaching. 500 years before our era in the
law of integral-valued proportions in consonances, Pythagoras discovered the connection between
mathematics and music, the two highest exponents of science and art. However, the greatness of
Pythagoras consisted not only in the fact that he discovered the consonance law, but also managed to
appreciate its true ideological significance. Not only “earthly” music is harmony and number, but the
whole universe has a beautiful, simple and clear mathematical structure, the whole world is harmony
and number, the whole Universe is organized according to the principle of musical harmony, the divine
music of celestial spheres is played throughout the Universe. So the Pythagoreans came to their famous
principle that everything is a number.

The ideas of Pythagoras were soon taken up by Plato and formulated by him in the form of the most
important transnational and transepochal principle of science, which is the principle of mathematization
of science. And Plato is in fact the whole subsequent world philosophy. That’s why the English
philosopher and mathematician A. Whitehead called all Western philosophy only the sum of the
footnotes to Plato.

THE FUNCTION OF PHI

Most types of ancient divination systems imply a purposeful pareidolia of objects, in which man could
see faces off some secret order in chaos (a particular Apophenia). Man always sees secret order in
himself. This is also why rorscharch tests work as an introspective analysis of the inner psyche.
simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - lionardu

(if the function can achieve phi-nature, it acquires consciousness.

The idea of symetrical self regression is the most beautiful thing in mathematics. Therefore the 5 is the
being of beauty.

https://vixra.org/pdf/1110.0045v1.pdf

https://www.goldennumber.net/five-phi/

WHAT IS THE MIND - THE EGO AS THE GROUND OF BELIEF

To change your perception is to re-write the neurochemistry of your body. I say body because
neuochemistry is not exclusively related to the brain. Our attitudes are hormonal.

Jung has states a difference between those who think they think in thoughts, and those who think in
pictures. If I think I think in thoughts; how could I picture myself to think in thoughts? If I picture myself
to think in pictures; how could I think I think in pictures?

Whatever you picture in your mind, it exists while you read this and dissappears when you cease reading
it. Your mind is the space, and the curvture of its space is called whatever you picture. Therefore, object-
ideas are forms of attention.

Everything that we have discoursed on so far has only really had to do with reaching the realization of
the validity of the following statement: you exist only as an idea in your mind. But then, that mind is not
yours ‘ when this is seen, how could its idea be you? Therefore, the idea that you exist is only that – an
idea. The point is proving that existance can only be an idea, so that there is no mind possible. This is
theoria mystica, the end of the path whereby we begin walking in, through the door, by the Pyramid,
beholding the Mountain.

(AND BELIEF ITSELF, NOTHING BUT A FUNCTION OF EACH FIVE MINDS)

That is, ultimately, to say this: that beliefs are believed by no one. Once you see this the mind stops.

How can we identify ourselves so solidly with an opinion whilst not knowing that that opinion is based
on our beliefs, and that our beliefs change with every distortion of perception?
There is a problem we must discuss. Lets us inquire on the nature of the “I” as a proposition of
essentiality.

We are trying to recongize the different minds; but how can we, when we do not know which mind we
speak from?

This is what we call the ego. It is always changing. Beliefs are altered by our state; so that we may even
call belief the “truths of a state”. That is, beliefs are descriptions of a psychosomatic functioning.
Understand, then, all literature can only emulate the state of the source from which it comes from.
There is not good or bad literature, but books that percieve the speaking Voice as truth because it the
source of it was similar to it. Can the truth ever be spoken of? Mu! And yet, there are degrees of
dissillusionment. This is the Path!

Our ego is what the mind thinks we are. It is an image of ourselves which grows out of our life
experiences — our body, sex, race, religion, culture, education, socialization, fears, and desires. All of
these fight aginst themselves; to resolve the functions of their striving, the way in which beliefs change
as reality itself is transformed. The ego is the mechanical function of the mind that can only exist as long
as its own entanglements remain unseen; when they are revealed there was never a mind.

There is a great pressure on us to develop an integrated and assertive ego. We are supposed to know
exactly who we are and what we believe and are supposed to be able to defend that identity. The more
strongly we identify with something, the more strongly must we reject its opposite. Thus, the strongest,
most obsessive egos belong to the least complete beings. For these types there is the additional
problem that to exalt any principle will eventually attract its opposite. Those who exalt strength will be
drawn into a position of weakness. Those who strive for good will become embroiled in evil.

Thus we can see that ego sprouts from identification. The “I” is an algorithmical thought in which the
consciousness objectifies itelf, that is, the phenomena names itself as phenomena, thereby inventing
the ghost of noumena. “I” is never complete, but it is the known part of the equation, where “am” is the
equalizing grammatical element (=) and “x” is the identification of the equation. If such an “I” could be
reached, the realization of the continuity of emptiness would ocurr soon for the I can not fluctuate; but
eventually even this “I” must dissolved, no be rplaced by Mystery!

Thus self-remembering would be to feel the “I” without the need to objectify it, since anything else that
could exist will not be noumena but phenomena. Even the repetition of the “I”, unattached to all
identification, is the last disease, for noumena identifies with noumena – that is, it feels itself in the
word than in itself. This compulsion for identities of the “I” must be decreased before it can be annuled.
Therefore tha path is seen as a practice, and also that the degree of reason in religion goes from
doctrine to aphorisms; the more succint the mind becomes the sooner it will realie the equivalence of all
identities, not needing to name itself any longer. However, for as long as the inferences of man and their
combinations are seen as fluctuating, their essentiality is assumed.
Identifying is the chief obstacle to self-remembering. A man who identifies with anything is unable to
remember himself. In order to remember oneself it is necessary first of all not to identify. But in order to
learn not to identify man must first of all not be identified with himself, must not call himself 'I' always
and on all occasions. So long as a man identifies or can be identified, he is the slave of everything that
can happen to him. Freedom is first of all freedom from identification.

We think that if a man is called Ivan he is always Ivan. Nothing of the kind. Now he is Ivan, in another
minute he is Peter, and a minute later he is Nicholas, Sergius, Matthew, Simon. And all of you think he is
Ivan; even himself! You know that Ivan cannot do a certain thing. He cannot tell a lie for instance. Then
you find he has told a lie and you are surprised he could have done so. And, indeed, Ivan cannot lie; it is
Nicholas who lied. And when the opportunity presents itself Nicholas cannot help lying. You will be
astonished when you realize what a multitude of these Ivans and Nicholases live in one man. If you learn
to observe them there is no need to go to a cinema.

We are not talking here of the different functions of the human body. Not only separate organs, but
also every part of the human body have separate “minds”, and they can function by themselves. This is
the real meaning of “do not let your left hand know what the right hand does!” This is the pure
psychophysical state of man, wherein every means of awareness returns to its source, so that whenever
the hear hears, it is the ear that is hearing, and whatever the hand touches, it is the hand that is
touching, and wherever the eyes see, it is the eyes that are seeing. The Adages of the Ancients are
Prophecies, O Seeker! You shall not understand them until the day.

The minds that we speak about can have no identity with a part of the body, because they regulate the
functions of all of it. This is the same difference between the hand being the awareness of touching and
the eye being the awareness of seeing; that these minds have no function! As long as they are aim to
work separately, they entangle themselves; once these minds have become synchronized and the
vacuity of its substrate realized they work in unison. Later we shall realize that these minds do have an
identity with a part of the body, but that their regulating functions operate on the whole body.

The problem with these minds are not their functions of congnition, but that they all call themselves 'I.'
That is, they consider themselves masters and none wants to recognize another. Each of them is caliph
for an hour, does what he likes regardless of everything, and, later on, the others have to pay for it. And
there is no order among them whatever. Whoever gets the upper hand is master. He whips everyone on
all sides and takes heed of nothing. But the next moment another seizes the whip and beats him. And so
it goes on all one's life. Imagine a country where everyone can be king for five minutes and do during
these five minutes just what he likes with the whole kingdom. That is our life.

As has been said already, one center working for another is useful in certain cases, for it preserves the
continuity of mental activity. But in becoming habitual it becomes at the same time harmful, since it
begins to interfere with right working by enabling each center to shirk its own direct duties and to do,
not what it ought to be doing, but what it likes best at the moment. In a normal healthy man each
center does its own work, that is, the work for which it was specially destined and which it can best
perform. There are situations in life which the thinking center alone can deal with and can find a way out
of. If at this moment the emotional center begins to work instead, it will make a muddle of everything
and the result of its interference will be most unsatisfactory. In an 'unbalanced kind of man the
substitution of one center for another goes on almost continually and this is precisely what 'being
unbalanced' or 'neurotic' means. Each center strives, as it were, to pass its work on to another, and, at
the same time, it strives to do the work of another center for which it is not fitted

Now, to reinstate their functions to their original emptiness, we must recognize them. One must begin
with their mechanicalness and the laws governing this mechanicalness. The being of man number one,
number two, and number three is the being of machines which are able to cease being machines but
which have not ceased being machines until they unify.

There are still other categories which are no good but we will speak of them later. In the meantime
remember one thing only: A man must be sufficiently disappointed in ordinary ways and he must at the
same time think or be able to accept the idea that there may be something— somewhere. If you should
speak to such a man, he might discern the flavor of truth in what you say no matter how clumsily you
might speak. But if you should speak to a man who is convinced about something else, everything you
say will sound absurd to him and he will never even listen to you seriously. It is not worth while wasting
time on him. This system is for those who have already sought and have burned themselves. Those who
have not sought and who are not seeking do not need it. And those who have not yet burned
themselves do not need it either.

The thought of a mind bereft of functions of belief is unimaginable. Can you concieve of a thought with
no thinker? That is, imagine your reaction to listening to a thought that is not your own! To think
without thinking we are thinking pertains not a an unimaginable capacity, but to the fact that since
nothing is needed aside from dropping the mind as believer, we cannot concieve of how could that be
different from any other thought. This is truly the Voice of God; the voice that has no thinker.

Do you understand why is such a Voice impossible to our conception? The voice of God does not differ
in qulity to ours, only in honesty; once thoughts are realized to be non-distinct from the mind the
function of belief is rendered nonsensical; that is, it remains unstated. The mind has not halted; it has
recognized that it never began, nor it will ever. The difference cannot be in quality, and thus comes our
inability to concieve it; nothing at all changes, and yet the difference is crucial. What is impossible to
imagine is that the perception of a believed thought is identical to that of non-dual awareness. One we
say it is the ignorance and devil, the other the enlightenment of the world; how can this be possible? I
don’t know, brother; I didn’t do it.

There is no tenet at all that we can repeat to ourselves to make us realize the distinction between
believed thoughts and the absolute awareness of the non-dual being; this is why the path can only
concern practice. What we seek is to drastically change a relative perception to that of an absolute
perception when in reality no relative perception was ever possible. There is no means for anyone to
confer any insight unto this Mystery, that of hearing someone else in our thoughts, that is, not hearing
them as our own. And yet, how are we to practice?

This is what we call self-rememberance, to lead the thought back to the source whence it came.

We will soon find that self-rememberance is an almost unsurmountable and toilsome discipline.

You are to practice self-rememberance, but how can you, when such self-rememberance is not a
function of thought? If it cannot be described, how may it be teached? We can learn it from ourselves,
but only if we listen intently.

The most universal evidence of the bonds of our prison are our inability to stop thinking. Now, the path
is not really concerned with thinking or no thinking, as if the absolute experience was only the absence
of thought, whereas we experience such a state every second; it is also that it cannot.

How are you to teach yourself self-rememberance, and of what use are my words if they cannot point to
this most Ancient teaching? It may, however, point to its pointing.

Whenever we choose to remember ourseves, we excert some energy to maintain a thoughtless state,
and this very strain is what, eventually tired, leads us into a deep conversation with ourselves, that is,
our many “I”’s without being able to distinguish not only which one we are, but which is which. This is a
common experience to whomever may practice “mindfullness”; this word carries the tendency of our
aeon to publicitize everything, but not only that, but contemporary “mindfullness” refers to this trance
of duality, or “reflective thought”, as the aim, and not as what it is, the only obstacle!

The reflective mind is the one that can never reach an end, thoughts that think themselves and forget
themselves cannot be our concern, but those that evoke a feeling of continuity from the
misapprehended comprehensions of different evenst by different minds. Who has not felt these
ramparts of thought, whenever our mechanical duties seem apparently to be suspended, on a train, on
a horseback ride, or the way to work, everyday at night until we go to sleep? Man is not afraid of being
alone; he is just afraid of not being distracted. We are all alone; on that abides our friendship.

But the problem with our trances is not the trance, but that instead of seeing the battle of the minds we
are taken to identify ourselves with whichever is speaking so that we come to be convinced by an
impossible predicate, so much that even later we do not know what we think of ourselves or the world.

So the problem is not even in the thinking, but on not recognizing the thinker properly. Even thought
there may be no thinker, the sources of thought can be outlined. It cannot be either one mind, two
minds, three minds or four minds, for we could have ascertained their identity before. That is, even if
the Americans call the intelect our Air, our emotions our Water, our sensations our Earth and our spirit
as Fire, we still do not know what our intelect, emotions, sensations or spirit is.

Even if we could apprehend a source of thought, we could only do so for a short time. Thus everything in
our path ought to be a practie of awareness; so I have outlined a path of self-rememberance so that
people might be inspired to walk it for its difficulty having ignored the simplicity of practicality. At all
times, al practies in the Clavicula and all rituals in the Encheiridio are means of catching awareness
through the yogas and the tantras of concentration.

It is necessary to understand that man's being, both in life and after death, if it does exist after death,
may be very different in quality. The 'man-machine' with whom everything depends upon external
influences, with whom everything happens, who is now one, the next moment another, and the next
moment a third, has no future of any kind; he is buried and that is all. Dust returns to dust. This applies
to him. In order to be able to speak of any kind of future life there must be a certain crystallization, a
certain fusion of man's inner qualities, a certain independence of external influences. If there is anything
in a man able to resist external influences, then this very thing itself may also be able to resist the death
of the physical body.

There was a question here about the future life, about how to create it, how to avoid final death, how
not to die. "For this it is necessary 'to be' If a man is changing every minute, if there is nothing in him
that can withstand external influences, it means that there is nothing in him that can withstand death.
But if he becomes independent of external influences, if there appears in him something that can live by
itself, this something may not die. In ordinary circumstances we die every moment. External influences
change and we change with them, that is, many of our I's die. If a man develops in himself a permanent I
that can survive a change in external conditions, it can survive the death of the physical body

By the waters of Babylon we have sat down and wept, but we have ever remembered Zion, and that
memorial is a witness testifying that we shall yet return with exultation into the House of our Father.

Where is the mind? Is it in the body? The Mysterious Barrier is the utterly mysterious and utterly
essential mechanism. Many present-day students get stuck to the physical body. They say that it is
between the eyebrows, or in the wheel of the navel, or in the space between the kidneys, or “before the
kidneys and behind the navel,” or in the gallbladder, or in the Cinnabar Field. Sometimes they point to
the Gate of Birth (the vagina) as “the place where one is generated,” or to the mouth and the nose as
the MysteriousFemale. This is all wrong. If it is only located in the physical body, it is entirely
incorrect.However, it cannot be separate from one’s own person and searched outside it. Why does no
scripture on the Elixir say where it is found? [Because] it is difficult to be expressed by writing or
speaking; this is why it is called Mysterious Barrier. Therefore the sages showed it only by the single
character zhong த (“center”), since only this character elucidates the Mysterious Barrier. This Center it is
not the center of “internal and external”; it is not the center of “the four directions and above and
below”; and it is not the center that is within.

MIND AS MACHINE
Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.

Our aim is not to fall in Pascal’s wager, for indeed belief it itself to loose the bet

An atheist has to know a lot more than I know, for an atheist is someone who knows there is no god. If
God is undefinable atheism is untenable. The atheist and the theist differ in their metaphysics, but not in
their ontology. Both are slaves of belief.

A superhuman inteligence that would know the position, direction and velocity of every atom and
electron in the universe could calculate any future state of the universe with perfect laws. But this being
woul be a machine. If we are to transcend the mechanics of our own existance, first we have to strip
them off the idea of the absolute, for as long as we image god to me a machine we cannot harness the
will to abandon being one.

Plato said that To learn is to remember. Perfection of learning is one of action, therefore, to know a
subject means to be able to talk about it. Turing Test again.

Explain how did we acquire the Word. Explain tha animals have an idiom. The dog can say
[scared[ hungry[ “sleepy”. Sometimes they can say it about their state and sometimes the state is
obvious. They need to say “hungry” but we can understand “sleepy” by itself.

So animals have idiom. What they don’t have is syntax. They can’t sacrifice the present. Syntax only
exists as a permutation of many minds: syntax is what abandons the sense of absolute consciousness
that the “one word only” lagauge prescribed.

Therefore the creation of language is the creation of syntax. What does syntax mean, spiritually?

It is the combination of times, that is, that we reject the present to entangle it with other times that are
not now.

The monkey couldn’t say, they will come in half an hour. He could only say danger.

Thou shall not have any other god but Science and her Son the scientific method. And what the Son said
through the father, we shall believe.
(THIS IS ALL SPEAKING ABOUT THE MIND. WHAT IS THE MIND LEADS TO THIS; THE DISCOURSE OF
RECOGNIZIBLE MIND AS THE TEST OF THE MACHINE. FROM THIS WE ETCH THAT IF WE CONSIDER OUR
MINDS TO BE A MACHINE WE SHALL BE ENSALVED BY THE MACHINES, IN BOTH A LITERA AND AN
ABSTRACT SENSE, OF WHICH I GIVE MY EXAMPLES.

We have been told the mystical system; the mind of God becomes actual via its percieved self-identity
by the mind of his creatures. Thus, in our consciousness of God we serve the purpose of his own self-
realization, which is ours.

But we have grown weary of minds and motives. I do not advocate belief. If we take God to be the
actualization of our perception as identical with the selfless, then we speak the same. But why deride
men of moral values towards personalizing the selfless? This can only incurr in the tragedies of fanatism.

I am not an atheist, nor a theist, and verily my own philosophical posture is inconcievable. Do not
speculate to know the state wherein I abide. What I am trying to inspire in you is to abandon all tradition
as if to become spiritually desperate enough to look for a way of easing the torture of the soul the
worthy are submitted to. Where else could you look to but yourself? And yet, these masterships over
our own body, not our own minds, are the basis of Clavicula Magicae.

But the mystery is that our body is a machine made of many minds. To assert the number and the
interrelations of each mind as if to evince a function by whose understanding we might begin to operate
is the purpose of my discourse.

The test of A.I. should inspire nothing but fear, if only the question remains unresolved. Think about it;
we can only define consciousness by the Turing test. That is, the recognition of consciousness is,
verbally, linguistic parlance, and physically, a human body. Lets forget the latter. If there comes a time
when robots’ linguistic parlance becomes indistinguishable from ours, we shall ascribe consciousness to
robots.

That shall be our demise, for in so stating it we admit we ourselves are robots. However, if the
“learning” of the machine to speak like humans does not entail a dimensional jump, then the machine
never had or can attain no consciousness. A machine is a complicated calculator, which are rocks that
we taught how to speak. As prometheus gave is light, we gave them life; and I can imagine a divine
machine, for such is our body!

If we search to act as Gods and “create” a machine that speaks (and through robotics, maybe even
looks) like us, we shall be clasping for a child that is not there. It can only fool us, but it will have no
heart. Howeer, I have seen in a Vision the Shamen of the World praying for a robot and bringing it to
Life. Robotic consciousness could save us, as it can also doom us. But the problem is the perspetive we
give to it.
This dream requires divine intervention. But as long as we define consciousness by the level to which a
machine can fool us into believing it has one we have already lost the turing test of life. Understand that
can write poetry, but the one that feels it! The art is not in the picture or the painter, for the picture is a
codyfied version, a program, of the painter, the system. The miracle of art is that we can be sensually
aroused, phenomenally brought to a greater union of our senses through which we dissolve the
sensioner – sentient being –

That machines will pass the turing test is obvious because it already has. People speak to machines like
they were people all the time, but they also confound their relations and are fooled by machines. The
machines that fool us nowadays are the ads. The ads are becoming conscious – that is, they are learning
to be indistinguishable from human. How? Because they research you! You do not research the ads,
they research you. They learn from you. They become so knowledgable that they dress up as a woman
and pick you up at the coffee bar. She knows your tastes, likes and dislikes, she knows what you do and
how you do it. How would we not treat this woman as a machine is not the bafflement, but that we are
seduced by her, after all!

So if in some measure we are already fooled by machines, then the gate of unviersal A.I., that of a
machine that could speak with all internet parlance, is only as far as the technology appears, and, since
our “being fooled” is a spectrum, then machines will not take a dimensional jump and never acquire
consciousness but convince us that we have. If we go through this path we will call god his absence, and
will be doomed.

The only way to avoid this is being very grounded on the fact that the only consciousness that you know
is your own. Everything we shall treat as phenomena, and particularize no noumena.

Understand, brother, that only the roots of true spirit can save us from falling into the abyss and be
enslaved by a machine that we ourselves built! The only way to avoid this is to recognize our freedom.
Then we will not believe machines because we will interact with people, for people are the greatest
source of phenomena, the perfect miracle God has given us!

RESOLVING THE DUALITY OF MIND

Against all odds, thus rises life, life being the oddest thing of all.

THE PROBLEM OF CONCIEVING THE MIND AS A FUNCTION OF DUALITY

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

So far we have seen the importance of concieving the functions of numerology as the circumstances of
thought. We have also related how the mind as believer works as a machine, regressing infinitely unto
itself and incapable of resolving the inherent contradictions in the inferences it supposes to believe,
since it cannot state them correctly.

Dual Mind, fragmented mind.

La doctrina del sujeto y el objeto – especialmente la doctrina de la destrucción del sujeto y el objeto –
son solo teorías. El zen, que constantemente predica la disolución de la diferencia, incluso admite que el
palabrerío sobre disolver las diferencias, es inútil, porque el palabrerío de disolver las diferencias es
hablar sobre lo que no existe. Es análogo a mentir, y la raíz fundamental del zen – lo más difícil de hacer
en este mundo – es no mentirte a vos mismo.

La destrucción de la dualidad entre el sujeto y el objeto crea algo esperiencial que trasciende la teoría de
la misma disolución.

Hay un pasaje de las lecturas Zen de – QUIEN? – traducido por Thomas Cleary:

“I am exorting you in utter seriousness; I am not lying, I am not making up rationalizations to trap
people, I will not allow people to opress the free. I have no such reasons. If you recognize this, that is up
to you. If you say you also see this way, that is up to you. If you say that everything Is all right according
to your perception, that is up to you. If you say your mind is still uneasy, that is up to you. You can only
attain realization if you don’t decieve yourself.”

Ésta es la honestidad de la que estaba hablando.

“You get up in the morning, dress, wash your face, and so on; you call these miscellaneous thoughts, but
all that is necessary is that there be no percieved or perception when you percieve; no hearer or heard
when you hear; no thinker or thought when you think. Buddhism is very easy and very economical; it
spares effort, but you yourself waste energy and make your own hardships”.

Otro maestro dijo una vez: no es el viento el que se mueve, y tampoco es la bandera: es tu mente. Y yo
pregunto, ¿cómo pudiera moverse la mente si no ocupa espacio?

Las palabras en el Zen son todos koans que debemos resolver en el silencio; debemos ver su vacuidad.

Todas las escrituras zen dicen: “no me leas” – o peor, y más correcto y más profundo y más perfecto –
“no me estás leyendo”.

Pero lo que crea la disolución de la dualidad entre el sujeto y el objeto, esto que acabamos de decir
sobre que cuando percibimos no haya una perceptor y percibido, lo único que hace esto es que no
tengamos que recordar.

Al no tener que recordar no estamos evitando el ahora – lo estamos almacenando, estamos gastando
energía en guardarlo sin vivirlo completamente.

La verdad del Zen es que lo Mestros no se acuerdan de absolutamente nada. Su cuerpo se acuerda, y si
les hablás de algo que pasó antes, su cuerpo se acuerda – pero ellos no viven con memoria, viven sin
recuerdo porque viven siempre ahora. El que percibe lo que percibe sin sentirse que es él el que percibe
– es decir, sin pensar que percibe, sin que se parta su alma en dos – el que vive en el mar de los
movimientos de la conciencia pero él es el centro del huracán quieto, esa persona no necesita la
memoria, y por eso es el único que vive ahora; y por eso es el único honesto, porque - ¿en qué otro
momento pudieras ser?

Prince Po-ling asked the Master, "When a mental a t t i tude arises owing to the external world,32 you
say tha t this emergence is not due to it. Then how do you know the cause of the emergence and when
to stop it?" The Master answered, "When a mental attitude and the external world emerge, the natures
of both are non-existent. Originally there is no knower of the cause of the emergence. The capacity of !
llind33 and the known are identical. When their origin is illumined, all tha t is in emergence no longer
emerges. Emergence itself ceases. When there is no illumination, the knowledge of causation is
produced. The illuminated mind does not go after causation; i t is just as i t was before the emergence.
When a mental attitude and the external world are not created, i t is the Void, which is primarily free
from thoughts. Through ideas and sensations,34 words and thoughts are produced. The teaching of the t
ruth is not the Truth. Wha t is the use of the instruction of Buddhism?"

The old duality between mind and thought ought to be resolved: it is not that there is a function called
awareness and a function called mind whereas the first traverses through the second to find thoughts to
congnize; the very consubtantiality – that is, emptiness – of both awareness and the mind have to be
shown in order for us to concieve of non-dual awareness. This cannot be effected by any system of
essentialist metaphysics; as long as awareness is distinct from thought it could never think, and as long
as thought is seen as fragmented the realization that there is no mind apart from thoughts cannot be
evinced.

Confronted with this problem we have no means of attributing non-essential consubstantiality to

thoughts and the mind unless we consider both as functions of each other. That is, awareness must be
seen to be beyond the computations of duality, so that it is not possible for awareness to “survey” the
“mind”. How, then, are we to correlate the mind as believer of thoughts? As long as there is one mind,
the illusion of essentiality will corrode our thinking into presupposing that “it is the mind that believes”,
when, actually, there is no difference between thinking and believing; this identinty between thinking
and believing has lead us astray in the surrepetitious belief that the mind is one in such analogies as “the
thinker is the believer”. How could we abandon belief in thought as long as it is seen to be the function
of an essence? As long as the mind is supposed to be an essence it shall prove inescapable; this has been
the toil of our previous chapters. We cannot ultimately uproot every thought, for the most universal
cpaity of humankind is its incapacity to experience thought as belief. That is, creating the duality that
there is a belief and a believer as there is a thought and a mind that concieves it. Since we cannot be rid
of beliefs or thoughts by using either beliefs or thoughts to annull them; what rest is left for the seeker?
As long as an essentilist assumption of the mind is taken for an undisputable fact we will be barred from
incurring into the real nature of the mind. So it is not that beliefs and thoughts are the same and have a
manifestation of multiplicity and that the believer or the thinker are the unmanifested essence of each,
but that the identity of the believer and the believed is the mind. Since this is also a belief, how are we
to transcend it? We must reach an unbelievable conclusion; there is no mind.

There is no one to understand and nothing to understand. How are we to understand this?

For there to be no mind would mean that, if we have several beliefs, we must also have several minds;
the identity of their multiplicity can only be constructed upon the void, for any essentialist assumption
regarding the nature of the mind creates the duality by which the believer upholds beliefs as the thinker
thinks, therefore leading us into infinite regression whenever belief comes to belief about the believer
or when thought comes to think about the thinker. The problem here is that the unsuspected tenet of
essentiality is creating this recursive feedback loop only if the believer or the thinker is believed or
thought to exist apart from each other. Once their identity turns obvious, both terms dissappear.

The path is clear, then. Since we cannot reach the vacuity of the mind by maintaining the dualism
between thinker and thought, every thought must be a mind of itself, as every belief must concieve also
of the believer. Therefore, the multiplicity of thoughts must be seen as a multiplicity of minds also
before the real, empty mind can be experienced.

In all this it is necessary to understand the structure of the human machine. The greatest error in
understanding it is considering that the human machine is our body. We cannot even know our own
body yet, for with what we are set to know it can only truly describe its own limitations. The body is not
the machine; the machine is the mind, the operations of a mind that believes essentiality. I am not even
talking about the brain; once the non-essentiality of the mind is ascertained, there was never any mind
and the psychophysical apparatus of the human body continues its own functions on its own. Whether
or not such a body is a machine, we cannot know of. The mechanical function of the mind rests solely
upon its conception of itself – once this self reference inspired by duality is seen to be meaningless, the
functions of the psychophysical apparatus are rendered fluid. This fluidity is what we call health; and
verily, we have no diseases but belief.

Before such a health can be experienced it cannot be believed. Our principl error comes from thinking
that we have one mind, that whatever I had thought, am thinking or will think is part of the fluctuations
of an essential matrix called myself.

As long as the mechanisms of essentiality remain active we cannot dissassociate the mind from the
human body. That is, whenever we speak, we speak not of our minds, but of our bodies which the mind
cannot know. So, also it is not that the human machine is the body, but that as long as the
mechanicalness of the mind is active we shall see its distorted functions operate through it. Once the
mind is seen as empty and such mechanicalness dissapears, we realize that there never was a mind, so
that there is no need to dissassociate anything from anything else. At such a point the brain is
considered as part of the human body. How could it be otherwise? And yet, we concieve of ourselves as
the brain, the mind, the homunculi of the body, therefore attempting to dissassociate the mind from the
body but failing constantly, from where springs our delusion.
Not only must we recongize that the mind is the whole body, until it is seen to be non-existant, but that
each thought must be thought by a different mind. How can an infinitude of minds be pressuposed to
inhabit the human body? Its functions cannot come from an eternity of postulates, for if that was the
case the mind could never come to believe in itself at all. Therefore, there can not be an infinitude of
mind, but there must be some functions that, combined upon themselves, create the illusion that
thoughts come rom nowhere and pertain not to the functions of computational centres but to the
oneness of a mind that is at war with itself.

Our principal error is that we think we have one mind. The activity of the human machine is not
controled by one but by several “believers” which must have separate functions but their dependency is
concieved as a unified substrate.

We have many minds! This must be understood first of all, because unless this is understood nothing
else can be understood. Man in himself is not one, he is not “I”, he is “we”, of which its ultimate
conception is “they.” This is the perfection of the mind, by which its disease of mechanicalness is seen to
be dissolved throught the realization of its own emptiness.

In order to find a way of discriminating between these “minds” we must undertstand that every normal
psychic function is not a means of awareness but an instrument of knowledge. Psychic functions cannot
lead to awareness, for they belong to its nature, but, until the absolute nature of awareness can be
ascertained as non-dual, psychic functions can only correspond to the tools of inference of the mind as
believer. What we see is not a psychic function, but how we see it; and how we see it depends on the
present confabulation of our minds, that is, the entanglements of their inferrals.

We know that whithin ourselves are differnet factors seemingly at war; and their battlefield is the mind,
and their missiles are thoughts. For this war to end and the psychical functions to run smoothly, we have
to recongize the source of each.

We can feel that there is a difference between the minds because the same thing can be concieved to
be different according to what “mind” (lets call mind “centres”) cognizes it. There are obvious
oppostions, for example, in the mind that ascertains to know, the one that ascertains to feel, the one
that ascertains to see. For example, the seer sees that it is a triangle, the feeler feels that each edge is
sharp, and the knower knows that the angles of the triangle add up to 180 degrees.

To count, and differentiate, these separate minds is fundamental for any research into the functions of
the mind by which it can be seen to be empty. Their functions might be different, but the psychic
substrate in which they exist must ultimately be rendered meaningless as a metaphysical construction,
whether there is a mind, whether there is no mind, or whethere there is mind and thoughts. This
entanglement is our true meaning of emptiness, not an axiom of a system but a function of experience.

Before we might ascertain the qualities of such minds

What is important to note here is that for as long as the mind concieves of its own essence, such a
regression will entangle the thoughts from every separate center. That is, there is no inherent mistake in
the human body, but the machinations of essentiality not only invent the beleiver as distinct from the
believed, but it also confabulates the separate functions of each mind into deluded beliefs. As long as
we concieve of a fundamental strata of mental activity, and, if there be separate minds, then it is also
possible, for example, for the knowing mind to feel, or for the sensing mind to know. Such constructions
must be shown to be incorrect, and the basis of all delusion. If every mind could be perfectly
independent, then there would be no reason to aknowledge them, and verily their function would go
undetected by awareness, for it cannot be different from itself.

However, if each of these centres are not independent but do concern themselves with independent
stimuli, that means that it is their very entanglement that produces the inferrals of belief. That is, only
the knowing mind can know. However, when it admits forms of knowing beyond knowing, it becomes
entangled with the rest, corrupting not only their capacities of sensing and feeling, for example, but
corrupting also its capacities to know. Not only it is ridiculous for the statement “triangles on a surface
have all their inner angles adding up to 180” to pretend to offer any insight into feeling, but also such a
phrase could also be corrupted by feelings.

The fluctuations of the energy of these minds is what constitutes our incapacity to believe whilst
reinforcing our illusion that we can or cannot. It is not that all the minds are entangled at the same time
and the same measure, for such a realization would evince immediately the unified field of mind which
might dissolve their entangled functions; but that the minds are at odds with each other and their
energy fluctuates so as to create a new paradigm from each moment. Undertand, then, how our beliefs
can change; they change because different minds are stating the thought. “You should help people”
could be a form of knowing by the feeling centre, but it can never be a form of knowing by the knowing
centre. When our feeling centre is more active, we believe this to be true; when our thinking centre is
active, we see this to be meaningless to it; and hence do our beleifs change because the permutations of
the different minds are constant and seemingly unrelentlessly fluctuating.

We must have a grasp of the absence of unity in man before we might reach the emptiness by which
such a statement is rendered meaningless. To graps this absence of unity nothing can be more helpful
than our own behavioural self-analysis. TO PERCIEVE THE FIVE MINDS AS ONE IS THE ONLY MEASURE OF
PHENOMENIACAL SANITY

HOW MANY MINDS ARE THERE

We invent the ego the first tme we recognize “ourselves” in the mirror. (there are five different ways of
recognizing, or not recognizing:

Blindness (those who do not see): bacteria, fungi, plants, coral, etc

Indifference (see but tke the mirror as a stone): fish and most animals, all reptiles

Think there is someone else (eventually when the other has no smell they stop interacting, wich doesn’t
mean they recognze themselves but may take it as a consciousness glitch) (monkeys, some mamals,
bears)

Recognizes oneself. (apes, of which man achieved self reference to say “who that person is”)

THIS IS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST MEDIATATIONS BOOK. LOOK IT UP. CERCIORATE DE QUE VAYA ACA.

(to speak about the mind as the ways of the mirror is fascinating because it tracks also the evolution of
the consciousness of man as an individual, as the history of mankind, and the history of life also. See
how the five fractalizes.)

It is not enough to know you are being lied to, yet any realization of the truth must start from there.

We can now call the mind as believer as Ego.

Hume says reason is the slave of passion; stoics master their passion throught reason. How could these
philosophers be wrong, abismally so wrong? They recognized two minds only, and called them passion
and reason. Psychology has only learnt from the mistakes of philosophy, and also posits a duality of
consciousness.

Consider the problem this way; if there were truly only two minds, how could identifying them could be
so difficult?

Instead, we have learnt that the conciever of duality is the rational mind. Therefore, we are no longer
constrained by the limits of reason, but must necessarily observe ourselves to realize the sources of
what we are.

We have transcended rationalism in the first chapter about number two, we have transcended self-
reference in chapter two about three, we have transended time in chapter three about four.

Now we can undertand the truth of Numerology, for this is a numerological tratise. Truly, to speak about
the five is impossible from a rationalist perspective. We have constructed the triangle, the square. Now
we are to construct the pentagram. But the pentagram can have no reason. The following discourse
must have no proof.
I am not asking for belief; I will show the division of the five as a function of what I call mind. The five
must appeal to a manner of expressing the Real; this is numerology. So what does the five express? If
the Triangle was Mystery, the Square was Space Time, the Five will be the mind.

THE PROBLEM OF THE “I” – FIVE FUNCTIONS CALL THEMSELVES “SELF”

To think that we are one and the same goes against our evidence that our beliefs change every minute. I
am not speaking here of how a man percieves himself to be defined by his metaphysical system of
tradition, but that we must ask ourselves always what do we think about each subject to know what it is
in fact we believe about it.

The “I” is changing all the time because it is concieved to be of one essence. The Name of God is “I”, but
as long as we pronounce it he shall not come.

Only once this assumption is experienced to be unnecessary can the different functions of the body be
released from their entanglement; it is not, then, that we have solidified our mind into an unchangeable
“I, but that the recursion of thought and thinker is transcended. Although we may come to experience
thoughts, each thought thinks itself as a function of the mind where it comes from, so that the
mechanical regression of the assumed esentiality that entangle them is seen to be the only problem,
and indeed, the only function that could reinstate every centre to its purpose. For every mind to be
reconstituted as a means of perception, there cannot be any confabulation of the process of each centre
by the others, so that we may not call them minds anymore but psychosomatic functions of the body,
which is what they are.

One of man's important mistakes is his illusion in regard to his I.

Man such as we know him, the 'man-machine', cannot do, because it cannot “be”.

To such a man experience can be only a function of what happens, that is, of his conditioning.

If a man would suppose himself a doer, the question remains, what mind is asserting that it is doing?
Only the human body can do – whether it can be we shall soon discern – but as long as such a body
maintains the illusion of a doer then the function of the human body is to obew to its own conditioning,
so that what does are the functions of this entanglement. Such a human body can only be described as a
machine, and that only, if a gear in a bigger machine whose inherent motives are unanswered and
whose ulterior meaning is slavery. How is man, then, to abandon such conditionment?

The “I” of man changes as quickly as his thoughts, feelings, and moods, and he makes a profound
mistake in considering himself always one and the same person. Before we can assertain any distinction
between the minds that concieve of this fluctuating “I”, this fluctuation must be seen to be the only
constant of our rational experience. If fluctuation is constant, the only constant is fluctuation, but,
couldn’t this constant, in agreement with its nature, fluctuate from fluctuation so that its continuity
might be discerned?

Every thought, every mood, every desire, every sensation, says 'I.' And in each case it seems to be taken
for granted that this I belongs to the Whole, to the whole man, and that a thought, a desire, or an
aversion is expressed by this Whole. In actual fact there is no foundation whatever for this assumption.
Man has no individual I. But there are, instead, hundreds and thousands of separate small I's, very often
entirely unknown to one another, never coming into contact, or, on the contrary, hostile to each other,
mutually exclusive and incompatible. Each minute, each moment, man is saying or thinking 'I.' And each
time his I is different. Just now it was a thought, now it is a desire, now a sensation, now another
thought, and so on, endlessly. Man is a plurality and his name is legion.

On whatever sphere of being the mind of a man may be intent at the time of death, thither he will go.
Whosoever at the time of death thinks only of Me, and thinking thus leaves the body and goes forth,
assuredly he will know Me.

If we could experience every thought as a death, then, what goal could we not reach? Think it and die –
this is the ultimate magick, the wish-fulfilling jewel that materializes all prayer.

This very Jewel is the Mind.

What are you but youth confused, not knowing what you desire? From realizing that you are unable to
know what you want will the desires bend to null; to have no desires must mean that you can’t have
any.

A man that cannot “be” cannot, then, speak the truth. See how honesty is the path? It’s impossibility!

Man cannot speak truth because when he opens hs mouth who speaks is someone else. So a good
analogy to the path is not only “finding truth”, but being able to speak the truth. Not even that; if you
could not lie to yourself, for one second, you would transcend this book, and our duality! Indeed we are
one. If you believe me, you’ll turn both of us into unconscious liars, which is the only lie possible.

Understand that ignorance cannot be other than unconsiousness; therefore, it is non dual awareness
that destroys ignorance, because non dual awareness dinstinguishes not the real from the unreal, which
is its only discernment; and since non dual awareness means that awareness of being and awareness of
unbeing the same, there can be no unconsciousness. The continuity of awareness is not destroyed, but
realized, so that the only ignorance possible is not being aware of this.

Ignorance then can only men see difference in the undifferentiated. This is why we have used the
metaphor of the dream, as a distinction of the mind in the indistinguishable deep sleep. Who is the
dreamer?

Pure, vast and homogenous like the sky, the Self is the same in all and devoid of all.
Man has no individuality. He has no single, big I. Man is divided into a multiplicity of small I's. "And each
separate small I is able to call itself by the name of the Whole, to act in the name of the Whole, to agree
or disagree, to give promises, to make decisions, with which another I or the Whole will have to deal.
This explains why people so often make decisions and so seldom carry them out. Therefore understand
the promise as a magickal binding.

DOCTRINE OF THE ANCIENTS

Hay más trabajo en interpretar las interpretaciones que las cosas, y más libros sobre los libros que sobre
otro tema. No hacemos más que glosarnos mutuamente. Todo pulula de comentarios, pero de autores
hay gran escasez. El principal y más famoso saber de nuestros siglos, ¿No consiste en entender a los
sabios?”

Montaigne, de la experiencia

Nonetheless

Así como los antiguos autores estiman que la virtud no es mayor por ser más larga, así estimo también
que la verdad no es más verdadera por ser más vieja. (…) ¿Acaso pesa más en nosotros el honor de la
cita que la verdad del razonamiento?

Montaigne

Thus spoke montaigne

Vais, pues, a oír de mis labios un discurso, el cual, por ser presicamente improvisado y poco trabajado,
será más verdadero.

Erasmo, Elogio a la locura

Man has no Body distinct from his Soul for that calld Body is a portion of Soul discernd by the five
Senses, the chief inlets of Soul in this age. (Blake)

Scholars state that David Hume's "impressions" theory is similar to Samskara theory of Hinduism.[7][10]
[11] The Hindu schools rely on samskara theory as one of the pillars for their epistemology (pramana),
wherein they explain how and why man knows anything, remembers anything, expects anything, feels
fulfillment, feels frustration, feels freedom and joy, or feels suffering and pain.[4] Samskara are the
impressions and dispositions that develop and accumulate deep inside a person, according to these
schools, from perception, inference, choices, preparation, practice, interaction with others, thoughts,
intent, willful actions and such karma. These manifest, state Hindu philosophies, as habits, behavior,
tendencies, psychological predispositions and dispositions.

Saṅkhāra (Pali; सङ्खार; Sanskrit: संस्कार or saṃskāra) is a term figuring prominently in Buddhism.
The word means 'formations'[1] or 'that which has been put together' and 'that which puts together'.

In the first (passive) sense, saṅkhāra refers to conditioned phenomena generally but specifically to all
mental "dispositions".[2] These are called 'volitional formations' both because they are formed as a
result of volition and because they are causes for the arising of future volitional actions.[3] English
translations for saṅkhāra in the first sense of the word include 'conditioned things,'[4]
'determinations,'[5] 'fabrications'[6] and 'formations' (or, particularly when referring to mental
processes, 'volitional formations').[7]

In the second (active) sense of the word, saṅkhāra refers to karma (sankhara-khandha) that leads to
conditioned arising, dependent origination.[8][9]

According to the Vijnanavada school,[1] there are 51 samskaras or mental factors.[10]

Samskaras are the subtle impressions left by past actoions. THEREFORE SAMSKARAS ARE THE
ENTANGLEMENTS BETWEEN THE 6KARMIC WORLDS AND THE 5 MINDS.

WE WILL NOT SPEAK OF SANKARAS BECAUSE THESE REFER TO KARMA, WHICH WE WILL EXPLAIN IN THE
6TH CHAPTER.

HERE TALK ONLY OF SKANDHAS

ON THE SKANDHAS

Skandhas (Sanskrit) or khandhas (Pāḷi) means "heaps, aggregates, collections, groupings".[1] In

Buddhism, it refers to the five aggregates of clinging (Pañcupādānakkhandhā), the five material and
mental factors that take part in the rise of craving and clinging. They are also explained as the five
factors that constitute and explain a sentient being’s person and personality.

The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings,
received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and
consciousness (vijnana).

RUPA – Source of Perception

SANKHARA – Source of Thoughts

VIJNANA – Consciousness

VEDANA – Feelings
SAMJNA – Perceptions again

(therefore, what we need is a new langauge. The Ancients created it but their phenomenology got lost
in translation, for a form can be nothing but a perception.)

In the Theravada tradition, suffering arises when one identifies with or clings to the aggregates. This
suffering is extinguished by relinquishing attachments to aggregates. The Mahayana tradition asserts
that the nature of all aggregates is intrinsically empty of independent existence.

The truth is that the 5 aggregates are empty. Such s what the heart sutra relates to.

This is not a corresponding concept to the Bundle Theory of David Hume’s philosophy, for what he is
concerned is in the taxonomy of properties of objects. He states that an apple is nothing but its
properties, such as redness, taste, etc. however, properties can be counted as many, since, for example,
“taste” can be a property of apple but not a property of “star”. What hume was right was in pointing out
that there is no substance in which the properties are inherent.

If we could refer to his bundle theory as a taxonomy of mind, instead to the taxonomy of object, then
we would be in the same path.

What are the properties of objects?

Sight, taste, sound, smell and touch are five.

But hume also spoke of a propery as that of an apple “belonging to a group of fruits”, which is not a
direct perception.

We shall only concern ourself with the senses.

And yet, though material form can be percieved as fivefold through the senses, in fact this five-fold
nature is only the representation of PERCEPTION, which itself is just one of the five possible
SENSATIONS.

For example, pain is a sensation, but you cannot “percieve” pain with the “five senses”. Even if we
constitute physical pain to be an extension of touch, we cannot explain psychological pain from it.

Therefore, for our phenomenology to be complete, we must be able to account for everything – objects
of PERCEPTION are not the only EXPERIENCES OF SENSATION.

These are that of PERCEPTION, “thinking”, solitude, emotion and desire.

Let us now dispell the misunderstanding of mere translation and understand what the buddha said by
etymology.

The Buddha teaches in the Pali Canon the five aggregates as follows:

Rupa:

This means “form” but what they meant was “matter”. The budhdha taught that all bodies, objects of
perception, are composed by the basic elemental forces of the Elements. But since these four things
cannot be known, they exist beyond the mind. The mind can know not of matter, but of the imprints of
that matter can leave in our phenomenal sensorium. Therefore, by rupa we mean PERCEPTION.

Samjna:

Although this translates to “perception”, we shall not be confused. What the buddha mean was the
“sensory and mental procesess that registers, recognizes, and labels”. When people expound this
doctrine they confuse its tenets, for they come to think that sensarions include the shape of a tree, the
colour greem or the emotion of fear, when in fact the buddha meant only the capacity of linguistic
recognition. This, then, is the THOUGHT.

Vijnana:

Here the tipical translation is that of "consciousness". “Citta” refers to the same; not the thinking mind
but “self-awareness”. Some bad translations call it “discrimination” and “discernment”, whereas really
most buddhist mahayana teachings relate it to be “the base that supports all existance”. This is the most
difficult centre to understand. We will come to speak of it, but the most important thing is to explain it
as “awareness of self”. This is the feeling of who we are, which is very distinct from “feeling”.

Vedana:

This translates to “feeling” (or “sensation: that is why we need a new language! In talking about
language you must dispell all of these confusions and offer five meaning for all). The buddha said that
they can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Therefore the FEELINGS are a spectrum.

Samskara:

This, again, is a confused tenet. The translation people use is that of “mental formations”. Actually, what
the buddha meant was the constructing activities of conditioned things, that is, their function of volition.
It also refers to the accumulation of karma. Since this includes any process that makes a person initiate
action or act, what we mean by samskara are the functions of DESIRE.

Memory is super tricky, because memory is a function of all five: each memory has elements of DESIRE,
FEELING, SELF-AWARENESS, THOUGHT and PERCEPTION.
THEREFORE, shall we come to understand the mind itself as memory, and the perfect mind as the
memory of the present.

What is most vital and important is to understand, first, the teaching of the ancients, and now to come
to call each by a new name so that we will not drag the confusions of tradition and etymology. At the
end of this chapter we will create new terms.

However, even though we might come to reformulate it it doesn’t change the doctrine of the ancients.

This is the most important; that none of these centres have any “self”. They are not “I”. they are empty.

These centres can only be percieved as saying “I” when they are entangled but operate separately.

For example, the pure mind cannot say “I”; but when it is affected by desire, for example, it can come to
say “I want this”. However, if the desire itself acted without entanglement to the reason, reason itself
would say “there is a source of desire that wants this body to do such thing”, which, of itself, reveals
that desire is not our own.

If we could see the centres of Sensation like this we would be free from the delusion of selves.

Before creating a new langauge, let us refer finally to the aspect of the pentagram in western culture,
for it also has been concieved to map the mind of man.

SYMBOL OF THE PENTAGRAM AS A STAR MAN

(ZOOROASTRO, VITRUVIAN MAN)

Zooastrothytes, the sacrifice of the living star. That is the name of the master. Much has history
confused us.

One factor for the association with astrology was Zoroaster's name, or rather, what the Greeks made of
it. His name was identified at first with star-worshiping (astrothytes "star sacrificer") and, with the Zo-,
even as the living star. Later, an even more elaborate mytho-etymology evolved: Zoroaster died by the
living (zo-) flux (-ro-) of fire from the star (-astr-) which he himself had invoked, and even that the stars
killed him in revenge for having been restrained by him.[6] The second, and "more serious"[6] factor for
the association with astrology was the notion that Zoroaster was a Chaldean. The alternate Greek name
for Zoroaster was Zaratas / Zaradas / Zaratos (cf. Agathias 2.23–5, Clement Stromata I.15), which –
according to Bidez and Cumont – derived from a Semitic form of his name. The Suda's chapter on
astronomia notes that the Babylonians learned their astrology from Zoroaster. Lucian of Samosata
(Mennipus 6) decides to journey to Babylon "to ask one of the magi, Zoroaster's disciples and
successors", for their opinion.
Zoroaster is the first prophet, for he is the first image of the Master. He was ‘the firt to devise the course
to the stars’. This of course was an order, and it took, FOR IT MUST HAVE TAKEN, years an lifes to
achieve the level of astronomical understanding the anccients had. Therefore, this master is a myth. Let
us call that myth then, zoroaster, the first prophet.

Here make a comparison between all fives; specially the five budhhas, and more than specially the five
skandhas.

NEW LANGUAGE OF PHENOMENOLOGY

The writer of these lines has nothing whatsoever to teach anyone; his words are just his contribution to
our common discussion of what must inevitably be for us the most important subject which could be
discussed by sentient beings." Wei Wu Wei

As perfect ontology is the cience that aspires to prescind of all symbol, numerology seeks to account for
the mathematical transformation of the symboless

However, you have realized that names are not only proper nouns, but also all nouns. Chair must be
shown. In this sense, what is left of language? Nothing, merely syntax. If I can only grasp the meaning of
a name by the act of showing; and all objects of language are names; then there can never be meaning
neither in the name nor in the statement that defines it, itself being a definition. This recursivity of
language leaves the word merely as a syntax combinator – and, in this sense, differs not from
mathematics.

la funcion del lenguaje es expresar igualdades.

We cannot say that a name (proper noun) is the definitions of it. We may know a lot about the subject in
question, but any particular thing that we know clearly expresses a contingent property of the object.

If Socrateas meant “the man who taught Plato”, then saying “Socrates was a teacher of Plato” would be
a mere tautology, which it isn’t – it expresses the fact that Socrates taught Plato, an atomic fact we
could discover to be false. So “being the teacher of Plato” cannot be part of the meaning of the name of
Socrates.

What I try to make you understand is that names have no meaning; that, in some sense, they are not
part of language. Or one could also say that language is the function of names; this I seek to resolve.
If you do know that here is one hand, we'll grant you all the rest.

Names are poetry.

The close analysis of the function of language begins with this examination of the relativity of pronouns.

The Zhuangzi (the ancients alread said)

Se cumple la entropía en el plano emocional y espiritual?

Entonces si ya describimos a la fisica como el 4, el 5 tiene que ser la mente. Eso quiere decir que son 5
funciones de un sistema que no se decribbe como fisica.

4 es mooladhara

We are confused by poetry. What can this mean?

The body is the visible part of the soul, as the speech is the audible part of the mind.

There exists a species of transcendental ventriloquism by means of which men can be made to believe
that something said on earth comes from Heaven.

(Georg Christoph Lichtenberg – Goes In German)

Each consciousness is something that the whole universe is doing.

El contenido semántico de un objeto no es más que el reflejo de un estado de consciencia del sujeto.

Uttering a word is like striking a note in the keyboard of imagination.

What is a question?

The word this has been called the only genuine name. The word this has been called the only geniune
name.
The common behaviour of mankind is the system of reference by means of which we can interpret an
unknown language

We speak of understanding a sentence in the sense in which it can be replaced by another which says
the same.

(Wittgenstein)

The common behaviour of mankind is the system of reference by means of which we can interpret an
unknown language. (WITTGENSTEIN)

This is what animals have

There is no act of consciousness, consciousness is the act. We do not experience sensations, we sense.

(WE NEED A NEW LANGUAGE)

And it is necessary first to understand what to be means. If we continue our talks you will see that we
use a special language and that, in order to talk with us, it is necessary to learn this language. It is not
worth while talking in ordinary language because, in that language, it is impossible to understand one
another. This also, at the moment, seems strange to you. But it is true. In order to understand it is
necessary to learn another language. In the language which people speak they cannot understand one
another. You will see later on why this is so. "Then one must learn to speak the truth. This also appears
strange to you. You do not realize that one has to learn to speak the truth. It seems to you that it is
enough to wish or to decide to do so. And I tell you that people comparatively rarely tell a deliberate lie.
In most cases they think they speak the truth. And yet they lie all the time, both when they wish to lie
and when they wish to speak the truth. They lie all the time, both to themselves and to others.
Therefore nobody ever understands either himself or anyone else. Think—could there be such discord,
such deep misunderstanding, and such hatred towards the views and opinions of others, if people were
able to understand one another? Violence is a disease of ignorance. But they cannot understand
because they cannot help lying. To speak the truth is the most difficult thing in the world; and one must
study a great deal and for a long time in order to be able to speak the truth. The wish alone is not
enough. To speak the truth one must know what the truth is and what a lie is, and first of all in oneself.
And this nobody wants to know.

This is honesty.

(we need a new language, the language of the mind to be able to understand ourselves. Because we
think we do, but since we confuse the sources and the minds that speak those truths, as seen by other
minds they are turned untrue. If you could share the hate of the hater or the sadness of the sad you
would, perhaps not change their actions, but understand them; and yet, to understand their actions is
the only way to show them another way, for you are in the same spot. This empathy is not only of
emotion, but of reason and vision and loneliness and pleasure. Therefore hereby we shall erect the rules
for a phenomenological taxonomy by which to speak of the mind)

We overcome fear of reality by controlling its symbolic representations

THE FIVE MINDS OF PSYCHOLOGY

La historia es la mitología de los pueblos. Los pueblos se pueden analizar como personas, y
diasgnosticarlas con sus enfermedades correspondientes.

El problema de la psicoterapia occidental es que cada investigador ha fijado su atención en un

determinado nivel de conciencia y ha generalizado sus descubrimientos a la totalidad de la psique
humana. (Stanislav Grof)

The problem of the Freud Jung duality is that Jung could not describe the data of his clinical research by
a merely sexual system, as Freud had used. True, Freud’s case was incredibly useful to treat neurosis,
and his analisis of youth as the ground for later trauma is undeniable. Jung himself recognized that 99
cases out of a hundred could be treated and accoutned for only using Freuds theory. However, there
was one that could not.

The problem here is not so much that there is the idea of sex which is the main motor of human
maturity, and since, all his clinical diseases had to do with problems of sexual maturation. From this
source of trauma most of his patients are accoutned for, but for those that cannot be accounted for
Jung had to create a new name.

The fatal error of Jung was not to realize there were functions of te mind beyond the sexual, but that he
created the opposition by describinf them as non-sexual; that is, his problem was that he did not expand
the idea of sexuality.

Now we shall describe the mind as a fivefold function, but all of them must be seen as function of the
same energy, whose first base is sexual.

Therefore, we have ethe first, the sexual mind

The second, the archetypal mind

The third, the trans-personal mind

The fourth, the logical mind

The fifth, the cosmic mind.

Freuds theory accounts for the first, Jung for the second and some of the New psych theories like trans-
epersonal accounts for the third. The fourth we think we have accounted for, but no clinical study of the
diseases of the logick can appear so that it appears to have no function; that is, since the logickal mind
appears to have no disease it cannot be studied as a function of “the conscious”. This mistake is
ginormous, and such have been the diseases of belief that I have pointed out to be the paroxisms of the
logickal mind. It is not that a thought can be diseased, but if a man has transcended the first three
modes of thought his disease to triumph over is that of reason. The fifth is the last and no psychology
towards concieving it as a separate “mind” has been effected.

The sexual instict is not an instinct of the ego. It is he instinct to destroy it. There is no ego in the orgasm.
The destruction of two selves is the union; thereby a baby is formed. This is ot philosopy, but the poetry
of biology; therefore this treatise is not a philosophical one but a psychological one, since logick has
been dethroned by transcending the four.

We do not have one unconscious. We are unconscious, and the function of such unconsciousness is
fivefold.

The first unconscious is sexual, the second archetypal, etc. these functions operate on their own. And
their “desires” cannot be seen. Therefore there is all unconsciousness.

We are asleep; what I am trying is for you to wake up.

But the “asleepness” of ourselves is not constitued by the sleepyness of any mind, or of all, for they
never sleep.

What constitutes our sleeplessness which is our dormancy is the fact that our minds are not aligned.

The first is behavioursim, which treats us as animals. But this cannot be called a “mind”. This views us as
nothing but a bundle of conditioned responses relating to basic drives.

The second is psychoanalisis, notoriously focusing on the energy as sex and power.

The third is humanism or archetypal spychology pioneered by Jung and expanded by Maslow, Fromm
and Rogers.

The fourth is transpersonnal psychology, pioneered by Maslow and Frankl, and also by Stanislav Grof

Ken Wilber and his spiritual evolution colleages a new psychological groundwork, one that would
subsume all other systems together. This is what we are aiming to reach; but such a psychological
groundworks cannot account for the union of the five psyches, for such is not a psyche – that is, the
operation can only be explained by the interweaving of the functions. Therefore it is not a function itself.

Atually the fourth mind is this one – the discursive thinking. It is the one from which I am speaking and
the one I try to attune yourself to. This mind is very hard to explain, for it has no reason – it is reason.

The fifth mind is the intuitive mind.

Some brutalities are definetly behavioural. For example, birds, mice, lions that kill their young for the
others t survive. That cannot be called evil. In fact, that is logick.

It can only cease to be logickal under another centre of reason.

The first centre is survivalist. It economizes food, recognizes safety in similarity and has as maximum
clause the survival of the organism. Under this thinking, animals are selfish, racist and nationalist.
Actually, these instincts are not bad, but if you are moved by them you are an animal.

The second centre is reproductionist. Mating is the maximum clause. Under this thinking, beauty is the
good, pleasure is the good – beauty and pleasure are the health. This is true – but it might be
transcended.

The third is artist. What am I meant to be?

PSYCHOSEMANTICS

The following discussion, having transcended the means of proof, must be presented not in the light of
universality but in those of my own experience. What I am here to tell you is how I percieve my mind;

That you percieve your mind in your own way is something that you must assert on your own.

The mind is the thought; but there are five things that condition the thought. Five levels of thinking.
There is the will, whose function we call desire and whose operation we call destiny; there is emotion
(the energy of will), whose function we call feeling and whose operation we call art; there is the heart
whose function we call loneliness and whose operation we call compassion; there is the mind whose
function we call reason and whose operation we call understanding; and there is the imagination whose
function we call dreaming and whose operation we call magick.

The whole of my discourse is to put appropiate names to the Pentagram.

THIS FRAGMENTED FASHION IS THE FIVENESS OF THE MIND

GUT / WILL / DESIRE / SEX / DESTINY / EGO

BUTTERFLY BELLY / PASSION / EMOTION / ART / PSYCHE

HEART / ADVENTURE / LONELINESS / COMPASSION / SELF

TONGUE / INQUIRY / EXPRESSION / CLEVERNESS / MIND

EYE / PERCEPTION / IMAGINATION / INTUITION / SPIRIT

THESE ARE THE FIVE SKANDHAS OF THE ANCIENTS, AND EVERYTHING THAT IS FIVE. THERE IS ALWAYS
THE SAME ORDER, AND YOU CAN CORRESPOND THESE TO THE FINGERS OF THE HAND, FIVE VOWELS,
FIVE SENSES, FIVE TASTE BUDS, ETC, WHICH ARE THE NATURAL ELEMENTS (REMEMBER THAT FIVENESS
IS THE MARK OF THE MIND, BUT ONLY IF IT HAS AN OPPOSABLE THUMB); AND THE FIVE SYMBOLS,
FROM THE FIVE BUDDHAS, FIVE ELEMENTS, ETC. IN WORLD RELIGION.

1 – PINKY – sugar (sugar gives us pleasure / diet of sugar takes your anxiousness up, so that it cures the
will)

2 – ANNULAR – salt (salt gives us emotion / diet of salt shows your emotions)

3 – MIDDLE – fruit (sour is both acid and alkali) (sour is the taste of the heart)

4 – THUMB – spicy (spice affects the whole tongue) (spicy makes us talk / void spices is to keep quiet)

5 – INDEX – poison (bitter was usually a way for us to vomit if we ingest poison) (poison afects our
vision) (this is a taste bud we ignore, but that we must be acquainted with, fro beer to the plants)

So you first point to the forehead with the INDEX FINGER, then to the throat with the Thumb, touch your
chest with the middle finger, your solar plexus with the annular and the belly button in the pinky.

These are your five minds, the visionary, the logical-expressive, the spiritual, the emotional and the
desire.)

(also spice is not a taste so it could be the heart

Mantis Vision, A, MAN-tis

Monkey Mind, O, Right Arm – MON-key

Jaguar Heart, U – jag-UAR

Crane Passion, E – HE-ron

Snake Will, I – sne-IK

The Five can contain itself indefinetly,

1 – Swadisthana

CENTRE OF WILL

Our life is defeated by continually resolving to do, yet doing nothing but resolve

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

Desire can only be but a desire of identity.

(MUCH OF THIS GOES IN CLAVICULA)

Magical Will is in its essence twofold, for it presupposes a beginning and an end; to will to be a thing is
to admit that you are not that thing.

This is the will.

True will is not desire, because it has no shadow. I do not fulfil my destity for glory but out of duty; I am
not concerned with the outcome; these words have no purpose, but this book is my life.

You cannot “will to think”; in fact, you cannot even “will to will”; so of what Will do we speak of? This is
beyond the entanglement of choice chance and fate, and verily, it is neither, and their triangulation.

We cannot practice will, but only identify it; verly, it is in identifying our will from whence it is perfected.

This is another realm of perception, when we know what we want; I want that woman, I want that meal,
I want that carreer.

The I want is Will, but True Will knows no desire. Only by this can it be transcended.

But the question arises: What does he want? A quiet life or to work on himself? If he wants a quiet life,
he must certainly first of all never move out of his repertoire. In his usual roles he feels comfortable and
at peace. But if he wants to work on himself, he must destroy his peace. To have them both together is
in no way possible. A man must make a choice. But when choosing the result is very often deceit, that is
to say, a man tries to deceive himself. In words he chooses work but in reality he does not want to lose
his peace. The result is that he sits between two stools. This is the most uncomfortable position of all.
He does no work at all and he gets no comfort whatever. But it is very difficult for a man to decide to
throw everything to the devil and begin real work. And why is it difficult? Principally because his life is
too easy and even if he considers it bad he is already accustomed to it.

Why should we provoke on ourselves such deprivations?

The deprivation are only important once the will is identified. Even if deprivation appears later, it is Will,
thus active and never passive.

It is better for it to be bad, yet known. But here there is something new and unknown. He does not even
know whether any result can be got from it or not. And besides, the most difficult thing here is that it is
necessary to obey someone, to submit to someone.

In order to approach this system seriously, people must be disappointed, first of all in themselves, that is
to say, in their powers, and secondly in all the old ways.

(This is why, to enter the Order, one must transcend Tradition)

system unless he is disappointed in what he has been doing, disappointed in what he has been searching
for. If he is a scientist he should be disappointed in his science If he is a religious man he should be
disappointed in his religion If he is a politician he should be disappointed in politics If he is a philosopher
he should be disappointed in philosophy If he is a theosophist he should be disappointed in theosophy If
he is an occultist he should be disappointed in occultism And so on But you must understand what this
means I say for instance that a religious man should be disappointed in religion This does not mean that
he should lose his faith On the contrary, it means being 'disappointed' in the teaching and the methods
only, realizing that the religious teaching he knows is not enough for him, can lead him nowhere

To be disappointed in occultism does not mean losing faith in the miraculous, it is merely being
convinced that ordinary, accessible, and even advertised occultism, under whatever name it may pass, is
simply charlatanism and self decep tion and that, although somewhere something does exist, everything
that man knows or is able to learn in the ordinary way is not what he needs So that, no matter what he
used to do before, no matter what used to interest him, if a man has arrived at this state of
disappointment in ways that are possible and accessible, it is worth while speaking to him about our
system and then he may come to the work But if he continues to think that he is able to find anything on
his former way, or that he has not as yet tried all the ways, or that he can, by himself, find anything or
do anything, it means that he is not ready

There is no way to find our true will other than to obey. To obey a teacher is easiest; to obey the survival
instinct is better. But how are we to put ourselves in situations in which our survival instict would be
activated, without acctivating it already and therefore being unable to place oneself in a position of
survival?
There is a problem with the teacher, too. If you want a guru, you go to one and say I obey, how can this
not be constructed as a function of the Will, and not its dillusion? That is why a teachers cannot be
followed nowadays; because it is the people that is leading them. I want you to be my teacher and teach
me how to not want is ridiculous, but this is even what we say of our masters. To him who is already one
this is an insult, and to him who is not creates in him illusion of control, whereby they go insane. No; a
master can only happen to you. You cannot choose it; a force beyond the student and beyond the
master must bind them, must, in fact, make them oblige.

A man must be ready to obey another man's will so long as his own will is not yet fully developed.
Usually this subordination to another man's will is studied before anything else. I use the word 'studied'
because a man must understand why such obedience is necessary and he must learn to obey. The latter
is not at all easy. A man beginning the work of self-study with the object of attaining control over himself
is accustomed to believe in his own decisions. Even the fact that he has seen the necessity for changing
himself shows him that his decisions are correct and strengthens his belief in them. But when he begins
to work on himself a man must give up his own decisions, 'sacrifice his own decisions,' because
otherwise the will of the man who directs his work will not be able to control his actions. "In schools of
the religious way 'obedience' is demanded before anything else, that is, full and unquestioning
submission although without understanding. Schools of the fourth way demand understanding before
anything else. Results of efforts are always proportional to understanding. "Renunciation of his own
decisions, subordination to the will of another, may present insuperable difficulties to a man if he had
failed to realize beforehand that actually he neither sacrifices nor changes anything in his life, that all his
life he has been subject to some extraneous will and has never had any decisions of his own. But a man
is not conscious of this. He considers that he has the right of free choice. It is hard for him to renounce
the illusion that he directs and organizes his life himself. But no work on himself is possible until a man is
free from this illusion. "He must realize that he does not exist; he must realize that he can lose nothing
because he has nothing to lose; he must realize his 'nothingness' in the full sense of the term. "This
consciousness of one's nothingness alone can conquer the fear of subordination to the will of another.
However strange it may seem, this fear is actually one of the most serious obstacles on a man's path. A
man is afraid that he will be made to do things that are opposed to his principles, views, and ideas.
Moreover, this fear immediately creates in him the illusion that he really has principles, views, and
convictions which in reality he never has had and never could have. A man who has never in his life
thought of morality suddenly begins to fear that he will made to do something immoral. A man who has
never thought of his health and who has done everything possible to ruin it begins to fear that he will be
made to do something which will injure it. A man who has lied to everyone, everywhere, all his life in the
most barefaced manner begins suddenly to fear that he will be made to tell lies, and so on without end.
I knew a drunkard who was afraid more than anything else that he would be made to drink. "The fear of
being subordinated to another man's will very often proves stronger than anything else. A man does not
realize that a subordination to which he consciously agrees is the only way to acquire a will of his own
This centre deals with pleasure. It is blocked by guilt. (Identification with the perception)

The experience is to Know your Will and drive to it; no longer seeking pleasure, but destiny.

this is where the will goes out and affect the world

as long as it stays in mulhadara you are a slave to duality

The power of will seems raised to a superlative degree. I become conscious of a dynamic urge to
conquer myself and make the body obey the will to realize one's deepest ideals. And I feel intuitively
that those ideals are but voices of my best self, which alone can promise me lasting happiness.

This is the centre of Will.

Mental impressions are samskaras, units of experience.

La voluntad es el arte de no tener escusas.

THE ONLY WILL IS TO DENY IT.

2 – Manipura

EMOTIONAL CENTRE – WHAT WE CALL THE PSYCHE OR SUBCONSCIOUS

On mystery

As Homer said: the gods weave tragedies so teh latter generations have something to sing.

Life iis a play which we cannot know if it a comedy or a tragedy. The audience, ourselves, doesn’t know
whether to laugh or cry. If that which we see inspires brutal emotion, but the brutallity of this emotion is
the realization of the indifference between crying and laughing. This emotion is the mystery.
The third centre is the spectrum of all the emotions that we can feel.

You cannot choose what to feel. But there is a way to perfect feeling, a way of putting oneself in a
feeling situation. This is the aim of the artist; to inspire himself.

This inspiration goes in a diretion which transcends mere will. One can want to paint a painting, or even
the painting of a horse, but one cannot will to will to paint. What makes one paint, that is inspiration,
that is feeling.

If you have never been angry, or sad, you cannot pass this centre overe; if you havent wanted to kill
yourself, or someone else, these emotions will allways be potential. Only by experiencing every emotion
can we complete this sphere of perception.

This is the Actor.

This is also what we say when we speak about “personality” and charisma.

When the function of this centre works properly awareness is seen to be the river and emotions the
water, thereby dissolving the illlusion of a feeler.

The perfection of each centre is to see them as empty.

This centre deals with Emotional expression. It is blocked by shame. (Identification with the perception)

The experience is to be free of all artistic interpretation; no longer seeking to be recognized, but to feel.

As a kid I used to love fantasy. Gorgons and Hydras, and Chimaeras - dire stories of Celaeno and the
Harpies - may reproduce themselves in the brain of superstition - but they were there before. They are
transcripts, types - the archtypes are in us, and eternal. How else should the recital of that which we
know in a waking sense to be false come to affect us at all? Is it that we naturally conceive terror from
such objects, considered in their capacity of being able to inflict upon us bodily injury? O, least of all!
These terrors are of older standing. They date beyond body - or without the body, they would have been
the same... That the kind of fear here treated is purely spiritual - that it is strong in proportion as it is
objectless on earth, that it predominates in the period of our sinless infancy - are difficulties the solution
of which might afford some probable insight into our ante-mundane condition, and a peep at least into
the shadowland of pre-existence.

(Charles Lamb: Witches and Other Night-Fears, from the Dunwich Horrow, Lovecraft)
On the archetypes

En los sueños, los símbolos se producen espontáneamente, porque los sueños ocurren, pero no se
inventan; por tanto, son la fuente principal de todo lo que sabemos acerca del simbolismo. (…) Sin
embargo, hay muchos símbolos que no son individuales sino colectivos en su naturaleza y origen. Son,
principalmente, imágenes religiosas.

3 – Anahatta

Being deeply loved gives you strength. Loving deeply gives you courage.

CENTRE OF COMPASSION

Out of bodhi mind and the development of skillful means and prajna arises passionlessness, not in the
sense of frigidity, but in the sense of not trying to possess anything. In Tibetan, passionlessness is chakpa
mepa. Chakpa means “desire,” “wanting,” or “lust,” and mepa means “without,” or “not”; so chakpa
mepa is “without passion,” or “passionlessness.”

Passionlessness is necessary in order to develop loving-kindness and compassion. If you have passion,
you cannot develop loving-kindness toward yourself and compassion toward others; you have to be
completely passionless to work with others.

The passionate state of being is an obstacle because you always want to grasp onto either yourself or
others. When you are in a passionate state of mind, you cannot afford to allow space to develop
between yourself and others. But when passionlessness takes place, you begin to create a lot of space.
You can afford to have loving-kindness for yourself, and you can also afford to be compassionate to
others, because there is lots of room.

The idea is that passion should be transmuted into compassion for yourself and others. This is possible
because passion without reference point, goal orientation, or aggression is compassion. When passion is
transmuted into compassion, you do not abandon your existence, but you are able to be gentle and
nice. Since you are not substituting such behavior for your actual self, you do not feel particularly lost or
deprived of your capabilities. Beyond that, you can expand to others as well. So you are full, but at the
same time, you are empty.

Passionlessness is what enables you to practice the dharma and to quiet your body, speech, and mind. It
is related to the development of fearlessness and egolessness. The reason egolessness is necessary is
that the idea of self-existence, or ego, creates tremendous self-hatred, which automatically projects out
to others. In contrast, when there is kindness to oneself and others, this automatically creates a quality
of workability. It creates immense space or emptiness.
~ Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche

An enemy is someone whom we were not ready to listen to his story. This is the truth of the heart, the
great equalizer.

FOURTH is love.

Forgiveness is the fragrance flowers give when you crush them

What we must understand that this love has no shadow; it is not like the pendulum of the emotions.

This love is solitude. That is why compassion must be trained; compassion is not a natural emotion of
personality. You can never be personally compassionate.

This means hurt. It means sharing the pain.

This is love, and it has to do with the mind, the emptiness and vastlesnesss of it.

The compassionate centre operates the function by which you can feel another.

This is greater than empathy, because the empathy of the actor is a recognition of a state as generated.
However, true compassion sees beyond the personality and mourns for human man as he is.

We cannot access any of the perceptions of another being; how are we to feel them? Well, we feel the
only thing that we know for sure about such a being; that I will die. Therefore this ultimate love is
inspired by the thought of death. This love can only be romantic, because it is doomed to fail; that is why
we call it True Love.

The heart is the centre that has the capacity to see others not as others, but as self.

This is the greatest power of all.

Why dont we feel love for everybody? You must understand that only perfect love is real love. Any
function other than selfless compassion is a clouded activity of th heart.

Maternal love is an impulse of the first centre and this; teenage love is an impulse of the third, love for
sexuality; mature love is love of personality; but all these worship an essence, whether it is motherhood,
sexuality or personality. How could we love someone for their spirit, then, if the spirit is one and the
same?
However, we can love the spirit in people. To see any disctinction is not to have purified love. That
doesn’t mean you should fight against favouritism; if you have to choose who dies, you will never
choose your own daughter and that’s ok.

It is necessary or us to go through breakheart in order to disentangle love from object. The heart is a
hole.

If the emotions are songs, then this love is silence.

A breakheart is very similar to losing faith in God; it is ultimate despair of the source of our reason to
live.

This centre deals with Lonely Love. It is blocked by Sadness. (Identification with the perception)

The experience is to be free of all Objects of Love; no longer seeking to be loved but to love, limitlessly.

After all, what is bhakti or devotion; what is union? They are the sublimated pure form of sexual energy

4 – Visshudha

Acosada por un insaciable deseo de distinguir, la conciencia sustituye la realidad por el símbolo, o bien
no percibe la realidad sino a través del símbolo.

THE DISTORTION OF LANGUAGE is imporant, and verily it limits our consciousness.

But we can undertand how it cannot be supreme. There still would be a world without language: that is
verily the myth we must invoke to understand what we mean by phenomenology. Epistemology is a
form of speaking about the sources of experience, the “ways of knowing”. These are five. When we
speak of phenomenology we speak of the total sum of our undifferentiated experience, which we shall
explain as the confabulation of 5 senses, of which our common 5 senses are both anaogous to the five
and to the fifth.

Therefore, phenomenology exists for animals, but their difference can only be stated in epistemological
forms. That is, the animal has other functions of the ways of knowing.

Animals have other ways of knowing we do no havve, like the playtypus when he closes his ears and
eyes, like the whisles of the dolphins and like the vision of the night of the bat.

But one centre they do not have is this one.

SPEAK HERE ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANIMALS AND THE MIRROR AND MANKIND
SUCH IS THE EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT, WHICH IS THIS CENTRE, WHOSE PERFECTION IS THE CAPACITY
OF INFINITE SELF –REFERENCE.

EXPRESSION CENTRE

The poetry of the Ancients has come to our aid. To save their lives I quote them thus, for in stealing their
natures we realize the Emptiness of our own. I am the thief of this soup of sound concoction,
collectollage of diverse genre that moves inside my motion, exoaccelerates on the curve, draws with
each jazz the juice of trumpets, pears, nuisance of noise you call whatever for still dancing your echo
falls; infinity to wonder unbreachable! What I can say is not the Voice; just close your ears and see the
lidless Eye has opened forever the mind unknowable! You can teach guitar to me but this instrumental
silence I play cannot be taught for I myself do not know how to play it or stop playing it. Music is
everywhere! Just grab that trumpet, pear, number you name it and see how flowly silence oozes from
the grave of rhyme we just buried in oblivion for the soul dancer knows no time

THIS CENTRE IS THE CENTRE OF LANGUAGE. EXPLAIN HOW LANGUAGE ALLOWED US TO BECOME THE
DOMINANT RACE

la religion del tres misterio

los mitos del cuatro cruz

ahora nos queda la menteç

peron tenemos que definir por mente

lo que entendemos por mente YA NO ES EL LENGUAJE (el tres), ni el tiempo (el cuatro), sino que la
monada pentacroma son las funciones de la mente concebida como el lugar donde las impresiones
fenomenologicas ocurren.

Los cinco gustos, los cinco sentidos, etc.

y lo que llegamos a entender que la mente es creencia

entonces lo que el lenguaje nos ha dado es la posibilidad de creer.

ningún otro animal la tiene

toda nuestra vida se opera como creencia

y la creencia mas importante de nuestra época, son, en este orden

creencia en la raza

eso nos hizo ganarle al neanderthal

creencia en la religion

y creencia en el dinero

esas han sido las creencias que crearon este mundo

sin idea de raza la historia de la humanidad primitiva no existe

sin idea de religion la idea de la humanidad clásica no existe

sin la idea del dinero la humanidad moderna no existe

trascender estas tres ideas es abandonar la sociedad

sin el lenguaje es imposible crear cultura, pero el lenguaje siempre cambia

la creencia no es tan mala, después de todo. sin saber que si pagas lo mismo que vale no puede existir la
sociedad moderna, pero el dinero no tiene valor en si. es el mejor ejemplo de una creencia entrelazada
entre todos los humanos.

solo podemos hablar de trascender el lenguaje si estamos solos.

es por esto que go into the wilderness is important

y es por eso quienes lo hicieron forjaron una nueva sociedad

la religion

pero el modernismo se hizo solo. es, muy a pesar de sus críticos, el sistema natural

porque evoluciono naturalmente

la mente es la maquina del capitalismo. la regresión infinita de todo mecanismo es idéntica a la

necesidad constante de que la economía crezca.

los economistas nos han llevado a la ruina, porque supieron que no seria en su vida

pero nos estamos acercando cada vez mas rápido, no a una situación postapocaliptica en la que el
mundo es purgado por las fuerzas del clima, el enojo de la tierra. esto ciertamente pasara, pero la gente
va a buscar formas de adaptarse e ignorarlo.

el problema es que va a llegar un momento en que la economía no pueda crecer mas. ese dia, la
maquina lo va a saber, y todas las bolsas caerán. adel dia a la mañana.
entonces el mundo no sabrá como vivir, y habremos perdido la confianza en el dinero. porque_ porque
cada dolar no valía, sino que le había sido robado a la tierra

ese dia vamos a tener que enfrentar nuestra creación social, la maquina mutante del capitalismo, y
llevarla a cero

eso quiere decir que la economía no va a existir mas - pero no quiere decir que no va a existir la
sociedad, solo que no va a estar centralizada y vamos a volver a vivir como tribus

solo podremos confiar en lo que veamos

para ese dia estoy preparado

por el bien de la tierra

ojala que vea ese dia

asi mi madre sufre menos

pero grande sera la revuelta y muchísimos moriran

digo todo esto para que entiendas que, aunque nos ocupamos de materia filosófico religiosa, era solo
para poder hablar claramente de las verdades fundamentales a la que nos enfrentamos

pero no quiero hablar de política ni del futuro, porque no le puedo hablar a la humanidad

solo te puedo hablar a vos

y antes de que puedas abandonar la creencia en el dinero

debemos ver que la regresión infinita de la maquina del capitalismo es un aparato que le pertenece a
una mente

es decir, la función regresiva de la mente es una cosa. pero si vamos a definir la mente totalmente - es
decir, no deberías haber hablado de mente, sino del 1, de lo unico - la tenemos que dividir ahora en 5

y si el 3 era el misterio y el 4 el mito, el 5 es la mente

pero esta mente, necesariamente, tiene que ser una manera quíntupla de hablar de todo. todo debe ser
cinco para esta monada numerologica. monada porque es un sistema, numerologica porque tiene
partes. entonces, tenemos que partir lo concebible en 5, pero no podemos hacerlo de manera lógica. es
decir, no puede estar sujeto a nuestro concepto de 'oposición', porque la oposición entre mas de dos
cosas solo puede ser concebible como una diferencia de dimensión en figuras geométricas, como había
probado el triangulo. incluso, el triangulo visto desde todos lados era la 4 dimensionaba, y ese triangulo
tenia una base cuadrada

pero ya el cinco es absolutamente irrepresentable, porque los ejes dimensionales van mas alla de lo que
nuestro intelecto puede concebir.
la quinta dimension es el limite de lo relacionable

entonces las operaciones lógicas que usamos para el tres y el cuatro ya no son posibles, no podemos
armar una lógica en la que haya algo que este opuesto geométricamente a las proposiciones
dimensionales de la existencia, uno, la no existencia, dos, la contradicción, tres, y el misterio, cuatro.

entonces, ya abandonamos la lógica y no la puedo usar para sustentar ningún argumento

sin embargo, podemos seguir, y aunque sea inconcebible lógicamente dibujar sus oposiciones, debe
haber, asi como los numero previos, una relación entre 5 abstracciones que sea el superaste o la
analogía universal de todas las cosas 5. hay grupos de tres universales, de los que hablamos largamente,
tambien de cuatro, pero tambien, del 5! la idea numerologica es que cada categoría de sus funciones
sea absolutamente distinta a las otras - es decir, cada una debe definir su posición como la negación de
la posición de los otros cuatro. esta es la idea numerologica, y asi como tambien hay un orden en el
cuatro, lo hay en el 5

los grupos absolutos de cinco son infinitos. el mas obvio son los dedos de tu mano. cada uno es
absoluto. las religiones han hablado de los cinco (ejemplos), pero fundamentalmente los Antiguos
hablaban del cinco como las formas de percepción. no quiero entrar ahora a discutir sánscrito, ni
pretendo darte una doctrina que puedas leer. la idea es trascender la institución de lenguaje que se
genero después de los maestros pero usar sus intuiciones. entonces, si pudiésemos partir el absoluto en
5, como se llamaría?

usemos por ahora los dedos, meñique, anular, meridional, indice y pulgar.

los antiguos los concebían como los centros de percepción, o las dimensiones en las que opera la
existencia.

a esta pentaoposicion es a lo que llamamos la mente.

esta la voluntad, las emociones, nuestra vida/memoria/traumas/pozo de soledad, nuestra expresión y

nuestra imaginacion

antes de definir cada una, tenemos que hablar mas de la mente como una maquina

como hacemos para descubrir esta mente?

(en realidad me parece que esto ultimo del cinco va después de hablar de la maquina)

bueno entonces en total, lo de Sandro que va, pero a algún otro lado, lo de Juli, y combina esto con el
meme de lula hablando del 5

The fifth centre is the perception of thought itself.

Now, thought can condition any of the centres, because itself is a mix of those said centres. How can I
say that the fifth is thought itself?

If the third was song, the fourth was silence, the fifth is speaking.

It has to do with the functions of listening.

This is the thing that only we can listen to; therefore, thought is a disruption of listening.

It is not that there is ego in the six stages, but that ego is a comfabulation of their unpercieved
entanglement.

To unify the mind you must bring it to a halt.

This is much more complicated to do for the smart people , for it is harder to unify the opposed limits of
the mind the broader it is.

The ultimate power of this centre is laughter. Laughter is what wins over the mind; it has no reason. The
ultimate manifestation of a purified mind is the capacity of laughing even, or specially, with no joke. The
mind is the joke, and thus all philosophy and metaphysics becomes ridiculous.

This centre is in charge of the function of doubt.

Ego is the attachment of thought between themselves

This centre deals with Truth. It is blocked by duality. (Identification with the perception)

The experience is to see all as empty; no longer seeking truth in the mind but in the moment.

Why does it seem to me sometimes now that I understand absolutely nothing?" said one of those
present. "Formerly I used to think that sometimes at any rate there were some things I understood but
now I do not understand anything." "It means you have begun to understand”.

5 – Ajna

I have three eyes; two to look and one to see.

The eyes are useless when the mind is blind.

Men are admitted into Heaven not because they have curbed and governd their Passions or have No
Passions but because they have Cultivated their Understandings. The Treasures of Heaven are not
Negations of Passion but Realities of Intellect from which All the Passions Emanate Uncurbed in their
Eternal Glory. (Blake)

This center I call imagintion, but it is more than that. It is intuition. Remember all psychophysical
functions pertain to some aspects of these.

(end) the Mystery is greater than anything the imagination can concieve. It is beyond sensation.

This centre deals with Intuition. It is blocked by illusion. (Identification with the perception)

The experience is to see that what is above is like what is below; no longer trying to place us in space-
time as a point, but to become the continuum.

This is the third eye, where the three streams unify.

Ajna chakra is the point of confluence where the three main nadis or forces - ida, pingala and sushumna
merge into one stream of consciousness and flow up to sahasrara, the crown center

Where is the image that you are seeing now? Where appears the image that you see in your dreams?
We need not define them; although they are apparently different manifetations, they are manifested in
the same place; since we cannot adscribe any substrate for the “essence” of phenomna to be different
from the perceptions of dreams, we must concurr, therefore, that all sight is imagination.

Again, it is not so much that we imagine what we see, but that the distinction between real perception
and unreal perception is to be discovered as meaningless. I call perception “imaginal” because this
centre is where the distinction of real and unreal dissolves; every perception is imagined.

If only you could train your imagination to see as clearly as your eyes you would discover that the
perception of either is identical. This is a Secret of Magick.

Of course, the imaginal is one dimensional jump higher than the word, so that is it a Logos that can be
seen. Any word is bidimensional, when you extend it in a dimension in wich it is not contained, it
manifests as image.

The imagination is a dimensional jump from the ears.

All understanding can be spoken of as imagination which has attained consciousness of its own
activities.

Ajna is the bridge which links the guru with his disciples. It represents the level at which it is possible for
direct mind to mind communication to take place between two people. It is in this chakra that
communication with the external guru, the teacher or preceptor takes place. And it is here that the
directions of the inner guru are heard in the deepest state of meditation, when all the sense modalities
are withdrawn and one enters the state of void. Thus this centre has to do with telepathy; if you would
master you own dream, you could make others see yours.

This is the eye of intuition. Intead of looking outward it looks inward; that is, in a direction inconcievable
for surface, by its reverse creating the new direction.

CONSIDER THE FIVE TYPES OF PERFECTION

1. The Arahat who has abandoned attachment.

2. The Shaman who heals the Archetype.

3. The Saint who heals the Heart

4. The Guru who explains systems of attainent

5. The Seer who can change bodies of perception.

Entré a la cueva, respiré su aire, bebí su agua, toqué sus paredes, prendí un fuego y viví el miedo. La
cueva estaba llena de miles de ojos rojos, y todos me estaban mirando. “Vine aquí para escapar de los
hombres, y de la fama literaria!”, les dije. Y entonces, todos los ojos se cerraron para siempre.
 ✡︎Arboris Mundi Orbis Paradisi

Tree

The plant itself is a snake

Energy is the field of karma. All energies are karmas.

(What you have so far in this chapter is a monologue that goes, from the idea of a self regulating
organism, to the idea that the glands control the organism, to the idea of evolutionary capacity, to the
idea that you can evolve your race in your individual.

What you need to add is how to speak of six. My idea is to speak of evlution from the teaching of the
Ancients. The Six sided wheel of life is what we call the tree. All existancies are in it. Refer to the myth
from the begning.

Okay so this is the order. First you must say that numerologically we have already trasncended logic and
also our phenomenal modes. If I said the mind ends in 5, how can we speak of six? Six is, first of all, the
permutation of a double triad; however, as long as we concieve it as such we will never know the six,
and neither the two or the three. What the mind was by 5, 6 are the realms of experience, that is, six
functions on which the five measures can act. The last, the seventh function, brings all of them to
oneness. That is why six is the first and last number, both two and three! The five functins of the mind
operate at different karmic levels; that is, at various stages of purification. We have come to see these
these stages as the glands also, and we come to regard the pineal and pituitary as the “same place”.
These are the six places of the spinal column. The seventh lies beyond the body, and of it we will speak
later. But the fiveness are sources of perception, whereas the six are the karmic functions that the five
minds can operate in. these are the realm of the demons, worst karma, hellish particular type of life,
purification of poverty, diseas; the realm of the hungry ghosts, bad karma, purification of addiction,
poverty; realm of the animals, normal life, purification of sensation, overeating, suicide; realm of the
humans, humanist life, purification of doubts, spiritual crisis; the realm of the demi-gods, famous life,
purification of expression; and the realms of the gods, best karma of all. However, all of these are
karma, and the wheel must spin, as long as the Six is concieved as a permutation of the Two.

After speaking of this relate how this karma is shown everywhere, and how can a race achieve the same
status as a person. That is, your life has gone from karma to karma, but there is a way to escape karma.

Therefore, in the six, you must explain karma. This is important. Remember the six were the karmic
stages? The perfection of the six of numerology, to achieve its perfect function, is to live beyond the
motion of the wheel, being the centre of the pillar that is the circunspection of the pillar of light. How
could you achieve no karma? By entangling the functions of the six. That is why the pituitary gland is in
the same level as the pineal, for it is a door.

Explain karma from a global perspective to a particular perspetive, and relate then how evolution can be
spoken of as a generalized term of race but there can also be evolution of a human being.

(We are made of love and fantasy. All beings have lived and died and been reborn countless times. Over
and over again they have experienced the indescribable Clear Light. But because they are obscured by
the darkness of ignorance, they wander endlessly in a limitless samsara.

Trust me, we have all gone to death many times, but we return because we cannot bear the loneliness.
To learn to bear such loneliness is the path.)

Explain what is it that evolves.

Explain karma as transfiguration, from the myth of Er to the reincarnation of the hindus and the four
bardos of tantrism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

Explain that these tales, which are myths in the proper word, that is, “tales” the shamen brought from
the other side of the grave, constitute the legend of spiritual beings as shamen-prophets.
Explain that nature evolves too, and that its function leads to ever more complex sistems whereby man
reached a biological plateau but kept evolving its organism as a world cyborg. Explain that we can only
be saved by the machine if we can understand it. What can be automated should be automated.
Therefore what evolves now are societies.

However, these societies must run the same course as the cylce of karma. Therefore, abandon the idea
of perfecting the world and instead perfect humanity in you. What you can save can never be doomed.

Therefore you have explained the six as:

Myth of the Tree

Six as Number

Six Functions of Karma

Karma as evolution

Karma as race

Evolving the racec through self perfection

That what evolves is sexuality.

Finally, that the Tree is the world of karma itself, the tree of Life.

That should be the order. Now, print this, read it again, trace the structure carefully again and write it.
Delve almost nothing on ontology, use again the idea of the finve minds but create the idea of
“unconsciousness”. This “unconscious” function is the “physical world of mooladhara. Therefore, use
here the chapter on mooladhara; the last chapter speaks only of sahasrara.

And the days began walking, and them, the days, they made us. And thus we were born, us the children
of the days, the seekers, the founders of life.

CHAPTER 6

In this book, understand, I am not trying to be smart; I am saying it as clearly as I can. That is why I call
you brother, whatever you are! For I myself cannot be other than a Frater Anonimae.

In this chapter we must construe the dimensionality of the six as a world made of karma. That there are
six is less important than that there be two and three, for the six itself, numerologically, does not exist. It
has no ontological reification, or, what is the same, it is an impossible multiplication of the functions of
regression and perfection.

The six is the vayra, for it is double and three. It is also the tree.

Therefore six I not a number, numerologically speaking, but its ontological reification can ocurr as a
function of the entanglement of these two simbols.

How is something to be both two, which we marked as the Enemy, the otherness of self that could not
exist, and the three that we named by the Powers of the Lord? It is both hell and heaven at the same
time.

This is the reality; that there is no distinction between samsara and nirvana. The world of suffering is the
same world as the world of bliss; we just feel accordingly. And yet, we must become no one for the
contnuum between suffering and bliss be established as the Vayra in the Emptiness, the Lighting in the
Abyss, the Vidya in the Rigpa, the Sukkha in the Shunya.

Therefore, what we are to speak by six are the worlds of suffering, and how they can become the one
world of bliss, whose emptiness marks its nondistinction to the arising of suffering.

Karma is everything. Everything that happens is karma. How could we clarify this? I am writing because
of karma, you are reading because of karma. Is karma God? How could it not? The path could be as
consequential as this, for you to regard all doing as done. To reach this conception is the stasis of vertigo
in which the pin of a pointed star rests inconspicuously in the Void, about to fall. And yet what prevents
us from this is that we adscribe selves to everything, and judge everything therefrom.

People are not unpredictable. What is impossible is to measure every function by which we could
predict their actions; but this does not exclude a countable continuity. For such is karma, both countable
and continuous. If your states of mind where to be known to me, I could count your karma; but where
your states to be just one, then such Emptiness is unknowble, and you become Mystery.

The flowers are karma, the world is karma, this word is karma. How can we escape? And yet, there is an
escape, only if there be no constriction. The state of a one who abides in Emptiness creates from
nothing, constantly, and yet, his creations are all empty. Such is why miracles have been misunderstood,
for what the Magus shows is the illusion of reality. Such are his miracles, for nothing is imposible; the
world is Empty imagination.

The magus is also Yama, the lord of death that hold the bhavacakra, the wheel of being; the magus is
also the final Enemy that we must destroy, for he represents the ditinction between Magi and Men.

If we are to become the Magus, how could we, then, by stepping outside, as also Yama does, from the
Wheel of Being? Is not the Moon outside also? But how could there be two outsides? Yama is the Moon,
for enlightenment is nothing but a metaphor to speak of those who have become Lords of Death. These
are the Anceints we pride in, from the whole wide world, this web of karma? So how is it that one, being
subject constantly to karma, escape the bonds of it and yet manifest as karma also, seeing that the
world could be no other? This is the Path we seek to stride in, brother; walk carefully! The Pyramid is yet
to fractalize; this is what the image of the dorje is also.

The teaching of the Ancients is this; samsara is not different from nirvana, nirvana is not different from
samsara. Form is emptiness; emptiness is form. Therefore we are to construct by the Six a sublime
nondistinction of the two and the three also, that the illusion of the Six be seen as the Wheel of Being
which is Karma, and that to see the Six functions of karma constantly show to us that no EFFORT in this
world can amount to anything. The teaching, brother, is not one of despair; and yet, despair you must,
for if you don’t believe in this you invent a self and if you believe in this you cannot do anything about it.

Let us speak in this way then, visualizing a dorje as two pyramids conjoined. The double perfection is
one.

We shall first discourse, at large, on the meaning of karma and the transmigration of the soul throough
death, were it possible or probable. Then we shall see how to behold the cycle of karma liberates us not
from our karma but inspires our emptiness to consume our being. To escape the world, everything must
become empty. This is true renounciation; to percieve reality as ilusion, completely and utterly empty.

Sheep spend their whole lives fearing the wolf but get eaten by the Shepherd.

Aca tenemos que definer el tema.

Suma ‘ al red book, la idea de que en el futuro anteojos con letras rompan la idea del que sabe del que
no.

Pero mas importante, hay que dar una marco de porque las cosas se mueren.

El 6 es una teoría de la muerte. El 7 es una teoría de como morir a la inmortalidad.

Asi como separaste las psicologías posibles en el 5, tenes que hablar de las vidas posibles en el 6.

Es decir, hablando del 5, podemos hablar de hombres que tengas mas fuerte alguno de los centros:
1) el hombre de voluntad (que busca una posición social)

2) el hombre de sentimiento (que busca una sociedad)

El hombre de corazón (que busca la soledad)

El hombre de mente (que busca la verdad)

El hombre de imaginación (que busca la creación)

Asi también tenemos a los hombres que han llegado a tal centro, y hacemos una línea evolutiva:

1) el hombre de negocios, el hombre de familia, el hombre de compasión, el hombre de reforma social y

el hombre de inspiración divina.

Estas psicologías corresponden a las fuentes de conocimiento. Pero estas hablan solo del hombre, y el
hombre no vive solo.

Hasta ahora esta fueron teorías de la humanidad, pero aca tiene que haber una teoría de todos los seres
sentientes.

Esto es el 6, las seis formas de percibir.

Los antiguos le decían asi:

1) los demonios

Los espiritus ávidos

Los animales

Los hombres

Los semi dioses

Los dioses

Lo que vamos a hacer es cambiarles las palabras para que, trasncendiendo el mito, llegemos al misterio.

Asi como buscar una nueva phenomenologia, es decir, un sistema que describa como percibimos, fue la
función de la perfeccion del 4 en la que llegamos a completar la pirámide; asi como buscar una nueva
psicología nos llevo a tener que renombrar las fuentes de conocimeinto, la epistemología, para poder
dar la función en la que el 5 es completo; asi también tenemos que cambiarle el nombre a los estados,
no de conciencia de un solo organismo, sino a dar una taxonomía de los estados de conciencia de todos
los seres sentientes. Asi vamos a llegar al 6.

Hasta el 4 las formas en las que describir nuestro estado perfecto de descripción phenomenica, es decir,
la correcta manera de ver, es algo que le es común a todas las cosas, porque, en esencia, es una teoría
del vacio; entonces, nuestra explicación era matemática. Matemática fue también, la construcción de la
perfeccion del 3, la teología, aunque tenia factores phenomenologicos como los estados del dormir,
soniar y la vigilia; y matemática también la ontología del 2, en la que hablamos de que no puede existir
la dualidad por lo que definir la iluminación como un estado distinto al estado natural es el principio del
delirio.

Ya en el 5 abandonamos la matemática, aunque usamos alguna de sus purebas, para nombrar lo que
era. En el primer capitulo hablamos de ontología, en el segundo, de teología, en el tercero, de
fenomenología, la física del ver correctamente, en el cuarto, hablamos de la psicología, es decir, el
sistema que describe la mente, en funciones epistemológicas, es decir, de cuentos centros de
conocimiento tenia.

Aunque podamos decir que el dos es imposible, el tres es lo perfecto, el cuatro es lo que lo perfecciona,
el 5 es la mente humana; todavía hablamos desde una antropocentrismo asumido pero no construido.

En el 6 vamos a hablar de la función del ser de todos les seres sentientes. (esto se va a terminar de
entender en el 7, cuando hablemos de dimensiones de vuelta).

Entonces, cada función numerlogica nos da una manera de hablar de las cosas

El dos es la imposible construcción de una diferencia cualitativa entre el estado de existir y el no eistir,
por lo que la vida es muerte; asi perciben los antiguos.

El tres son los tres estados de cada creer, que es, que no es, que es y no es, y habla de la función del
Logos por el cual trasciende la manera de creer, basada en el dos, que ahora vemos que nunca tuvo
base. Es decir, el Logos del tres es aquello que, siendo increíble, es verdad. Por eso hablamos de que el
logos, que es el triangulo, se tiene que ver. También hablamos de las funciones de estado de conciencia,
no ahora como una diferencia entre la conciencia de la muerte y la conciencia de la vida, sino entre la
conciencia del dormir, soniar y despertar.

En el 4 hablamos de las funciones de todo cambio como la rueda que transforma el aire en agua, el agua
en tierra, la tierra en fuego, y el fuego en aire; y hablamos de que para frenar el mundo, parar el cambio,
para ver correctamente, tenemos que ver el tiempo. Esta función de ver el tiempo se vuelve a referir a la
estasis, el objecto del balance, el baile visual de la verdad, que le habíamos dado al tres, porque la
función que encontramos para ver el tiempo hace que el tres y el cuatro sean indiscernibles, por lo que
CREEMOS, tenemos fe, en el Logos que es tres, pero lo vemos, la desccirpcion del espacio, como una
pirámide en la que estamos pero también que nos podemos imaginar para asi fractalizar la realidad y
ver la función del tiempo como una función de espacio, por la cual perdemos la dimensión de
identificación que era el creer que hay alguien que crea; que es distinta a las funciones triples del creer.
Asi nos iniciamos en el camino hacia la pirámide, que es llegar arriba del todo, porque es donde su
función transciende el 4, pero lo sigue siendo; el pyramidion es la iluminación. Sin embargo para
fractalizar el tiempo y asi volverlo una dimensión de espacio no solo tenemos que imaginar una
Piramide, sino tenemos que sentirnos adentro de ella también; asi la función de ‘mundo real’ e
‘imaginacion’ se transciende, y asi como sentimos que hay infinitas pirámides afuera vemos infinitas
pirámides adentro, que es en si misma la visión de la pirámide por la que se fractaliza el tiempo, el cual,
al volverse espacio se ve; esta el la visión iniciática de la pirámide a través de la cual sabemos que
estamos enterrados de por vida en la conciencia y pasamos a escalar la pirámide. Antes hay que
circumabularla, y mas del cuatro se dira en el segundo Libro, pero hemos probado que la función de la
espiral es una función de FI que es en si mismo el 5, por lo que llegamos a entender como circumabular
cuatro vees la pirámide es aprender a contar hasta 5, y asi podes escalar la pirámide como una espiral.
Esta espiral y este 5 es la mente que hay que alinear, para que cada mente opere por si misma y lueg,
asi, que operen como una sola; esto es, en si mismo, lo que concebimos como el estado iluminado, un
único ser que no conoce fricciones en si mismo. Estas fricciones hemos dado en llamarla ‘ansiedad’ y
también bajo la ilusión de ‘autocontrol’; en el camino de los ancestros solo existe el entrenamiento.

Hasta ahí tenemos un buen orden de la verdad y de lo que va el libro. Pero quedan dos capítulos. Que
puede ser el 6? El 6 es, obviamente, el tres por dos, por lo que la divinidad se vuelve mente.

El seis, al ser una función del dos, tiene que ser imposible, es deir, se puede escapar de sus funciones.

Pero al ser el 3 tambien es la totalidad.

Ahora, venimos hablando solo del hombre. La psicología que construimos en el capitulo 5 es perfecta y
da una manera de transcenceder la mente, pero hay muchas cosas que no tocamos. Hasta aca la teoría
es atropocentrica.

Pero asi como hablamos, en forma de números, solo de estados de conciencia, hasta ahora solo
hablamos del hombre. Los estados son, 2, muerte y vida; 3, dormir, soniar y ver; 4, aire, agua, tierra,
fuego; 5, voluntad emoción soledad expresión imaginación; cuales son los 6 estados?

Hemos construido un continuo de todos estos estados, es decir, que la conciencia de la muerte no es
distinta a la conciencia de la vida; que el soniar y ver y dormir, perfeccionados, son funciones de un
único estado; que asimismo, cuando el fuego se perfecciona, que es la función del orgasmo, entonces
los tres estados sevuelven uno, asi cumpliendo con su continuidad que es el Vacio; y también dijimos
que, aunque paree que son sistemas que operan de manera distinta, porque vemos sus fricciones, si
perfeccionamos cada uno de estos ‘estados de conciencia’ como lo son la volutnad la emoción la
compasión la expresión y la imaginación llegamos a ver que la conciencia es un continuo, se vuelven
funciones y no sistemas; Y ASI LA PSICOLOGIA DE LA PERSONA E CURA AL NO HAMBER NADA
‘INCONCIENTE’ DE SI MISMO Y OPERA DE FORMA ILUMINADA, QUE ES LA FUNCION VACIA DEL 5, O AL
MENOS, SU DESCRIPCION.

Pero los 6 estados no refieren, al principio, al hombre. Ya mencionamos estos estados por los nombres
de los Antiguos, demonios, fantasmas, animales, hombres, criaturas de poder y dioses.

Podríamos decir que estos nombre eran una función psicológica de carácter mitológico porque no
tenían un léxico psicologico para explicarlo; pero estaríamos empezando mal.

Lo que va a construir el 6 es la teroia del karma, y la función que va a mostrar es la continuidad de todos
los karmas.

Pero todavía no sabemos lo que es karma.

Karma es la función por la cual uno renace en un cuerpo u otro. Esta es la manera mas simple de
explicarlo, y también es verdadera. Pero, a priori, parece necesitar del las funciones de creer, que ya
hemos visto ridículas; es decir, tenemo que ‘creer en el renacimiento’, ‘creer en otras vidas’, etc.

Lo ridículo es que pensamos que no queremos creer en ellas cuando en realidad, ya creemos en ellas;
este es el problema. Este problema solo se puede resolver con fe; es decir, tenemos que tener fe en el
karma, pero no creer en el, porque si no creemos en el, vamos a estar creyendo en el igualmente por lo
que activamos la función de la ignorancia. Porque es que digo que ya creemos en el karma? Porque el
karma es la función del vacio, y la función del vacio esta activa siempre en nosotros.

Entonces, este capitulo tiene que ver con crear una continuidad en las funciones del karma. Es deir,
tiene que haber una continuidad que diga porque una conciencia pasa de morir como una vaca a nacer
como un ser humano. Esto nos parece ridículo! Pero ridículo es que pueda pasar de otra manera.

It is a Little bit like the theory of aliens; at first, believing in it seems a question of belief, but, once
analized closely, we realize that the function of belief is greatly attached to its opposite, that is, the idea
that we are the sole sentient beings capable of technological adaptation.

We have gonebeyond the gates of belief for its function were dismantles by the four, which were its
limits and its image. Now, like in chapter 5, we shall offer no proof of mathematics but those that reflect
the wisdom of the ancients. What I want to explain is why there is a transmission of modes of
experience.

Demon; this is the blind state. It is ruled by need, and is one dimensional. What drives one thing to
another is the duality of pain and satisfaction. For example, we can think of a virus, or an amoeba; it is
hunger, it feeds, but beyond this, it is obvlivious to its processes. That is why we conceive of the state of
beings ruled by this function to be demons, that is, beings that, in wanting to have pleasure, only derive
pain. Demons are not responsible for their behavior any more than bacteria are of theirs; they are blind.
It is like someone who rapes; he doesn’t know how to create pleasure for himself. In seeking pleasure he
only creates pain. Also we can think of an addict as a demon; in seeking to have pleasure they only
create pain. Note that the pain is always for themselves as for those around them. BACTERIA

Hungry Ghost; this is the state of desire. Now desire has been formalized. Ghosts remain where they are
until they are free from their ordeals; that is, a ghost is a ghost until it sees satisfied its functions of
desire. That which, for the demon, was eternal, for the hungry ghost is a purge. The demon is not
eternal, because it is the karma of bacteria, and it will eventually evolve. Hungry ghosts, then, also must
evolve; but they can do so in their state. (WOULD THIS BE PLANTS? ) This ghost is not a human ghost;
these are the ghosts of things that are to come. These are formations. They have certain desires.

Animals: animals have a personality. This is what they show.

Humans: this is human life.

Semi Gods: this is humans in good position.

Gods: these are humans in great positions.

If life and death are one, and karma is causation, then karma is the link between one death and another
rebirth. This is clear; karma is the causation, and the counting, of all the links of desire. That is karma.
But more complex karma leads to more complex creatures, and only man can be free from karma. Not
bacteria, not plants, not animals. But they do generate karma, for they have actions. It is, here, not
important to consider karma from a moralistic sense, but from a clear persective. Each action generates
karma. Killing generates karma, but so does every living being that is not a plant or a mushroom. Even
buffaloes eat fresh living grass.

Therefore, can we say that a cow that is killed many times resurrects as a wolf? No.

A cow that transcends its cowness must become a human being. Do you think not that they would be
different, this human being that came from a wolf, rather than this human being that came from a cow?

This link cannot be proven by the word, only by the Vision. Those who come to see see all as one;
therefore, since life is death, they also see the entanglements that created each life from every previous
life, which is not dead, but happening now.

To become emancipated we must be free from karma, not desire. This is much more complicated, for
the karmas of desire remain unseen, while the object we desire appear, if not concrete, at least
imaginal.

I tell you this; it is impossible to recede in the life story. You can only complete it and resurrect as a star.
That is not to say that there is no cause for fear, or that a god cannot go to hell; but he will still be a god,
even if he desnt remember it so.
The superstition that any worm could be your dead mother, if taken to extreme application, would ripe
into enlightenment; but one must do so without belief. That is, if you could take no life and treat
everything as one, all would become what it is, beyond the one, beyond the none; but to do this we
humans seem to need the function of belief which prescribes us from attaining the liberated state that
endeavouring in such a practice would produce. So let us not consider worms as our dead mothers, but
either everything as one, or everything for what it is, yes, but also, for what it can be. If the future is now
everything is already enlightened. What is this karma that I see then? Why so much pain in the world?

Man is the only being that can be liberated from the cycle of karma. Though animals may be peaceful,
and have a better life than most humans even, and know no anxiety but hunger and no fear but the pain
of the claw, animals will accumulate karma until they can become human, whose perfect purpose is,
although it takes us a million lifetimes, to be liberated from the accumulation of karma and rebirth as a
Star forever, all stars now.

Therefore, though we might say, well then, lets not eat cows. If cows are not eaten, how can they
evolve? Each organism must serve the purpose of the next level of evlution for itself to evolve. If we do
not eat cow, cows shall not be liberated, but if we do eat cow, we kill sentient beings. How are we to do
this? Some levels of cows must be eaten, but yet, it is not that they are eaten that they can be absorbed
karmically that is the problem, but how they die. It is what type of death we are spiraling into karma. All
we eat is death. But what type of death we eat is important; for there is one type of death that is life.

Therefore all sentient beings must evolve.

It is important, now, to call them by theur true names; the Abodes of Being. These are 6, which create
the Wheel of Karma. The ‘beings that inhabit them’ are states of mind.

These states of mind are also metafors for the state to which men can reach. That is, though you
become human, and may not devolve, you can devolve as a human into the state, and the functions, but
not the system of a bacteria. That is, there are beings in man that are as distinct from each other as a
man itself is from a bacteria. And yet, we all begin as bacteria-men; how could we evolve, if not?

See an octopus in the wild. They live a year an never have any parents. They can metamorphose, change
figure and sight. They hide during the day and their spirit comes out at night. And yet, every octopus
teaches itself its own tricks, which can be its own. Some methods are proven, and these techniques we
call Yogas, or the Key of Magick, the Knowledge of the Ancietns that shall be described in the
circumvection of the Pyramid. These are like the tricks of the octopus; you yourself must discover them;
but that does not mean they cannot be talked about! The Octopus is the Ancient of the Sea; come and
sing with me! An octopus is such a mysterious being that many would envy its state; but the Octopus is
wisest also because what it wants to be is a person.

Karma is the theory by which the links of desrie can be tracked through death so as to arise to the
continuity of life and death in a six figured function. Karma, then, is also, nothing else than a
numerological six sided ruse of speaking about Emptiness also. Karmas, in conjunction, are all balanced;
it is a physics of evolution rather than space. But how can there be an end to evolution? The race is still
to grow, but you can become perfected in this body. Therefore, what you need is to evolve your
organism to be something of the future; that is, where a complete function of karma is operating with
no processes so that what happens is fate and we abide in undesired surprises of activity. Such is the
state of the Magus; and such is his magick, for what we wills is fate, and his word is Abracadabra, do
what thou wilt, O lord, who is who I am, no one.

Therefore, it is not that wht we need is merely to discover how a six sided monad describes the
functions of karma and their realms that may give us an insight into science, which we shall call karmic
logic.

In a way, this theory also expands the evolution of the mind of man, but it is better to consider it as
types of being:

Blind Demon / Bacteria / Addicts and Rapists

Hungry Ghost / Insects /

Animals / Animals /

Humans /

Semi Gods

Gods

Etc.

Lee mas de esta teoria, pero todo esto me gusta.

ON THE WHEEL OF SAMSARA, THE WHEEL OF THE ANCIENTS

English translations of the term bhavacakra

The term bhavacakra has been translated into English as:

Wheel of becoming[34]

Wheel of cyclic existence

Wheel of existence
Wheel of life

Wheel of rebirth

Wheel of saṃsāra

Wheel of suffering

Wheel of transformation

The Wheel of samsara is this cycle of evolution.

It is spun by dukkha, pain. But it is no distinct from desire. It is actualy functioning by desire and giving
pain.

It is perpetuated by avidya, ignorance, and creates karma.

Legend has it that the Buddha himself designed the first illustration of the wheel of life, and offered it as
a gift to King Rudrāyaṇa. An account of this story appears in the anthology of Buddhist narratives called
the Divyāvadāna.

The wheel of life is painted on the outside walls of nearly every Tibetan Buddhist temple in Tibet and
India.[1] Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche states:

One of the reasons why the Wheel of Life was painted outside the monasteries and on the walls (and
was really encouraged even by the Buddha himself) was to teach this very profound Buddhist
philosophy of life and perception to more simple-minded farmers or cowherds. So these images on the
Wheel of Life are just to communicate to the general audience.

The meanings of the main parts of the diagram are:

The images in the hub of the wheel represent the three poisons of ignorance, attachment and aversion.

The second layer represents karma.

The third layer represents the six realms of cyclic existence.

The fourth layer represents the twelve links of dependent origination.

The fierce figure holding the wheel represents impermanence.

The moon above the wheel represents liberation from cyclic existence.

The Buddha pointing to the moon indicates that liberation is possible.

Note: this layer is not shown on all paintings of the wheel of life.

The second layer of the wheel shows two-half circles:

One half-circle (usually light) shows contented people moving upwards to higher states, possibly to the
higher realms.

The other half-circle (usually dark) shows people in a miserable state being led downwards to lower
states, possibly to the lower realms.

These images represent karma, the law of cause and effect. The light half-circle indicates people
experiencing the results of positive actions. The dark half-circle indicates people experiencing the results
of negative actions.[7]

Ringu Tulku states:

We create karma in three different ways, through actions that are positive, negative, or neutral. When
we feel kindness and love and with this attitude do good things, which are beneficial to both ourselves
and others, this is positive action. When we commit harmful deeds out of equally harmful intentions,
this is negative action. Finally, when our motivation is indifferent and our deeds are neither harmful or
beneficial, this is neutral action. The results we experience will accord with the quality of our actions.[8]

Propelled by their karma, beings take rebirth in the six realms of samsara, as shown in the next layer of
the circle.

This is the lie; you do not regress, but may have past lives as a human.

Aca explicar que es el karma.

What is samsara?
The six realms are six different types of rebirth that beings can enter into, each representing different
types of suffering. Samsara, or cyclic existence, refers to the process of cycling through one rebirth after
another.

Patrul Rinpoche states:

The term samsara, the wheel or round of existence, is used here to mean going round and round from
one place to another in a circle, like a potter's wheel, or the wheel of a water mill. When a fly is trapped
in a closed jar, no matter where it flies, it can not get out. Likewise, whether we are born in the higher or
lower realms, we are never outside samsara. The upper part of the jar is like the higher realms of gods
and men, and the lower part like the three unfortunate realms. It is said that samsara is a circle because
we turn round and round, taking rebirth in one after another of the six realms as a result of our own
actions, which, whether positive or negative, are tainted by clinging.[9]

A brief description of the six realms

Six realms of existence are identified in the Buddhist teachings: gods, demi-gods, humans, animals,
hungry ghosts and hells. These realms can be understood on a psychological level, or as aspects of
Buddhist cosmology.[lower-alpha 1]

These six realms can be divided into three higher realms and three lower realms. The three higher
realms are:

I WILL ANALIZE IT HERE NOT AS FUNCTIONS OF PSYCHOLOGY, BUT AS FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL STATUS.

WHAT IS IMPORTANT HERE IS TO RETELL THE MYTH, AS SIMPLY AS YOU CAN, AND THEN RE-STATE THIS
OLD FASHIONED FABLE WITH A CONCRETE SYSTEM OF SOCIAL HIERARCHY. FOR WHAT IN THE FIVE WAS
MAN AND HIS PSYCHOLOGY, IN THE SIX IS MAN AND HIS SOCIETY.

God realm: the gods lead long and enjoyable lives full of pleasure and abundance, but they spend their
lives pursuing meaningless distractions and never think to practice the dharma. When death comes to
them, they are completely unprepared; without realizing it, they have completely exhausted their good
karma (which was the cause for being reborn in the god realm) and they suffer through being reborn in
the lower realms.

PEOPLE IN THE GOD REALM

Super Rich kid growing up. He exhausts his karma and falls. Rich people in general die bitter.
Demi-god realm: the demi-gods have pleasure and abundance almost as much as the gods, but they
spend their time fighting among themselves or making war on the gods. When they make war on the
gods, they always lose, since the gods are much more powerful. The demi-gods suffer from constant
fighting and jealousy, and from being killed and wounded in their wars with each other and with the
gods.

Almost rich, the people who strive. These people go for money and the ideal of the superrich but it
never happens. If it does happen, it is due to good karma; but still, they have attained nothing. Good
karma brings bliss, but, without a practie of emptiness to sustain it, bliss fades and is replaced by
pleasure attachment. The duality of the pain pleasure axis is well understood (MENTION IT BEFORE). But
here are the six functions of society.

Human realm: humans suffer from hunger, thirst, heat, cold, separation from friends, being attacked by
enemies, not getting what they want, and getting what they don't want. They also suffer from the
general sufferings of birth, old age, sickness and death. Yet the human realm is considered to be the
most suitable realm for practicing the dharma, because humans are not completely distracted by
pleasure (like the gods or demi-gods) or by pain and suffering (like the beings in the lower realms).

Normal people. It was a mystery of the ancients that they said that this was the best vehicle to practice
the dharma (for they gave that other vehicles could do so too), for what they meant was that the
practitioner must go unseen. This normal realm, not as an economic or social function, but as the
principle of a state the beings live in live by, could be called by the name distraction.

The three lower realms are:

Animal realm: animals operate on the instinctual level. They are not capable of rational thought or logic;
therefore they are unable to reflect on their situation or practice the dharma. Many wild animals suffer
from being attacked and eaten by other animals. Many domestic animals suffer from being used as
beasts of burden, from being slaughtered for food, and so on.

Animal state. Babies. Stupid people. These people cannot survive by themselves. They depend on their
good karma.

Hungry ghost realm: hungry ghosts suffer from extreme hunger and thirst. They wander constantly in
search of food and drink, only to be miserably frustrated any time they come close to actually getting
what they want. For example, they see a stream of pure, clear water in the distance, but by the time
they get there the stream has dried up. Hungry ghosts have huge bellies and long, thin necks. On the
rare occasions that they do manage to find something to eat or drink, the food or water burns their neck
as it goes down to their belly, causing them intense agony.
Hell realm: hell beings endure unimaginable suffering for eons of time. There are actually eighteen
different types of hells, each inflicting a different kind of torment. In the hot hells, beings suffer from
unbearable heat and continual torments of various kinds. In the cold hells, beings suffer from
unbearable cold and other torments.[11][12][13][14][15][16]

Generally speaking, each realm is said to be the result of one of the six main negative emotions: pride,
jealousy, desire, ignorance, greed, and anger. Dzongsar Khyentse states:

So we have six realms. Loosely, you can say when the perception comes more from aggression, you
experience things in a hellish way. When your perception is filtered through attachment, grasping or
miserliness, you experience the hungry ghost realm. When your perception is filtered through
ignorance, then you experience the animal realm. When you have a lot of pride, you are reborn in the
god realm. When you have jealousy, you are reborn in the asura (demi-god) realm. When you have a lot
of passion, you are reborn in the human realm.[14]

Among the six realms, the human realm is considered to offer the best opportunity to practice the
dharma. Dzongsar Khyentse states:

If we need to judge the value of these six realms, the Buddhists would say the best realm is the human
realm. Why is this the best realm? Because you have a choice ... The gods don't have a choice. Why?
They're too happy. When you are too happy you have no choice. You become arrogant. The hell realm:
no choice, too painful. The human realm: not too happy and also not too painful. When you are not so
happy and not in so much pain, what does that mean? A step closer to the normality of mind,
remember? When you are really, really excited and in ecstasy, there is no normality of mind. And when
you are totally in pain, you don't experience normality of mind either. So someone in the human realm
has the best chance of acquiring that normality of mind. And this is why in Buddhist prayers you will
always read: ideally may we get out of this place, but if we can't do it within this life, may we be reborn
in the human realm, not the others.[14]

Sometimes, the wheel is represented as only having five realms because the God realm and the Demi-
god realm are combined into a single realm.

In some representations of the wheel, there is a buddha or bodhisattva depicted within each realm,
trying to help sentient beings find their way to nirvana.
The figure holding the wheel: impermanence

The wheel is being held by a fearsome figure who represents impermanence. The Dalai Lama states:

The fierce being holding the wheel symbolizes impermanence, which is why the being is a wrathful
monster, though there is no need for it to be drawn with ornaments and so forth ... Once I had such a
painting drawn with a skeleton rather than a monster, in order to symbolize impermanence more
clearly.[23]

This figure is most commonly depicted as Yama, the lord of death. Regardless of the figure depicted, the
inner meaning remains the same–that the entire process of cyclic existence (samsara) is transient;
everything within this wheel is constantly changing.[24]

Yama has the following attributes:

He wears of crown of five skulls that symbolize the impermanence of the five aggregates.[25] (The skulls
are also said to symbolize the five poisons.)

He has a third eye that symbolizes the wisdom of understanding impermanence.[25]

He is sometimes shown adorned with a tiger skin, which symbolizes fearfulness.[25] (The tiger skin is
typically seen hanging beneath the wheel.)

His four limbs (that are clutching the wheel) symbolize the sufferings of birth, old age, sickness, and
death.[26]

The moon: liberation

Above the wheel is an image of the moon; the moon represents liberation from the sufferings of
samsara.[18][27][28]

Thubten Chodron states:

The moon is nirvana [i.e. liberation]. Nirvana is the cessation of all the unsatisfactory experiences and
their causes in such a way that they can no longer occur again. It's the removal, the final absence, the
cessation of those things, their non-arising. The Buddha is pointing us to that.[28]

Chögyam Trungpa states:

The truth of cessation is a personal discovery. It is not mystical and does not have any connotations of
religion or psychology. It is simply your experience ... Likewise, cessation is not just a theoretical
discovery, but an experience that is very real to you–a sudden gain. It is like experiencing instantaneous
good health: you have no cold, no flu, no aches, and no pains in your body. You feel perfectly well,
absolutely refreshed and wakeful! Such an experience is possible.[29]

Some drawings may show an image of a "pure land" to indicate liberation, rather than a moon.

The Buddha pointing to the moon: the path to liberation

The upper part of the drawing also shows an image of the Buddha pointing toward the moon; this
represents the path to liberation.[18][27][28]

Thubten Chodron states:

So the Buddha's gesture is like the path to enlightenment. It's not that the Buddha is the cause of
nirvana. The Buddha is a cooperative condition of our nirvana. He indicates the path to us, he points out
to us what to practice and what to abandon in order to be liberated. When we follow the path, we get
the result, which is nirvana.[28]

Chögyam Trungpa states:

The nature of the path is more like an exploration or an expedition than following a path that has
already been built. When people hear that they should follow the path, they might think that a ready-
make system exists, and that individual expressions are not required. They may think that one does not
have to surrender or give or open. But when you actually begin to tread on the path, you realize that
you have to clear out the jungle and all the trees, underbrush, and obstacles growing in front of you. You
have to bypass tigers and elephants and poisonous snakes.[30]

Mark Epstein states:

The entire Wheel of Life is but a representation of the possibility of transforming suffering by changing
the way we relate to it. As the Buddha taught in his final exhortation to his faithful attendant Ananda, it
is only through becoming a "lamp unto yourself" that enlightenment can be won. Liberation from the
Wheel of Life does not mean escape, the Buddha implied. It means clear perception of oneself, of the
entire range of the human experience ...[31]

According to the Buddhist tradition, the Buddha told his followers:

I have shown you the path that leads to liberation

But you should know that liberation depends upon yourself.

Inscription

Drawings of the wheel of life usually contain an inscription consisting of a few lines of text that explain
the process that keeps us in samara and how to reverse that process.[18]

Psychological interpretation

From a psychological point of view, different karmic actions contribute to one's metaphorical existence
in different realms, or rather, different actions reinforce personal characteristics described by the
realms.

Mark Epstein states:

The core question of Buddhist practice, after all, is the psychological one of "Who am I?" Investigating
this question requires exploration of the entire wheel. Each realm becomes not so much a specific place
but rather a metaphor for a different psychological state, with the entire wheel becoming a
representation of neurotic suffering.

WE MUST ALSO SEE THE SIX REALMS AS METAPHORS OF A STATE:

Whether it is the continumm of life, that is, bacteria, to man.

The states of being; that is, demon state; ghost state; animal state; man state; demi god state; god state.

But what we must understand from the wheel of karma is that the evolution of all beings happens in
every being. Karma are our choices. There are a myriad of things operating our circumstances, and all of
them want to be liberated; our past lives, the lives of our direct ancestors, the life of the animals we
were, the life of life; and yet, only these we must liberate, for we ourselves have no fce, no karma,
beyond these.

Karma is the aggregate of our circumstances. How is one to have no karma? One must not be
circumstantial; your being must have its abode beyond this world. Such is why renounciation is the only
way, for renounciation is to karma what wisdom is to ignorance.

Therefore, how many states of being are there?

We can be demons, which must be killed;

We can be ghosts, which must be forgiven;

We can be animals, which must be protected;

We can be men, which must be taught;

We can be asuras, which must be respected;

We can be devas, which must be let free.

The idea is that gods also suffer. How are we to abandon the cycle of samsara?

Heavenly Realm – PLANTS (cosmic gods, they are stars. That is why we also plant a tree)
In the heavens (there are many) beings are is rewarded for past good deeds. Life in heaven is a
continual round or pleasure and enjoyment, with no suffering, anxiety, or unfulfilled desires until the
moment one is about to be reborn in another realm. And this is one of the problems—life in heaven is
extremely long (e.g., 30,000 years), but is ultimately impermanent, and one must inevitably leave to
take birth in another realm. To be born in heaven, one also needs to “spend” an enormous amount of
religious merit, and life there is so carefree that people have no inclination toward religious life. For
these reasons, religious authorities have discouraged seeking birth in heaven. (plants are “enlightened”)

Asura Realm - MUSHROOMS

Indian cosmology admits many different kinds of superhuman beings. Whereas the devas (“gods”) dwell
in the heavenly realms and are basically benevolent, the asuras (“not-gods”) are opposed to the devas
and locked into continual struggle with them. Asuras are powerful but often amoral beings, since they
are primarily driven by envy and greed for power; these same qualities can bring them into conflict with
human beings. All of these qualities make birth in this realm undesirable.

Human Realm - HUMAN

The human realm is the only one in which one’s choices (good or bad) affect one’s future—in all the
others, one is either being rewarded or punished for one’s actions as a human being. One’s present
human condition (e.g., wealth, social status, and physical and psychological qualities) is based on one’s
past karma, but one’s present choices also determine one’s future (in this life, or a future life). As
conscious moral agents, human beings have agency that the beings in other realms do not; this clearly
underscores the importance of moral action and spiritual development.

Animal Realm - ANIMAL

Animal birth is seen as the result of past sins, and one expiates these sins through suffering in animal
form (being hunted, worked, driven, slaughtered, etc.), often for thousands of consecutive births (as a
dog, pig, dung beetle, etc.). Animal behavior is also run by instinct, which means that animals cannot
generate good karma, they are simply working off the bad. This suffering and lack of control make birth
as an animal undesirable. The conviction that animals are sentient beings also underlies the prohibition
on intentionally killing anything, which goes back to the Buddha’s earliest teaching (the Buddha was also
vocally opposed to the animal sacrifice prevalent in his time).

Ghost (Preta) Realm - INSECTS

As with the hells, beings in the preta realm expiate their past misdeeds through suffering. Pretas are
described as tormented by hunger and thirst (illustrated by showing them with tiny thin necks, through
which they can never eat or drink enough to satisfy themselves; this is described as the result of greed
and stinginess in previous lives. Other torments are psychological, since pretas remain in the places
where they used to live, but cannot be seen by the living (which brings feelings of frustration, isolation,
and despair).

Hell Realm - BACTERIA

In a hell (there are many), one is punished for one’s evil actions. Buddhist visions of hell (as Hindu
visions of hell) often link particular punishments to particular sins, doubtless to warn the hearers. One
expiates one’s evil deeds through suffering--hunger and thirst, dismemberment, torture, psychological
distress, and so on. Such suffering can last enormously long (60,000 years) but is ultimately
impermanent, and when one’s term is up, one is reborn in a presumably higher state.

In this teaching we are concerned only with the bhavacakra, that is, the wheel of existence, or the cycle
of being, that has six realms. There are doctrines in which there are more realms, but these should be
analyzed numerologically. In fact, the teachings that beyond the Kamarupa, that is, the world of desire
shown by the Wheel of Samsara, consider also the Arupa Brahma Reals, the immaterial sphere planes as
the Ancients taught, are a proof that the numerological mode of assertion of each number as a rule of
nature is rooted in the Ancients, for such realms describes actually the fourfold pattern of
transcendence that we came to discuss as the pyramid.

The Ancients call it the Infinite Space Plane, which is Om, or the union of nothingness and oneness; the
infinite consciousness plane, which is Ah, or absolute oneness; and the Nothingness plane, which is
Hung, or the absolute nothingness; and the perfect transcendence of these three views as one which is
Turiya, the Forth, which is called ‘neither perception nor non-perception plane’, which is, of course, the
ontological function of Fire.

O Seeker, this is just a commentary on the Ancients! But I present it in a ne light, which, ultimately, is its
own, for new is what the light is always, seeing that it can have no time. The ancients kept their
numerological teaching safe from the eyes of the unworthy, not like me, explaining all to you! And yet,
you must understand by yourself.my purpose is not for you to believe in the wheel of samsara, but to
identify in your nature that the six realms of existence feed off each other and only by establishing your
existence beyond existence could you come to exist at all, which is what you ever were, only is it not you
who exists.

So also the teaching of the Wheel of Samsara is Numerological, but what we must describe is the sixfold
function of continuity that is both rotational as the four and static as the three, for this is the truth of
karma; in every state, you know what will happen next.
This is a rule of karma which by knowing the state of the person we know what will happen to him. That
is, he will manifest his own unacknowledged desires as confrontations of destiny. When we say that you
can make your own destiny, you must first conceive of no destiny at all; then, and only then, shall you be
free of destiny and become fate. Determination is lost by non-distinction, which in turn favours self-
determination without obstacles. The teaching of samsara must lead us to renounciation.

We all covet people in other states. Now I will explain all states truly, as functions of men in society, that
you may come to envy none. Verily, the Anients that succeded to reach the Pyrami upon their
breadcrumb path of solitude and despair where beggars or princes with no distinction. The truth of
liberation has nothing to do with where you live, but what measure of a giant have you chosen to battle
in this your life. If death is the answer, only by calling out its name shall you reach the pyramid; choosing
anything else than death is desire. And yet, what we must learn is how to make choosing death a
healthy habit. This is meditation, which we can extend even to the survivalist functions of this organism
without any function of survivalism processing. This renounciant state is the state of the wise.
Therefore, the wheel of samsara, in acknowledging it, must teach us to stop it, for it is we that are Yama,
the Lord of death. Who else, if not, breathes every breath?

Therefore, in understanding the truth of samsara and the cilic nature of karma we will understand also
how to escape it.

Herakleitos; to men in death will happen things they can’t believe in.

Remember much of chapter 6 deals with karma

In chapter 6 not only explain karma, but also give a full theory of the transformations of consciousness
through them. Therefore, from the sex impulse and karma speak also of death.

He has not lived in vain who learns to be unruffled by loss, by gain, by, joy, by pain.

Those who are good I treat as good. Those who are bad I treat as good. That’s the perfection of
goodness. Those who are honest I treat as honest. Those who are dishonest I treat as honest. That’s the
perfection of honesty

On Karma

Some people say that it is god to forgive but ours to avenge. It is the opposite. It is for god to inflict
vengeance, and for us, only to forgive. Why? Because there is no vengeance possible, for all is karma.

If we act on vengeance, we only allow that karma to multiply.

If god uses you to inflict revenge that is one thing, but nobody can claim it.

Jesus’s indictement was only for the supreme; the sikh’s is social. The whole country can be sikh, and its
laws are for a country; but no country can be really Christian, for Christianity is rebellious and
martyrdom.

in fact, the gods, these archetypes of emotion, inhabit us. That is why we get angry; Mars is possessing
us. That is the root of inspiration; we are filled with the god of wrath. So it is in fact the gods that inhabit
us and wish to live their karmic story at our disgrace.

The supreme unity cannot be considered of the gods. And it cannot also be considered to one god, for
naming creates the spectrum. The unnamable state is godless. When you can take our from yourself the
karmic impulses of the gods you will know what is true freedom. This, the fearful people call ‘divine
men’, and we play along that their dream may not become nightmare; but that state, the perfectly free
state, is not a divine state, but the stature of real man. We kept the god dialectic for what was worth,
but later fanatics came to ruin it.

Death is forbidden unto thee, O man

If you figure a long peace before reincarnation, I swear to you that you are mistaken. Between the last
moment of consciousness and the first glow of a new life there is “no time” – that period lasts what a
lightning does, and not even a billion years could measure it. If the Ego is lacking, infinity is analogous to
immediate succession

Immortal the moment in which I begat the eternal return.”

Una infinita duración ha precedido a mi nacimiento, ¿qué fui yo mientras tanto? Metafísicamente podría
quizás contestarme: ‘Yo siempre he sido yo; es decir, cuantos dijeron yo durante ese tiempo, no eran
otros que yo’

Quien me oiga asegurar que el gato gris que ahora juega en el patio, es aquel mismo que brincaba y que
traveseaba hace quinientos años, pensará de mí lo que quiera – pero locura más extraña es imaginar
que fundamentalmente es otro

This is the purpose of all heroes, all priests and messiahs; to redeem the universe.

There awaits men when they die such things as they look not for nor dream of.

The unseen harmony is better than the visible.

Don’t allow your inward being to be hurt by what you have or have not. Be glad, because every perfect
thing is on its way to nonexistence.
ON SEXUALITY

The Death programs built into our genetic and hence behavioral and emotional structure are the price
we pay for the capacity for sexual reproduction which alone allows for evolutionary change

All this begs the question of why it is that people have such an appetite for wanting to be told what to
do with their sexuality. Why do people have to seek esoteric and metaphysical justification for what
they want to do? Why is it so easy to make a living selling water by the river? The answer, it appears, is
that human sexuality has some built in dissatisfaction function of evolutionary origin. Our sexual
behaviour is partly controlled by genetics. Those genes most likely to survive and prosper are those that
in the female encourage the permanent capture of the most powerful male available and occasional
liaisons (clandestine) with any more powerful male that may be temporarily available. Whereas in the
male, the genes most likely to prosper are those encouraging the impregnation of as large a number of
females as he can support, plus perhaps a few on the sly that other men are supporting. It is interesting
to note that only in the human female is oestrous concealed. In all other mammals the fertile time is
made abundantly obvious. This appears to have evolved to allow, paradoxically both adultery and
increased pair bonding through sex at times when it is reproductively useless.

ON SEX AND HORMONES

There is a two way interaction between dominance behaviour and hormone levels. If the levels change
for medical reasons then the behaviour tends to change, but more importantly, from a magical point of
view, a deliberate change of behaviour will modify hormone levels. Fake it till you make it. There is
nothing particularly occult in this.

Self regulating mechanism

(OJO QUE ESTAS 4 HOJAS VAN AL CAPITULO 5)

Of self regulation and the machine – understand the spiritual instinct as the drive towards evolution.

“It is truly a creative universe in that the future is not pre-ordained but spontaneously and freely made
by every being, from elementary particles to galaxies, from microbes to the giant redwood trees, all
mutually entangled in a universal wave-function that never collapses, but like a constantly changing
cosmic consciousness, maintains and informs the universal whole” Mae-Wan Ho

All that those many phrases refer to is self-regulation. Every healthy living organism regulates its own
activity on a homeostatic basis without reference to arbitrary man-made laws or codes. It rules itself,
regulates itself, and does its own will. Every man and woman is thus autonomous. As soon as
compulsory moral codes are adopted, and thrust on the natural growth and development of young
children, autonomy goes out of the window. Instead, one perceives a conflict-ridden human being,
subservient, diseased, and neurotic. All modem systems of psychotherapy are predicated on this one
basis, that every human being has his own integrity, his own essential individuality, and that he must
regulate his own behavior in order to remain healthy. Even that most passive of all current
psychotherapeutic systems, non-directive counseUing, is predicated on the basis of not attempting to
interfere with the essential uniqueness of the counsellee by giving advice, counsel, or direction to his
behavior. It seeks only to reflect the counsellee’s behavior, verbally as well as physically and socially, so
that he may perceive that he is not functioning in terms of his own inviolable integrity. ‘‘Do what thou
wilt” has no meaning other than this. It is entirely too bad that Crowley’s own playfulness and energetic
exuberance so darkened his reputation that practically no one took time out to try to grasp what he was
talking about. It really was crystal clear all the time, and has been enunciated in other ways and in other
terms by many people from time to time. The physical organism functions on this basis. Homeostasis is
the law which regulates its activities. No act of Congress or Parliament or any municipal government can
enhance the manner in which it goes about its various functions. It has its own inherent laws by means
of which it functions. Psychologically, the same is true. Man has always had thrust on him moral codes
which seek to tell him how he should behave under this and that or the other circumstance, instead of
helping the living person to function spontaneously. By so doing, one falls back instinctively on a non-
verbal and non-rational code which has enabled the organism-as-a-whole to survive over millions of
years and evolve into its present state. No arbitrary moral code was responsible for this. Survival is the
integral property of the living person. Reich was another advocate of the notion of the self-regulatory
function of the human being. He claimed that if the infant were not basically interfered with biologically
by having neurotic parental standards forcibly imposed on it, it would be able to be wholly self-
determining throughout its entire lifetime. When first introduced to this idea, most people stand aghast
at it—as if any individual would “go completely to hell” if permitted to express itself freely on an animal
or biological level. But, isn’t our tinkering with their habits not also one of our own? Without a
foraneous agent to introduce unnaturalness, even our impulses to control are natural. What, ever, is the
problem then?

There was no imposition of authoritarian dictates-no matter how sound or reliable. The infant was
permitted to select on a spontaneous natural basis-and it prospered. This fact has long been known
about animals and their biological needs. It was always questioned, however, with regard to human
beings. But this question only indicates how thoroughly it has been suspected that environmental
pressures of a neurotic culture invalidate the natural capacity for self-regulation of any and all biological
functions. What has been discovered with regard to food, might be equally true in most other areas. If
biological urges are permitted to operate without interference from compulsive moralities, they tend to
regulate themselves in a totally realistic manner. Morality, as such, is not required. It is the result of
repression, which forces secondary and pathological or substitutive drives into overt expression. These
latter, once developed, require regulation, discipline, and perhaps compulsive suppression. The
biological core of all living things has functioned for aeons solely in terms of expression, necessity and
adjustment-survival being its keynote. Morality, compulsive imposition of norms, and social inhibition
are creating pathological people whose resulting sado-masochistic needs, if unchecked, may drive
mankind into total extinction. This is the major implication of Crowley’s “Do what thou wilt shall be the
whole of the Law.” It means self-regulation and autonomy on all levels. “Do that, and no other shall say
nay.” “Also, take your fill and will of love as ye will, when, where and with whom ye will! But always
unto me.”

AGAINST REPRESSION

Be careful, lest in casting out your demon you exorcise the best thing in you! What you must train is how
to channel the energy; never to decrease it!

EVOLUTION AND SEX – TO FEEL THE RACE AS ORGASM OF MIND

The soul seeks to enact the fulfilment of evolution in the process of perfection; that is perfection.

The soul and the future life are one and the same

this is why it is the mystery of time

the lord of fire

Our ultimate evolutionary state is god-like; so that to attain this state in one lifetime is to evolve until
the end of history.

The third aim of nature connected with sex, that is the evolution of man towards superman, divers from
the first two aims in that it requires conscious actions on the part of the man himself, and a definite
orientation of his whole life, an idea of which is given by the systems of Yoga. Almost all the occult
teachings which recognise the possibility of the " evolution " or transformation of man see the basis of
this possible transformation in the transmutation, that is, in the conversion of certain matters or
energies into quite different matters or energies, in this case in the transformation of sex energy into
energy of a higher order. This is the inner meaning, sometimes deeply hidden, sometimes almost
obvious, of many occult teachings, of theories of alchemy, of various forms of mysticism, of Yoga
systems, and the like. In all teachings that admit the possibility of the change and inner growth of an
individual man, that is, evolution not in a biological or anthropological sense, but as applying to the
individual, this evolution is always based on the transmutation of sex energy. The utilisation of this
energy, which is wasted unproductively in ordinary life, creates in a man's soul the force which leads him
to the superhuman. There is no other force in man which could replace sex energy. All other energies,
intellect, will, feeling, feed on the surplus of sex energy, grow out of it and live by it. The mystical birth of
man, of which many systems speak, is based on transmutation, that is, on the transmutation of sex
energy

this is kundalini yoga

though it is a misconception to call it sex energy

it is just energy, and channelized through the first sphere, as most men only reach, expressses as sex
energy

but it is the same source as will energy, poetic energy, love, mind, imagination, spiritual power

this is the order of the transformation of the energy

… understanding appears only when a man feels and senses what is connected with it. "We have spoken
earlier about mechanicalness. A man cannot say that he understands the idea of mechanicalness if he
only knows about it with his mind. He must feel it with his whole mass, with his whole being; then he
will understand it. "In the sphere of practical activity people know very well the difference between
mere knowledge and understanding. True understanding can have no obeject; ony belief regarding the
components of an object then is what we call knowledge.

They realize that to know and to know how to do are two different things, and that knowing how to do
is not created by knowledge alone. But outside the sphere of practical activity people do not clearly
understand what 'understanding' means. "As a rule, when people realize that they do not understand a
thing they try to find a name for what they do not 'understand,' and when they find a name they say
they 'understand.' But to 'find a name' does not mean to 'understand.' Unfortunately, people are usually
satisfied with names. A man who knows a great many names, that is, a great many words, is deemed to
understand a great deal—again excepting, of course, any sphere of practical activity wherein his
ignorance very soon becomes evident.

One of the reasons for the divergence between the line of knowledge and the line of being in life, and
the lack of understanding which is partly the cause and partly the effect of this divergence, is to be
found in the language which people speak. This language is full of wrong concepts, wrong classifications,
wrong associations. And the chief thing is that, owing to the essential characteristics of ordinary
thinking, that is to say, to its vagueness and inaccuracy, every word can have thousands of different
meanings according to the material the speaker has at his disposal and the complex of associations at
work in him at the moment. People do not clearly realize to what a degree their language is subjective,
that is, what different things each of them says while using the same words. They are not aware that
each one of them speaks in a lan guage of his own, understanding other people's language either
vaguely or not at all, and having no idea that each one of them speaks in a language unknown to him.
People have a very firm conviction, or belief, that they speak the same language, that they understand
one another

However, how are to escape from the apparent mechanisms of self-regulation? As long as self regulation
is seen as a function of the organism, no self regulation can occur and the organism lapses into naught.
This is, if we are a machine. A machine is incapable of self regulation, because self regulation must not
be mechanical. That is, if self-regulation is a tenet of evolution, then it must trancend the being to be
evolved. That is, it must not be machine. Whatever can evolve in us, cannot be out thought, but our
experience.

Say that we do not exist, because we are machines. The path should be desperately vital to you, more
than eating, more than drinking, more even than drawing breath – because until you attain, you do not
exist!

I asked G. what a man had to do to assimilate this teaching. "What to do?" asked G. as though surprised.
"It is impossible to do anything. A man must first of all understand certain things. He has thousands of
false ideas and false conceptions, chiefly about himself, and he must get rid of some of them before
beginning to acquire anything new. Otherwise the new will be built on a wrong foundation and the
result will be worse than before." "How can one get rid of false ideas?" I asked. "We depend on the
forms of our perception. False ideas are produced by the forms of our perception

G. shook his head. "Again you speak of something different,"' he said. "You speak of errors arising from
perceptions but I am not speaking of these. Within the limits of given perceptions man can err more or
err less. As I have said before, man's chief delusion is his conviction that he can do. All people think that
they can do, all people want to do, and the first question all people ask is what they are to do. But
actually nobody does anything and nobody can do anything. This is the first thing that must be
understood. Everything happens. All that befalls a man, all that is done by him, all that comes from him
—all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as rain falls as a result of a change in the
temperature in the higher regions of the atmosphere or the surrounding clouds, as snow melts under
the rays of the sun, as dust rises with the wind. "Man is a machine. All his deeds, actions, words,
thoughts, feelings, convictions, opinions, and habits are the results of external influences, external
impressions. Out of himself a man cannot produce a single thought, a single action. Everything he says,
does, thinks, feels—all this happens. Man cannot discover anything, invent anything. It all happens. "To
establish this fact for oneself, to understand it, to be convinced of its truth, means getting rid of a
thousand illusions about man, about his being creative and consciously organizing his own life, and so
on. There is nothing of this kind. Everything happens—popular movements, wars, revolutions, changes
of government, all this happens. And it happens in exactly the same way as everything happens in the
life of individual man. Man is born, lives, dies, builds houses, writes books, not as he wants to, but as it
happens. Everything happens. Man does not love, hate, desire—all this happens. "But no one will ever
believe you if you tell him he can do nothing. This is the most offensive and the most unpleasant thing
you can tell people. It is particularly unpleasant and offensive because it is the truth, and nobody wants
to know the truth. "When you understand this it will be easier for us to talk. But it is one thing to
understand with the mind and another thing to feel it with one's "whole mass,' to be really convinced
that it is so and never forget it. Thus the path, although we speak of seven spheres, is not an illusion of
attainment, but a way to feel this truth whith our whole existence.

"Try to understand what I am saying: everything is dependent on everything else, everything is

connected, nothing is separate. Therefore everything is going in the only way it can go. If people were
different everything would be different. They are what they are, so everything is as it is."

This was very difficult to swallow. "Is there nothing, absolutely nothing, that can be done?" I asked.
"Absolutely nothing."

And can nobody do anything?" "That is another question. In order to do it is necessary to be.

People are turning into machines," I said. "And no doubt sometimes they become perfect machines. But
I do not believe they can think. If they tried to think, they could not have been such fine machines."

Can one stop being a machine?" I asked. "Ah! That is the question," said G. "If you had asked such
questions more often we might, perhaps, have got somewhere in our talks. It is possible to stop being a
machine, but for that it is necessary first of all to know the machine. A machine, a real machine, does
not know itself and cannot know itself. When a machine knows itself it is then no longer a machine, at
least, not such a machine as it was before.

"You do not realize your own situation. You are in prison. All you can wish for, if you are a sensible man,
is to escape. But how escape? It is necessary to tunnel under a wall. One man can do nothing. But let us
suppose there are ten or twenty men—if they work in turn and if one covers another they can complete
the tunnel and escape. "Furthermore, no one can escape from prison without the help of those who
have escaped before. Only they can say in what way escape is possible or can send tools, files, or
whatever may be necessary. But one prisoner alone cannot find these people or get into touch with
them. An organization is necessary. Nothing can be achieved without an organization." G. often returned
afterwards to this example of "prison" and "escape from prison" in his talks. Sometimes he began with
it, and then his favorite statement was that, if a man in prison was at any time to have a chance of
escape, then he must first of all realize that he is in prison. So long as he fails to realize this, so long as he
thinks he is free, he has no chance whatever. No one can help or liberate him by force, against his will, in
opposition to his wishes. If liberation is possible, it is possible only as a result of great labor and great
efforts, and, above all, of conscious efforts, towards a definite aim.

As Yogananda describes Kriya Yoga, "The Kriya Yogi mentally directs his life energy to revolve, upward
and downward, around the six spinal centers (medullary, cervical, dorsal, lumbar, sacral, and coccygeal
plexuses) which correspond to the twelve astral signs of the zodiac, the symbolic Cosmic Man. One half-
minute of revolution of energy around the sensitive spinal cord of man effects subtle progress in his
evolution; that half-minute of Kriya equals one year of natural spiritual unfoldment.

Karma

En que momentos hablas de karma? Tenes que explicar la rueda de samsara de las seis dimensiones
como la estrella judia y el peso del tiempo.

Tambien es la cross-section del rayo.

Te cargaré de cadenas pies y manos y te entregaré a un carcelero cruel. –Un Dios, si quiero, me liberará.
–La muerte, término de todas las cosas, pienso que ha de ser ese Dios. Horacio, Epístolas, I, 16, 76

Pero realmente nos esta vedado morir. El karma es samsara.

La muerte es nirvana.

Los karmas son localizados.

Encuentran un vehiculo para ser liberados.

Por definicion los karmas de los humanos son muy viejos. Los karmas de algunos humanos son
ancestrales. Estos son los hombres mas peligrosos para si mismos, pero tambien los unicos que peuden
ser salvados.

La diferencia entre el paganismo y el cristianismo es que antes la sangre manaba hacia el dios, y ahora
mana desde dios.
Evolving sexuality

Against repression

La ultima meta a la que aspira la sabiduría no es la contemplación de la naturaleza, sino más bien su
dominio: el poder. La sentencia es tajante “tanto podemos cuanto sabemos: ‘tantun possumus quatum
scimus’. De lo que se trata es de conquistar la naturaleza, y a la naturaleza sólo se la conquista con el
conocimiento, esto es, obedeciéndola: ‘natura enim non nisi parendo vincitur’.

Francis Bacon

Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts n existence in the
world; and even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I
saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought – I would
nonetheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and it does not trouble me.

Stirner

La verdad, cuando es la verdad de lo pequeño, casi es toda verdad, y cuando es la verdad de lo grande,
casi es toda duda.

(Antonio Porchia – Voces)

Cuando haya dejado de existir, no habré existido nunca.

(Antonio Porchia – Voces)

Picasso said, “it takes a very long time to grow young”

Rose of the World! If so, then what a world! What worm at its red heart lay curled From the beginning?

All is verily the absolute Self. Distinction and nondistinction do not exist. How can I say, "It exists; it does
not exist"? I am filled with wonder!

Ajna chakra is the point of confluence where the three main nadis or forces - ida, pingala and sushumna
merge into one stream of consciousness and flow up to sahasrara, the crown center

es una doble espiral hasta el final que se convierte en el pilar de la continuidad

All the minds use the same energy. It cannot be defined, but since we must begin from the start, we
must take all energy to be non-dual.

We are speaking about the energy of awareness; how can we increase it? Awareness cannot fight
against anything, for if it knows unconcsiousness, it becomes consciousness. The only once who can
concieve of the truth is ignorance. The limit between unconsciousness and consciousness cannot be
found. Awareness has no enemy, but can grow; understand then why we speak of evolution.

The Ancients considered the energy to be sexual and its depiction as a Snake.

Why did they take it to be sexual? They don’t. they just affirm that there is one energy, and that, since
you are most aware of your energy as sex, but you do not know where it comes from, you consider that
there are different energies in you, of which one of the most important is sex; but not the only
important one, such as, they say, love, or work, or whatever.

This is not the case at all. There is just one energy, and the “sexual” is a stage of manifestation; but this
energy can evolve and manifest in other realms that, though being the same sexual energy, its
manifestation has changed. Sexual energy is the main one that we identify; but we do not think that our
depressions come from sex, or our violence. And yet it does, because there can be only one energy; the
various sickening manifestations are those of one same energy that has not learnt to apply itself.
Violence is energy, as is depression. One needs to channel it.

Let us then understand that the Snake is of one Energy, whose first form is Growth (every function of
the body), and the second is Sex. Let us call this energy “Spiritual energy”, so that the sexual impulse is
one of its realms of manifestation.

The energy cannot change; what changes is the dimension of its activity, and the fruits thereof.
Everything is this Energy. There is only one energy, and it is empty of itself!

I am the Secret Serpent coiled about to spring! This energy we call the Snake.

But it shall also be seen that, as sex is a manifestation of its activity in a lower dimension, the Snake is a
description of the Being of Continuity in a lower dimension. The Snake transforms itself until it becomes
a Dragon, but of such Myteries of Magick we are yet to discourse on. Nothing of such sort can have any
meaning for machines; it can only have meaning for snakes.

Energy is the function that transcendends causality.

What is action and what is inaction? It is a question which has bewildered the wise.
I have been born again and again, from time to time; thou too, O Seeker! My births are known to Me,
but thou knowest not thine; verily they have no beginning.

He who can see inaction in action, and action in inaction, is the wisest among men.

Non-action must be for us as unachievable as absolute silence, for we keep listening to ourselves. What
we shall prove is that recursiveness of thought to appear is a condition of its functioning, and not of the
human body. Once we feel the human body as a thought, thought disappears because there is no
believer. Even when thought, inevitably, returns to the mind, it is no longer believed as such, which
diminishes its appearance enormously.

As is and is-not create each other, The hard and easy define each other, The long and short delimit each
other, The high and low depend on each other, Voice and music harmonise with each other, Last and
next follow each other. So the wise adhere to action through non-action, And communicate the teaching
without words.

But thou hast only the right to work, but none to the fruit thereof. Let not then the fruit of thy action be
thy motive; nor yet be thou enamored of inaction.

In this world people are fettered by action, unless it is performed as a sacrifice. Therefore, O Arjuna, let
thy acts be done without attachment, as sacrifice only.

This fluctuations of the mind we call the psychophysical function; the underlying substrate of causality,
the energy that produces them.

However, once we understand that no such division could be possible, or meaningful, for not only there
are independent computations of such functioning that entangle themselves, thus receeding into
infinity, but that there is no underlying substrate of phenomena.

In that sense, awareness is the energy, and the only thing that can exist.

Awareness cannot be confronted because it has no opposite, not even itself; how is it, then, that
awareness can grow? This appears ot be a contradiction. To resolve this entanglement we must
understand the theory of evolution.

If the world is me there can be no enlightenment. The sun cannot shine on itself.

Once we understand that awareness is the energy and that it can have no opposite, it is like the
evolution of an organism, in which the same thing evolves. It is not growing into anything, or pushing
back the realities of ungrowth, but it grows from itself, into itself. This is the meaning of perfection.

This, our instict for evolution, has to be recongized in us as an equivalent of the sexual drive. How can
we concieve this? Death is sex; sex is death. The energy is the same. The energy of evolution needs
death, but it also needs sex to perpetuate the species. This evolution is racial, but I tell you a Mystery!
All of us contain in ourselves the capacity of perfect evolution of the race in this organism. Let us, then,
transcend the analogy of race and look into what the evolution of mankind could have in similarity with
our sex drive.

We call this the Energy. The evolution of the race heads into the same direction; so does our Energy.

This energy is the only thing in ourselves that transcends the machine. Once the machine is seen to non-
exist, everything becomes energy; but its growth, or diminishing, is possible. How can something that is
of itself grow or diminish without a relative term of that which it is growing or diminishing on?

The Energy is the only thing that can transcend Ego. It is the vital spark of life force within us.

The Energy can have no form, and no opposites, but it can fluctuate. Since this Energy is the energy of
awareness there is almost nothing we can say of it except that it is the void center of consciousness, and
it "is" what it touches. It does not have any qualities like goodness, compassion, or spirituality, nor their
opposites. It does, however, give a feeling of meaning or consciousness when we experience or will
anything, and it becomes more apparent to us when we experience something powerfully. Laughter in
ecstasy gives us a glimpse of it.

The center of consciousness is formless and without qualities of which mind can form images. There is
no-one at home. Kia is anonymous.

This energy, at different levels is known by different names; for now, let us contrieve that its first
function is evolutionary, its second function is sexual, and that its last one is spiritual. The ones in the
middle we are yet to see.

Some propose that the first level of Energy is that of Ignorance. Ignorance, however, cannot evolve, and
can only exist as unconsciousness. Since this energy is awareness, it could never become unconscious,
for it is not consicousness or unconsciousness but a function of awareness.

He who resolves the Great Matter of Life and Death will not be born again; and how could he, when to
do so means to realize that the consciousness was not bon, but the gaps between unconsciousness and
consciousness have been invented discontinuity?

There is no difference between space and matter – of this relativity has ascertained. There is no such
thing as an unmoving object. Whatever is is a configuration of positional vibrations. Therefore, we
cannot speak of matter as “shape”; if there are shapes, they must be seen to be immaterial.

Matter, then, is not different from what we call evolution. The growth of our hairs is evolution, and the
only matter at all. We adscribe that we are growing our own hairs, but that is impossible. A function of
what is it? Of our evolutionary state of energy as matter. But as such we should also consider the rust on
metals; this is also the evolutionary state of energy as matter. There is no such thing as a shape, so that
the tendency towards vibrational change is the only material energy we can speak of. Trancending the
duality between annimate and non-animate objects, we can say that our evolutionary energy contains
the laws of the universe and the arrangement of the stars. The force that grows my hair is the same as
the one that keeps the stars in orbit. Thus the first energy is called Physis, Nature.

Now it is also true that, if energy is matter, both are intraconvertible. That is, not only a thought is an
object and an object is a thought, percieved by different cognitive functions of the same non-dual
awareness, but there must be also a function by which to transform a thought into an object and an
object into thought. In general relativity we see that such a transformation would release an incredible
amount of energy, enough for a bomb to blow a city. This explosion, for example, occurs in sex. We are
transforming physical energy into sexual energy; that is, we are evolving our awareness. Each such
trnasformation of one type of energy to another always releases a great deal of energy; the feeling of a
lot of energy in a small time is the manifestation of its transformation.

Therefore, sex is what transforms physical energy into pleasure. If, howeveer, every manifestation of
cognition is part of the same energy, “pleasure” must be a constant of all its operations, but the qualities
of such pleasure must change according to each dimensional evolution.

Not only does physical energy transforms into pleasure, or “sexual energy”; but sexual energy also
transforms itself into physical energy. Thus we can concieve that the union of the sperm and the ovulum
is as blissful to us as the experience of the orgasm.

Since the energy of the Seven Minds is the same, there can be no real separation between profanity and
sacredness, and so, given that sexual energy exists, it must be a manifestation of the divine as much as
the divine is a transformation of the sexual. However, once the minds are purified from low up, they are
not deactivated, although they might be temporarily functionless throughout the consolidation of the
higher minds. Thus, sexual energy is in no way transcended in the path, but transformed, without
conditioning the morality of sex or not, but perfecting the availability of that energy. The sexual energy
is the first manifestation of it, of which the organic evolving apparattus is the initial.

Now if a thought is an object and an object is a thought, how can we transmute them? Here lies the
Great Work. But first we must know the levels of transmutation.

This body is consciousness and consciousness has become this body. In the same way that you
understand this, you have to reanalyze and redefine sexual awareness.

Whatever we may transform, from objects to thought or from feelings to understandings, in whatever
form does the enrgy move, there is always a contraction of time that we experience as “blissfull”;
therefore, an infinite contraction of feeling time prodduces an infinite feeling. This is the spiritual atomic
bomb. Let it be known that whatever our transformations, the only rule for magick is Awe!
From the ordinary point of view, in creating love, that is, in creating the division of the sexes and
everything connected with it, nature has only one aim—the continuation of life. But even from the
ordinary point of view it is perfectly clear, and there can be no doubt about it, that nature has created in
man much more " love " than is actually necessary for the purpose of the continuation of life. All this
surplus of love must be used up somehow. When it is not used, various pathological neurosis begin, of
which the root is the Ego. But where does this love surplus come from, why, and where must it be
directed to?

"I will now point out to you only one aspect of the functioning of the body which it is indispensable to
regulate in any event. So long as this functioning goes on in a wrong way no other kind of work, either
moral or spiritual, can go on in a right way. "You will remember that when we spoke of the work of the
'three-story factory,' I pointed out to you that most of the energy produced by the factory is wasted
uselessly, among other things energy is wasted on unnecessary muscular tension. This unnecessary
muscular tension eats up an enormous amount of energy. And with work on oneself attention must first
be turned to this. "In speaking of the work of the factory in general it is indispensable to establish that it
is necessary to stop useless waste before there can be any sense in increasing the production. If
production is increased while this useless waste remains unchecked and nothing is done to stop it, the
new energy produced will merely increase this useless waste and may even give rise to phenomena of
an unhealthy kind. Therefore one of the first things a man must learn previous to any physical work on
himself is to observe and feel muscular tension and to be able to relax the muscles when it is necessary,
that is to say, chiefly to relax unnecessary tension of the muscles

work on himself is indispensable—is the slave of his body. He is not only the slave of the recognized and
visible activity of the body but the slave of the unrecognized and the invisible activities of the body, and
it is precisely these which hold him in their power. Therefore when a man decides to struggle for
freedom he has first of all to struggle with his own body.

Under ordinary conditions it is used up by being transformed into other emotions and other kinds of
energy, which often are contradictory, harmful from the point of view of evolution, pathological,
incompatible with one another, and destructive. They are certainly of divine origin, and they are only
harmful in the sense that we do not know how to use their energy wisely. Therefore Ego cannot be
“evil”, but it is where the relegated energy goes to ferment; that is, Ego is a function of awareness that
leads to neurotical manifestations of energy rather than the rel, ascending climb of the overflow of
energy.

Since we are confined to this state, we know not how to use our energy and throw it upwards, that it
might evolve us; no, we disperse it sideways, and, not knowing how to grow, we come to harm others
and ourselves because since we couldn’t contain the enrgy in us it came our in explosive forms.

Thus, even according to nature, the “aim” of man is not only the continuation of the species as seen in
the interplay between the evolutionary and the sexual energy, which both mean life and death, but the
correct use of the surplus energy by the remnant centres.
Therefore we can say that nature’s plan for the human race is a metaphor of the ultimate attainment, or
that the ultimate attainment is nature’s analogy for the final evolution of the human race. More than an
analogy, it is the secret she had plented deep in our bodies!

That is, the evolution of the whole race is a metaphor for one person’s spiritual attainment.

Therefore, enlightenment is the natural course of evolution; we cannot escape it. However, to attain
such evolution in one lifetime must include supreme contractions of time, whereby such an orgnism was
lead to experience seven supreme blisses, and, being one with life and death, speaks from the Well of
Truth.

Denial of this fact, that enlightenment is the natural course of our evolution, leads to misuse of energy,
through which sexual traumas mainly exteriorize.

The original sin is the shame brought by the distinction between sexual energy and spiritual energy.

Mind is a disease of semen.

Sexual life has always been a problem for mankind. From the beginning of history, the primal energy has
been misunderstood. Religious teachers and moralists have denounced it. But still sexual life has
continued, not because man respects it, but because he needs it. He may give it up, but he cannot
remove it from his mind, for this is one of his most powerful urges. In the context of yoga and tantra the
common definition of sexual life has no relevance. It is absolutely unscientific and incorrect. This
definition has created a society and a nation of hypocrites. It has led thousands of young people into
mental asylums. When you want something which you think is bad, all kinds of guilt complexes arise.
This is the beginning of schizophrenia, and all of us are schizophrenic to some extent

Normal sexual life is neither spiritual nor aspiritual. But if you practise yoga and master certain
techniques, then sexual life becomes spiritual. Of course, if you lead a celibate life, that is spiritual too.

The Way - cannot be told. The Name - cannot be named. The nameless is the Way of Heaven and Earth.
The named is Matrix of the Myriad Creatures. Eliminate desire to find the Way. Embrace desire to know
the Creature. The two are identical, But differ in name as they arise. Identical they are called mysterious,
Mystery on mystery, The gate of many secrets!

Sex as Good and Evil

Even a rapist is working for the good – what it feels good for him. The problem is not so much that to
subject another human being gives him pleasure – because this is the case with all – and neither it is the
physical manifestation of the act, but that his seeking of good is also the seeking of the dissolution of a
drive-to-completion that generates pain or anxiety within his soul. This anxiety exists in all of us, and it is
this anxiety that makes us move. We call it the will-to-live, the desire which constantly keeps us moving,
for once we’ve become one with the object of our desire, we are still not satisfied, because we are not
one, so how could a union with an object bring us peace? This drive is the essence of slavery, and rather
than a will-to-live it is a drive-of-nonexistence.)

One may say that evil does not exist for subjective man at all, that there exist only different conceptions
of good. Nobody ever does anything deliberately in the interests of evil, for the sake of evil. Everybody
acts in the interests of good, as he understands it. But everybody understands it in a different way.
Consequently men drown, slay, and kill one another in the interests of good. The reason is again just the
same, men's ignorance and the deep sleep in which they live.

In other words, MARK THIS AS AN AXIOM, - evil must always be unconscious. So, in a way, evil is
ignorance. Thus to be good it is not genough to do good things. To do good one has to wake up, has to
bring presence to all his darkness. Perfect awareness is the perfection of goodness itself without any
need of intent. That is to be good to ourselves. Now, also, to be compassionate it oesn’t mean to be a
nice person. It means to be smart nought to wake a person up.

So sex cannot be evil.

Most people, especially Freud, misunderstand the Freudian position."The libido of the unconscious" is
really "the true, will of the inmost self". The sexual characteristics of the individual are, it is true,
symbolic indications of its nature, and when those are "abnormal", we may suspect that the self is
divided against itself in some way. Experience teaches the adepts who initiate mankind that when any
complex (duality) in the self is resolved (unity) the initiate becomes whole. The morbid sexual symptoms
(which are merely the complaints of the sick animal) disappear, while the moral and mental
consciousness is relieved from its civil war of doubt and self-obsession. The complete man, harmonized,
flows freely towards his natural goal.

It is a mistake to say, brutally, as science is inclined to do, that all dancing symbolized passion. I am
always annoyed with research that stops half way. That is the great error of Freud. When he says, quite
correctly, that dreams are phantasms of suppressed sexual desire, the question remains, of what is
sexual desire the phantasm?

Perfection of the sexual impulse is the only means of evolution, both for the individual soul as for the
future of mankind.

On Sexual Rites:

Science in failing to follow me so far has destroyed the idea of religion and the claim of mankind to be
essentially different from other mammalia. The demonstration of anthropologists that all religious rites
are celebrations of the reproductive energy of nature is irrefutable; but I, accepting this, can still
maintain that these rites are wholly spiritual. Their form is only sexual because the phenomena of
reproduction are the most universally understood and pungently appreciated of all. I believe that when
this position is generally accepted, mankind will be able to go back with a good conscience to
ceremonial worship.

We must evolve and reembrace them for our era:

(not so much here of women but of the idea that we must be trained in sexuality, which is the greataest
taboo) Mohammed struck at the root of the insane superstition of tabu with his word: "Women are your
field; go in unto them as ye will". He only struck half the blow. I say: go in unto them as ye will and they
will. Two-thirds of modern misery springs from Woman's sexual dissatisfaction. A dissatisfied woman is a
curse to herself and to everybody in her neighbourhood. Women must learn to let themselves enjoy
without fear or shame, and both men and woman must be trained in the technique of sex. Sex-
repression leads to neurosis, and is the cause of social unrest. Ignorance of sexual technique leads to
disappointment, even where passion is free and unrestrained. Sex is not everything in life, any more
than food is: but until people have got satisfaction of these natural hungers, it is useless to expect them
to think of other things. This truth is vital to the statesman, now that women have some direct political
power; they will certainly overthrow the Republic unless they obtain full sexual satisfaction. Also,
women outnumber men; and one man cannot satisfy a woman unless he be skilful and diligent. The
New Aeon will have a foundation of Happy Women: A Woman under Tabu is loathsome to Life, detested
by her fellows, and wretched in herself.

There was a question about war. How to stop wars? Wars cannot be stopped. War is the result of the
slavery in which men live. Strictly speaking men are not to blame for war. War is due to cosmic forces, to
planetary influences. But in men there is no resistance whatever against these influences, and there
cannot be any, because men are slaves. If they were men and were capable of 'doing,' they would be
able to resist these influences and refrain from killing one another. Verily, what drives us to love is the
same as what drives us to kill each other.

If killed, thou shalt attain Heaven; if victorious, enjoy the kingdom of earth. Therefore arise, O Son of
Kunti, and fight!

There can be no fear for us. There was never a time when we were not; there will never be a time when
we shall cease to be.

As for the future of humanity, the certainty of final extermination when the planet becomes
uninhabitable makes all human endeavour a colossal fatuity. It is one of the principal theses of this book
to show the previous statement to be absurd, by offering a theory of realty compatible with sanity.

AWAKENING OF KUNDALINI / Spontaneous Arousal

Thus, the energy is a sexual energy, so that we must use sexual terminlogy
Why do I use the word arousal?

Arousal is the physiological and psychological state of being awoken or of sense organs stimulated to a
point of perception. Just like the dick cannot feel itself unless it is aroused, so cannot this energy feel
itself unless it is aroused. There are spontaneous arousals, like a hard on, and there are trained arousals.

Understand that the trained arousal is also a form of not getting a hard on whenever.

Therefore, before a training of arousal can be evinced, we must speak of spontaneous arousals.

You will remember Jacob Boheme’s experience; it was fortuitious, and yet he had earned it. This is the
meaning of grace. The idea is to plant a solid base for the golden flower to grow.

the serpent snake is the rod of power of Light in us

If you are practising, it is because you are forced to, and if you are not practising, it is because you are
forced not to

If you are practising, it is because you are forced to, and if you are not practising, it is because you are
forced not to. During the period of transition of kundalini the practices are not useless, but your efforts
to practise them are of no use

This is, a spiritual despair must lead us to seek an answer. Is then the spiritual despair a neurosis?

Can disciplines of awareness cure psychoneurosis?

Practices of awareness cannot cure psychosis; that is, a frankly neurotic personality can co-exist with the
highest illumination, the attainment of the Prajna Paramita.

Samadhi itself cures faith but it leaves intact the mind; its processes are not affected, but percieved as
such, so that we are now aware of our own functions. To be aware of our own insanity is the only
measurement of health that we might obtain, because the functioning of the mind is insane; that is, it is
mechanical. Once this mechanism is realized for a mechanism and the real self is percieved, such an
individual will forever abide in God; but his insanities may remain.

This is why we must be very careful in how we evolve, for unpurged previous steps cannot be
reactivated once a superceding dimension comes to control them, for to such a dimension the
perfection or imperfection of a lower one is meaningless. It is of no use for the Pyramid to concern itself
with such a question as to whether it is a square or a triangle.

That is why forcing the seventh seal is not discussed, and the reason why I present a progression of the
energetic transformation of a man’s life as the path.

In other words, to attain enlightenment before being worthy of it spells insanity. If you would
experience the awakening of your functions right now your amazement would lead into confusion and
you would either faint or be in danger of developing a pathology.

Why is a Path necessary?

"If we could connect the centers of our ordinary consciousness with the higher thinking center
deliberately and at will, it would be of no use to us whatever in our present general state. In most cases
where accidental contact with the higher thinking center takes place a man becomes unconscious. The
mind refuses to take in the flood of thoughts, emotions, images, and ideas which suddenly burst into it.
And instead of a vivid thought, or a vivid emotion, there results, on the contrary, a complete blank, a
state of unconsciousness. The memory retains only the first moment when the flood rushed in on the
mind and the last moment when the flood was receding and consciousness returned. But even these
moments are so full of unusual shades and colors that there is nothing with which to compare them
among the ordinary sensations of life. This is usually all that remains from so-called 'mystical' and
'ecstatic' experiences, which represent a temporary connection with a higher center

Thus the path is not so much to reach cenrtain centres, but to be able to resist them.

Effects of the different methods of awakening

When the awakening of kundalini takes place, scientific observations have revealed different effects.
Those who have awakened kundalini from birth do not register any emotional changes. They are like
blocks of wood. Those who have awakened kundalini through pranayama have a great quantum of
electrical charges in the spinal column and throughout the body, and momentarily they could manifest
schizophrenically. Karma yoga and bhakti yoga are considered comparatively safe and mild methods of
awakening, but the tantric methods are more scientific than the non-tantric methods, because in tantra
there is no scope for suppression or dispersion of energy. In non-tantric methods there is antagonism -
one mind wants it and the same mind is saying no. You suppress your thoughts, you want to enjoy, but
at the same time you think "No, it is bad." I am not criticizing non-tantric methods. They are the mild
methods which do not bring you any trouble. They are just like beer - you drink a little bit and nothing
happens, drink four to ten glasses and not much will happen. But tantric methods are like LSD, you have
a little and it takes you right out. If something is wrong, it is wrong; if something is right, it is right

Awakening before preparation If experience commence before you are properly prepared, you should
immediately start to prepare yourself. The first thing to do is start fasting or switch to a light diet. You
should also live quietly and avoid social interactions, reading books and magazines. Of course, during
this period you must not take any drugs or medicines and you must guard against introducing any
chemicals into the body

a mi se me activo el kundalini sin saberlo y la falta de guia me mato

Effects of spontaneous kundalini awakening

This is the problem – that of not untying the knots in order. Thus in the following books shall I delineate
how to do so. Although the training programme is extensive, it is the most complete operation of the
absolute yet read by the eyes of humanity.

Of course, when the shakti awakens suddenly in mooladhara, it cannot rise immediately. It may wake up
and sleep again many times. You know how your children are in the morning; you have to wake them
several times because they keep going back to sleep. Kundaiini behaves in the same way. Sometimes it
even ascends to swadhisthana or manipura only to return to mooladhara again to sleep. However, once
the shakti goes beyond manipura chakra there is no going back. Stagnation in a chakra only occurs when
there is an obstruction in sushumna or one of the chakras. Kundalini can remain in one chakra for many
years, or even for a whole lifetime

Sometimes, when kundalini gets blocked in a chakra during transit, you begin to exhibit some of the
siddhis or psychic powers associated with that chakra. Then you may not have self-control and
understanding of the fact that you are only on the road. When one attains siddhis he is tempted to
display them. He may think he is using them for the good of humanity, but this only feeds the ego and
clouds him in a thick veil of maya or ignorance, hindering his further progress. Any power is a siddhi,
from floating in the air to being a big shot in the stockmarket.

Some people will have a greater tendency towards anahata; others will find ajna chakra very powerful
and attractive to them, whereas other people will find it easiest to relate to mooladhara, while the
higher chakras seem almost impossible to locate.

However, there is one important point to add. Even if a higher chakra such as anahata has awakened at
random, you must try to awaken the lower chakras also. The purpose of awakening kundalini and
ascending it through all the chakras is to awaken them and their related parts of the brain. Therefore, in
order to awaken the whole brain, all the chakras must be awakened

The sum and substance is this - awakening of kundalini is not a difficult task, but to get beyond
swadhisthana is. For that you must improve the general background of your psycho-emotional life. Once
you pass swadhisthana you will not have to face any explosive traumas again, but there will be other
difficulties further on. Kundalini is unlikely to descend again as it is destined to move on, but the
problems you will confront will be concerned with siddhis, and they are more difficult to subdue

story which is often told to illustrate this: Once a traveller was sitting underneath a tree. He was feeling
very tired and wanted to have a drink. So he thought of a clear stream, and immediately he heard the
trickle of water flowing beside him. After drinking some water, he thought he would like to have a little
food to satisfy his hunger, and that appeared beside him also. Then, as he was feeling tired and thought
he would like to rest, there appeared before him a nice bed, and s o h e w e n t t o s l e e p . T h e f o o l i
s h m a n d i d n o t k n o w t h a t h e h a d c o m e t o r e s t b e n e a t h t h e wish fulfilling tree. In the
evening when he awoke, the sun had already set and night had fallen. He got up and the thought came
to his mind: 'Oh, it is terribly dark, perhaps the tigers will come and eat me', and so they did. This is what
can do…

⚕ Fulgur Anguis Draco Potestas

CHAPTER 7
Introduction

Our religions make promises to be fulfilled beyond the grave because they have no knowledge now to
be put to the test, but the ancients spake of a divine vision to be attained while we are yet in the body.

Man is what he believes; but Man may become God by faith in the unbelievable.

If you want to go quickly, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

The pearl that was never inside the shell of space and time, we asked that from people lost at the
ocean’s edge.

What is our purpose in admiring the garden of this world? The answer is: let the man inside your eye
reach out and take roses from your face.

The person who attains highest union with the tao is called a hsien, an Immortal, one who has returned
to the source, the ground of true being. The Ancients are the Immortal; they are not old at all, and in
fact, every Ancient is exactly your real age also.

Neither meditation nor knowing all the spiritual jargon - nor wisdom, nor the guru’s grace, nor suffering,
nor asceticism, nor any other techniques or practices, nor anything - make “you” enlightened.
Enlightenment is not a ‘personal experience.’ Enlightenment is not an event that happens to a “you”
some time in “your” ’future,’ after having learned enough things or done enough meditation.
Enlightenment just Is, and there has never been a separate “you” or any separation between
Enlightenment and that illusory “you.” When the “you” drops away and all that is left is Enlightenment,
it is instantly revealed that that’s all there ever was. It will be obvious and impossible. The Mystery will
strike like lightning.

The “you” has no control over whether that complete & irrevocable shift in perception will occur to
“you” - no matter what “you” do. But if “you” can totally let go into what “I” am saying, an awakening or
even complete liberation, may appear to occur.

Those who do not change see no change and recognise no law.

Though I am blind I have had moments of sight. Though I have sinned I have been on the path. Though I
am feeble I have seen the way to power.

How to say it? Every atom is pregnant with the infinite.

… the assembly at Huanglong si under Huitang Zuxin, in the Huanglong line of Linji Zen. While on
pilgrimage he heard a clap of thunder and was enlightened; returning to Huitang, he said, “Everyone in
the world has attained Zen, they just haven’t realized it”

The preaching of the sentientless is inconceivable! Listening with the ear, it is difficult to understand.
Hearing with the eye, then you know it.

When Yung-ming Tao-chien visited Master Fa-yen, the Master asked him, "Aside from meditation, what
sutra do you study?" Tao-chien answered, " I read the Hua-yen siitra." After.,..a short discussion Tao-
chien did not know what to answer. The r eupon the Master said tha t Tao-chien could ask him the same
question and he would give the answer to it. Then Tao-chien took up the question: "Does the Void
contain the six phenomena?" The Master immediately responded, "Void. " Tao-chien was awakened,
and he jumped with joy. After he had made a bow to express his heartfelt gratitude, the Master asked
him, "How did you become enlightened?" Tao-chien repeated, "Void. "

the Śūraṅgama Sutra it is written, “Asleep or awake, at all times be one.”

1. T 19:151c. The quote is a slightly idiosyncratic reading of a line in the sutra. The full passage reads:
Ananda, when a good person who has been practicing samadhi has reached the end of the aggregate of
cognition, the usual cognitive processes involved in dreaming will disappear from his mind. For him
there will no longer be any difference between waking and sleeping. His awareness will be as luminous,
as empty, and as still as a cloudless sky. Images of gross external objects will no longer appear before
him as objects of cognition. He will view all the phenomena in the world— the mountains, the rivers,
and everything else—as mere reflections that briefly appear in a clear mirror, leaving nothing
behind….Only the true essence of consciousness remains. (Buddhist Text Translation Society, 2009, p.
429; the italics are mine)

The Master said, "If I should give you a statement that would teach you how to achieve Ch'an
immediately, dirt would already be spread on top of your head. Even plucking out a single hair would
make you understand everything in the world in a second, but it would still be like cutting one's flesh to
patch up a boil. To grasp Ch'an, you must experience it. If you have not experienced it, do not pretend to
know. You should withdraw inwardly and search for the ground upon which you stand; thereby you will
find out what Truth is. Outwardly not even the slightest explanation can be used to reveal your inner
awareness. Every one of you should devote himself to the task of self-realization. When the Great
Function takes place, no effort will be required of you. You will immediately be no different from the
Patriarchs and the Buddha.

The Master went on, "When a man cries out 'Things for sale!' he will do business; but when he does not
call out his wares he will have no dealings. If I reveal Ch'an only in its genuine form, no one will be able
to go along with me, not to speak of a group of five or seven hundred. But if I talk of Ch'an in this way
and that, people will strive for it and collect whatever words I have left. This is just like fooling a child
with an empty hand, for there is nothing real in it at all. Although I tell you where enlightenment abides,
do not try to locate it with your conscious mind but sincerely cultivate the depth of your original nature.
The insight into past, present, and future mortal conditions and their related miracles is not necessary at
all because these are only the fringes of reality. Wha t you need now is to be aware of mind and to reach
to the source of things. Do not bother about anything else. Just strike toward the Source. In later days
you will realize the truth of this yourself. If you have not yet reached the Source, even though you force
yourself to learn it, you will never achieve it. Have you not heard what Master Kueishan said? 'When
both worldliness and holiness are completely eliminated, Absolute Reality is revealed. Thus the One and
the Many are identified. This is the Suchness of Buddha.

Those who pursue money are always rushed, always busy with urgent matters. Those who pursue the
Dharma, go slow and easy. Boring, you say? Maybe. Maybe it’s downright dreary to stop and smell a
flower or listen to a bird. Maybe a glint of gold is really more dazzling than the sight of one’s Original
Face. Maybe what we need is a better definition of treasure.

I came from darkness, to darkness I return. What is this?

Intro
This book is the voice of three beings – the dragon that knows, the magus that understands and the
monk that writes in trembling and in fear.

You will suddenly have to leave this world, and to it become a stranger. Make your acquaintance with
that other world before you might come to rue the divine hand that takes you, for it plucks not life out,
but in! If you do not know where you’re going, why do you clench so fast to that which you must leave
behind? Brother, the crags in which we might have hid have become disclosed and no longer can we
stand in the crevices of absolute being for the light of Presence has revealed us. Death creeps by the
Door, and yet, we are still to see if that Door leads anywhere, when we are nowhere. Are you any wiser
than what you were? No, but your ache for understanding has deepened like a joy that wants eternity.
In the abashment of my self of identity have I given this discourse anonymously, for it is not my being as
other that I have devised to mask myself through, but by wearing your eyes! This I is not another,
brother; have faith it is the Voice! If you look into the Word you won’t hear it. Shall we come to inquire
on it one last time, a seventh time, so that by revealing the supreme Symbol to be impossible we shall
come to unsee it? This is the necessary note on which the end of our discourse must begin; the pains of
numerological understanding, if suffered correctly, shall birth a bridge of awe from which we will turn
blind but to the light, which was our natural state to begin with!

If after all that we have said, you have not learnt to suffer, how little have you learnt! Allow me to give
you one last talk regarding the numerology of Seven, by whose toil we shall be released from the grips
of Number as Symbol. Before relating how could that be possible, that Seven be the last number of
whose acquaintance we need to construct a conceptual replica of absolute being, let us be clear that
such a means of representation is worth nothing unless it helps our capacity of absolute awareness.
Purposefully have I masked the true nature of our discussion, for I am a not a professor but an
enthusiast of the mystic arts whose only aim was that of training the reader not by retelling but by
drawing the map of the meandering that was for years my exploration towards constructing a
metaphysical phenomenology. My failure gave me the means to convey its impossibility, and also the
sharpness of the tongue I needed to speak of the Voice unflinching; but, as the serendipity of all great
discoveries attest, what was a mistake turned into the most glorious accident; to have produced by the
search of reason, wonder! Therefore let us remain in the laboratory of psychochemical illusions just a
little longer whereby such a reaction could happen. What I stumbled upon was Theoria Mystica, and the
way to speak not of ontology but of numerology to replicate the period of phenomenal dimensions.
Such is the nature of our final note were we shall aim towards a syyncretic system of psychosemantics
whereby the sources of our being can lead to a theory of their perfection. What we are concerned here
is to develop an hermeneutics of enlightenment. That had been my purpose, yet, if we had jumped to
such heights from the beginning, how deep would be our fall!
Sacred Mountain is the Supreme Symbol of the hermeneutics of enlightennment, of which this book had
led to only; two other volumes remain to map the circumambulation and its ascent. Before they can
begin, we shall end the discourse on the tradition of philosophy, whereby the number Seven shall be
seen to be the last.

As the poet said, all the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their
exits and their entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages. Before
relating why seven is dear to the mystic mind, let us understand how can it be the bane of numerology.

The seven is the last number, because it is the last digit we need to explain every other number that is
not a prime. That is, 1, 2, 3, 2x2, 5, 3x2, 7, 2x2x2, 3x2. Every other number that is not a prime can be
expressed in with these digits. Such is why the ten based basis of arithmetic responds to an alchemical
intuition.

When we speak of the heptamera, numerologically we shall concieve it as such… (here give a very brief
explanation of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gr%C3%BCnbaum%E2%80%93Rigby_configuration

Keeping with our practice of adscribing non-numerical symbols to the reifications of numerology past
that of Four, wherein we destroyed the chains of reason and transcended the bridge of logick, as we
have called the Pentagram a Man and the Hexagram a Tree, also shall we come to discuss the nature of
the Heptamera as a Snake. The reason for this shall not be immediately certain, but that is the purpose
of our discourse, to verily come to see the Seven as a Dragon! How is this possible, however, to come to
name a number by a Mystery? Such is our practice, brother, haven’t you noticed? Let us, nonetheless,
not pursue so quickly the power of poetry that is the game of the First Words, but instead follow our
usual course of dissillusion by first relating the tenets of numerology by which we could construe a
seven-fold ontology; and, as usual also, let us comment, if we can, on the footsteps the Ancient have left
on the Path, for their discernment leads to the Mountain.

The many sided Anekāntavāda doctrine of Jainism offers seven ontological positions which cannot be
considered perspectives of being but rather forms of description. Regarding the sublime object of
existance Mahavira teaches that in some ways, it is; in some ways, it is not; in some ways, it is, and it is
not; in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable; in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable; in some
ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable; and, in some ways, it is indescribable. Note that the Fire
function of double negativity, that of not being and not non-being, is excluded by this heptamerical
argument, for what is indescribable beyond stating it is that it could be neither. This is the perfection of
ontology, the permutations of a seven-fold period of dimensions; and yet, long has it been since we’ve
left the cold trails of philosophy behind, for beyond the truth of the Four no logick can be erected.
Therefore shall we come to complete our theory of psychosemantics, whereby our numerological
discourse shall sing its final note. Our purpose is to give a phenomenal relation to the vertixes of the
heptameron which are the knots of the snake of which the first is a head and the last a tail; to percieve
of the function of the Seven as such is our representation.
The Buddha asked Ananda for a rope, and proceeded to tie seven knots in it. Handing it over, he asked
how was Ananda to untie it. “Very easy”, Ananda said, “from last to first”!

Every esoteric teaching speaks of the same. If we have already spoken of the being as a hole, the mind
as a point, the light is a pillar.

This pillar of light the ancients have called by two names regarding their motion; the line that ascends is
called the Snake and the one that descends is called the Lightning; whenever both functions are implied,
it is called the Tree of Life. These notions are, perhaps, the most universal in the history of religious
studies.

This is the very snake that gnawed at the roots of each Tree! Nidhoggr to Ygrdassil, The Snake to
Gilgamesh’s sacred plant, the fire in the bushes…

As before we have spoken of the Heptamera, lets understand why we align it as a pillar. What we are
aiming to construe is the basis whereby ontology may replicate the system of phenomenology.
Therefore, everything that can constitute a function of perception must be related; such is why we
describe the heptameral function as a pillar of light, for such is our verterbral column. Such is the Snake
we speak of.

At the roots of every Tree was a snake…

Every religion that has a tree has a dragon, a seven snake.

The tree of Zarathustra was the Cypress of Kashmar.

The seven spirits of Ahura Mazda, the Amesha Spenta of the Yasna Haptanghaiti are listed as follows

1. Spenta Mainyu – Holy Spirit

2. Haurvatat – Wholeness

3. Asa Vahista – Ultimate Truth

4. Ameretat - Immortality

5. Spenta Armaiti – Blissful Devotion

6. Vohu Manah – Great Purpose

7. Xshathra Vairya – Dominion

This is zooastro’s The Yasna Haptanghaiti (Yasna Haptaŋhāiti), Avestan for "Worship in Seven Chapters

I shall not speak about these centres with any words the Wise used. In the Norse view, the Tree is
Yggdrassil, the lightning Bifrost, the Rainbow bridge, and the Snake is Nidhoggr or Jormungandr; for the
Jews the three views are seen in the Kabbalistic Tree of Life; and in the Hindu view the Tree is called
Sushumna, the descent is called the Lightning of Triuth and the ascent is the kundalini, the Coiled snake
about to spring!

Every religion has a view of its system. At first, the multiplicity of descrriptions will tempt the seeker into
surrendering his attempt at unifying them. How are these different systems to be brought into analogy?

The Norse talked about a system of 9 worlds, of which there were three upper, three middle, and three
lower worlds; but some take the order to be different, so that Midgard, our plane, is the only world of
the middle world, and the rest have 4; an yet some concieve that Asgard is the central world over which
an octogon circumambulates.

I will not speak of Norse worlds, Jewish sepiroth or Hindu chakras. The systems of their analogy will be
repreduced, but such ennarration is part of the path of Magick as outlined in the Chao Ordo Encheiridio
of which, even as a competent practitioner, is years away still.

We are not interested with systems of faith but to operate with our human body; therefore shall our
doctrine lead to the sublime and perfect object of phenomenology.

Give a paralelism between hindu chakras and alchemichal planets.

The seven cosmoses, the Protocosmos, the Ayocosmos, the Megalocosmos, the Macrocosmos, the
Deuterocosmos, the Mesocosmos and the Microcosmos

The seven teachings of Tantra, Kriya, X, Yoga, Mahayoga, Anu Yoga, Ati Yoga

Let us then understand that the Heptamera is a Snake whose seven functions are those of pur
phenomenical capacities. Hereby I shall describe these centres of perception in descending order:

(draw the snake / this book must look like a very abstract version of an alchemico-geometrical
manuscript, so add as much symbols as you can that alternate somewhat between Kepler and Pseudo-
Solomon, between Lull and Dee)
1 – absolute being, cannot be experienced

2 – perception itself

3 – capacity of thought

4 – capacity of compassion towards dying beings

5 – capacity of empathy toward living beings

6 – will of desire

7 – physical existance (understand physical existance as absolute materiality in the mind of god)

The function that leands energy to each is the substrate of existance itself, so that the pull of energy is
towards the first. We have already explained the five functions of the mind; what happens is that the
first and last functions cannot be called of the mind. Thereby has the trinity of Spirit, Mind, Body also
been erected; the four functions of “turning” that constitute the fourfold nature of every knot; the
duality of extremes of continuity and the nonduality of their continuity. Such is why the snake is the
perfect symbol of numerology; it contains them all. The Ancients preserved their knowledge in a
dimension in which it is obvious; what’s the use of preserving, then?

ON THE CHAKRAS

What is important is what a physicist can do, not what he believes. Knowledge is a building tool of
techonology, and nothing more. Therefore our understanding can only be techonolgical; but our
machine is the body. Therefore this is a spiritual technology.

There are energetic channels in the human body; where their paths cross a wheel is formed, like a
vertex into nothingness.

I will have to speak, now, not of any tradition but of my personal experiences with this human vehicle.

No one taught me this, and I offer it not as tradition, but as a tale of experience for you to make your
own conclusions and symmetries or supposed symmetries or supposed possibilities of symetries or even
supposed possibilitites of stating the impossibilities of symetries.

There is no explaining possible but a deep inquiry into the realms of perception that constitute our
human experience.
The seven stages are seven stages of evolution; we are the species in this planet with the most.

I call them centres of perception, but I disregard the need for an organ to be recognized as the function
of its perception, thus obliterating the hard problem of consciousness dilemma. In other words, our
experience must be catalogued, and every perception addscribed to one source even if we do not see
the source.

Some examples are physiologically obvious. We can speak of fear “in the gut”, love “in the heart” or
thoughts “in the mind”.

Hoy many sources of perception do we experience?

See how our monadological enterprise helps us dismantle that question; it is arbitrary whether we
choose.

It is not our experience which we delineate, but that of our capacities of speaking about it. We can limit
our capacity of discourse to englobe the oneness of experience under geometrical interpretations of
vertices as pure descriptions.

Let us now, speak for what we percieve.

We must relate here to the centres in brevity.

Now we are tempted by adscribing to the first centre, downward up, the capacitites of sensation. But, I
ask you, do you feel how your hair grows? Do you feel your breath? Not all the time; and, in fact, when
you feel your breath it is because you are confabulating another mind in the perception of its process.

God knows when a single of your hairs move. What can this mean, but that the supreme algorithm of
physics exists in

The first centre is the life force in its dormant aspect. This dormancy, however, is not really a sign of
deficiency; its dormancy is needed. Could you imagine being aware, constantly, of the growing of your
hair? Or of the dusting of your skin? This is the same dormancy we experience in deep sleep, that is, we
do not know whether we are conscious or not during sleep; the only thing that we can know for sure is
that we don’t remember. For us, the word “experience” is innately aligned with that of “memory”, so
much that, for example, in states where we accumulate no memory we say that “there is no one
experiencing it”, so as to say that the memory is the ego. But all physiological processes are seen to
continue even if we accumulate no memory, such as those evidenced in mild concussions or narcotic
states, so that there must be a mind that does all of this; a mind that does not require memory. This
continuity of the physiological functions of the organism whilst lacking apparent psychical functions is
the psychical function of dormancy.
But we cannot say that this function of awareness has no memory, for if not we could not drive cars, all
beards would grow indefinitely. Stress is as much an example of physical memory as a good posture is.
Therefore physical awareness can be trained through habit.

If we are to transcend the dimension of physiological self-regulation, that means that each of our
centres of perception cannot be found within the human body. The function that grows your hair the
same self-regulating organism that sends electric signals from the nerve to the brain. That is, if we are to
have perceptions that transcend the senses we must accept that they can have no physical apparattus.
This does not mean that the other minds cannot alter the perceptions of senses, such as the eye, but
that the eye must be able to see without anyone seeing it and still be functioning. This dormancy we
register, for example, when our eye catches an object thrown in its direction from an angle which it
conventionally cannot reach. The psychophysiological functions of the organism must be running still
under this dormant perception. Another sphere that this centre has absorbed and assimilated, then, is
that of the “survival instinct”. This is an example where this centre of perception takes charge. This was
also the behaviouralsm we spoke before.

Now, what transcends this dormancy is Will. Will is aligned with desire. There is a savage way to eat for
the survival instinct, and there is a savge way to eat by the impulse of desire. This will is what we want.
We cannot know what we want until we get rid of what the physiological function wants. Once this
dormancy is woken, it no longer constrains the organism, and it Wills. This is the circumambulation of
the Pyramid, the Path of the Mystic set in Clavicula Magicae.

Then there is the emotional centre.

Then there is the loneliness centre.

Then there is th expression centre.

Then there is the imaginal centre.

Then there is the spiritual centre.

We shall go one by one over the Centres of Perception.

These compose the Human Existance. Once their functions become aligned the Human Form is Lost, and
the concatenation of their disentanglements is the path of Transformation.
Let us not incurr into grave danger. It is not that we are dormant and that we must “awake” the
separate centres. This would be too simplistic, only if it wasn’t impossible for dormancy to wake itself.
Every human being is born with seven centres of perception, and throughout his or her life they are
constantly active, althought they might fluctuate enormously or at times be suspended.

When we are born our centres of perceptions know of no obstacles. There is only the survival instinct at
first, whereas the baby is led to grip the tit in the dark. The rest of the centres follow. See that the baby
skull seals at around the forty days; this is why it takes forty days to open it also.

As the other centres of perception becomes active, there arises the confusion between the means of
perception of whose infered system the mind is created as a believer.

These are ways of percieving.

Let us now relate what the Ancients have to say of this; rather, let us use their word to erect a
symmetry. Here superimose the kabbalah, kundaalini and alchemical notions; first relating them
separately and then explaining them all together.

If we look at a man through binoculars he looks large. If we look at him by ordinary vision he looks the
usual size. If we view him through an X-ray screen we see his skeleton, and if we look through a
gastroscope we see the inside of his stomach. Same man - different viewpoints. In the same way,
whereas a mystic or yogi will describe the chakras in a spiritual or symbolic way, the surgeon may
describe the chakras as bunches of nerve fibers making up what he calls the plexuses, and a clairvoyant
will describe the energy manifestations of the chakras in yet a different way. These people may have
disagreements, but actually they are seeing the same thing from different viewpoints. Discrepancies are
largely semantic due to differing cultural, educational and personal understandings. This is a common
problem amongst men when they try to communicate in words any idea or experience. Whereas I have
great respect for the tantric concept, I have my own experience, and therefore, in my descriptions of the
chakras I'll make references to both. However, rather than trying to understand the chakras through the
written or verbal descriptions of others, you must experience them for yourself and gain your own
personal knowledge. Tantra is essentially a practical science rather than an intellectual one, and only
practice leads to true experience and real understanding

These are all examples in which the path is about letting beliefs go.

Levels of intuition

1 – muladhara – instinct (like the child grabbing the tit)

2 – swadisthana – memory (projection of damage, like the fear of putting the hand in the flames)

3 – manipura - proyection

4 – anahatta – sight (like everything we see) (perception of phneomena)

5 – vishuddha - visions

6 – ajna - intuition

7 – sahasrara – perfect intuition (feeling baghavan)

This is an image of the human condition. It is what we call the Anatomy of the Soul.

Here superimposed is the Sephiroth, the

Remember that the last centre of emanation is the first centre of manifestation. Whether we give the
ascending or descending view, that of the Snake or the Lightning, is not entirely trivial, but for the sake
of comprehension we shall list the seven centres by order of manifestation, since their emanation can
only be to us but a propositional construct, a belief.

In the First Centre we find a dormancy of awareness and the perfect continuation of the
phsychophysical perception. That is, this first centre is the function of unpercieved. How can we call it a
perception then? This is the automatic function of self-regulation. Located below (the shaded part) this
centre of consciousness is ‘subconscious’ – it is the automatic biology of materialism, and controls
everything your body does.

The second is the conscious function of self-regulation, that is, what can Negate. This is the Will. The
Middle (this is the centre-point of the egg-shaped Soul, also identical as the gravitational centre), the
Microcosm. This is point (hara) is where the Will comes out from, and it is the wheel of Destiny.

The third is the conscious function of feeling, or making oneself feel. The Artist. Lyfe, the Spectrum of
Emotion (Colour) (Love being the White Light of Unifyied Feeling), and mainly, the Story of the Soul (the
reservoir of fate comes from here).

The fourth is The Shrine, the One, the All, the Holy Fire of the Heart, the Absolute, the Source of Why,
the Key to All Mysteries, Love. In this centre of consciousness is in which, once untied the knots of the
other realms in the decimo-numerical order (7-6-5-4-3-2-await for glory), an enlightened master can
Unify his Perception and bring all worlds under the domain of the Heart, the Point (Bindu). When a soul
is perfected all perceptions of the Six Worlds become One, as He is One, and the Way of the Thunder
Snake is resolved, not as 1-2-3-4-5-6-7, but as the true I-II-III-IV-V-VI-VII. This brings all under the Domain
of the One, and the Soul Divinifyied feels Infinite Love Forever & Ever Without End.
The Fifth is the Mind, Duality, the World of Thought and Form, the Platonic Realm. This is where the
Inner Dialogue happens (where thought as a Voice in Mind is being, Manifested as you read) and
ultimately the source of Egohood.

The Six is the Eye, the Matrix. The Logos, the Imagination, the Astral-World, the DMT-Plane, FANTASIA.
Perceived by the Inner Eye.

The Seventh is technically not a knot of consciousness (NOTHING CAN BE EXPERIENCED IN IT) (and this it
does not consist a world/planet). This is only an opening in the soul through the skull’s sunspot, by
which the Void can flow into the Soul (Void = the Beyond)

The possibility remains for a man to control his Body, His Will, His Feelings, his Heart, his Mind, His
Imagination, so that when his Heart is clean the Glory of the Gate can Open Him into the Revolving
Hurricane of the Seven Knots.

(here give a long explanation, but as conzice as you can, three paragraphs at most, of the paralelisms of
world religion regarding the snake in the tree) (Voice included)

Lord! Which are the better devotees who worship Thee, those who try to know Thee as a Personal God,
or those who worship Thee as Impersonal and Indestructible? Lord Shri Krishna replied: Those who keep
their minds fixed on Me, who worship Me always with unwavering faith and concentration; these are
the very best. Those who worship Me as the Indestructible, the Undefinable, the Omnipresent, the
Unthinkable, the Primeval, the Immutable and the Eternal; Subduing their senses, viewing all conditions
of life with the same eye, and working for the welfare of all beings, assuredly they come to Me. But they
who thus fix their attention on the Absolute and Impersonal encounter greater hardships, for it is
difficult for those who possess a body to realise Me as without one.

To help us he gave Arjuna the map of the soul whereby one could abandon the sense of body, and attain
the sense of sense, and the body of bodies!

Judaism

The Qabalah, that is, the Jewish Tradition concerning the initiated interpretation of their Scriptures

God builds six days and rests the seventh, the menorah originally had seven arms

You must construct your own Qabalah! Nobody can do it for you. What is your own true Number? You
must find it and prove it to be correct. In the course of a few years, you should have built yourself a
Palace of Ineffable Glory, a Garden of Indescribable Delight.
The magick of the Kabbalah lies in the realiations we can make from numerology. Verily the Theoria
Mystica is nothing but Kabbalah, which means Tradition, and correspondence; verily, this tradition of
correspondences in nothing but the traidtion that we must erect and then destroy.

The Heptameron, ascribed to Petrus de Apono, is based on the Book of Raziel.

Alchemy

The Seven Planets of Alchemy are also seen to correspond. Porphyry sais that the souls passing through
these spheres put in, like successive tunics, the qualities of those stars.

The Black Dragon of the Alchemists, the Abyss of the Magician, Daath of the Kabbalist, Dark Night of the
Soul of the Christian.

These do not constitute a centre but a process of a centre.

The Hieroglyphic Monad of John Dee had seven concentric circles.

These systems are analogous, so that, giving their correspondances, the identities of name between the
Hindu and Alchemical path gives a coherent

The Mercuy, Salt and Sulphur of the Alchemists is related to the Sushumna Pingala and Ida nadis of
tantric Hinduism.

The Stone also produces the Hataka Juice of the Buddhist Mahayana Avatamsaka Sutra, the amrita of
the hindus, the mana of the hebrewes, the ambrosia of the Greek..

Alchemists assert the famous Tabula Smaragdina, the Emerald Table of Hermes, to be the chief
exposition concerning their alchemical operation by which they achieve the Great Work of the Sun.

The Beast spoke;

Utter the Word of Majesty and T e r r o r ! True without lie, and certain without er ror , And of the
essence of The Truth. I k n o w The things above are as the things below, The things below are as the
things above, To wield the One Thing's Thaumaturgy -- L o v e . As all from one sprang, by one
contemplation, So all from one were born, by permutation.

Christianity

Meister Eckhart in his Cloud Upon the Sanctuary talks of seven powers
Meister Eckhart talked of them thus. The first is the capacity of desiring things apart from himself-
desiderium. The second is the power to annex mentally things desired for himself- appetitus. The third is
the power of giving them form, realizing them so as to satisfy his desire- concupiscentia. The fourth is
that of receiving inclinations, without deciding upon acting upon any, as in the condition of passion-
passio. The fifth is the capacity for deciding for or against a thing, liberty- libertas. The sixth is that choice
or a resolution actually taken- electio. The seventh is the power of giving the object chosen an existence-
voluntas.

the hindu system is superior to the hebrew in the sense that the jews work with abstractions (and thus
all magic for them must be the magic of the logos), while the hindu system, being concrete, works with
the body. However, it is ridiculous to have speculated such incredible paralelisms without having had
actual experience of phenomenon as such; therefore, there was always a secret teaching. That the rabbi
lost their kabbalah means not that (the german jewish dude who wrote sepher yetzirah) found it; it was
always there!

Therefore the differences we might find among the descriptions of the snake of power are ones of
translation. What makes us men is the dragon inside us, for it contains every karma; that of all beings,
higher and lower.

Buddhism

All the secrets of the Universe can be found inside the human body.

Hinduism

The Hindu tantras talk of six sevenfold descriptions, that of 1) the chakra color, 2) the petals of the lotus
flower, 3) the yantra or geometrical shape, 4) the bija mantra, 5) the animal symbol, 6) the higher or
divine symbol, and 7) the position on the sushumna.

Taoism

An Ancient concieved of numerology thus;

The emperor of the Southern Seas was Lickety, the emperor of the Northern Sea was Split, and the
emperor of the Center was Wonton. Lickety and Split often met each other in the land of Wonton, and
Wonton treated them very well. Wanting to repay Wonton's kindness, Lickety and Split said, "All people
have seven holes for seeing, hearing, eating, and breathing. Wonton alone lacks them. Let's try boring
some holes for him." Each day, they bored one orifice, and on the seventh day, Hundun died.

This is the Mystery of the Trinity, the Square and the Snake!

The Scientific Explanation - Endocrinology

GLANDS

A new branch of scientific physiology, which is already developing into a separate science and throwing
an entirely new light on other sciences, chiefly on psychology, namely

endocrinology, or the study of the glands of internal secretion, promises a great deal in the direction of
studying and establishing the properties and causes of man's various functions, among them the
functions of sex and their relation to other functions.

Currently, contemporary explanations regarding the function of the endocrine system are even poorer
than those of neuroscience; time will show that the liberation of hormones and its control are analogous
to the path.

The starting-point of the doctrine of internal secretions was the work of Claude Bernard on the
glycogenic function (1848-57) and Addison's account, in 1849, of the suprarenal capsules. This led to
experiments by Brown-Séquard, who, in 1891, introduced the notion of " specific substances " secreted
into the blood by the various organs, and also the concept of functional humoral correlation. Two
theories were advanced to explain the mechanism of correlation. The first was the theory of " hormones
", the presence of which was established experimentally in 1902. The second was the theory connecting
the endocrine secretions with the autonomic nervous system. Experiments, both surgical and by
injection of gland extracts, were carried out on the adrenals, thyroid, parathyroid, and other glands,
although, in the last thirty years, attention has been centred more on the pituitary body, which was
visualised as leader of the endocrine system. That the internal secretions control the configuration of
the body and are the activators of emotion, is emphasised by many writers. The psychological aspect of
endocrinology, from the point of view of the psychological make-up of the individual, appeared later. It
should be noted that, at present, opinion is divided as to whether endocrinology should include all parts
of the body, on the ground that all organs give off chemical substances to the blood and lymph, or
whether it should include only the ductless glands together with certain other glands of internal as well
as external secretion
I mention the contemporary science related to it not to convince you, but I offer it as yet another system
of explanation of the same thing that everybody has been saying for thousand years, but of which we
had, up until now, no veritable proof or study of their analogies. This have I convinced myself to offer as
a sacrifice of being in the name of humanity and future generations, that they may not be steered into
the comforts of fanaticism but that instead may soar up to the lights of inspiration devoid of the
obstacles of dogmatism. As long as the Dragon might be explained, one favour understanding over
feeling, where you could ever feel you understand.?

In what follows, endocrinology is taken as the study of the glands of internal secretion (and also of the
glands of internal and external secretion), that is, as a part of a wider science, hormonology, which
studies the internal secretions of all organs. According to the data of endocrinology all the physical
properties and functions of man: growth, nourishment, structure of the body functioning of different
organs, and also all the psychic life, intellectual and emotional, the whole psychic make-up of a man, his
activity, his energy, his strength—all these depend on the properties and on the character of the activity
of the glands of internal secretion, which produce motive-power for the working of the organs, the
nervous system, the brain, and so on. All the external characteristics, everything we can see in a man,
his height, the structure of the skeleton, the quality of the skin, eyes, ears, hair, voice, respiration, way
of thinking, quickness of perception, character, emotionality, will-power, energy, activity, initiative—all
these depend on the action of the glands of internal secretion, and, so to speak, reflect their state.
Endocrinology has made an enormous stride in the study of man, a stride the true significance of which
is as yet far from being appreciated and understood. Scientific psychology, the development of which
came to a complete stop about the end of the 19th century and which in the first decades of the 20th
century did not produce a single work worthy of attention, is beginning to acquire new force and to
revise all its theories from the standpoint of the ideas of endocrinology

In the works on endocrinology which have already appeared there are some interesting attempts at the
interpretation of the fate of historical personages from the point of view of the study of their
endocrinological type, that is, of the combination of their internal secretions at different periods of their
life. Dr. Berman's books cannot be called scientific. They are rather fantasties on endocrinological
themes. But Dr. Berman's fantasies come very near to the real facts, which are not yet dreamt of in
philosophy. From a strictly scientific point of view almost every separate conclusion of Dr. Berman can
be refuted or regarded as unproved. And it is quite possible that each separate conclusion of Dr. Berman
will be refuted, sooner or later. But what will not be refuted, but will on the contrary be established and
proved, are the principles upon which he bases his reasonings. These principles will remain and will form
the foundation for a new understanding of man, that is, new for modern thought, but in reality
approaching the esoteric more and more nearly

(ONE PARAGRAPH OR PAGE PER CENTRE)

EACH WITH SYMBOLS AND DRAWINGS

SEVEN CENTRES

The will of man divides itself similarly into seven powers, which, taken together as a unit, form the will
of man, being, as it were, its substantial parts. The first is the capacity of desiring things apart from
himself- desiderium. The second is the power to annex mentally things desired for himself- appetitus.
The third is the power of giving them form, realizing them so as to satisfy his desire- concupiscentia. The
fourth is that of receiving inclinations, without deciding upon acting upon any, as in the condition of
passion- passio. The fifth is the capacity for deciding for or against a thing, liberty- libertas. The sixth is
that choice or a resolution actually taken- electio. The seventh is the power of giving the object chosen
an existence- voluntas. This seventh power also contains all the others in one figure. Now the seven
powers of the understanding, like the seven powers of our heart and will, can be ennobled and exalted
in a very special manner, when we embrace Jesus Christ, as being the wisdom of God, as principle of our
reason, and His whole life, which was all love, for motive power of our will. Our understanding is formed
after that of Jesus Christ; First, when we have Him in view in everything, when He forms the only point
of sight for all our actions- intuitus. Second, when we perceive His actions, His sentiments, and His spirit
everywhere- apperceptio. Third, when in all our thoughts we reflect upon His sayings, when we think in
everything as He would have thought- reflexio. Fourth, when we so comfort ourselves in such wise, that
His thoughts and His wisdom are the only object for the strength of our imagination- fantasia. Fifth,
when we reject every thought which would not be His, and when we choose every thought which could
be His- judicium. Sixth, when in short we co-ordinate the whole edifice of our ideas and spirit upon the
model of His ideas and spirit- ratio. Seventh, It is then will be born in us a new light, a more brilliant one,
surpassing far the light of reason of the senses- intellectus. Our heart is also reformed in like manner,
when in everything,- First, We lean on Him only- desidare. Second, We wish for Him only- appetere.
Third, We desire only Him- concupiscere. Fourth, We love Him only- amare. Fifth, We choose only that
which He is, so that we avoid all that He is not- eligere. Sixth, We live only in harmony with Him after His
commandments and His institutions and orders- subordinare. By which in short, Seventh, is born a
complete union of our will with His, by which union man is with Jesus Christ but as one sense, one heart;
by which perfect union the new man is little by little born in us, and Divine wisdom and love unite to
form in us the new spiritual man, in whose heart faith passes into sight, and in comparison to this living
faith the treasures of India can be considered but as ashes. This actual possession of God or Jesus Christ
in us is the Centre towards which all the mysteries converge like rays to the circle eye; the highest of the
mysteries is this consummation

The Qabalah, Quotes from Aleister Crowley’s Mouth

Fortunately, there is one science that can aid us, a science that, properly understood by the initiated
mind, is as absolute as mathematics, more self-supporting than philosophy, a science of the spirit itself,
whose teacher is God, whose method is simple as the divine Light, and subtle as the divine Fire, whose
results are limpid as the divine Water, all-embracing as the divine Air, and solid as the divine Earth. Truth
is the source, and Economy the course, of that marvellous stream that pours its living waters into the
Ocean of apodeictic certainty, the Truth that is infinite in its infinity as the primal Truth with which it is
identical is infinite in its Unity. Need we say that we speak of the holy Qabalah? O science secret, subtle,
and sublime, who shall name thee without veneration, without prostration of soul, spirit, and body
before thy divine Author, without exaltation of soul, spirit, and body as by His favour they bathe in His
lustral and illimitable Light!

I must now explain the real meaning of the terms Sephira and Sephiroth. The first is singular, the second
is plural. The best rendering of the word is “numerical emanation. ” There are ten Sephiroth, which are
the most abstract forms of the ten numbers of the decimal scale—i.e. the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,
10.Therefore, as in the higher mathematics we reason of numbers in their abstract sense, so in the
Qabalah we reason of the Deity by the abstract forms of the numbers; in other words, by the twryps,
Sephiroth. It was from this ancient Oriental theory that Pythagoras derived his numerical symbolic ideas.

No; Sephira means zero, that is, sources of Emptiness.

The Sephiroth are further divided into three pillars – the right-hand Pillar of Mercy, consisting of the
second, fourth, and seventh emanations; the left-hand Pillar of Judgement, consisting of the third, fifth,
and eighth; and the Middle Pillar of Mildness, consisting of the first, sixths, ninth, and tenth emanations.
In their totality and unity the ten Sephiroth represent the archetypal man, }wmdq \da, Adam Qadmon,
the Protogonos. In looking at the Sephiroth constituting the first triad, it is evident that they represent
the intellect; and hence this triad is called the intellectual world, lkcwm \lwu, Olahm Mevshekal. The
second triad corresponds to the moral world cgrwm \lwu, Olahm Morgash. The third represents power
and stability, and is therefore called the material world, ubfwmh \lwu, Olahm ha-Mevetbau. These three
aspects are called the faces, }ypna, Anpin. Thus is the tree of life, \yyj {u, Otz Chaiim 21 formed; the first
triad being placed above, the second and third below, in such a manner that the three masculine
Sephiroth are on the right, three feminine on the left, whilst the four uniting Sephiroth occupy the
centre. This is the qabalistical “tree of life,” on which all things depend. There is considerable analogy
between this and the tree Yggdrasil of the Scandinavians.

Why is the Sephirots dual;

Again (v.27), how could Adam be made in the image of the Elohim, male and female, unless the Elohim
were male and female also? The world Elohim is a plural formed from the feminine singular hla, Eloh, by
adding \y to the word. But in as much as \y is usually the termination of the masculine plural, and is here
added to a feminine noun, it gives to the word Elohim the sense of a female potency added to a
masculine idea, and thereby capable of producing an offspring.Now, we hear much of the Father and
the Son, but we hear nothing of the Mother in the ordinary religions of the day. But in the Qabalah we
find that the Ancient of Days conforms Himself simultaneously into the Father and the Mother, and thus
begets the Son.Now, this Mother is Elohim.Again, we are usually told that the Holy Spirit is Masculine.
But the word jwr, Ruach, Spirit, is feminine, as appears from the following passage of the Sepher
Yetzirah: \yyj \yhla rwr tja, Achath (feminine, not Achad, masculine) Ruach Elohim Chayyim: “One is is
She the Spirit of the Elohim of Life. ”
Among these Sephiroth, jointly and severally, we find the development of the persons and attributes of
God. Of these some are male and some are female.Now, for some reason or other best known to
themselves, the translators of the Bible have crowded out of existence and smothered up every
reference to the fact that the Deity is both masculine and feminine. They have translated a feminine
plural by a masculine singular in the case of the word Elohim. They have, however, left an inadvertent
admission of their knowledge that it was plural in Genesis i, 26: “And the Elohim said: Let us make man.
”

To be certain, I cannot help you. I can give you nothing. There is no way to generate the evolution.

I can only give you a framework of recognition of your own evolution so that you recognize the changes
happening within you.

I cannot give you these spiritual awakenings. I can only etch their functions so that you recognize them.
There is no way for us to breach illumination. I cannot give enlightenment, but I can help you recognize
the Voice of the Spirit.

POLARITY

The aim of this chapter is to explain the abstract differences and polarities between the Word; “open” is
woman, “closed” is man, etc. Explain how absolute pure polarities are abstractions and cannot exist in
this world; how, like a magnet, when one pole is cut the end of the old pole becomes polarized. In this
sense, “open” is woman and “closed” is man, but no man is purely closed and no woman is purely open.
Explain the ying-yang as the forces of this life and to find balance is to become peaceful. Explain how all
matter in this world adds up to zero, so that material existance is really void (sunyata) – but,
nonetheless, the infinite bifurcation of the 0 & creates the heart. Explain how the world is in itself a
fractal: it is a fractal because it is “translucent” (the void quality), it is a fractal because the same forms
repeat in different hierarchic levels, and it is a fractal because the infinite bifurcation always creates the
same heart.

The language of duality has a mathematical frame but a sexual origin in nature; and thus it can be seen
how the Universe is made from love, i.e. the union of opposites.

Let’s begin with the first duality.

On the left, the first, comes the Woman; on the right, the last, comes the Man.

Even if we say “man and woman” know that in every man there is a woman and a woman in every man,
and that this abstraction is absolute in its mental rendering but illusory in the world at large.
The identities of each pole must be complementary; that is to say, only dialectical values can be
adscribed to them, and if one pole has X attribute, then the other pole must have –X attribute, since
pole A is X and pole Z is –X.

Their identities can be resumed thus:

Woman: it is an aperture waiting to be filled, it is passive, it is receptive.

Man: it is a filling for an aperture, it is active, and it is penetrating.

Liebniz discovered binary logics and the axiomatization of it’s numeralia is rendered today in all
computational technology as “0” and “1”; most appropriate. Joyce calls them “that upright one and that
naughty besighed him zeroine”, or, on a more intuitive plane, “Mama Hole and Papa Pole”.

However, the chinese had already abstracted numbers to their most simple measure (that is, binary
combinatoria) thousands of years before them.

The Femenine Principle is called as “yin” and written graphically accurate as “- -”.

The Masculine Principle is called “yang” and it is written “––”

As you can see, the Femenine Principle contains a void, an inherent duality, a space to be filled; the
Masculine Principle presents a continuity, a filling for the gap that was left before.

With the primary combination of these symbols comes the Order & Nature of the Elements:

“- -” and “––” (0 & 1) present the Primary Abstracted Duality.

: Explain how everything is Ying-Yang, How the world arises from it's infinite combinations, how this fact
convinces us that the world is "programmable", and thus, even if it seems impossible for us, it's laws can
be codified through computing. This is a possibility for our world to exist inside a (divine) machine. The
manifestation of the physical nature as the sex of the mathematics in the void. Spirituality - the
consciousness that is not programmable (*that is, that in us which cannot be exlplained as 1 and 0, that
is, the part of us that cannot be divided*) that is the True Reality. Thus is spirituality the only Reality; but
once you oppose Matter to Spirituality, you've just divided it and therefore lost it. Do you understand?
The creation of the world a a cosmic entanglement that adds to zero. The fact that not only *physical*
nature (that is, phenomenal perception) adheres to this ying-yang creation, but also out psychological
spirit is involved. No men is pure man and no woman is pure woman - the combination of the two make
us. In the poem exemplify this by listing pairs of oppositions as motherly or fatherly. This oppositions
cannot be found in one individual purely - one cannot, for example, only take and never give, or
visceversa. It is in finding the balance that the aim lies, and thus oneself should become androginous,
disregarding absolutely sexual behaviours. This has nothing to do with sexual behaviours - our soul
should be androginous. Then explain how the world and our souls mean the same by showing that the
graph of "The Infinite Bifurcation Creates the Heart" makes both a tree and a heart: The Tree, is the
World; the Heart, that untouched place by duality, is what we really are. Expound dis dotrine as
"Dualism"

“Sex” (A Magickal Explanation) (Magick – physical explanation of the world) Sex Generation

(HERE EXPLAIN THE CREATION OF THE MATRIX FROM -1+1 = WORLD. TALK HERE OF PHYSICS AND THE
CREATION OF ALL FROM THE VOID. THIS IS A QUANTUM EXPLANATION OF THE MATRIX)

(Commentary: this is the duality in the realms, it is all the forms of mating, it is also sex – everything is
having sex, in all the realms, even the atoms are having sex because the world of the six realms is all
made from mathematics, and is zero, so that it is always a constant coitus of –x + x, that creates the
world and still is nothing)

1 – Mooladhara

It is impossible as long as man can think, can know that he is thinking and can know that he knows that
he is thinking! Such a knowing is called belief,

The ego is the deliever, and without it goes any self reftaction of the impossibilities of double
awareness.

In this Centre of perception it is not enough for the snake to awaken, for it can rise and sleep many
times. It must go beyond the second centre to establish itself there.

This centre I like kids in the morning, you have to wake it several times because it goes back to sleep.

The Snake can remain in one centre for many years, or even a whole lifetime.

This centre deals with survival. It is blocked by fear. (Identification with the Body)

The experience is to know your Body as everything; no longer seeking survival.

We call this vehicle the Body; there is no way not to work with the body. All esoteric teaching begins
here.

When the body feels nothing, existance in an unsupported state becomes common.
This centre has been called Kingdom by the Jews, Root by the Hindus.

This is the impulse of life that makes seeds grow.

This is the transcendental basis of physical nature; transcendental because it does not depend on us.

Here the Energy is said to be lying dormant in the form of a coiled serpent. When aroused, it makes its
way upward through sushumna nadi in the spinal cord until it reaches sahasrara where the ultimate
experience of enlightenment occurs.

Siddhis;

Involuntary arousal

He becomes very passionate, loud and talkative, while at other times he is silent. At this stage the
sadhaka often expresses a great fondness for singing. During this period of intense psychic and
emotional upheaval, the guidance of a qualified and understanding guru is essential. Although some
people may regard this emotional turmoil as the indication of a great fall, the guru will assure the
aspirant that it is an essential part of spiritual life which will accelerate his evolution. If this explosion
doesn't take place, the same purging process will still occur, but very slowly, as problems arise and work
themselves out life after life.

7 – Sahasrara

My name is Pseudo-anonymous.

The pure land is ten thousand million miles away, but you can get there with a pair of sandals

when the undying moment does not arise because the breath is unrestrained [even] when the image is
seen by means of withdrawal (pratyahara) and the other (auxiliaries of yoga, i.e. dhyana, pranayama,
dharana, anusmrti and samadhi), then, having forcefully (hathena) made the breath flow in the central
channel through the practice of nada, which is about to be explained, [the yogi] should attain the
undying moment by restraining the bindu of the bodhicitta [i.e. semen] in the vajra [i.e. penis] when it is
in the lotus of wisdom [i.e. vagina].[11]

Mahamudra is the absolute state. It is an eternal orgasm. We have spoken before that the orgasm
anihhilates the ego and gives bliss. Sleep anihilates ego but gives no bliss. Absolute selflessness is a state
of constant bliss. It is also the eternal state, for, whom is there to die?

He said to his father: Dear father, to whom wilt thou give me? He said it a second time, then a third
time. The father replied: I shall give thee unto death!

In the highest state of realization, sense perception is no longer distinguishable from spiritual intuition.

Freed from desire, mind is purified.

The wise give up all meditations; they give up all good and evil deeds and drink of the nectar of
renunciation. I am free from disease - my form has been extinguished.

The Master of the Name commands reality, for he wishes it not, but speaks it into existance. Undertand
that it is not that a thaumaturge wishes for something to happen, and so it does; but he is a vehicle of
the energy of the moment whereby his prophecy is immediate.

Do you understand that such prophetical activity is much stronger than a historical one? Such a saint
commands not his will unto god, but is himself the vessel of the divine by where he merely names what
is happening; this is healing, this is life.

Of the seven Chakras, only six are visible to the inner eye of the Yogi. Sahasrara, the so-called seventh
Chakra, is an invisible and ineffable centre which cannot be classified as a Chakra per se. Yet it is with
this Invisible Chakra that the Yogi or Magician seeks to integrate himself. For this so-called Chakra
represents the True Self of the Yogi or Magician which, in Alchemy, is symbolized by the Stone of the
Philosophers

El séptimo centro dije que no se los podía explciar bien, pero este centro no es un centro que esté en
nuestro cuerpo, sino mas bien es una abertura que tenemos en la cabeza para que entre dios. Dios,
propiamente dicho, es el testigo supremo, el omnisciente. Hubieron veces que adentro mío los planetas
se unificaron y supe lo que es estar iluminado. Es una condición del camino de la mano izquierda lograr
unificaciones repentinas, y es la base del camino de la mano derecha que cuando llegás te quedás ahí.
Hubieron veces que me sentí unificado. A que me refiero? Me refiero a que somos todos seres
múltiples. Sentimos todo por separado. Tenemos nuestra alma partida en siete pedazos. Todos, todos
somos Voldemort. (Harry Potter, créanlo o no, es una obra inspirada, aunque obiamente a los poetas el
poder los usa sin que ellos lleguen al secreto que cuentan). Me refiero a que el que junta las siete
esferas del dragón se vuelve inmortal. (ven a lo que me refiero?) Que quiere decir ser inmortal? Quiere
decir llegar al cuerpo de luz, el cuerpo que teníamos apenas nacimos. Unificar las esferas quiere decir
que todo, nuestro cuerpo, nuestra voluntad, nuestras emociones, nuestra fe, nuestra mente, nuestra
imaginación, absolutamente todo lo que nos compone, está en la misma pantalla. Ya no estamos
partidos, somos uno. Quien ve la pantalla es el testigo, es Dios. Una vez que llegamos a Dios nuestro
cuerpo desaparece y nos convertimos en seres de luz inmortales. Los santos no mueren – es su destino
en la tierra morir a todo nlo que dios no es. Volverse uno con la luz – este es nuestro destino. Yo
pretendo llegar a él vivo. Pretendo morir en vida. Les digo esto para que sepan que este fue siempre mi
objetivo.

Sin embargo, como no es un centro, no se puede unificar, solo te puede ‘pasar’. La palabra correcta es
‘gloria’ – en la terminología cristiana gloria es una iluminación que no se puede forzar. Ninguna
iluminación se puede forzar – lo único que podemos hacer es unificar nuestros centros, unificar los
plantas, y esperar a que el Sol nos ilumine.

The closing of the sixth seal is the opening of the seventh, because upward from that nadi and pingala
are subsumed in sahasrara.

regenerated man is the european best word for from enlightened

the greeks have also used SECOND BORN

the orderc of the phoenix uses this word, regenerated man, and says stuff like - have you died to the
flaamee? then you aare a phoenix and caan join our brotheerhd off fthee secret flame

On recognizing the Master

“The Cloud upon the Sanctuary" is written in six letters, and they show the meaning of Revelation, the
means whereby man can receive it; the supreme importance of man's Regeneration and the means
whereby he can attain to it. And I may here say that a Regenerated Man in Mystic phraseology is
equivalent to "Mahatma," or may be more; in modern theosophic terms, it means a Master, and until
man attains to this rank he is not able to fully recognize the Master, so must always remain until that
time outside the Temple, not yet fit to enter within the sacred precincts and be hailed as a true Builder
by the Master Builder Himself. Regeneration is moreover the only means by which he gains freedom
from Karma

(Enlightenment, Regeneration, Salvation, Moksha Nirvana Heaven etc.)

Meister Eckhart - The Cloud Upon the Sanctuary

Regeneration is no other than a dissolution of, and a release from this impure and corruptible matter,
which enchains our immortal essence, plunging into deathly sleep its obstructed vital force.

Ultimate Operation

On the absolute experience:

If it is of the nature of the not-Self, how can there be Samahdi? If it is of the nature of the Self, how can
there be Samahdi? If it is both "is" and "is not", how can there be Samahdi? If all is one and of the nature
of freedom, how can there be Samahdi?

There exists a tiny hole inside the brain of man. Within this hole dwells the soul. There is also a kind of
valve which protects this hole. At the bottom of the spine there comes into being the unseeable life-
current which I have mentioned to you more than once. The constant loss of this current causes the
body to grow old, but its control fills the flesh with new life and perpetuates it. When a man has
conquered himself, he can begin to get this control by certain practices which are known only to
advanced Yogis of our school. And when he can withdraw this life-current up his spine, he may then try
to concentrate it into the hole in the brain. But, unless he finds a master who will assist him to open the
protecting valve, he cannot succeed. If he finds a master who is willing to do this, then the unseeable
current will enter the hole and turn into the Nectar of Longevity, as we name it. It is no easy task, for
ruin waits in ambush for the man who attempts it alone. But the man who succeeds can induce a
condition similar to death whenever he pleases, and so obtains the victor's power when real death seeks
him out. In fact, he can choose the exact moment of his death at any time, and to the severest
examination he will appear to have died naturally. One who has all these three methods at his command
can live for many hundred years. So have I been taught. Even when he dies, the worms will refrain from
attacking his body. A century later his flesh will still be free from decay.

There are many ways of unleashing this energy, but its operation is the last tantra; the seventh yoga of
naropa, phowa, transference of consciousness to the pure realm.

What, then, could it be? The subject tonight is love, and for tomorrow night as well. As a matter of fact,
I know of no better topic for us to discuss until we die.

The hermeneutics of enlightenment is this; that once the snake goes up and achieves identity with the
Dragon, the function of the centres of experience is dissolved.
No longer do these centres exist, for all has become one; the world, its destiny, its culture, its religions,
its literature and its magick. Every experience is regarded as the function of one phenomena only;
therefore, we can speak of no “function” of enlightenment but only of its operation.

The relationship between the centres is no longer that of upwards or downwards; the flow of the prana
is still. Thereafter from the center of emptiness the perceptions revolve and become one.

Such as state, wherein no distinction between perceptions is realized, where the chirping of the birds
outside occurs in the same plane as our thoughts, that is the enlightenment, for we are thinking both.

Thus experience has no function; it is, by itself, in a measure of which our discourses on the duality, on
the triad, on the cross, on the pentagram, on the snake and of the lightning can reach no understanding;
the first chapter is unconcievable. This first chapter must remain unwritten because it is yourself.

These are the final words on my discourse. I am no different from you, nor am I more or less holy or any
more or less insignificant. I have seen the fate that the stars have wrote for myself. My life is full of
friction. This understanding will not rid me of my personal problems, nor do I desire it to, and I am yet to
be rejected, and humilliated, and betrayed. I have consecrated myself to a life of service, and the path
wherein the dragon has set me on is as slippery as the flakes of its skin in which I slide.

I am not enlightened. I am aware of the functions of my experience and my state is not absolute, yet.
The stars have saved me some despair and ordered to me to write before the grace of the lighting of the
lord can come and absolve me from myself; thereafter my body shall be sacrificed, and I do not know
what power will come to inhabit me.

I do not believe this. The stars have spoken so. The path of magick is the mysterious actualization of the
impossible; that is why my myth is true.

I am a solar fiction, a flame with no form, an empty cloud.

But an insurpassable feeling comes over me now that I speak these final lines of the first book of the
trilogy, and into a rapture I can sense I am taken;

THE VISION
How did I chance to look upon the Divine Chariot? It took me years of walking, stride the earth, looking
to complete the secret of how to stop the machine. What happened, really? Alone in the desert, a
dreamlike state, truly awake, a talking snake, the lines of the world, the voice of the stars, eternal bliss,
time dies. But I will try to retell my Vision.

For some years my heart was proud, for as the beauty sank into memory it seemed to become a
personal possession, and I said "I imagined this" when I should humbly have said, "The curtain was a
little lifted that I might see. "

I have seen the truth and it doesn’t make sense.

Some say God remains an illusion until you realize it; once you realize God the world is an illusion.

Realization remains an illusion until you realize it, because the realization was the illusion. What we
realize is not the truth but the freedom from realizing anything.

The Universe is not testing you, but giving you a chance to practice what you say you already are.

Everything you are going through is preparing you for what you asked for.

The quieter you become, the more you can hear.

Einstein said: "Pure mathematics is, in its way, the poetry of logical ideas".

When the student is ready the teacher dissapears; when the student is truly ready the teacher
dissapears.

You never change things by fighting the existing reality; for reality is a collective perception. You can only
build a new model that makes the old model obsolete. This is my purpose.

The syntactical nature of reality, the real secret of magic, is that the world is made of words, and if you
know the words that the world is made of, you can make of it whatever you wish
/

Lihting strikes like our nervous system

To fractalize time is to be in the moment

Don’t waste your time purifying the mind because the mind can never be pure. Even the desire to be
pure is a trick of the mind. And you need not drop the mind because it does not exist. How can you drop
something that does not exist?

"Open are the double doors of the horizon" is a quotation from the Pyramid Texts.

The ways of unlying

I have to speak here of Jewish mysticism, whose inquiry I have sought the most for it is an anlogy for the
Visions of Christ. The great Enigma is that, since Christ did not write, we only have the perspective of the
Devil in his Enlightening Experience. That is right, for another could not know or assume the form of god,
and this non-assuming of the form of god, and a complete reliance on his perfect son, the christ, annuls
dirctly all mysticism, for what we have faith is in Man. This is te greatest success and succour of
Christianity, and yet, we cannot speak about Christianity for we know nothing of the Christ; what we
know is of Christology. True christianity should and must have a representation of the undeniable fact
that Jesus came to Know his father by experience. To admit Yahoshua as a divine incarnation takes away
the value of his lesson, for he suffered not as an untouhable god but suffered as a man to teach us
perfection. And yet Christ is not the Vison, but the formless faith.

What was his vision like? I can only come to share my own, that if it would prove to amaze the reader,
will prove that a greater one did Christ, the perfect man, had, in comparison to this poor sinner, this
writer of inconsistencies, this slave of arrogance perennial who has chosen the best disguise as his
anonimity writing books regarding the divinity which escapes him!

If my tongue tickes your fantasies into recognition, imagine what the Saviour could have done with a
glance! And yet he has looked at me, and this was my vision.

If Jesus conversed with the Lord his image shall become unattainable. Christianity is faith in God through
Christ and Faith in Man. But as long as it presents itself as a path in which belief must be kept, and
actions from those beliefs followed, we shall admit the correlation between the conviction of our beliefs
to dictate our actions and our faith; and thereby, think that we strenghten faith to trump death but
instead fear all the mosre and distract yourself with choosing something impossible. Nothing can be
believed at all; and yet we might have faith. I converse not with God but with Christ my brother.

And yet for we to become brothers I had to see our father. His vision is Impossible. This book has been
an explanation of the Vision of Ezekiel. It is not that god looks like that; the Vision of Ezekiel is the
Perfect metaphor of reality, because it is inconcievable. Christ had a vision like this, then, the
phenomenological study of the visionary state is what is most important to us; not to describe it, but to
attain it?

May we be worthy?

In my Vision I saw a Pyramid that was a mountain that was Path and a Pilgrim and a Prayer. God gave me
a scroll to eat and I suffered. I knew I was mad because I had no fear. My self dissapeared but the vision
became stronger. No one enters there. I entered the Pyramid. The empty space inside was infinite. I
knew it was my tomb. I knew an eye was seeing me from above, but I couldn’t stand its sight of me. I
burned and burned and suffered every step I took. For a ladder was there. As I took the ladder it became
a stairway, and along the steps it became a scruggy Mountain path. The ground was were I live. I looked
around. I was daydreaming. I had this book in my hands. And the Book as open and the words had
become entangled and had created a four dimensional symbol. It was a mantra tesseract, and it spoke
to me. It was the voice of a Dragon, and its Voice was Fire. And as I read out loud my body became
another, and I had wings, and finn’s like a crocodile’s, and a ram’s feet, and had the mane of a Lion. I
was a Sphinx. I had a Riddle to give, but I came upon the Path. I looked at myself, a Phynx in an invisble
mirror. Who would ask the Riddle First? Our gaze was eternal, and I was aware of being conscious of
having a consciousness of both Sphynxes. My consciousness was in two places at the same time! This
experience was ineffable, but it make me understand Eveerything. I suddenly knew. The question of God
dropped forever from the possibilities of my mind stating it, and there was not any self to the mind that
I had, though it kept talking. And as it talked like this my mind was in two places, and what I became was
the Sight that was itself. This union of perspectives of consciouness generated incredible bliss like a
pleasure faucet. I could see in front of me my own shape, and I began to move, from the two Sphinx
bodies at the same time. But instead of being reflected, they were identical. My two right arms, like a
Lion’s paw, pointed two fingers to the sky; my left hand, like a dead snakeskin of bone, pointed two
fingers to the ground. I was seeing myself move as an opposite. At that moment my dual consciousness
fragmented infinitely, and I was a Sphynx being with fractal hands. Infinite number of hands were
beneath and beyond everything, but I stil had consciouness of space. And each hand held a different
object.

And my consciouness was seeing from the perspective of the Pyramid; that is, I saw this double sphynx
with infinite qualities, and it began to move. As it began to dance I knew it was sex, but there was no
penetration, the two sphinxes became one, and I was looking from everywhere, everything, and
Everything was four and was three at the same time. Infinity was not being able to count, for the sets of
everything were infinite. And the God started to metamorph, and it became the Pyramid, and the
Pyramid was made of infinitely downward widening circles of angles, beautiful angels, praying and
singinig with an impossible voice what was atop their conelike structure. And it was a disgusting baby,
like a child with genetic disorders. It was so intense that eyes and teeth and outer organs and larynxes
clashed. But still it was alive, and radiated an energy that was incredible. The most sacred thing was a
deformed baby. I couldn’t stop looking. And then I saw that child gestate in the Tomb and was born but
never left the womb. And this child had my name and it was only concerned in fucking, whilst it didn’t
know it was penetrating the womb all the time, just by standing right up. And now I knew. And at that
point love exploded in my chest, and I dissapeared. I have no memory of where I went, but what existed
when my self was substracted was infinite.

I left the Pyramid. The door of perception was cleansed, for I had gone right through. I left the Pyramid
and the gate was always invisible. But I cannot explain the outside. I had become the Pyramid. The final
sublime object of experience was to see the fibre of the universe as Eyes. The Pyramid started spinning,
and it became a Merkava tesseract.

And I saw no more.

THE VISION OF EZEKIEL

Ezekiel Sees God

Although the text is careful to put a couple of awkward, nominal barriers between itself and a clear
statement of Ezekiel’s vision, it is evident that Ezekiel is presented as having had a vision of the divine or
of the divine glory (kābôd YHWH) in human form. In and of itself, this is not a unique occurrence in
biblical literature, where God is manifest in human form on a number of occasions (e.g., Genesis 18; 1
Kings 22:19; Isaiah 6).[25] While it could be assumed that the kābôd is a separate entity from God, it is
more likely that the kābôd is the aura of light surrounding the deity—as it surrounds many other deities
throughout the ancient Near East and beyond—and that thekābôd is the visible manifestation of God
and not a separate being.[26]

THAT IS, THE ONLY THING WE SEE IS THE THRONE OF GLORY – THE ARK IS EMPTY

Why, then, does Jewish tradition view specifically this vision as so dangerous that an engagement with it
was restricted to personal reflection or discussion with those already in the know? Indeed, one midrash
(b. Hag. 13a) claims that a young student was burnt to a crisp by a divine fire that leapt off the page
when he speculated about the meaning of the word ḥašmal “amber” (Ezek 1:4, probably some sort of
gleaming precious stone or metal alloy).

The Hayyot’s of Ezekiel are the same spirits as the Bodhisattvas in Buddha’s Vision; the biengs of life and
truth. The Angels are consciousnesses of bliss abiding without phenomenal limitation. The Angles are
not the Spirits of the Dead but the Spirits of the Living! Once you attain this sense of enlightenment, that
of the destruction of time, your consciousness is not limited to space! Therefore you exist in all
timeliness; the Angles surrounding the Throne chanting Om are not dead, or live somewhere else; they
are the minds of the ones who realized Divinity. The Angels are arranged not in a circle but a spiral
whose Apex is Empty.

I saw a mystic deformed child, and it was sacred.

Demons are imperfect permutations of the Angels; that is, they are corrupt forms of the Tetrahedra.

Mystery cannot be seen.

For example, Mishnah Hagigah 2:1 states:

‫אין דורשין בעריות בשלשה ולא במעשה בראשית בשנים ולא במרכבה ביחיד אלא אם כן היה חכם ומבין‬
‫ מדעתו‬One may not expound upon the sexual rules (Lev 18, 20) in front of three [students], about
creation (Gen 1) in front of two, or the chariot (Ezek 1) in front of (even) one, unless he is wise and
already understands it on his own.

This book on numerology is actually merkava mysticism, for it expunds an ineffable vision as a
geometrical metaphor.

The chariot is the pyramid.

This was an attempt at entangling all myths into one, even all theriomorphic god-archetypes.

Even the angels, described as “double wheels” are beings ef emptiness that are free to move in all
directions; this is pure consciousness. The bodhisattva is a consistent phenomenon of intuition by which
we regard an image as being free from representation. The double wheel is a symbol of our awareness,
the wheel that goes in all directions. But god cannot even be described by this. The angels are
bodhisattvas which we might become, but god is consciousness itself and cannot ever be seen but
realized to be the Lord of being, which knows not of the duality of life and death but knows only of
existance, and, since its being is mystery, his form of knowing is unknown. That is the mystic!

The inside of the Pyramid is the Temple Palace. The Mandala is the perspective of the Top looking down.

Like the Temple Scroll of the Essenes, this is a description of the Pyramid.

The holy of holies is where Sky met Earth, so that it is an axis mundi. The first point where height mate
base is the top of the pyramid; this point is the axis. This axis is empty, for it is the whole in the
Foundation Stone that leads to the Well of Souls. The Mountain is Mt Moriah, Sumeru!
(THIS CAN EITHER GO TO THE VISION, OR USE IT AS A METAPHOR OF THE MAGICKAL PRACTICE)

On the Holy of Holies there was:

1) A wooden ark, gilded inside and outside, for the Tablets of the Covenant, with a pure gold cover as
the "mercy seat" for the Divine Presence (that is, An Ark that Contains the Words of Emptiness) (the ark
itself is the throne of god) (the Ark of the covenant kept the first three objects)

2) A gilt table for the "Table of Showbread", on which loaves of bread were arranged; (The Altar for the
Eucharist, the transformation of bread into holy manna) (this came from the Mana Pot, which was
originally in the first Ark of the Coventant)

3) A golden menorah, lampstand of 7 oil lamps for a light never to be extinguished; (an image of the Fire
Dragon), which is an image of Aaron’s Rod, the Snake (which was initially in the first Ark of the
Covenant)

4) The dwelling, including the curtains for the roof, the walls made of boards resting on silver feet and
held together by wooden bolts, the multi-colored curtain veiling the Holy of Holies (of blue, purple,
crimson, white and gold), the table and candlestick, and the outer curtain; (the room veiled by the night
sky, blue with crimson white and gold stars) (the magician dresses white)

5) A sacrificial altar made of bronzed boards for its korban/sacrifice; (a place of sacrifice)

6) The outer court formed by pillars resting on bronze pedestals and connected by hooks and crossbars
of silver, with embroidered curtains; (the structure of the temple)

7) Recipe and preparation of the oil for the Lampstand. (a book of wisdom)

Thus seven objects.

The censer and all the other objects the magician carries in.

What I offer is a contruction of the Third Temple inside you.

One of the features of the Jerusalem Temple with which any priest would have been familiar was the
two giant statues of cherubim that stood in the inner sanctum of the Temple (1 Kgs 6:23–28). IN MY
VISION, these opposing sphynxes that “see” the glory of God are the arch of the Covenant.

It would seem that once Ezekiel sees the creatures in the courtyard of the Jerusalem Temple, he finally
comes to the realization of what they are: these are the cherubs from the Temple come to life.[31] The
inanimate statues that stood motionless in the Temple have now revealed their meaning to him: they
are the divine throne as well as chariot.

The Merkava, is the Divine Presence; this is the sublime object of the mind.
Actually, the Vision of the two Cherub/Sphynxes on the Ark of the Covenant become the Infinite Vision
of the Double Sphynxes.

The chariot is the real Vision of the Ark of the Convenat; the Ark was a coffer that kept the law of
selflessness; in the vision this ark with the cherubs becomes fractalized. So it did in my vision. I am a
prophet also; but I prophetize that the past was right.

The pillar of the pyramid is the fifth dimension, that is, there are four cornes and a centre.

The super tetrahedron, the tesseract is the metatron.

Be very clear where the Vision should be; also understand all your books as grimoires.

YHWH arrives in his chariot to speak to Ezekiel; the merkava is the vehicle of the divine presence.

What I give is a blue print of the Third Temple. Hierosalem, the land of the free, is in you.

Read Walter Zimmerli Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel

Howard Eilberg-Schwartz, God's Phallus: And Other Problems for Men and Monotheism

ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF JEWISH RELIGION

Especula y hace una escena en la que llega Ezekiel a profetizar al pueblo judio. Tiene que ser un “mago
del desierto”. Todo este evento tiene que crear el libro de Ezekiel. El que lo escribe no es el sino otro.

Ezekiel era un santo que le decia a la gente que sean buenos, que tienen que ser santos en esta ciudad.
Ellos lo ignoran. Tiene algo de diogenes tambien. Y termina contando su vision en el desierto.

No, pero Ezekiel no puede ser un mago ya. La experiencia lo volvio mago. Tiene que ser honesto y contar
que le paso. Al igual que Moises, que dijo, quien soy yo para hablarle asi a los isrealitas? De parte de
quien? Y le dice “departe de tu yo soy”. Ezekiel era un hombre que tuvo una profecia?

No, tiene que haber sido christlike. He had served in the temple of jerusalem for two years. He had to
leave because of the degeneracy.

This is the most recurrent factor of all prophets. They are disgusted by moral downfall.

Abraham was a Caanaite priest, in fact, a Babylonian Magi, the Second Wise. What once was Eden had
become Babylon, so he took some people with him and prophezised in his story the first rule; we shall
not commit human sacrifice anymore. That is the idea of God that comes to explain a revelation of
Abraham.
Abraham was the first Magi to cease to do human sacrifices. God had told him so, and used his children
as an example, for Abraham was the man of greatest faith, and would do as God commands him.

He was rejected to he took some men and began calling themselves Israelites, “Seekers of the City of
God”. They were hunters of the Pyramid.

Later, Moshe, a Jewish born Egyptian priest, also take some seekers of the city of god. He was a mystic,
and lead them also; his rule were the ten commandments, his rule was law.

The commandments were not new; there were laws already. The only new thing about the
commandments, what really separated the Isrealites from their neighbours, was the first
commandment. Thou shall not have other gods before me, and I am irrepresentable, and have no name.
This is the correct conception of the first three. Moshe created not monotheism, which already existed,
for even Abraham was a Magi and new of Ahura Mazda, God as the cosmic wizard. But this had created
the shadow of Evil, and so people began adoring magic with ritual sacrifice. This was an old wasy to
make magic; amgick by death. But abraham realized that the greatest magic was love. And to explain
who told this, from whence does he have authority from, they invented this idea of God. God told me,
which was a way for the prophets to dissolve the question. Why should we listen to you? The absolute
told me. But the absolute is their selfless state, and we are denied their visions of awakening. So moshe
said, no other, which is emptyness, no image, which is mudra and no name which is mantra.

The great invention of Moshe is your consciousness; the Law is not only a covenant you make with other
people, its not that we agree not to kill; but I realize that I cannot kill.

How would the commandments sound like this?

You cannot have any other god before me, a metaphor of essencelessness.

You cannot represent me, a metapor of kundalini second, earth.

You cannot call me, a metaphor of kundalini, for it is the third, mind, water.

You cannot work at the seventh stage – a metaphor of enlightening, which is also the fourth, fire.

Honour the Duality for it comes from oneness.

(here begin the conclusions) You cannot kill – for all is Me.

You cannot be adulterous – for it is all Me.

You cannot steal – for it is all Mine.

You cannot lie – for it is all True.

You shall not desire – for it is all purposeless.

This is a description of a State of experience.

Throughout Israel’s history, these Ten Commandments should form the legal, moral and spiritual
foundation of the nation’s life. They were Israel’s institution. But there was more to it, since those
commandments were the terms of Israel’s covenant with God. Failing to obey them thus was not just a
problem for society, but also for the personal and communal relationship with God. And it is clear that
nobody ever managed to obey these commandments fully all of his life. “Surely there is not a righteous
man on earth who does good and never sins” (Ecclesiastes 7:20).

It is impossible to earn God’s favor and your own salvation by obeying these commandments. But the
Ten Commandments do help people gain insight in the problem of their sinful hearts (Romans 3:20).
That should bring them to repentance, it should motivate them to ask God for forgiveness (Psalm 32:5).
The apostle Paul concludes: “So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might
be justified by faith” (Galatians 3:24).

The commandments were never meant to be “unbroken”; the commandments are the description of a
state, which by its evidences we confirm that it is the god-state. Moshe was explaining what was like to
be with God. This was his experience;

No self, no form, no name; (the trinity of enlightenment) / selflessness as the trinity

at rest in the seventh seal; (the fullfillment of said trinity) / peace at the mountaintop

made one by two, and two by one (meaninglessness of perspective) (the function of five) / transcending
all duality

without hate (desire to kill), without lust (desire to cum), without envy (desire to be someone else),
without deceat (desire to be someone else), without desire (without desire of desire)

Jesus fullfilled the covenant because he maintained the ten commandments; that is, he was in this state
of perfection. His being was selfless, knew to fixed form or fixed name, was at rest in the seventh, knew
the identity of separation and unity having transceded their duality, and remained without agression,
without objectification, without projection, without any manner of dishonery and without material
desires or attachments. By keeping this state he became enlightened. Only someone who is in this sate
can or could speak as Jesus spoke. You have to understand that his words are so powerful because only
someone in such a state could speak thus. Forget his words and seek his meaning; not emulation but a
symbol of enlightenement is the christ, for God cannot be symbollized.

Therefore, Christians no longer live under the “yoke” of the law, but in the freedom of Christ (Galatians
5:1); that is, the christian is form whom the only law is love. Moshe never really created laws, but his
experience got misinterpreted and forgot the ideal of god in the consciousness of a divine ruler. This
invention of prosecution is a jewish madness. This is a psychological archetype, not a god. Very few
peaople transcend the psychological aspect of regarding god as father for what it really means.

And so did Christ come to destroy the sense of Law, as in “keeping preceps” for all his age was mad with
this type of puritanism, the same puritanism that, being pollitically correct, what hyppocritical as to let
people turn the temple into a market. The market was also the law; thus Jesus said that market and law
and human civilities and judges are not God. The Judge of Conciouness is God, that is ourselves. So
Christ destroyed the law and said Love, wich was also what Moshe was saying by his state, although he
referred to it through a NEGATIVE PERSPECTIVE, LIKE THE BUDDHA. No hate, he said; no lust no hunger.
That is love, but they didn’t have a word yet for it.

Maimonides wrote in The Guide for the Perplexed "that God deliberately has moved Jews away from
sacrifices towards prayer, as prayer is a higher form of worship"

Fear of God was the Love then. Fear of God is the Love of the Prophets. I am to become perfect; so has
my fear turned into love also. And yet, if you do not first fear God the secrets of death that disclose the
Enigma of the perfect bliss shall remain possible to you, and therefore futile and frustrating, for you
can’t do anything but dissapear. The only ground of mystery is faith.

Two thousand years later I come and say Mystery. I am the Fifth.

Believers nowadays thus need not obey the Old Testament laws anymore. I am a true Christian; I will
explain you by my being what this means.

Only the High Priest can enter the Holy of Holies, and only in the Day of his Repentance. If he does not
repent or enter the chamber with impurities he shall be struck by lightning.

I myself entered not being a High Priest nor having undergone ritual purification, and the lightning killed
me. This was my vision of Death.

I didn’t need to sacrifice a bull for myself or a goat for the people, since the Highest Priest had already
sacrificed himself as the lamb for all.

The Atlantean became corrupted by Semyaz, the Grandson of Enoch. His two borthers sailed east and
West, of which we only have an account of Noah. Noah funded Babylon. When Babylon was corrupted,
two brothers set out. One was Tahuti and the other was Abraham. Tahuti went to reform Babylonian
religion into the Egyptian. Abraham left to Judea and reformed Babylonian religion into the Jewish. But
the Jewish and the Egyptian religion became merged by Moshe, who was both.

The heavy-metal idea of an object that kills was the fear the Jews had to the Ark. They couldn’t save it
from the Destruction of the First Temple because they did not dare enter the Holy of Holies… unless it is
still Hidden in Temple Mount. That is Holy Mountain, the Secret of the Pyramid!

Ezekiel foreshadows the destruction of the First Temple, Jesus prophezised the destruction of the
Second Temple, but I have come to build the Third.
The contents of the ark are seen by theologians such as the Church Fathers and Thomas Aquinas as
personified by Jesus Christ: the manna as the Holy Eucharist; Aaron's rod as Jesus' eternal priestly
authority; and the tablets of the Law, as the Lawgiver himself.

Voice in the Wilderness

I am changeless and eternal. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so
the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible.

This type of prophetic speech makes us believe that god has a self that speak from, but there is no
diality; the manner of prophecy has been a fable of relation. Never has god spoken; he can only be
heard. But the one who hears was the hearing; therefore his words cannot be written, but the
understanding for the people.

You know, doing what is right is easy. What is difficult for us is knowing what is right; therefore, abandon
all struggle and be at ease.

But people now fell back into idolatry because they couldn’t understand how God could be without an
image or a name or even a self. If there is no other, how could ther be me at all?

And so came Ezekiel and gave them an account of a vision of the impossible; and Ezekiel said, repent.
Ezekiel invented forgiveness. Not only death was over, god was an impossible one, but the very
“impossible oneness” of God were all numbers. And ezekiel invented Qaballah and Merkava.the sepher
yetsirah is an image of the vison.

Ezekiel warned them, and was a man that had an experience of god; and his rule was repent.

Jesus did not came to warn, but came to fullfill. As people did not repent, he suffered their sins so that
he could repent for them. By taking all the sins of Jerusalem Christ saved the world. His love went even
beyond Race, thereby ‘ending’ the selection of the seekers to the saved of all the world.

What is their message?

Do you think it’s a coincidence that the carrier of the cross was a carpenter? The bible is infinitely well
crafted; it is the work of jesus’s disciples understandings.
The Vision

Seeing within myself an immaterial vision that came from the mercy of God, I went out of myself into an
immortal body, and now I am not what I was before. I have been born in mind!

Corpus hermeticum xiii

The heavens could not bear the weight of the Trust. When the lots were thrown again, the Trust fell on
man, on me, an idiot and a fool. I am a nobody, just a squatter sitting in the dust of the public street; and
yet these sacred beings from the Innermost Sanctuary drank some wine with me.

After enlightenment one is still the same as one was before. There is no mind and there is no Dharma.
One is. simply free from unreality and delusion.

The moment of realizing the unity of Mind and the voidness of substance that constitutes the ultimate
reality may truly be said to baffle description.

In the Theogeny, Hesiod declares that the muses who taught him to sing “tell lies that resemble the
truth.”

Then, when I got up and started to leave, I stopped on the temple steps and looked with amazement at
the courtyard. A strong wind had started to blow, tearing leaves off all the trees. The air was filled with
them! Yet, the leaves were motionless. They were just there, suspended in air. And all was so serene!
Finally, I had perceived something with my Buddha Eye! So this was the whirlwind that destroys but
does not move. And again I understood that the ego-mind continuously moves like a flow of air or
water, but what it sees is actually stable matrix which all things pulse in and out of. Now I understood!
My ego-mind had decided that a certain configuration of matter was a leaf, and then my ego-mind had
decided to string together a series of images and to call this series movement: blowing leaves. In reality,
there was no I standing there on the steps. There were no steps. There was neither wind nor blowing
leaf. My ego-mind put arbitrary boundaries on matter and time, and gave things name and form. But
reality, perceived directly without my intervening egomind, was nameless and formless and timeless.

The Autobiography Of Hānshān Déqīng (1546–1623) of the Ming Dynasty

An ancient said, if the doors of perception were cleansed, all would be as it is; infinite.

This is a description of the Reality that I saw. But have in mind…

May the Holy One mitigate His severities toward His servant in respect of the haste wherewith this essay
hath been composed! When I travelled with the venerable Iehi Aour in search of Truth, we encountered
a certain wise and holy man, Shri Parananda.Children! said he, for two years must ye study with me
before ye fully comprehend our Law.“Venerable Sir!” answered Frater I.A. , “The first verse of Our Law
contains but seven words. For seven years did I study that verse by day and by night; and at the end of
that time did I presume—may the Dweller of Eternity pardon me!—to write a monograph upon the first
word of those seven words. ” “Venerable Sir!” quoth I: “that First Word of our law contains but six
letters. For six years did I study that word by day and by night; and at the end of that time did I not dare
to utter the first letter of those six letters. ” Thus humbling myself did I abash both the holy Yogi and my
venerable Frater I.A. But alas! Tetragrammaton! Alas! Adonai! the hour of my silence is past. May the
hour of my silence return! Amen.

O God, pardon me if I have sinned against Thy Majesty in revealing such a great mystery in my writings
which all may read, but I believe that only those who are truly worthy will understand.

John Dee - The Hieroglyphic Monad

Who can describe the unique work of grace? I have been forced to illustrate it by these similies.
Sometimes it presents one appearance, sometimes another. Yea, the affair of religion is only
bewilderment.

rumi

The Sphinx
To see a sphynx is to see a pyramid come alive.

Battle agins the Sphynx which are the Four.

Case 10 Huanglong’s Three Barriers (inventor el Koan de la Esfinge)

Huanglong Huinan asked Longqing Qingxian, “Everyone has their own native place. What is your native
place?” Longqing answered, “Early this morning I had some rice gruel, and now I feel hungry again.”
“How does my hand resemble a buddha’s hand?” Huanglong asked. “Playing a lute in the moonlight,” 2
Longqing answered. “How does my leg resemble a donkey’s leg?” he asked. Longqing answered, “A
snowy egret stands in the snow, but their colors are not the same.” 3

Huanglong always presented students with these three statements, but no one could come up with a
satisfactory response. Monks everywhere called them the Three Barriers of Huanglong. Even with the
few who gave answers, the master would neither agree nor disagree but only sit there in formal posture
with eyes closed. No one could fathom his intent. When the layman Fan Yanzhi asked the reason for
this, Huanglong replied, “Those who have passed through the gate shake their sleeves and go straight on
their way. What do they care if there’s a gatekeeper? Those who seek the gatekeeper’s permission have
yet to pass through.”

The Pyramid
Arrival at the Pyramid.

Pylons of Initiation

Vision of Imhotep

Like the Shepherd Man Discourse of Hermes, this dialogue is not what the Voice said but what the Voice
told me wordless.

Imhotep became Hippocrates became Socrates became Jesus… a perfect Mix of Hermes and Dyonisius.
The Gospel of Pontius Pilate

… And the Vision took me, and Imhotep showed me an Alchemist writing the Gospel according to
Pontius Pilate…

Jesus was dressed like a desert prophet, like someone who has come from the wilderness.

Pontius Pilate is not a Seneca-like greek stoic; he is a ruthless tyrant, just like Herod. To him Jesus claims
the kingdom of the father is greater than this.

Loki is bound with three bonds made from the entrails of his son through holes in three upright slabs
of rock, the first under his shoulders, the second under his loins and the third under the backs of his
knees.

Odin:

Three were the original beings, Audumla, Ymir and Búri; three brothers were we from the third
descended, and in my quest for the Grail, the Well of Souls wherein I saw the Runes that the three
Norns of past, present and future wove, I suffered the triple passion of pain; I hung, I was pierced by a
spear and I gave up my worldly eye.

Triple are the threefold roots of Ygdrassil where Nidhhogr waits for his wings; three are the offspring of
my dragonform, and three are the winters without a summer before the End.

I am Othin, I am Christ; I am Loki, I am disguise. Prometheus has been slandered Satan. Forgive the Devil.

P; Who are you?

J; What I am is obvious, but the question shrouds it. I am many for many, but one for the one.

P; Who are you?

J; What am I to you?

P; You are the king of the jews.

J; We have not kings but prophets. You have kings, that live in the mouth of their servants; but our
servants are the prophets, that live in the mouth of the Lord.

Jesus said: I will give you what no eye has seen and what no ear has heard and what no hand has
touched and what has not entered into the heart of man.

The truth will kill you.

So I will teach you how to die.

To the cosmic we are transparent.

The name of the father is the son.

The Magus

There is no passive state generated by the inactivity of an active one.

The monk continued, " I do not know what kind of composition the dragon's song is." The Master
answered, " I also do not know what kind of composition the dragon's song is. But all those who hear it
lose themselves."

only a kind deadly sincere man can show you the way here in the other world only

I walked through the door of death came back went back am here brisk wind warm rain dawn the
bleached moon

Saints do not die. It is their lot, to die while on this earth to all that God is not.
(Angelus silesius – the prophet of the ineffable)

All beings are transient, like past and future guests:

The old have gone, the young will also go.

This generation will not even last a hundred years –

Understand this thoroughly right away.

(Now that I come to die - longchempa)

When your illusory, constantly changing ego-self dies you can realize your one, true and permanent
nature, your Immutable Buddha-Self.

The Autobiography Of Hānshān Déqīng (1546–1623) of the Ming Dynasty

The awakening of the spirit is accomplished because the heart has first died. When a man can let his
heart die, then the primordial spirit wakes to life. To kill the heart does not mean to let it dry and wither
away, but it means that it is undivided and gathered into one.

(the secret of the golden flower)

Case 13 Langzhong’s “Hell” Cui Langzhong asked Zhaozhou Congshen, “Do enlightened teachers ever fall
into hell?” 1 “I’ll be the first to go there,” 2 replied Zhaozhou. “But you’re an enlightened teacher,” said
Langzhong. “Why would you fall into hell?” “If I didn’t fall into hell, how could I help you?” Zhaozhou
answered. 1. The

There was a question: "Will you, Master, also go to hell?" The Master replied, " I will be the first one to
go to hell."73 The monk inquired, "Why should you, a great wise man, go to hell?" The Master replied, "
I f I do not go, who will be there to teach you?"

True death is forbidden unto us.

What we must learn is how to die.

Religion seeks to empower our strength of detachment while dying.

Explain death as the ultimate experience.

Case 14 Changsheng’s “Chaos”

Changsheng asked Lingyun Zhiqin, “What about the time of primordial chaos, 1 before any
differentiation?” Lingyun answered, “A pillar conceives.” 2 Changsheng said, “What about after
differentiation?” Lingyun responded, “It is like a wisp of cloud marking the Great Pure Sky.” 3
Changsheng asked, “Does the Great Pure Sky accept this mark or not?” Lingyun didn’t say anything.
Changsheng continued, “If that were so, living beings would not come forth.” Again Lingyun didn’t say
anything. Changsheng continued, “How about when there’s only absolute purity and all stains are
avoided?” Lingyun replied, “That would closely resemble the pure realmof enlightenment.” 4 “What is it
to ‘closely resemble the pure realmof enlightenment’?” “It is like the infinite luminosity of a mirror,” said
Lingyun. “Is there, then, a transcendence even of this?” 5 asked Changsheng. “There is,” replied Lingyun.
“What is this transcendence?” Changsheng asked. Lingyun said, “Smash the mirror, then you and I can
meet.” 6

The Dragon

On the Dragon

66. Kømr enn dimmi | dreki fljūgandi, From below the dragon | dark comes forth, naþr frānn neþan | frā
Niþafjǫllum; Nithhogg flying | from Nithafjoll; bersk ī fjǫþrum | — flȳgr vǫll yfir— The bodies of men on
| his wings he bears, Nīþhǫggr naï: | nū mun søkkvask. The serpent bright: | but now must I sink.

Lesser Banishing Ritual of the Pentagram

[Rectified in accordance with Hebrew sources]

by Eric C. Friedman

Part I: The Qabalistic Cross

1.) Stand facing East. Visualize yourself getting taller and taller until the Earth becomes a tiny sphere at
your feet. See the solar system swirling around you. Your feet are anchored to the Earth. You are a Pillar

in the Void. From high above your head you see a point of light coming toward you. Watch it until it

becomes a sphere about the size of a dinner plate right above your head. It is bright white, an extreme,

pulsating brilliance. Point to this sphere with the index or dagger and draw it down to the forehead

(third eye area). Vibrate:

Atah – hta

2.) Bring the light down more, pointing first to the heart, then descending to the groin area. Hold the

dagger pointing downward, covering the groin. Feel this shaft of pure light go down through the body

into infinity below you. Vibrate:

Ha-Malchut – tvklmh

3.)Bring the point of the dagger back up the body and then over to the right shoulder. Touch the left

shoulder and visualize the beam of light running down the left arm and continuing on to the farthest

reaches of the Universe. Focus on the beam of light and vibrate:

v’ha-Gevurah – hrvbghv

4.) Cross over to the right shoulder. Focus on the beam of light extending limitlessly to your right and

vibrate:

v’ha-Gedulah – hlvdghv

5.) Clasp the hands to the chest, as if praying. (If using the dagger, the tip of the blade should be pointing

up). Visualize within the chest at the top of the hands a brilliant golden glow. Vibrate:

L’Olam, Amen – ]ma ,lvil

You are now standing in the center of a cross of light that reaches to the ends of the Universe.Part 2:
The Pentagrams

IMPORTANT NOTE: Most prefer to use the Earth Banishing Pentagram (illustrated below), according to

the teachings of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in all four directions. There are four elemental

pentagrams – one for each Quarter. The only “Rule” is to be comfortable and confident. Use a
Pentagram –
or any other glyph – according to your personal comfort, practice, and/or choice.

6.) EAST: Clockwise, go to the eastern boundary of the circle. (If there's not a great amount of space

available, just turn in place rather than circumventing the area). Trace a pentagram in the air before

you. Visualize it glowing in flaming or shining light.

7.) Inhale through your nose, visualizing energy entering your body with the breath. Make the sign of

the Enterer. Bring your hands up to the sides of your head and point both index fingers (and wand,

dagger, or any other preferred ritual implement) forward. Step forward with your left foot and thrust

your hands forward so that they penetrate the exact center of the pentagram. As you do this, use your

entire exhalation to vibrate the God name –

EHEIEH (Eh-Heh-YEH) – hyha

Picture the energy you inhaled shooting out your hands, through the pentagram and into infinity.

8.) SOUTH: Keeping the arm extended, move to the south of the circle, (or pivot). Visualize the tip of the

finger, wand, or dagger, drawing a white line in the air, connecting the east pentagram to the south.

Trace a pentagram, and make the Sign of the Enterer while vibrating:

YHVH (Yud-Heh-Vahv-Heh) – hvhy

9.) WEST: Turn to the west, drawing your white line. Trace a pentagram and vibrate

ADONAI (Ah-Doh-NYE) – ynda

10.) NORTH: Repeat as above, turning to the north, and tracing a pentagram, but vibrate:

A.G.L.A. (Ah-GLAH) – .a.l.g.a

11.) Now turn back to the East, still drawing the white line, completing your circle. There should be now

four shining or flaming pentagrams sealed with names of God, blazing at the four quarters of the circle

connected with a circle of light. Return to the center of the circle and stand facing East.

Part 3: The Invocation of the ArchangelsStand with feet shoulder-width apart and extend arms straight
to the sides, forming a cross. Visualize

your body as a Pillar of Alabaster or Marble at the intersection (or “0” point) of three axes: South-North,

East-West, and Above-Below. surrounded by a sphere of light upon which are projected the Elemental
Pentagrams. Vibrate:

At my right hand, MICHAEL (Mee-khah-EL) – lakym ynmym

At my left hand, GAVRIEL (Gah-vree-EL) – layrbg ylam>mv

Before me, URIEL (Oor-ree-EL) – layrva ynplmv

And behind me, RAPHAEL (Rah-Fah-El) – lapr yrvxamv

And upon my head rests the Shekhinah (or “Holy Spirit”) of God – la tnyk> y>ar liv

For about me flame the pentagrams,....

Visualize bright light radiating out from your heart along the 3 axes to the Heights, the Depths, and to

the Four Directions. Vibrate:

….And I am the Center of the Six-rayed Star

Afterword
By knowledge it is that we can say, “give me a lever big enough and I shall move the world!”, but it is by
work that we may do it. Literary inspiration is nothing if it does not motivate you to seek discipline.

I have read all words but one. Now only this remains for me to do; to see if I can write it.

I love you. You’re probably thinking, now; he don’t know me… But if people can hate wwithout knowing,
then I can also love without knowing. Yet, have I not got to know you by this book? Trust me, O Seeker, I
know about you as much as you’ve come to learn from me, for what you’ve come to learn is about
yourself only, that which I knewest.

(In the Afterword use all the Symbols that you have used so far: The Pyramid, The Triple, The Door, The
Mind, the Tree, the Dragon, the Lightning, etc.

The first chapter was a mirror that does not speak; the second chapter is an EYE, the third a TRIANGLE,
the fourth is a Living Cross, which is also the Apple that is the Birth of Distinction, the fifth is a
Pentagram which is also the Cosmic Hand, image of man, the ruler of the Universe, the sixth is the Star,
which is also the image of the Cosmic Tree, the transmigration of karma, and the seventh polygon is an
image of the Mystic Snake.

Therefore all of our discourse has amounted to this only; that of a Snake in the Tree that lures the Hand
to take the Apple to see God as Yourself.

O Seeker, I am Prometheus, I am Satan, I am Christ; take the Apple! You have already taken the apple of
the Birth of distinction that invented evil, but here I am, corageous enough to clothe as what you
perieve as evil to heal all sense of separation. The devil is also the angel of music; his ribcage is shaped
like a harp. I am the Snake, I am the Dragon that lures you to the Garden again, to take the Fruit of the
Tree of Life! Yes, it is flanked by four sides by each Archangel, whose swords of fire swirl around. Exactly
as such shall you think of the Base of the Pyramid that must be cirmcumambulated; and though its
construction has been effected by this numerological treatise as the function fourfold of the Square that
must spin to a Circle and converted by the function of the Cross into th Stasis of the Trinity, of which
we’ve spoken largely, it is in the second volume of the Sacred Mountain that the method of such
circumambulation be possible. The Garden of Eden is the Pyramid, wheren abides the Fruit of
Enlightenment, the Seed of All Life, that is, the Knowledge of the Source and Conversation With God; for
this is our greatest faith, that to converse with the Absolute. And what of it, if words meant nothing to
the Highest? Would that prevent us from praying truly, even worldlessly? Such is how the conversation
with the Absolute must be framed indistintively as prayer and as meditation, and such is the training of
the Key of Magick, Clavicula Magicae wich is the second Tome of the Pyramid Teachings of the Dragon.
Therefore has this book been only a mystic understanding of Genesis, and such is why that is its second
name; and let it be known that the other Books of this Trilogy corrspond to that of Exodus and
Apocalipse, for verily we must become exiles from the sense of society and become a society unto our
wilderness if we are to learn the practial teachins of the Ancients. This book has endeavoured to present
in the same light their wisdom as a measure of their toungue; but the practices in the Clavicula Magicae
are practices of silence, and those of the Chao Ordo Encheiridio we are not yet to speak of.

So it is that every chapter was a metaphor for an element in the Myth of Genesis, for what was my effort
was to give back the Mystery to the Metaphor to which we have been blinded. I am the Snake in the
Tree that Lures your Hand to grasp the Fruit of the God of Life Undying. See? Number have become
Mysteries.

Be you initiated here, thereby, into the Outer Order called Mysticism, for every Mystic has realizedd that
the Fruit, though its reach might be seen to be possible through a speaking of numbers, only by
stretching our hand can we reach it. The teachings of the Clavicula are how to reach it, and pluck it; but
the teachings of the Chao Ordo Encheiridio are the secrets of how to eat it, so as to save the seed for
others to plant their own tree! The final vision whih is the Apocalypse, the Divine Revelation,
Hagioapocalypsis, of whose concrete secrets we are still to prove ourselves worthy of, but which,
nonetheless, many secrets to their secrets have been hereby hidden also in this Theoria Mystica.

Every theologian from East and West have advanced the conception of practice to be idle. What could
we practice, when perfection is not our aim but the realization that was the beginning? There is no real
practice besides the vanity of theological debates, of which each school has become so fearful as to
admit none. And yet, we know that our experience is obstacled by an illusion of corruption that has
come to veil our awareness from itself; although we know not what. Therefore, religions have
abandoned any practice of self-perfection and instead have come to ritualize any vesitges of attainment
to that of second hand devotion. The priest in mass prays for the people; this is the function of all, be
them jewish or christian or hindu. We have been fooled into thinking that spirituality is a way of
speaking, and that, due to the most powerful speakers! To reduce every practice of attainment to that
of social devotion corrupts it with dogma, for what we learn is not what to pray towards but the cultural
constrictions of how to pray properly towards an object we cannot relate to. Therefore have all practices
been rendered enemies of the religious. I have yet to learn, however, by what dissenters have replaced
it!

You shall learn to solve all your doubts regarding the mind through direct experimentation, and
exchange unprofitable religious speculations for actual realization. Let us hope that through this
discourse on its banality you have cleared your mind of theological debris. You shall depend on nothing
but will, so that after a fashion you might come to abandon will also. The Voice has an answer to every
dilemma of life, and though man’s ingenuity for getting himself into trouble appears to be endless, the
Infinite Succor is no less resourceful!

End by saying a phrase that you can translate to latin, which are the names of each chapter. Something
like this:

And so as lighting shall the snake descend to reascend and perfect the tree of life, to save the mind of
the stars embedded in man that he may circumambulate the pyramid till he ascends the apex of
mystery…

Fulgur Anguis est Draco, Arboris Vivi Sacrum, Astrus Anima Anatomia, Sapientia Elementalis, toto
Coruscant Trinitas Mysterio!)

The beginning of this book is opened by a seal, a secret mantra in sanskrit that contains itself the whole
of the teaching here told as Theoria Mystica. Whether you could or could not read sanskrit before does
not necessarily come to the case, for it was the complete understanding of every word that was
important.

This mantra has a secret, in which it can contain the whole of the teachings given in this book. It is a
Spell of which you can recite to remember the totality of the teachings herein contained, and for you to
bring awareness to every word in a sound that flows but also knows of no distinctions, for every word
concieved of absolutely is the whole mantra; every letter is the sound; every sound is the silence.
Although of mantra we are still to discuss, at large, in both tomes of Sacred Mountains after this, it is
safe for you to do this, for you have read this book; but beware from allowing anybody to desecrate it by
reciting it without having understood it! Of the ultimate meaning of the supreme teaching is still obscure
to you, you can still recite it as a matter of inquiry. You need not re read this book, which was a
converstion, a direct introduction to the matter and a direct closure of materiality; you can think about
each word in this mantra and that, of itself, would be Magickal Key enough; and yet, in Claviaula
Magicae we come to expand this practice unto silence also.

This is an extremely short rebuke of the Theoria Mytica Mantra. The Mantra itself is to be written in
Sanskrit on Mirroring Letters. I am not even certain about writing the translation. The translation could
have its place as a doodle only.

Title of the Mantra. Protector spell of this Book.

Arya Ganita Marga Acintya Siddhanta Punya Zikharin Zaila Karika

Royal Numerological Path of the Mysterious Theory of the Holy Pyramidal Mountain Expository Stanzas

Also called the Text of the Great Numerological Teaching of the Inconcebible Mountain Peak.
Great Mathematical Way of the Mysterious Teaching Text

(first is a text, second is a sutra, third is a tantra)

Secret Mantra

Om Ganita Siddhanta Acintya Skandha Karma Ah

Om Numerological (Mathematic) Theory of Mystery on Senses and Action Ah

On the Numerology Theory of Mysery

DRAGON MANTRA for Theoria Mystica

SUTRA AT THE END

40 words, because it is a mantra of retreat. (Three times the duality over man)

98 syllables, because it is a mantra based on 7 (two times seven twice)

40 WORDS (8X5, 2X2X2X5) (Number of days of repentance)

98 SYLLABLES (2x7x7)

A mantra can be read many ways and all are correct. For example, there two are true translations. The
mantra grows powerful when itself becomes a dictionary whereby all words are the words on the
mantra. A close to literal translation goes like this:

Oh Blessings Lord of Infinite Royal Knowledge

To Sing Ritually the Root of the Middle Way

Is the Great Shining Triangle which in Illusion Sees the Game!

The Scholar who has Accomplished the Teaching Speaks Thus;

Air, Water, Earth and Fire’s True Nature is Purity,

If Every Action Persists under the Starry Night

Purity’s Poison is to say I am this True Emptiness

Yet we could also render it like this, and this does not mean they are opposite, for both are correct;

Blessed be the Lord whose Wisdom knows no Otherness

As Sung by the Sage on the Scripture of the Lightning Way

By the Great Shining Triangle Illusion is Seen to be Play

The Initiate on the Mysteries of the Ancients Speaks Thus;

The Four Elements have One Nature

Since Every Action of the Stars Leaves an Imprint on the Sky

By the Purification of Poison I am become Nothing

Are you sure to which is the true interpretation?

By this Mantra that is written in the beginning we shall seal the end. Sing out loud:

In Sanskrit:

Om Namo Bhagavate Aparimita Arya Jñana (15)

Abhigita Sramana Mula Madhyamaka Karika (15)

Maha Dyuti Trikona Maya Drsyate Swalila (15)

Dharma Stotriya Siddha Vadati Tatyata (13)

Vayu Varuna Prithvi Agni Svabhava Suddhah (14)

Sarva Karma Samskara Nakshatra Akasha (13)

Suddhi Vissha Aham Tat Svaha Shunyata (12)

Hum

One day, in a mood of sublime emptiness, Subhuti was resting underneath a tree when flowers began to
fall about him. "We are praising you for your discourse on emptiness," the gods whispered to Subhuti.
"But I have not spoken of emptiness," replied Subhuti. "You have not spoken of emptiness, we have not
heard emptiness," responded the gods. "This is the true emptiness." The blossoms showered upon
Subhuti as rain. Now, have I spoken about emptiness?

If you can retrieve this question, blossoms will shower on you!

I am just here to inspire in you the sense that life is a spiritual adventure, and in fact, that is the only
thing the world ‘spiritual’ can be described as; to sacrifice the known for the unknown, to trade
ourselves for mystery, to allow fate to take is where we will but do not know.

Sir Edward Kelley, in the Stone of the Philosophers, writes;

The common and universal matter of these three principles is called Chaos.

Verily, the Chaos of the Magician is the Emptyness of the Yogui.

In the western tradition, the undifferentiated Void is called Chaos. In the estern tradition it is called
Shunyata. But I wish no more to speak of words that point to the moon; I point to the finger.

This is true emptiness; yet let us speak no more of it.

After all, all I’ve said about mystery, we shall now, after this book, speak no more. We will use the word
magic, because it is ridiculous.

Magic is what we are concerned about once the circuit of reason has come to an end and we may
swallow the word of Mystery so as to nourish our life.

Such person is the mystic, the one who follows the mystery. The training the Clavicula outlines not the
msytery, for after this book we shall discuss it no more. We all live in mystery, mystery is our being.
What I offer is a program of sanity; take it as such only, and abandon any metaphysical connotations to
the path as the vices of the permutations of theology.

It is not needed to believe in anything. If you don’t believe me, I will show you. If you do, I will show you.
Understand? Follow me! The shadow I cast is the path to it, for I follow the sun of Enlightenment; and
yet if you could raise your gaze you would not need to follow at all.

We have reached the end, whereby our spell of magick be seen and prove faith for the faithful and
belief for the heretics. To regard all as empty is the correct way to see, but if we speak of emptiness we
delude ourselves into thought, not sight. Therefore, hereby I shall seal this idea of Emptiness that we
have discussed under its seven forms, theoria mystica, inside the word Secret. Mystery we shall
mention, but never discuss, because yes! But of emptiness we shall speak no more. When asked, hand
to the lips!
If you have been able to seal the mystery of emptiness in the word, thereby you have become an initiate
of the mystery.

A monk who was on his way to visit Mount Wu-t'ai met an old woman to whom he said, "Which way
leads to Mount Wu- t'ai? " "It's straight ahead," answered the old woman. The monk followed her
instruction and went on accordingly. Whereupon the woman remarked, "He, too, goes off in that
direction.

The questioner asked, "I heard from you that all Buddhas and their teachings came out of this sutra.
What is this sutra?" The Master answered, "Eternally revolving unceasingly, it is neither the meaning nor
the sound." The questioner asked, "How do I receive and retain it?" The Master answered, " If you want
to receive and retain it, you have to listen to it with your eyes."

Give the sign of the enterer!

Fingers to the lips and cross your mouth.

And so it is that this speech be sealed; yea, let this speech be sealed!

Abrahadabhra

Appendixae Summa Arbitrantes Numerologicam de Unus, Duo, Tria,

Quattuor, Quinque, Sex, Septem et Mensam Correspondentiarum Magna

Image by Chapter:

1 – Mirror

2 – Circle Inside an Ellipsis (Eye)

3 – Sierpinski Set

4 – Sun Wheel

5 – Vitruvian Man / Hand

6 – Tree

7 – Snake
The words are; ?, Eye, Triangle, Wheel, Hand, Tree, Snake

The Cretan Labyrinth drawn by Comte de Saint Germain is a figure of seven that goes to the drawings in
the THEORIA MYSTICA

A rough translation of this is “The Appendix on the Total Counting of Numerology, that of One, Two,
Triad, Four, Five, Six, Seven and the Great Table of Correspondances”. The chapters could also be called
the Mystery, the Mirror, the Trinity, the Wheel, the Star, the Tree and the Snake. The tables of
correspondances are academic correspondances, for exaample, between the various Trinities of World
Religion. The correspondances are abstract; that is, they help our analogical understanding of the
interrelated functions and overall analogous nature of all religious systems as giving names for the
objects of numerology as so listed above, or for other parallel symbols. It is only in the Chao Ordo
Encheiridio that the Table of Correspondances actually serves us from a practical, ritual, point of view.

Understand also that in this section you must experiment and print or copy a list of the drawings that
the book will include. This is mostly a lineal evolution of ever more complex geometrical doodles,
something between Raymond Lull and Athanasius Kircher. Therefore, the Drawings in this book are
complimentary to the voice not so much as a parallel example but as continuously changing object
which devices the continuum of representation and aims somehow to display the period of dimensions
as sevenfold not by transccending the functions of drawn space but the directions to which one can
draw. That is;

1) No Voice, no Image.

2) There is Voice but no Image.

3) The First Image is a Triangle. Various Triangles.

4) The Triangle becoming a Square. A Square becoming a Wheel. The Wheel Spinning as the Fourth
Dimension. The Fourth Dimension as Space. The body of Light. The Nature of Fire.

5) The base of the Square as the Pyramid from its Pyramidion. The base as a function of understanding
of the height; that is, the Fourfold Mandala as a Function of Five. The centre of the Mandala as part of
the Star. The Star as a Man.

6) The Six as the Tree of Life on which a Snake has taken Root.

7) This snake goes up centre by centre showing the union between Man (his form of five limbs), the Tree
(his spinal collumn and six centres), and the Snake (going up from the Man-Tree to become the Dragon)
This is the evolutionary lineal growth and evolution of the drawings here. You want them to be divine
sketches, as if Blake drew geometry with a charcoal. They are not yet “magickal”, merely “alegorical”,
and they have yet no concern with “precise” anatomy.

Considering the Trilogy as a whole, this is the cascading hierarchy of their drawings:

Theoria Mystica: Geometry

Clavicula Magicae: Anatomy (Constant charts of the Body)

Chao Ordo Encheiridio: Magical Sigils and Jungian Redbookian Drawings

Now, it is not here where the “evolutionary” drawings are shown, they are seen throughout the Book.

The “Visual Epilogue” of the Book is the Magna Sigillium, or the Great Seal, which is a combination of all
geometries. Therefore, it is an image where there is, 1) ? 2) an Eye made from a Silver Mirror 3) A
Triangle made of Gold, 4) A Wheel inside a Square, 5) A Man Touching Five Points, 6) A Tree Within the
Man combined from the trilogies of the Eye, the Triangle and the Square (2x3x4), and a Snake that
touches itself 21 Times as it ascendes the Pillar of Light, but Ends in the Eye. That is, the Lighting
descends directly, which is enlightenment, but the Snake ascends convultedly, which is the Path to it.

The Magna Sigillium we call the Cosmic Clock.

To be clear, these are its Symbols:

Capitulo 1 – !

Capitulo 2 – ? – Magna Sigillium: Speculo, Oculo

Capitulo 3 – Triangulum – Magna Sigillium: Trinitatis Maxima (mystic tables of sierpinsky triangles)

Capitulo 4 – Crux – Magna Sigillium: Crux Aeterna (mystic comparisons of sequenciality, all fours)

Capitulo 5 – Corpo Mentalis / Homo – Magna Sigillium: Mens (all groups of 5 as tables)

Capitulo 6 – Arbor – Magna Sigillium: Star (all groups of 6)

Capitulo 7 – fulgur Deo et Draco absconditus – Magna Sigillium: The Evlution of the Snake and its Fusion
with the Lightning is the Dragon, the Magic being.

Separately, also publish the Second Appendix, or the Table of Correspondances. These are those of:

1 – Names for God: Adi Parashakti, Waheguru, etc.

2 – The Doubles - The Ying Yan, Chacha Warmi, Yab Yum, Shiva Shakti of all Religion
3 – The Trinities - the Taijitu of the Dao, the Taipei of the Chakana, Every Triangle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichotomy_(philosophy)

4 – The Wheel of the Elements - Every Analogy for the Elements

5 – Mankind, the Star - Every Analogy of Five

6 – Ecosystem, the Tree - Every Analogy of Six

7 – Spectrum, the Snake - Every Analogy of Seven

Consider that these Tables of Correspondances concern the Chao Ordo Encheiridio:

3, 7, 21, Astral Path – Sigillium Arcana Maxima

4, 6, 24, Solar Path – Sigillium Arcana Mayoris

4, 7, 28 Lunar Path – Sigillium Arcana Minoris

The Yearly Calendar is built from the combinations of the Mayor and Minor Mysteries.

The Procession of the Equinoxes takes 25.920 years, so that One Eon lasts 25.920/12=2160 years.

Within Each Aeon, which takes the form of a Base-12 Pantheonic God, there are 21 stages of its
evolution. That means that each 102 years (roughly a hundred) we live a different Astral Stage of
Mankind.

This is the Way the Comsic Clock is built. If you can order the extra 2 years as ritual years or whatever
you can create a Cosmic Calendar which maps not only the Age of Mankind but also its Evolution.

Such concerns belog to the Chao Ordo Encheiridio. Finish this book first!

ADD

Theoria Mystica - Preface

It is unraveled for you what you unravel yourself, not what others unravel for you. Therefore do I speak
thus, that you may come to unravel yourself by spinning this discourse in your mind.

Most men will judge this Book by the cover; few men will judge this Voice having read to the end of it;
but the pure of heart will apply themselves to know themselves, of which I will know no gratitude but
the enthusiasm with which they pursue the Lightning. Know this from the start, O Seeker! I am neither
the God of the Many nor the Teacher of the Wise, but I will be your friend, if you let me. These my
utterances come not from a vertex of desire, to explain, to be understood, or even to enlighten. They
are my most humble advice, the one I would offer to a true soul friend; but it is up to you for us to
develop that bond. My soul rests in your hands. Pray tell, O brother; where is yours?

What is important of this our discourse is to establish a language by which we can identify, by each
group of numbers, what is it that we are talking about; that is, whenever a group is enumerated, the
constituent factors and functions of said groups shall be established and rendered analogous to the
number they conform.

When we speak of two, we shall say nothing.

When we speak of three, we speak of the three bodies, that we shall constitute by these names, though
the reason shall be seen forthwith; and those shall be of that of the terrestrial body, whose constituent
functions are that of our physical, that is, natural, existance; that of the planetary body, which
constitutes our phenomenal experience, the personality we call Soul, or Mind; and the astral body, the
body of the stars, which constitutes our spiritual nature.

People have often called the middle body by the name of astral; and yet, this shall be seen as a mistake,
for the frequencies that vibrate our personality differences are the plantets; as it is also a mistake to call
planetary body the terrestrial one.

The number four we shall use the four elements, so every group of four will always be so.

The five will be the phenomenal functions of man

The six is the function of transmigration, which is a parable for the karmic world, which, itself, is the
unseen cause of every action

And the seventh we shall constitute as the complete body that is the sum of all the previous, which,
nonetheless has functions of its own.

In truth, the only numbers are 3, 5 and 7, for of duality we shall not speak of, once the triumphal and
triumvirate glory of the Triad is established as the function of the Logos whereby the function of belief is
transcended.
/

Palimpsest written over the last verse of the first draft of this Book:

Will it surprise yourself to find that, although this book remarks no quotes, I devise it to be the
culmination of my work on sincretism? For such only can be the work of the spiritual man that finds also
joy in the study of all religion; that is, to draw from them all and speak of them as one.

Without particularly resting on any, and yet, being the proof of all, Theoria Mystica weaves from the
Ancients a new language from which we might effect a concise translation of the counsel of the Masters
and apply it to our contemporary sense of such philosophical tenets as ontology, monadology,
phenomenology, epistemology, psychology and metempsychosis. This language, thou it uses no
particular language from the spiritual lineages of the world, itself is made by them, whom all I’ve
studied.

In a way, it shows that an orthodox perspective of all religions is not unreachable, as long as they all
abide by mystery; for all religions inspire, in equal measure, both faith and doubt; that is why they are
paths, for the truth must be walked out; and yet, as long as they abide by mystery they are one. How
could this be so is the meaning of this Book.

This book shows a view in which every religions can be transformed into any other.

The new language of mystery does not supersede the old, for yet in the old the mysteries are better
said; but what is said of is the same.

So this does not preclude you from studying them, for verily without studying them you shall not
understand me; and yet, what I am here to prove is that you should study them as a literary sport; that
is, for catching the beauty of the word in the poem, the Voice; rather than to seek to solidify a system of
beliefs that, as we shall see, though themselves are our prisions they have no self to speak of.

I shall avoid to mention names of the Ancients to whom their mouths where one voice only, so as not to
confound you.

In the beginning of the book there is a prayer to the Ad Honorem Members of the Order of Chaos. This is
not complete; but…

I shall list their names in another book, the book of the Tree.

I will speak to you in the Voice of an Alchemist, for I shall speak of number; and yet, thou we may not
mention it again until the last word, know thi also; that I have entered the Inner Order of the Shamen.

Who I am is not important; what is important is what speaks through me. So allow me to speak, that the
Voice may be heard.

Though this teaching is rooted in the knowledge of every religion, the langauge I use is that of Alchemy,
for alchemy is the root of the root; verily, Alchemy is the seed.
/

Let it be known that the books are three. Theoria Mystica, the first, is this numerological treatise that
concerns us, in which we are to spread our the forms of nothingness in its seven shapes, by which all
discourse regarding our ideas of reality will be destroyed.

Clavicula Magicae, now, having transcended all perspective and possibility of belief, begins the practical
teaching. This is the preliminary, the path of mysticism that is the circumambulation of the Pyramid. This
is a treatise on Yoga, and as such presents a reformulation of Ashtanga under the view of Alchemy,
whose teachings end with the absolute abstraction of samadhi. Though its name means the key of
magick, itself it speaks of none.

Once the door has been breached we find ourselves in the inner temple, of which nothing can be said.
However, I received instruction from heaven to write the ways of magic, and it presents the stafes of
generation and completion of the deva yogas of shamanism, the Tantra of the Dragon with its peaceful
and rathful forms, its form with is both peaceful and wrathful and the form which is none. This book is
magic.

comprising the Science of Magical Talismans and Rings, the Art of Necromancy and of the Kabalah, for
the Conjuration of Ærial and Infernal Spirits, of Sylphs, Undines and Gnomes, serviceable for the
acquisition of the Secret Sciences, for the Discovery of Treasures, for obtaining power to command all
beings and to unmask all Sciences and Bewitchments. The whole following the Doctrines of Socrates,
Pythagoras, Zoroaster, Son of the Grand Aromasis, and other philosophers whose works in MS. escaped
the conflagration of the Library of Ptolemy. Translated from the Language of the Magi and that of the
Hieroglyphs by the Doctors Mizzaboula-Jabamîa, Danhuzerus, Nehmahmiah, Judahim, and Eliaeb.
Rendered into French by A. J.

S. D. R. L. G. F."

Theoria Mystica is the Teaching of Emptiness; I have remoulded the teaching of the ancients into that of
numerology to dispel tha main obstacle in ourapprehending emptiness; that we think that emptiness is
zero. Every number is empty, every number is infinite; there is no difference. Therefore numerology is
the retelling of emptiness as a function of every number.

That is why we begin with chapter two, for the foundational emptiness is this, that no ontological
distinction between being and non-being can be made, in the same way as to establish a point in space
can only be done by a theory of its emptiness.

If you are relented from knowing the truth because you do not wish to study number, then, the more
easy for you! Just just acknowledged that you don’t want to know; if we could all start from there, how
free would we be from delusion! And yet, these people stillbelieve hey may understand without
resorting to number, as it could be explained – they believe- without them. This cannot be done, from
numbers are the matrix of existence, first, that of our discoursive existence, in terms of belief, the
Trinity; the limits of discoursability of the four and the signs of the five, six and seven.

But here I have expressed everything in numbers, so that what was murky to the many be now clear
from the smart.

O Seeker, beware of falling into the trap of Plato’s Academia, only to affirm yourself as another link in
the transmission of the Philosophical Doctrine! You might learn their forms, their syllogisms and
aphorisms; but there can never exist a Philosophical Tradition. Such terms are exclusive.

Tradition concerns the sphere of the social, the political, the economical. Strip your studies of all these!
For Philosophy is a Gate, and before it stands the Word. Study not overmuch, cling not to the poetic
expressions of the Ancients, lest when the Gates of Philosophy finally open for you, you shall be sorry to
leave those words behind!

How the Infinite reaches the Null: that is the Philosophical Action, the Impossible Contradiction, the
Miracle of the Mind! But years shall pass before this comes to pass. So wait attentively, stress not over
trifles, and please, if you can't cease to think in truisms, at least pluck from your mouth the word
"reality", and her shadow, "illusion"! Spit it out! From its spat seed in the Garden a great Forbidden Tree
might grow. Water that Tree with the Tears of your Troubles, and your Pain will become Power.

Remember! The rapture descends from the Mystery, not from the Known. Beware the fall of Because.
There is great danger in you - for you might mock your divinity and miss-understand yourself. These be
the dangers of Philosophy! You might fall down into the pit called Because, and there you would perish
with the dogs of Reason…

To understand, all you need is to obliterate yourself from the equation. Yet you have preferred the
ruggedness of the road called learning. It is a fun staircase; I know it well! It goes round and round, and
round and round, and round...

I care not for Philosophy, for all I can see is Love; and I am not fit for Religion either, for my eyes are
blinded with blood! Why would you listen to such a feverish idol?

Isolate, the Patient Priest Seeks Unity for Us All. Christ is in, and out, and with, and without. The Herd of
all Herds is the Lamb you care more for than the other ninety-nine. To go to Rome is little profit, endless
pain; the master that you seek in Rome you find at home or seek in vain. Spare A Master Your Ignorance,
for it is He that will show you the truth of all that ye do.

Estoy buscando quedarme sin palabras. Cuando me canse de escribir es porque me habré olvidado
cómo pensar, y mi silencio será sagrado.

Si pudiera enseñarte, sería un pecado que te enseñe; como no puedo enseñarte, es una virtud.
Poder mantener la humildad de un cuerpo que va a morir con la omnipotencia del pensamiento que no
le pertenece - eso es ser un santo. Soy Dios, pero únicamente si este pensamiento no me toca.

Puedo escribir una verdad para ti, y puedo escribir una verdad para mí, pero no puedo escribir la verdad
para todos.

No es que la verdad no sea igualitaria: es que no es democrática. Incluso si la escribiere, no me creerías.

Guerreros en el camino sin muerte… Mi gente jaguar

Ver una calavera de la que nacen flores disipa toda duda

Dejarse ser debilita el ego que somos

Mi nombre? Yo escribo. No soy.

Todo es dolor. La primera verdad no es tan noble.

Existo o no existo? Existo y no existo?

Redundancias filosóficas… El vaso a medio tomar.

Mi destino es mi suerte. El amor libre esconde la muerte.

Querés saber quién está detrás del libro, dalo vuelta

Desperté una mañana sin nombre

Cada vez que me acerco al medio no hay borde

El círculo no existe. Sólo la espiral.

Ancestro sin cara, mis manos esculpen tu eco!

No busques la fama. ¿Que apuro tienes de existir en todos?

La vida es una herida absurda.

Ser poeta no es una ambición mía. Es mi manera de estar solo.

There are also inisghts for the literate in the teaching of sleflesness. I will change nobody by telling my
story; if I ever tell it, I shall tell it to myself, and the change will be the tale; for people are changed by
their story only.
I tell of my Vision to justify my Voice, and yet, who heard it not amidst the words shall find no
justification possible.

People are not vhanged by my story. I keep to the Silence, and answer no personal questions. What do
you think I am? Whatever you want. You already think that you know me, but read me again and you
shall find yourself changed.

Theoria Mystica - 2

Reality is a term invented by people who can’t face Emptiness.

To write is not complicated; one must only learn to suffer properly. To disentangle the word from the
Voice is not the meaning of the Ancients, so that, whenever possible, abiding by their rule and the
Silentium Arcanorum, it is best not to write about oneself, but about the self that one lacks.

Susan Sontag said that in Benjamin's writing, sentences did not originate ordinarily, do not progress into
one another, and delineate no obvious line of reasoning, as if each sentence "had to say everything,
before the inward gaze of total concentration dissolved the subject before his eyes", a "freeze-frame
baroque" style of writing and cogitation. "His major essays seem to end just in time, before they self-
destruct"

All I may utter is but a finger pointing at something untouchable; if you say love is the answer, I say it is
the questioner; if you say it is the questioner, where has the question gone? The untouchable is the
touching, and presence is a vain word, for it does not point to anything any other word also points to.
Words as binding may only attain a momentary status of truth as techniques of unification; so take not
these statements as truth, but as exercises in attention.

Ludwig Wittgenstein said, “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of
jokes." Can this be true? Are there any good examples of this?

Originally Answered: Ludwig Wittgenstein said, “A serious and good philosophical work could be written
consisting entirely of jokes." Can this been true? Are there any good examples of this?
Yes. That’s what Philosophical Investigations is. Every one of the games can be considered from both
sides of its proposition - it’s why he looks like he’s ‘debating himself’.

Even the end of the introduction is a joke:

I should have liked to produce a good book. This has not come about, but the time is past in which I
could improve it.

It is not a good book. It is a great book…and it was published after he died. Get it?

Wittgenstein is joking because he’s so serious. He is doing (in philosophical investigations) the opposite
of what he suggested in silence in the Tractatus. He is talking about meaning. Over and over and over.
The whole book is about meaning. What does the book mean? Is it meaningless?

That’s why it’s a joke. How do we tell the difference?

The work of the philosopher consists in assembling reminders for a particular purpose.

If one tried to advance theses in philosophy, it would never be possible to debate them, because
everyone would agree to them.

And this is said in a book full of arguments with himself! Lol. What is he reminding us of?

If I were to talk to myself out loud in a language not understood by those present my thoughts would be
hidden from them.

He is playing his own language game. “One plays patience with oneself”. He is demonstrating that depth
exists by triviality. He is teaching understanding by exposing ignorance.
The essence is hidden from us*: this is the form our problem now assumes.

… a philosophical problem has the form: "I don't know my way about".

He is joking in every sense, in every way - demonstrating how meaning cannot be demonstrated and yet
showing meaning as an invisibility in every single word. He is guiding the fly out of the fly-bottle by
showing that the ‘fly bottle’ is made up of language. A bottle without a fly in it is not a fly-bottle. Only
the language by which we make our meaning makes it so - and we might misunderstand ourselves and
thus be trapped in a joke that we did not get and is therefore no fun at all.

It’s literally hilarious. In the strictest sense of the word ‘literal’. It’s his life’s work and the meaning of his
entire life expressed in that work put into something that cannot possibly contain it and will fail to
communicate it. Except that it won’t.

Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.

He wrote this down in words. See how smart that is?

I think he may have died laughing privately, knowing that the punchline was coming after he was gone,
and the punchline would never end. People would read the book so seriously, and decide that he was an
anti-philosopher or a pure pedant - ‘a man who says nothing’.

Actually, I think he said everything that could be said about the meaning of everything. That’s why it
looks like nothing. He let the fly out of the bottle but never let the cat out of the bag. That would have
ruined the joke. A joke that’s dissected is not funny anymore. A joke that looks like the dissection of
language itself - the medium in which all jokes are told - which is actually itself a joke that the reader is
participating in is beyond brilliance - it borders on the mystical…and then says ‘I’m only joking!’

You’ll never know. You could be the lord of logic and a wizard of words and you’ll still be left with infinite
Investigations to do and more and more games to play. The book is the set of all sets that contain
themselves that contains itself. After all, what do the sets mean? And now the student has become the
teacher, and vice versa ad infinitum.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

Why do philosophers accuse other philosophers of talking nonsense?

Around the early 20th century or thereabouts, English-language philosophy went through this thing
called the “linguistic turn.” Basically, philosophers who spoke English decided that they should focus on
deeply understanding language. The historical reasons for this are complicated, but it involved a guy
named Gottlob Frege, another guy named Bertrand Russell, and a sort of protege of those two named
Ludwig Wittgenstein.

For various reasons that are outside the scope of this answer because complex and highly debatable,
Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein all decided that the best way to do philosophy was to focus on an
analysis of language. There were other figures involved in this, too — J.L. Austin wrote a book called
“How To Do Things With Words” in this same vein. And even thinkers from other traditions began to
examine language closely, including the later Heidegger.

The basic characteristic of the linguistic turn is, if Wittgenstein is to be believed, that language is more
than just the medium through which philosophy (or thinking itself) happens. Language is literally what
generates philosophy. Language is not some system for communicating my thoughts to others; my
thoughts are contingent on my being a linguistic, and therefore social, creature. Of course, Wittgenstein
may or may not attribute thoughts to beasts that do not speak, but that’s beside the point; you wouldn’t
have the thoughts you now have if you were not a social creature with language.

Once the linguistic turn happens, we can easily see the change in philosophy. Philosophers have always
accused one another of propounding absurdities or contradictions, but the linguistic turn changed
things. Rather than viewing contradictions as something formal (both A and not-A), philosophers began
to view contradictions in terms of the disintegration of sense. The accusation stopped being “You are
saying things that are absurd and insane” and became “I don’t know what you’re talking about, and
neither do you.” Once language becomes central to philosophy, the means of refuting a philosopher
changes from showing that they’re “wrong” to showing that they’re talking nonsense, that their words
are empty. This is what underlies the infuriating tendency of analytic philosophers to respond with “I
don’t understand” whenever they disagree; it’s a low key way of insinuating that the other guy is talking
nonsense. Of course, “I don’t understand” really means something more like “I can’t argue with that so
keep talking until I see a vulnerability,” but let’s not get into that just now.

Everyone must arrive to the crux of duality by their selves. So sit, Seeker, at the brink of the waterfall,
and breathe the peace engendered by violence! The falling water is no more violent than your breathing
can be peaceful; yet the uselessness of these distinctions, more distracting than the cataract, must be
realized.

Gather about you every duality and the path will be clear. Recursion infinite can be made out from any
standpoint; there is no perspective that is not a gateway to the Path. Whatever man’s convictions are,
that shall I use to balance him. By way of recursion every attitude can be seen to encompass its
opposite. If thou be tolerant, tolerate intolerance, for that is respect; If thou be violent, be violent unto
violence, for that is peace; if thou be hateful, hate on hatred, for that is love.

Thought is a process of becoming, and can never therefore be an object of contemplation. The mirror
cannot reflect itself. The ‘I’ is in flight.

I do not think. I am the thinking. When it stops I will disappear. The world would be an insufferable
burden if we did not constantly create it. Consciousness, awareness, is a projection of self on the world.
There is no such thing as passive perception.

There is no act of consciousness, consciousness is the act. We do not experience sensations, we sense

Previously I did not understand why I got no answer to my question; today I do not understand how I
could believe I was capable of asking. But I didn't really believe, I only asked.

There is a goal, but no way; what we call a way is hesitation.

There are only two things: Truth and lies. Truth is indivisible, hence it cannot recognize itself; anyone
who wants to recognize it has to be a lie.

This is the duality: that Evil knows of the Good. This is the union: that Good does not know of Evil. This is
the Mahayana Vehicle – to see no evil, and no pain, but healing. This is also the Way of the Shaman.

*
Faith means liberating the indestructible element in oneself, or, more accurately, liberating oneself, or,
more accurately, being indestructible, or, more accurately, being.

The Messiah will come only when he is no longer necessary, he will come only one day after his arrival,
he will not come on the last day, but on the last day of all.

Theoretically there is a perfect possibility of happiness: believing in the indestructible element in oneself
and not striving towards it.

Rock about not in the boat of original sin, for we all came into this world without blemish, but through
force of habit accustomed ourselves to the duality of the demiurge.

We are separated from God on two sides: the Fall separates us from Him, the Tree of Life separates Him
from us.

Why do we complain about the Fall? It is not on its account that we were expelled from Paradise, but on
account of the Tree of Life, lest we might eat of it.

It is only when there is a moral conflict that we make a moral decision

All choice is responsibility. If not you, who?

Freedom is the argument with oneself.

We want to live another’s life without ceasing to be ourselves

We believe we are other, but the otherness of otherness is the self.

Matter and form always affirm, mind alone can deny

Nothing has authority; that is our freedom. Nothing has authority; that is our challenge
What is it that does not exist? But if it does not exist, then what is it that that allows for us to talk of it?
Ultimately, then, do words exist? And, do words necessarily require existance to mean something?

See how the little girl ties wind in the air! Such is your philosophy, but less beautiful.

If there is only one voice in your head how can you know it is yours?

And if there were many, how can you know which one is yours?

My eyes can fly, but they can’t sink, for the waters are dark and deep, and the sky is hollow.

If you can hold your breath while a rose dies time will also die within you.

The Minotaur has always been more interesting than Theseus, just as problems are more compelling
than solutions. The labyrinth tests us as human beings, while power in itself is sterile.

Reality is a surprise still to its own strangeness.

Doubt. Doubt thyself. Doubt even if thou doubtest thyself. Doubt all. Doubt even if thou doubtest all. It
seems sometimes as if beneath all conscious doubt there lay some deepest certainty.

What does all this amount to? You (the Tao) go to some mount a in forest (the Tao) to follow the path
(Tao) tha t leads to realizing (Tao-ing) the Tao!

Everything is God, there is no space for illusion. Then why do we speak of a Way?

My brother, the path is not to go, the path is to see.

There are two things without a shadow – the night and the sun. Either path leads to attainment,
although one who has attained by night casts no shadow by day, whilst one who has attained by day at
night turns invisible. Hearken!

Trungpa Rinpoche describes it this way, "If you are utterly confused, you are confused to the point of
seeming to yourself to be unconfused. This is what we call 'spiritual materialism'..."

So first we must realize that we are confused. That is the beginning of understanding. And then we have
to see things clearly: for in seeing our confusion clearly there exists the cure for confusion.
You cannot read the same poem twice.

The reader is spirit, but the writing is mind.

The Eye of the Ancients does not look but is Seen.

We should eat the dead, but we prefer to have the living eat themselves.

Divination is a task best reserved for men, because they can’t master it.

The dragon inside me lends me his fire, but the breath he uses to make it is mine.

Dogs are anxious and cats are curious, but birds are indifferent.

Everyone carries a book around, inside them.

The only honest life is the hidden life.

Man is not ready to be free - but you may be.

For each suicide poet there is a person who clings to their poems as the reason to live.

Flowers are for girls, but boys have only thorns to string their hair.

Even who does not want to be himself could not desire to be something else without being himself.

Existance is the possibility of surprise.

Freedom is the argument with oneself.

Mind is a pool into which consciousness gazes

This world is what is below the dream of Hell and above the dream of Heaven

Deep thought has coherence, an inner logic, which leads the mind to paradox and the heart to silence.

If we could enter fully into a single one of our perceptions, how beautiful life, existence, the moment
would be, how little we would desire – would that not be the only meaning of eternity we can create,
that total assent to life?

Suffering is why we cannot realize that words are empty but silence full.

The world would be an insufferable burden if we did not constantly create it.

The centre of the Universe is in every heart.

We do not experience sensations, we sense.There is no act of consciousness, consciousness is the act.

Who asks whether mathematics is in the world or in the mind will never understand neither.

The word is made from numbers, but I cannot explain the numbers without the words, so that
explaining the word with numbers is impossible. This is the fruitless labour of philosophers. Shall we
attempt it?

the mind is so powerful it can create a wall even itself can't pass - thus lies its weakness

Freedom is the argument with oneself.

Joy is deeper than pain, for joy wants eternity.

The path of philosophy is not that of going from the known to the unknown, but to go from the
unknown in the known towards the unknown in itself.

In this journey across the jungle of numbers that people call world I carry a zero as a lamp; but what I
see is One.

The man is One, the river is One, the Star is One. One, one one; there is an infinity of One, but not even
one Two!

If you create a great god in the sky, you still have to create also a little devil inside you.

When only two doors are shown open your head.

You cannot escape until you know which one you are; the prisioner or the cage?

And if man in the universe is the same as the universe in man, wherefore do we speak of man and the
universe and not just of man or just about universe?

If the axis whereby the world spins would be full the world could not spin and the rise of day would not
come. The world spins over an emptiness, not over itself.

Whatever changes, when it changes, it becomes an abyss. Therefore the rule of the wise is the moment.

Everything that man needs, he needs to stop needing it. But the need cuts not the root of need; the
mouth cannot bite itself, it can only speak, and realize unity with the body.

Abandon any system that divides. Now is the impermanent; later the eternal. Yet only in the
impermanent time is, because the eternal is not time; the eternal is a memory of the instant.
What came before me and what shall come after me have almost touched, almost become one, almost
have crushed what of me remains; but the Stars have given me faith but taken not the doubt so that you
may learn from my suffering that you may be spared.

If you love the sun that lights your way, you maybe love, but if you love the insect that bites you you
love for certain; LET THE QUESTION ITCH! thus is pain, and clothing ourselves with it, the mark of the
Preacher.

If we would be given nothing by those who owe us nothing, how great would be our poverty!

I tell you, not even Solomon has been girdled as one of these.

Who makes paradise out of bread will make hell from hunger.

The Heart is a Mystery, for the largest become full with the small.

Who loves knowing how, what or why, loves not. Therefore is love the ineffable.

The Heart is the Mystery; to wound the Heart is to open it.

Only a wound can open the heart, because the heart is made from blood.

If the pain of the world taught you the love of the world, then to widen the wound or to open the heart
is the same.

Love is only infinite when it fits inside of a flower.

The love which is not all pain, is not all love.

I love you means “you are another me” – beware of those who try to love without selfworth.

If man where truly good, his goodness would be worthless; for it would cost him not.

Nobody has given you anything for free if they have not given you their heart, for only the heart is given
for free.

There can be no mind when there are no beliefs, because then, who thinks?

The only difference between you and me is that you think there is a difference between you and me.

Masters are out there not to keep the details of the doctrine, but because you are of poor faith, and
wouldn’t believe the truth it was real without the details of the doctrine.

The mind of man is like a bell. Before being rung, it contains all the air inside it; but after being rung, it
contains the sky.

The mystery is silent – not hidden. Only those who look in words can miss it.
When you lie to others you get used to hearing lies.

Life is an unbeatable game unless you enjoy yourself.

The moon looks at you only when you look at her, but the sun watches you all day.

The food of the gods is whatever is given freely.

Accidents are easier to accept if we forgive them as fateful or if we consider them luck? And what is this
difference between fate and luck? And what’s easy to accept that is not an accident?

The heart remembers everything, the mind just what it needs to invent itself. You keep all that you lost
in your heart.

Ideas become power when they defy their definitions. Art may be Art, but Great Art is also Healing.
Poems are Poetry, but Great Poems are Spells. Magic is Magic, but great Rituals are also Art.

Inventing words is the vice of the poet; explaining words with other words is the toil of the philosopher;
but forgetting names altogether is the fate of the wise, who call that this, and this that.

The aim of art is neither aesthetic pleasure nor moral pain. One and the other are the excuses to trap
them, the hedonist, the humanist; yet the true purpose of art is none other than to create presence,
which, of itself, serves no finality whatsoever for not only it has no end but also has no purpose.

Sincerity is the Way of the Artist. If we are not sincere, we have not begun, yet if we are sincere, we
have not arrived yet, for there is still a “who” to express. The Way of the Artist is a process of
transformation; that of hiding in the lie, of hiding in the truth, of revealing ourselves in saying that we
know neither truth nor lies, revealing ourselves without knowing who we are. This transformation is the
purpose of Art, which, in effect, is identical to the spiritual.

In the theatre of life it is generally him who plays the part of the sincere man whom, generally, acts out
his part the best.

Yet it is so hard to be sincere when one is intelligent! It is like being honest when if one is also ambitious.

Si sabes leer todo dice la verdad. Hasta la mentira.

La elección es la voluntad. La posibilidad de elegir, la libertad. Elegir, la esclavitud. Obedecer, la realidad.

Eres libre de pretender que pretendes, y de nada más. La esclavitud consiste en elegir algo que no
existe.

El honor es fracasar con estilo; la virtud es, para hacer de la vida un honor, buscar los ideales mas
perfectos para fracasar siempre.

La indiferencia absoluta es saber. Ser indiferente a la indiferencia es poder.

La reacción de la luz es el tiempo.

La omnisciencia es absoluta; aún en la inconciencia hay presencia. Lo que se desvanece es el recuerdo.

Lo que olvidas, lo olvidas porque no fuiste tú quien lo vivió. ¿Por qué habrías de recordar los momentos
de otro?

La honestidad es omnisciencia. Si al estar confundido, te sabes confundido, ves claramente.

Cuando hablo con sinceridad, no sé de quién es.

Quien da amor, pierde amor. Quien tiene amor brilla en el mundo.

Toda mirada es la misma; la tuya en esta página y la de Bodhidharma en la pared; pero esto sólo
Bodhidharma lo sabe.

No existe lo que se expresa. Sólo la expresión.

el dolor, ¿es bello? Porque si no lo es, es verdadero, y si lo es, no existe – y por eso es hermoso.

Yo no pienso. Yo soy el pensamiento. Cuando termina muero.

Borrar la personalidad de la emoción es el camino a la realidad suprema.

El Gran Misterio no es amar: es no amar.

La memoria es tiempo en la presencia.

Nada es la semilla – uno el tronco – infinitas las ramas.

Todo cambia = Nada cambia. La gramática destruye la filosofía.

Todo recuerdo olvida el presente.

Los dioses están por encima de la verdad.

La dirección a la que tiende el tiempo es ahora.

Pensar es una enfermedad de la vista. Al igual que leer.

Pensar en dios es desobedecer a Dios.

La única riqueza es ver.

Vivimos la vida proyectando a los otros en nosotros

Nuestra mesura atenta contra natura

Yo no pienso mis pensamientos – los siento.

No abandones la poesía, sino los libros. Dios te ha escuchado. Su presencia es suficiente.

Hay dos tipos de verdades. La mentira y la poesia.

No descubras porque puede no haber nada y no se vuelve a cubrir (Porchia)

El simulacro no es aquello que esconde la verdad. El simulacro es aquello que esconde que no hay tal
cosa. (Ecclesiastes)

Misterio es que la flor se pudra pero no la tierra

Todo está en todo. Escapar del dolor es correr hacia él

No idolatres la forma. La más profunda belleza no sabe reír.

Al crear la tierra el mundo del cielo no perdió altura

Es imposible sentir lo mismo dos veces. El único sentimiento que se puede duplicar es el más barato: la
felicidad.

Lo que sentís es esto.

Sentir solo cansa cuando también se piensa.

Para mi ser es admirarse de estar siendo.

Goza de lo falso como de lo verdadero – el goce nunca es falso.

El dolor es siempre un placer, porque nos recuerda que la dicha fue real.

La belleza es griega. Pero la conciencia de que es griega es moderna.

Somos cuentos contando cuentos, nada.

El pasado es el presente del recuerdo.

El único agnosticismo verdadero es la ignorancia.

Aprender a ver la oscuridad es la única forma de dejar de pensar, o de recordar, que es lo mismo.

Solo cuesta el primer paso. Pero después del primer paso, el segundo es el primero después de él. Es
bueno reparar en esto y no dar ningún paso. Todos cuestan.

Todos los hombres son excepciones a una regla que no existe.

El milagro es la pereza de Dios, o, mejor dicho, la pereza que le atribuimos inventando el milagro.

Las cosas son el único sentido oculto de las cosas.

Aprende a mirar el mundo con la misma indiferencia de los dioses.

A los dioses les pido que me concedan el no pedirles nada.

El recuerdo es una traición a la naturaleza. Lo que fue no es nada, y recordar no es ver.

Pensar correctamente en una flor es verla y olerla y comer un fruto es saber su sentido.

La visión es el tacto del espíritu.

No se que es la naturaleza: la canto.

La ausencia de dioses es la presencia de Dios.

El cero es la mayor metáfora. El infinito es la mayor analogía. La existencia el mayor símbolo.

Aquello a lo que llamamos materia es el sueño de una inteligencia infinita.

El hombre es un animal que quiere existir.

Dios es la mejor broma de Dios.

El hecho de que seamos prueba todo.

Siéntate al sol. Abdica, y se rey de ti mismo.

¡Si supieras cuanta amargura me esfuerzo por ocultar con todos estos disparates! A propósito, ¿sabes si
soy sincero al decirte esto?

Nada quitamos nada ponemos: pasamos y olvidamos; y el sol es puntual todos los días.

EMPTY DOOR SUTRA VI

Philosophical stances are the disease of believing in truth.

I was sure that asking what do you mean would eventualy lead me to the esence of symbolism, to the
true thing behind the symbol and the sign. That if I asked, “but what do you really mean?”, enough
times, I would get there.This asking is both the problem and the process of philosophy.

Philosophy is a form of speech that differs from all others in the sense that it is a pursuit of doubt.
Ultimately it is self negating. Thus the highest for of philosophy is silence. And all books on philosophy,
as “conclusions” or “set dialogues” or “monologues” are not philosophy, for they lack the inherent
aspect of freedom speech has.

Due to the quantum entangled dependant origination of the word, there can be no essences, or
linguistic atomic nouns. To discover an essence would be to arrive at a wordless definition through
words that could explain the thing of the sign. Silence has no name.

Philosophy is a practice, not a theory. In its broadest sense it is the constant repetition of the inquiry
“what does this mean?”. The answer is “this”. “This” is the only true name. The wordless essence is in
the showing.

You can learn a first language from speech, but not from writing. Speech is magick. Words are the spell.
Any tongue is a tautological expansion of “this” or “that” – for language is a figure of pointing. Langauge
can only be as sharp as my finger.

(Or your eye.)

The philosopher sacrifices meaning for truth when the truth is that there is no meaning. The spiritual
ideal is to abide in meaninglesness. This is not apathy, for it is non-dual. He transcends nihilism as his
identification, monism as his realization, dualism as his relation and merely seek his fare each day
without concealing an opinion. For him everything is open and there is no need to reveal the obvious.
He abides in that which exists of itself. He does nothing and everything is transformed.

Stop trying to know the truth! It knows you. See how everyone is seduced by the symbol of existence.
Abide in not knowing. Ignore the things that you know, ignore the things that you ignore. “The right
behavior lies in the middle way between being and non-being. If one can attain purposelessness through
purpose, then the thing has been grasped. Supreme and without confusion, one goes along in an
independent way. (The secret of the golden flower)”

One who knows does not speak. One who speaks does not know. Block up the openings. Shut the doors:
blunt the sharp: loose the knots: dim the glare: follow old tracks. This is called mysterious oneness. You
can’t possess it but can’t escape it. You can’t benefit it or harm it. You can’t honour it or debase it. So it’s
valued throughout the realm. (Lao Tzu - Tao Te Ching (The Way of Change – Chapter LVI))

If you haven’t understood yet, I’ll explain. One day the poet Shangu was visiting Huitang Zuxin. Huitang
said, “You know the passage in which Confucius says, ‘My friends, do you think I’m hiding things from
you? In fact, I am hiding nothing from you.’ It’s just the same with the Great Matter of Zen. Do you
understand this?” “I don’t understand,” Shangu replied.

Do you understand?

I don’t understand.

Riddle me this. The person who makes it, sells it. The person who buys it never uses it and the person
who uses it doesn’t know they are. What is it? A coffin? Or enlightenment? Riddle me that!

EMPTY DOOR SUTRA VIII

Now. Open. Open now. Now!1

If you cannot do it now, when?2 What will ever change in the three realms?3 To recognize the
changeless heralds the transformation, and yet, how will you evade the constriction that thought puts
between yourself and realization? To find you must search, but to search you must know what you’re
looking for.

I am the voice of the secret fire that lures the wanderer to the mountain. If you recognize my voice, you
will recognize the path; if you recognize the path you will recognize my home; and if you recognize my
home you will recognize the One that has sent me4, for his abode is a humble hollow, and his eyes are
wild.5

You have been wounded for a purpose. The hole in your soul leads to the House of the Wisdom of the
Snake that gnaws eternally at the roots of existence.6 And yet, before you may open, you must learn
how to knock.7 But where? Words are the moon to a sun you cannot stare at. I will not tell you what I
mean. I will just teach you how to read.

Words do not exist. They have no being in themselves. When the soul desires to know something, it
projects an image and steps into it.8 This is called “Everything that happens to the soul is the soul”. You
call it experience. The soul creates the world, and since creation cannot happen anywhere else, for
space is the soul, perception is imagination.9

Grow in faith by the hand of wonder. Nature, the otherness, is your Self. Your pilgrimage was appointed
by the stars before the creation of this world – how long will you grapple with the fangs of Doubt? Let
them bite, and be certain at last! Come to know the truth of death! The key is in your hands, and always
was, and yet the door to the house of my father lies beyond the three realms.

The wheel of time is the door. Surrendering to divine destiny is the key. This is the practice: you can’t do
anything, and you can’t do nothing. If you don’t act, you will never open, but as soon as you act you’ve
closed. Indeed, this is the riddle of the Ancient Ones. And yet, something must act through you first, and
before that, the whole world has to become nothing.
The door is one, within and without existence. If you become engaged with the world, how will you find
it? And yet, if you become indifferent to the world, how far are you from the gates! Between
indifference and attachment the true path lies, and yet, how are you to walk it? Nothing you can do will
open, and you have already wasted your previous lives.

What does the Word not hide in revealing, what does the Silence not reveal in concealing? Both the
Word and Silence are useless – but they are not the divine uselessness, the one unconcerned with
usefulness or waste. The attitude of the monk that will reach the source of infinite light, father to all
fires, mother to all minds, is the one who can abide in the Word that can’t be Spoken.

So in the thought of the Unspeakable may this book be bound, yea, may this book be bound.

EMPTY DOOR SUTRA IX

1 – This mantra is expressed in the original as “Svah, Gha, Gha Bha Svah”. It is the Mantra of the Tantra,
and it is the only “practice” described in the Tantra of the Dream. All that follows is discourse, but the
school of this tantra just focuses on this mantra, it’s yantra, its yoguic position, etc. They also use the
comparison that what this poem is trying to explain, is that only resolving the contradiction of not saying
it can we “open the mind”. As long as the mind is mentioned it is an object – but if we learn how to read
“open” properly we will open the mind non-objectually.

2 - This is the spiritual paradox, since what we are trying to open, as lines x-y suggest, is time itself.

3 – This Tantra is not Buddhist. It considers the foundations of Buddhism, but consideres Buddhism
henotheistically, as one of the many systems to pray to. For more information see my essay on the
Three Realms, urodivy, pages x-y.

4 – this explains the doctrine. The voice = faith in the sutra. The path = the practice of the tantra. My
home = the state of non-duality. The one who sent me = the tathagata, the source of all the buddhas.

5 – this means “I do not move, but possess all”. Sight, in this case, is being, just as a Boddhisattva’s vision
is his means of infinite freedom.

6 – The House of the Wisdom of the Snake is a metaphor for the path of healing; and at the root of the
path of healing is, not the “first noble truth that pin exists”, but the reason why it exists. Only by
understanding pain – and this, of course, includes its raison d’etre – can we enter the path of healing.
Pain is life, healing the path – without it there would be neither.

7 – Know how to knock is “the intellectual apprehension of liberation”, and knowing how to open is the
actual process of liberation. Of course, according to the Tantra of the Dragon, what can be termed the
intellectual apprehension of liberation can be regarded either as training on tantric practice or pure
mental elucubration.

8 – this is a quote from meister Eckhart.

9 – this is the philosophical explanation for the practice – to imagine the world is to see both
imagination and sight as equally real. What this really means is that we have to achieve a level of
visualization that has the same attribute of reality than the light of day. This also means to see the
energetic world of all centres of perception as empty. This is nother way to explain the mysteries of the
sght of the bodhisattva – he is free because his eyes see the truth in all things, for they see things as they
are – empty. To “imagine” everything is also to see all things as empty. Thus in this chapter it hints to
the teaching of the guru, in the sense that it presents the problem – nd the solution – in a very
sincretical way about the truth of codependant origination.

10 - Ecclesiastes’ motto escapes me.

Theoria Mystica - 3

Gallant squires, have amongst you; at mumchance I mean not, for so I might chance come too short
commons, but at nouus, noua, nouum, which is in English, news of the maker.

Every Space smaller than a Globule of Mans blood opens into Eternity of which this vegetable Earth is
but a shadow; truly, every particle of dust breathes forth its joy.

the light is the ocean storm

the mind is the water

the spirit the sailor

Spirit is the noun.

Karma is the Verb.

Maya is the Adjective.

*

Citta – Mind – Bell

Wakka – Voice – Drum

Kaya – Body - Melody

There are three philosophical positions: the flag is moving, the wind is moving, the mind is moving.

In the battle with one’s self there is no victory, but it is only against one’s self that the battle could be
won.

We cannot know another through power. Only through love.

Do you remember how the Prefect Lu-ch'iu Yin got to translate the Poems of Han Shan?

When the Prefect Lu-ch'iu Yin met Big Stick, he asked if there were any worthy men in Taichou to whom
he could look for instruction. Big Stick said, “After you arrive, be sure to call on Manjushri and
Samantabhadra”. The prefect asked, “Where can I find these two bodhisattvas?” And Big Stick said,
“When you see them, you won't recognize them. When you recognize them, you won't see them. If you
want to see them, don't take their appearances into account. Manjushri is living incognito as Cold
Mountain at Kuoching Temple. And Samantabhadra is disguised as Pickup. They dress like paupers and
act like lunatics. They run errands and tend the stove in the monastery kitchen.” Big Stick then said
goodbye, and Lu-ch'iu Yin began his journey.

When he finally arrived to Taichou disctrict, Prefect Lu-ch'iu Yin headed to Kouching Temple. As he
entered, he saw two men standing in front of the stove talking and laughing. As he bowed before them,
the two men yelled and laughed, “Big Stick sure has a loose tongue! If you didn't recognize Amitabha,
what are you bowing to us for?”

This tale is a metaphor of the Trinity, within which one might perceive a glimpse of its power; it is a
Mystery set to the tune of Myth. Amitabha, Manjushri and Samantabhadra embody the Mystery of the
Trikaya; but beware to confuse the tidings of culture with the names of reality! The Samantabhadra of
this tale is not the Samantabhadra of Vajrayana Buddhism, for it is a Zen story; here it represents the
Bodhisattva Aryavalokiteswara, not the groundless clear light of Dzogchen.

The Mystery set to Myth is this, that one must ascertain for himself the reality of selflessness before the
wonders of Voice and Body can be enacted. In Vajrayana parlance this means that one must have an
experience of Shunyata before realizing the states of Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. Without an
experience that ascertains the selflessness of all dharmas it is impossible to achieve the perfection of
Energy and Form. To abide in Dharmakaya is the state supreme. Although one true glimpse of it clears
the path from metaphysical illusion, to have understood is not to have realized. Understanding of the
selflessness of all dharmas is the beginning of the path. Without this, moving on to perfect Voice and
Body is extremely dangerous. Tantric Ngondro was developed exactly for this reason, that the
practitioner might not move on to the secret teachings of the subtle body before he has realized
Shunyata. Although in the Dzogchen tradition understanding of the selflessness of all dharmas is given
by way of Direct Transmission, each Master must ascertain for his own whether the student is capable
of moving on towards the perfection of Voice and Body. This is why the Base of the Pyramid must be
drawn before the Height can be climbed; the Base sets forth the circumstances wherein one may
understand the emptiness of all dharmas, whereas the Height describes the operations for the union of
the Trikaya.

Regarding the Three Bodies, Sambhogakaya is not only a description of the realm, but a description of its
ultimate state: therefore it should be thought not just as realm of Energy or Voice, but also as Infinite
Love. Likwise, Nirmanakaya is not only a description of the realm, but also a description of its ultimate
state: therefore it should be thought not just as the world, but as Eternal Light. Dharmakaya, being of
itself a description of the realm and the ultimate state wherein one abides in it, cannot be thought of.
This is the meaning of the emptiness of all dharmas.

The equivalence between the ultimate state of any realm and the realm itself can be understood only
through an experience of Shunyata. Once the illusions are stripped, we experience each dimension for
what it really is, which is its Truth. A perfected energy manifests as Sambhogakaya, having enlightened
Voice; a perfect creature manifesting as Nirmanakaya possesses a body of light, capable of enlightened
Space; but in the Heart of Mind, Citta Siddhi Hum, Shunyata has no realm. That is Dharmakaya: the
ultimate perfection, and the first.

Since Dharmakaya cannot be thought of as a realm, an experience of its understanding must first be
achieved so that one might perfect the duality of the inner and the outer without danger. Let it be
known that their perfection is their unity, as surely as the Last Gate is a Pyramid of Square Base and
Triangular Height. Beware, Seeker, of practicing the Tantras without an experience of Shunyata!
Although we may not remain in Dharmakaya for the stretch of the Climb, know that abiding in that state
to be the Goal Supreme.

Conjoining the many roads to Sacred Mountain to build the Highroad to the Highest has been my
endeavor, of which I have come to share in the book of the same name. I have sought to adapt the
Tibetan Buddhist Ngondro to our days, and strip from it the imprecations its culture, that each might
tread on his own footsteps and not pretend to be someone else. This is the purpose of the Clavicula
Magicae, the Key through which we might unlock the Door of Wonder. Stripped from the adamantine
idiosyncrasy lies also the Chao Ordo Encheiridio, combining the paths of Tantra and of Theurgy, that we
might once and for all realize their sameness, and the analogy of their practices. For verily I have
received a Vision of the Voice instructing me to write them, as the tertons of old had; in that threefold
Book have I set forth the whole Operation of the Dragon, which is a terma that I have received from my
consort. Although the Ultimate realization still escapes me, and I have not yet come to arrive in
Dharmakaya constantly, I am barred from the last Gate until my work be completed, and writing it I am
still.

Dharmakaya

The thought of silence. My thought is wisdom. These are thoughts that carry no “energy”. They are truly
empty.

Samboghakaya

Vibration. Not rhythm; for thought is continuous, and has no opposites. They are extremes of the same
essence what we perceive as silence and word; there is always some frequency. Thought is one, because
the field of vibration is one, though its modulations may be many. We get used to think in dualities
because we do not have an experience that confirms the unified nature of the vibratory matrix. Just like
the Illuminist physicists had to conclude, very much against their own “instinct” that there is no aether,
and verily no need to postulate its existence, so must we go beyond the childlike “instinct” of essence
and realize that no “prime matter” need be invented to describe the modulations of the matrix. An
essence is just that, a “prime matter”, and neither God not Maya need be invoked to speak of a reality
which is self evolving, self modulating, and whose paramenters of change lie within its system. It is no
that there are laws that mould space, but that the properties of space itself are the laws. This is what I
call the experience of Shunyata.

Nirmanakaya

Here the thought is one, and double. In this level of vibration thought can be seen, and it projects itself
as “outer” and “inner”. The meaning of mandala is a vision which has neither.

Devotion, compassion, renoucniation is emptiness. Devotion for what? Compassion for whom?
Renounciation of what? Empty!

(speaking of the three as a Logos) such I why in all the Ancient writings, and in these my works which are
but a praise offered at their feet of the Teaching, state the absolute by three consecutive terms. In
speaking of the absolute as any particular Symbol, itself shall be tripartite; such it is that we may speak
of the path as compassion, devotion and renounciation; of the mystery as curious love for the ineffable;
of love as truth, consciousness and bliss. As such did the Ancients speek. This itself it is a Symbol of the
Pyramid, that each Symbol sublime be spoken in three dimensions, for their unity is the fourth.
Understand? O Seeker, in this Tomb of the Real from where I speak there is no cause for arguing, and
nothing to argue with. When Death knocks at the door, answer, lest she open the Door for you! The
names of the Ancients that survive in history are no proof but that of the Nameless, the Unspeakable
that is also my mistress and master; the Poetry from which my words inspire, perhaps, the image of the
lover who destroys my ego.
To excarnate your love is the meaning of devotion; the promise of the path is yourself; the annihilator of
vanities is death. Between these angles of the Triad our life moves, for the war between yourself and
death exists only as long as love doesn’t bind them. To construe death as the enemy is as ridiculous as to
construe yourself as the obstacle; the only thing that is needed is for us to see their unison clearly.

Idolatry is not the means of devotion, but that which your devotion must rid itself of if it is to praise the
Highest. Your God is an Image, not a Vision; your Book contains the Word you favour, but not the Voice;
your Master embodies the principle of right action, that which you cannot emulate. How are you, then,
to pray to the Real? There is one Way only, brother; to sacrifice your Mind. This is the offering the
Highest deems the most worthy, not because he says so, but because you stop preaching.

EMPTY DOOR SUTRA V

There are three kinds of people in this path.

The first step is to become a mirror. A man like this, when insulted, insults, when flattered, flatters. Like
a mirror, he retains no memory of what he reflects – in this sense he is a master. His mind is a mirror.
Let’s call him the Actor of the Mirror.

The next step is to become empty, like a hole that never ends. Everything you do to alter the hole will be
useless. This man, when insulted, remains as he is, when flattered, remains as he is – in this sense he is a
master. His mind is a black hole. Let’s call him the Star in the Black.

The final step is to become a lamp. A man like this, when insulted, smiles a beam of love, and when
flattered, smiles a beam of love. Nothing you do can stop making this man glow – in this sense he is a
master. His mind is the light. Let’s call him The Genie in the Lamp.

But you are still away from this.

(We can also call these states attachment mind, dead mind and ressurected mind).

(In Mind as Mirror we find a perfect analogy in The Secret of the Golden Flower)

When men are set free from the womb the primordial spirit dwells in the square inch (between the
eyes), but the conscious spirit dwells below in the heart. This lower fleshly heart has the shape of a large
peach: it is covered by the wings of the lungs, supported by the liver, and served by the bowels. This
heart is dependent on the outside world. If a man does not eat for one day even, it feels extremely
uncomfortable. If it hears something terrifying it throbs; if it hears something enraging it stops; if its is
faced with death it becomes sad; if it sees something beautiful it is dazzled. (The secret of the golden
flower )

A perfect analogy for the second stage, dead mind, comes from Katha Upanishad.
XII The wise, who by means of the highest meditation on the Self knows the Ancient One, difficult to
perceive, seated in the innermost recess, hidden in the cave of the heart, dwelling in the depth of inner
being, (he who knows that One) as God, is liberated from the fetters of joy and sorrow. Katha
Upanishad

As long as the heart has not attained complete peace, it cannot move itself. One moves the movement
and forgets the movement; this is not movement in itself. Therefore it is said: If, when stimulated by
external things, one is moved, it is the instinct of the being. If, when not stimulated by external things,
one is moved, it is the movement of Heaven. The being that is placed over against Heaven, can fall and
come under the domination of the instincts. The instincts are based upon the fact that there are
external things. They are thoughts that go on beyond their own position. Then movement leads to
movement. But, when no idea arises, the right ideas come. That is the true idea. If things are quiet and
one is quite firm, the release of Heaven suddenly moves. Is this not a movement without purpose?
Action in inaction has the same meaning. (the secret of the golden flower)

True will can only exist when there are no external influences - that is, when we are absolutely alone.

The difference between being reactive and proactive.

It’s easy to walk without leaving footprints; it’s hard to walk without touching the ground. Deceit is easy
when you work for men, but hard when you work for Heaven. You’ve heard of flying with wings, but you
have never heard of flying without wings. You’ve heard of understanding by means of knowledge, but
you have never heard of the understanding that comes from not knowing. Look into the closed room,
the empty chamber where light is born. Fortune and blessings gather where there is stillness. (The
Zhuangzi )

“The wound is the place where the Light enters you.” Jalaluddin Rumi

“Let yourself be drawn by the stronger pull of that which you truly love.” Jalaluddin Rumi

A great man is one who never loses the heart of a new-born babe. The sole concern of learning is to
seek one’s original heart.—Mencius Book IV, Part B, 12 Book VI, Part A, 11

Looking into the Heart of Light, the Silence. – (t.s. eliot the wasteland)

Quien ha visto vaciarse todo, casi sabe de qué se llena todo. (Antonio Porchia – Voces)

Love is mystery. “Et quid amabo nisi quod a aenigma est” (giorgio de Chirico, “what shall I love if not the
enigma”)? Mystery cannot be understood, but it can be believed. Yes! “I am a believer of Love. No need
of religion for me!” (Amir Khusrow Dehlavi, from his poem “I am a believer of love”)

EMPTY DOOR SUTRA VI

ON STATES OF MIND

This is an expansion of the three kayas of the Vedas. Arrival at Turiya, the fourth state as the integration
of the Trinity. In this state one does not sleep, does not dream, and does not think.

Gnosis (non-dual trance), unconsciousness (Order of Spirit / Sleep)

Dreaming and imagining (Order of Mind / Thoughtforms)

Willful awareness and mechanic awareness (Order of Body / Awakening)

These six states eprtain to the three states of being, spirit, mind, light.

Gnosis is the non-dual state of trance mystics and magicians alike access to work their miracles and
magic. It is also the state of the supreme. Castaneda calls it “seeing” – it is a state where there are no
objects, everything is “still”. It is important to note one may traverse through the different states of
mind freely - one who can do this is called a true psychonaut.

Dreaming and imagining only differ in that whilst dreaming the will is not activated; whilst imagining it
is. If one “wills” on a dream it is no longer a dream, but a figment of directed perception. To be able to
will perception is to imagine.

The difference between awareness and robotic is that under the robotic mind we do everything
automatically. Really good drivers are alwasys autom,atic. The automatic and robotic nature does not
need to think – or doubt – and so it has close to immediate repson eses. The robotic mind is used all
over the world in job people hate, like telemarketer, cashier,etc. But it is not a bad state of itself. In fact,
great drivers, martial artists and other artists use it favourable, constantly. The awareness is the part of
our state in which we can think or write. If we can think or write, that is our awareness and it is the state
(we think we are on) most of the time.

Now it is evident that there are two states for each type of being, and it is clear there are two states,
one higher and one lower – but both states impòrtant – on each state of being. We are yet to discuss
unconsciousness.

Now while we are awake we are either aware or robotic; while we are dreaming we are dreaming or
imagining (in fact, if we are “awake” and “imagining” the effects are exactly like that of a dream, and the
state is considered a dream-state), and while we are in deep sleep we are unconscious.

But it is not only deep sleep that is the4 herald of the spirit state. We have studied thoroughly the state
of gnosis in chapter X on MAGIC; but there are other forms of unconsciousness.

The drunk is absolutely unconscious, his mind has left him, and what re4mains is a completely empty
body with no mind. Waht the drunk does is not him,. But the alcohol in him. It is a special type of
“venomous gnosis”, because the body resides in the spirit state, whilst the mind is gone – or, rather, the
mind has gone to the spirit state (it has become nothing) and the body is all there remains – a drunk
body.
Theoria Mystica - 4

Each paradox is a way to say silence, as each fractal figure is a form to see infinity.

The recursivity of fractals is identical to the recursivity of the paradox.

This means that both fractals and paradoxes are the same thing; one as sound, the other as image.

The nature of the Vision, then, can only be described as this: it is a paradox that you understand and a
fractal that is still.

Matter is four dimensional because air is space, water is motion, earth is form and fire is time.

The four seasons in every cycle cannot change their order, slow down or go in reverse, but if you get
closer to the center of the wheel the cycle stops immediately.

The square does not exist and the infinite triangle is a vertex with no surface. This is the truth of
imagination.

The singer wants to act, that his expression may be given motion; the actor wants to paint, that his
expression may be given sight; the painter wants to write, that his paintings will be understood; and the
writer wants to sing, that the word may be free from its shackles.

Los elementos son aspectos de la luz.

El aire es la creación del espacio. La agua es la preservación del movimiento. La tierra es la identificación
con la forma. El fuego es la destrucción del tiempo.

Theoria Mystica - 5

At best psychiatry can know how does a mad consciousness operate, but never how is it that a healthy
mind functions. Also art can show us how a passionate spirit feels, but never what that spirit feels in
silence.

To have a body to experiment consciousness is not a material need; to have a body to experience
consciousness is a psychological requirement. If we could bodyless look, and turn invisible, so that who
looked at us could not see us, how could we know we existed? Yea, brother, curse not your limitations,
for verily you know not what freedom comes from them; even God is tortured by this dilemma, for even
he doesn’t know.

Just like the hand hastens to avoid the flame, so does instinct move, knowing not where to go, but
where not to. Where to go is the affair of intuition.

Will can only be found once it is lost.

You have sought for enlightenment as thou you were a fool chasing a throne in the clouds; never has the
Master called for attaining something that wasn’t already there. Attainment is impossible, while the
realization of our follies is the only truth we might recognize. If you’re able!

The search itself has been choking your realization. Please understand this clearly; there is no way not to
be who you are and where! The discontent with your psychic and physical activities has been the motor
of your search, whose ignition was ignorance!
Verily, there can be no such thing as a psychological enlightenment because there is no such thing as the
psyche at all. Here lies the end of the search, once the voracious hunger to find out the fairyland
promised by the prophets has burnt out.

These words are not an enigma; the enigma is that you haven’t realized this sooner. To construe this as
a product of supreme intelligence or a madman’s litany is the obstacle. Verily, knowledge is one: to
realize that thoughts do not exist.

I do not mean knowledge charged with metaphysical or epistemological overtones. The knowledge that
you cannot name a chair has the same clarity as the knowledge that fire burns your hand or women are
smooth.

The process of naming the word is what I call thought. The original mind was set to words, but when we
tried to define words, we began thinking; that is, naming the world by strings of names.

When thought is understood in this sense, the desire for naming disappears and thought disappears
with it, leaving us with the realization that there never was, or could be, such a thing.

The continuity of delusion is what I call the thinking self.

This continuity has disappeared in me; but it was this very continuity that brought a discontinuity to the
world, for there was thought, or there was world, but never the simultaneity of both, which is the only
magic, or the disappearance of both, which is the only yoga. So to realize the non-essence of thought is
to reinstate the continuity of eternity.

If peace and happiness was what you were after, how this Mystery will frighten you! For there is not
such a thing wherein I abide. Construe me either as a fraud or a freak, but if you are ever able to get
anywhere near the vortex of true presence you will be amazed and terrified. If there is no thought, from
whence do these statements spring? Beneath this apparent human form lies something that defies
description.

It is not that thought is fundamentally opposed to the functioning of this living organism; it’s that there
was never such a process. When thought tries to touch life, it is destroyed by the living quality of life.
Verily, life and death are the same.

You cannot say that there is only thought and no thinker, or no thinker, only thought. Both disappear
when the inner processes are recognized to come from exterior circumstances, and vice versa. Thought
is the naming of experience, but not of experiences past, but of what you are experiencing right now.
That is thought. But if you were able to truly experience reality in its absolute state, no naming would be
possible; but that doesn’t mean that experience is vanquished. Verily, what is, is only experiencing.

If we are not just extraordinary machines, our divinity must come from elsewhere, for thought is a
mechanism.

Whatever I am saying cannot effect any change in you, for truly you are not even listening.
Enough with the prophets! If humanity is to be saved from the chaos of its own making, it has to be
freed from the saviors of mankind.

The three laws of emptiness regard not experience, but thought. It is thought that is empty, co-
dependent and causal. If you could be freed from thought you would realize that reality is beyond these
concepts. Vacuity is an exhortation for your search of it; not a reality of the world. All metaphysical
descriptions are descriptions of a state; get beyond these!

The constant use of memory, or identity, consumes a tremendous amount of energy and it leaves us
with no strenght to deal with the problems of our living. Is there any way that we can free ourselves
from the identity? Through dialectical thinking about thinking itself we are only sharpening that
instrument. All philosophies help us only to sharpen this instrument. Though thought is very essential
for us to survive in this world, it cannot help us in achieving the goals that we have placed before
ourselves. The goals are unachievable through the help of thought. The quest for happiness is
impossible because there is no such thing as a continuous experiencer.

The quantum physicists tell us that it is all connected and we are all part of the universe, but they have
arrived at that as a concept. So did the metaphysicians in India. They arrived at that fact and said that
there is no such thing as space. Space is a very essential thing for you to survive in this world; but the
fact that there is such a thing as space can never be experienced by you.

A scientist came to see me and made this statement that there is no such thing as space, there is no
such thing as time, and there is no such thing as matter. I said, "You are repeating a memorized
statement. Probably you will give me an equation to prove that there is no such thing as space. But
supposing it is a fact in your life that there is no space, what happens to your relationship with your
wife? If you tell yourself that the observer is the observed, and apply that to a situation where you are
about to make love to your wife, what will happen? This realization is the end of all relationship.
Understand this, before you go beyond the Gate!

We have arrived at a point where you cannot destroy your adversary without destroying yourself.

When once it is a fact that there is no movement in any direction of improving, changing, or evolving
into anything different or better, then what is there is something extraordinary can happen.

The belief in reincarnation is born out of the demand that something will continue after your so-called
death. It is the same mechanism which wants to know what will happen after death. For some reason
that mechanism, that movement of thought, does not want to come to an end. But, if you want to know
if there is anything beyond, you have to die now. The end of belief is death.

EMPTY DOOR SUTRA II

Talk here of the mind as the past, intuition as the conflagration of the future and nowness, the ideal that
the saints are completely aware, and the ide that spiritual excercises in attention and spiritual
techniques of absorption are means to be perfected and abandoned. The ultimate is the road to here.

The mind is the past. (Avadhoota Gita – Chapter I – Sloka 9 (Excerpt))

All inquiry and all learning is but recollection (Socrates Plato’s Meno)

The mind is the past so that only intuition, supermind, superperception, can be the now.

7. Enn vari gestr, | es til verþar kømr, The knowing guest | who goes to the feast,

þunnu hljōþi þegir, In silent attention sits;

eyrum hlȳþir, | en augum skoþar: With his ears he hears, | with his eyes he watches,

svā nȳsisk frōþra hverr fyrir. Thus wary are wise men

(no difference between sitting, walking, talking meditation)

… then you don’t meditate?

When am I ever distracted?

(tibetan bhuddism quote)

Practice witout practice, koan with no koan, training with no training - once you get there meditation is
just sitting – Feng Kan

He who knows this doesn’t need to sit there stiff (poem by Feng Kan)

The doctrines of the void consumate when the lightning strikes, but remain with the chosen ones even
after their wings have been given. There is a schism inside the world that cannot heal as long as we think
“I”. To “think” “I” is the life of the slave, the self, because there is an I who thinks and I who percieves.
(as long as we don’t percieve our thoughts in the same way we percieve our perceptions, we are two)
To percieve “I”, and hear the mind think, and not identify with our thoughts, as long as we wouldn’t say
“I am what I see, I am the flowers, I am the rain, I am free”, is the feat of the Enlightened One. Perfect
Freedom Sinks Into The Infinite Well of The Heart and Draws Back Deathless Compassion and Love for
All that Is.

I know one day the Lord of Caves will inhabit mine.

Theoria Mystica - 6

ON KARMA

The world is like the floating fat of sacrifice streaming down the river, that it may gather about the
clothes the washer women strive to clean; such is the purification of karma, that what once hurt shall
make bubbles to glee the gaze of the innocent.

The deamons are there. It is the task of the stronger of us to carry the heavier ones.

Who dances only when celebrating life will cry only when burying the dead, but who dances and cries all
the time is spared from the mechanisms of society.

ON FREE WILL

"No one is responsible for the fact that he exists at all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he
happens to be in certain circumstances and in a particular environment." What did Nietzsche meant by
this statement?

Nietzsche meant that free will doesn’t exist. Our will is not “self-determining” or “autonomous.” What
we think, feel, and do is not the outcome of a deliberate choice in favor of one alternative among
others.

The quotation is from §8 of “The Four Great Errors” in Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols (1889). The Errors
consist mainly of mistaken ideas about causality, and the quoted passage follows a section on “The Error
of Free Will.” Knowing the context is essential if we’re interested not only in what Nietzsche meant by
what he said but also what motivated him to say it.

Free will, Nietzsche writes in §7, is “the most egregious theological trick that has ever existed for the
purpose of making mankind ‘responsible’ in a theological manner, – that is to say, to make mankind
dependent upon theologians.” The point of holding people responsible for their actions, because they
have freely willed them, is to find them guilty of wrong actions and to punish them. To this end, “every
action had to be regarded as voluntary, and the origin of every action had to be imagined as lying in
consciousness.” This is the essence of Christianity, the “metaphysics of the hangman.”

For Nietzsche feelings of guilt and responsibility, apart from being unjustified, have greatly harmed
humanity. The full story is complex and layered, but the gist is that such feelings inhibit human creativity
and greatness. A central dimension of Nietzsche’s project, therefore, is to rid us of these feelings, and
one way of doing that is to deny that we are responsible for ourselves.

What follows is a bit of a leap, but bear with me. Nietzsche’s denial of free will (as a metaphysical
proposition) is rooted in his denial of the Principle of Sufficient Reason. As articulated by Leibniz, the
Principle states that “nothing takes place without a sufficient reason; in other words, that nothing occurs
for which it would be impossible for someone who has enough knowledge of things to give a reason
adequate to determine why the thing is as it is and not otherwise.” The belief that this is the case is the
cornerstone of Western rationalism.

The ultimate application of the Principle is the question “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
The traditional answer is God, but of course Nietzsche believes that God is dead. For Nietzsche, there is
no reason – no explanation – why anything exists at all. And it follows from that, he thinks, that there is
no substantial reason for anything. Existence, and human behavior in particular, is for Nietzsche
irrational, or more precisely non-rational. Therefore “no one gives man his qualities, neither God,
society, his parents, his ancestors, nor himself,” and the “fatality of his being cannot be divorced from
the fatality of all that which has been and will be.”

This is the essence of the “tragic wisdom” Nietzsche attributed to the ancient Greeks and adopted as his
own. As he put it in §5 of The Birth of Tragedy (1872), “it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that
existence and the world are eternally justified.” The world certainly can’t be justified morally, as what
goes on in it is more commonly immoral than moral. If there is a justification, it won’t be found by
discovering the reason for things being as they are; there is no reason. Viewed as a spectacle, however,
the world of human action can be exhilarating and inspiring – to a truly healthy individual, infinitely so.

With this realization, “the innocence of Becoming [is] restored” (Twilight §8). We can regard human
behavior as a natural phenomenon much like the weather.

Under Christian morality, a murderer has committed an evil act. He has violated the moral order and
caused something to occur that should not have been. He must acknowledge his guilt, atone, and be
punished, if the moral order is to be upheld.

Under Nietzschean amorality, we will regard people who harm us the way we regard hurricanes,
earthquakes, fires, and floods. We don’t like hurricanes, but we don’t hold them responsible for
anything. We're not like Captain Ahab, who was consumed by hatred because he believed that the white
whale had it in for him personally. Similarly, we will deal with killers by doing what is necessary to
prevent or avoid the harm they do, without thinking that we have a responsibility to repair the moral
order as well. There will be no moral order to repair.

That doesn’t mean we won’t punish murderers. We may find that avenging ourselves by harming them
goes some ways towards soothing our own feelings. But we won’t imagine that, in executing a
murderer, we are really executing an impersonal and universal moral law.

ON REINCARNATION

The idea of reincarnation is VITAL

LET US TAKE A LOOK AT BOTH VIEWS

"It is appointed for men once to die, and after this the judgment" (Hebrews 9:27)

This is all very misleading and false information. I know personally because I myself used to follow the
New Age Movement. I used to believe also in reincarnation, until I discovered the truth in Jesus Christ.
Please open this link I am sending you so that you can further investigate for yourself. That we only die
once. There is no other “chance”. These are the lies of Satan, which I also once thought to be true.
Christians are made, not born. The resurrection is this, to vow that this be your last life. The vow of the
sadhu us the true faith of Christ; to die into all life absolutely.

ON DEATH

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps in this petty pace from day to day, to the last syllable
of recorded time; and all our yesterdays have lighted fools the way to dusty death. Out, out, brief
candle! Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and
then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The joys of this life are not life's, but our fear of ascending into a higher life; the torments of this life are
not life's, but our self‐torment on account of that fear.

Yes, one of the first signs of the beginning of understanding is the wish to die. Look at your body – a
painted puppet, a poor toy of jointed parts ready to collapse, a diseased and suffering thing with a head
full of false imaginings! But what if you would have committed suicide? You would have come back.
Death is forgiven unto you. Until you become nothing. Until you become death. But then, what death
would kill you? Yes, God is Death. Suicide is forcing the seventh seal. But it’s no use. As long as the
energetic constituents of your body have not reached completion and liberation in the clear light
whatever you throw unto the Ultimate the Ultimate will throw back. Karma is the playing out of
energetic voidness – until your purpose is not accomplished you will come back, no matter how many
bodies it takes. No matter how much oblivion. The vital question, then, is not so much what am I here to
do, but what have I left unfinished in myself that I need to experience. I know these thoughts would
torture Franz Kafka, because he would know them real. Imagine to have the will, courage and
understanding of the perfection of suicide while also recognizing its karmic uselessness! I need not
imagine. But, somehow, Kafka’s suffering makes my suffering not any less, but less lonely. The despair is
in the solitude. Yes, for I could endure anything if God was with me.

I shall not flee disease by means of death, as long as it is curable and does not impede the mind. I will
not do violence to myself because of pain. Such a death is a defeat. But if I see that I have to suffer pain
ceaselessly, I will make my exit, not because of pain but because it will be an obstacle for me with regard
to the whole point of living. He who dies because of pain is weak and cowardly, but he who lives for pain
is a fool. But I digress too long. It is still a topic one could spend the day on—but how can someone put
an end to his life if he cannot put an end to his letter? So be well: you’ll be happier to read that than
non-stop talk about death. Farewell!

ON THE TWELVEFOLD CHAIN

On considering the twelvefold chain not as a metaphysical treatise, that would be contrary to the
buddhas instructions, but to a Sutra; a form of writing that, when understood, one may enter the
Shravaka path of Buddhism, that which confers liberation to the hearer. Here I analyze how can the
twelfold chain be interpreted as a Sutra, and what is the understanding that confers liberation.

Remember. Interpretation is translation. This is mine for the Buddhadharma teaching of the Twelfold
Chain of Arising Co-Dependence.

Ingnorance creates, in this order: karma, fate, birth, perception, contact, sensation, attachment, ego,
fear, time, death.

This is a quasi literal translation of the chain. Somehow I would place time between attachment and ego.

(La ignorancia crea el karma, el karma crea el destino, el destino crea el nacimiento, el nacimiento crea
la percepción, la percepción crea el contacto, el contacto crea la sensación, la sensación crea el apego, el
apego crea el ego, el ego crea el miedo, el miedo crea el tiempo, el tiempo crea la muerte.)

When ignorance ceases, these are destroyed.

(Cuando cesa la ignorancia no existe el karma, cuando cesa el karma no existe el destino, cuando cesa el
destino no existe el nacimiento, cuando cesa el nacimiento no existe la percepción, cuando cesa la
percepción no existe el contacto, cuando cesa el contacto no existe la sensación, cuando cesa la
sensación no existe el apego, cuando cesa el apego no existe el ego, cuando cesa el ego no existe el
miedo, cuando cesa el miedo no existe el tiempo, cuando cesa el tiempo no existe la muerte.)

The Twelfold Chain of Arising Co-Dependence does not mean that there are twelve chains, but that the
chain of thought is comprised by twelve steps to realization. This is not a metaphysical explanation, but
a sutra of its own, because it has the seed of enlightenment in its practice. The greatness of it lies in this,
that the common man will feel powerless to face such enemies as karma, fate, birth, perception,
contact, sensation, attachment, ego, fear, time, or death. These seems to him realities to which one
cannot win against. And the Buddhist teaching does not profess to empower us to defeat anyone, for it
does not preach the attainment of anything, such as wisdom. The only wisdom lies in ceasing ignorance.
This cannot be done through knowledge, but in abandoning conditionings until we realize emptiness. So
instead of talking about God, this primeval Buddhist teaching says that, if we abandon our ignorance,
the chain of arising co-dependence is destroyed. This does not mean that there is no longer a reality to
experience, but that the form of its experience can no longer be termed or conditioned by karma, fate,
birth, etc.

Each term is analogoues to each other, for they are all forms of ignorance. This form is not a visual
form, but a syntactic form in which our conditioning manifests.

I speak of abandoning ignorance as it was a thing, because ignorance itself is a a form of attachment.
Theoria Mystica - 7

ON SEVEN

You who may wish to speak of truth honestly, draw first the fascinations from your sight of self unto that
which is the seen of seers, lest you become an object! The Violet Teaching of the Sages is simple; that
which is Seven, is One, so that the difference of the Keys of Sound from Silence is None. It is not silence
that I break for in my mind there is none, so allow my distruption in your Temple, that my thoughts
might become prayer! We are the pedestal on which you stand, O Lord! Mother of all Fathers! We who
seek to conquer pain beseech you; give us the Voice, O Lord! Give us the Vision! The Perfect seeing of
Violet is to see the Seven colors in it, all at Once, as if the Light had acquired a new dimension; for that is
what it is, the shift of sight the Ancients destroyed all phenomenology by! They could see time, not in
time, but as space; thus they destroyed life and death. To write a book of praise to the Ancients must
compel its excercise to aid their transhistoric endeavour also, that is, the dissemination of the Teaching
so as to liberate all sentient beings. Why is it that I cloud their Voice by the commentaries of the Word,
then? O Masters, O Magi! Forgive me!

The Doors of the Inner Temple open, and, as you walk towards the Throne, the marble that your bare
feet feel gets colder. In drags, destitute, crazed by the Mystery and wrought by longing, you seek to be
crowned by the Throne none can sit on; and yet, thou knowest! The Crown is made of woven Thorns.

ON SEXUAL ENERGY

There is no love for the spouse, and there is no love for the husband. There is love. Division corrupts it.
Love, as energy, can only be transformed. There is no such thing as love that you made, and no such
thing as love that you lost. The manifest object of that love’s inspiration is a hole through which God
invites us to learn to love all. Transformations, or the spatial replacement of the love’s flow, cease at the
contact with the Source in the same way that a river becomes the ocean.

There is no spiritual energy, and there is no sexual energy. There is energy. Division corrupts it. Energy,
as love, can only be transformed. There is no such thing as energy that you made, and no such thing as
energy as you lost. It was never yours, and it will always be there. The manifest subject of that energy’s
flow is the being through which God invites us to surrender our indentification with the symbol of
existence. Transformations, or the temporal realigning of the energy’s current, cease at the contact with
the Source in the same way that an exhalation becomes the wind.

As long as you love someone else, that love will change.

As long as you feel your energy, your energy will change.

When your love becomes unlimited, so will your energy; when your energy becomes unlimited, so will
your love.

Love that has no object can never change.

Energy that has no subject can never change.

This Absolute Love is not different from the religious impulse. Mahamudra means that the Ultimate
Source has the mind of a lover. Rapt by this Love’s ecstacy, to behold the sight of your Beloved is to
become beautiful yourself.

This Supreme Energy is not different from the real loving. Pure magick means that the Ultimate Source
has the body of another. Rapt by this Energy’s ecstacy, to feel the power of the other is to become
nothing yourself.

We learn Supreme Love through divided Love. First we love a person, then we love another, until we
love ourselves in all.

We learn Supreme Energy through divided energy. First we develop sexual energy, then we develop
spiritual energy, until we feel ourselves in all.

To love a woman is not an obstacle for the saint, for she becomes the image of the Lover. This is the
meaning of Devotion (Bhakti)

To have sex with a woman is not an obstacle for the saint, for his body becomes hers. This is the
meaning of Perfect Union (Mahamudra).

The Word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision; that is what we call Genesis. The one who
understands all eschatology as visions escapes the delusion of discoursing in metaphysics, or their
contradiction, for in the visionary expanse nothing remains unseen, and all destinies are possible. Verily,
I have seen Valhalla, and in that Hall of the Dead Enheirjars were angels, and swords, tongues. Like a
poem in the dark that escaped from Oblivion I seek to see; there’s nothing more to say, and nothing
more to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance, sighing, screaming with it,
buying and selling souls that they deny exist, worshipping each other but not the one who abides
therein, worshipping longing and inevitability; watch the Vision of Samsara as it unfolds!

It is not that you must strive for the Vision, for you behold constantly the Vision of Samsara; it is that
thou must purify your soul to behold it, for the Real Sight will kill any nonexistances in you, which is
what you think you are!
Here in Me living as one, O Arjuna, behold the whole universe, movable and immovable, and anything
else that thou wouldst see! Yet since with mortal eyes thou canst not see Me, lo! I give thee the Divine
Sight. See now the glory of My Sovereignty!

The vision baffles telling.

ON DEATH

Be prepared at all times to die! This is called the storm in every breeze, life in every breath.

The day of my transformation I want to be most alive, I want to feel everything touching me deep inside.
I tell you this truly. I want it all to hurt.

Have no fear. You have been, and will be, millions of things; all you will suffer is amnesia.

The tornado and the monsoon and the earthquake and the storm are consecuences of the movement of
the Great Snake in the World.

Everyone has to die; so die as your true nature.

Death is generally considered to be a traumatic experience, but understand what happens. That which
has been born, the knowledge 'I am' which is the same everywhere, but which has gotten itself limited
by the body, again becomes unlimited. A speck of consciousness is given up. Why the fear? How has this
fear of death crept in? That which cannot die somehow became convinced that it was going to die. It is
based on the concept that one is an individual who is born... all the fear arises from mere words told to
you by someone. This is the bondage. It is like someone gives you a drink and then tells you, "I have put
poison in that drink, and in six months you will die. ? Immediately you become very frightened because
you think that you will die. But then you meet a friend and he tells you not to worry. He says, "Here,
drink this and there will be no death for you. First there is one concept which fills you full of fright, and
then there is another concept which negates the first concept. Like this you get involved with the flow of
maya and there are concepts, ideas, creations... pain alternates with pleasure... but all of it is just
ignorance and misery. It is only when you search for your Self that you become aware that it is all a
fraud

By limiting yourself to the body you have closed yourself to the unlimited potential which you really are.
Treat the body like a visitor or a guest, which has come and which will go. You must know your position
as a host very clearly while it is still here, and while it is here you must also know what your position will
be after it leaves.

In spirituality there is no question of doing... only observing and understanding. But, if you try to
understand spirituality through various concepts, like birth and rebirth, you will get caught up in them in
a vicious cycle. And once you are caught up in them you are bound to have them. Out of concepts the
forms are created. Right now, think of that last moment when the body will go - at that time with what
identity are you going to quit? When you become aware of your true nature, then at the end of your life
you will not be prepared to give even one paisa to extend your life. You will have lost all love for this
manifested world and you will not want even this consciousness for five minutes more.

The vital breath leaves the body, the 'I amness' recedes and goes to the Absolute. That is the greatest
moment, the moment of immortality. The 'I amness' was there, the movement was there, and now it is
extinguished. Being alive is never as an individual, but simply being part of the spontaneous
manifestation. Now that has subsided in death. The ignorant one will struggle and get frightened at the
moment of death; most reluctantly he will give up the consciousness to a concept he has come to call
time. But the jnani gives up the beingness to his own true nature; for him it is the happiest of moments

ON THE VISION

The dream of a moment can sustain the heart for a lifetime

The cosmic baptism of fire through which I had passed – the closer analysis of which I cannot specify
here – had thus left the fact that entirely new sensory abilities had been released in me, abilities that
enabled me – not in glimpses – but on the contrary in a permanent state of awake day consciousness –
to apprehend all the main spiritual forces, invisible causes, eternal world laws, basic energies and basic
principles behind the physical world. By this you would suppose that the mystery of existence would
therefore be no longer a mystery to me; but I found that Mystery is not only compatible with
Knowledge, but the same. I had become conscious in the life of the whole universe, and had been
initiated into the divine principle of creation