|· Portal||Help Search Members Calendar|
|Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )||Resend Validation Email|
|Welcome to Theosophy Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit.|
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
Posted: Jun 6 2009, 08:15 AM
Member No.: 518
Joined: 16-April 08
This is for a thread on math in Theosophy even if one has ideas that may be seen as heretical.
I will write about Pi. As you may know, HPB said the Book of Dzyan involves Pi and gives examples in the stanzas she recorded.
For reference, Pi is
i.e. (in binary, a number base computers use, in which instead of counting up to 10 for a new place you count up to 1)
i.e. (in hexadecimal, a number base people use to program computers, in which you count up to 15 and have a 16s place)
i.e. (in any many more number bases) etc..
So you see there are no numbers that depend on the base or notation: they are ideal forms. Yet the stanzas of Dzyan are written as if the decimal system has great significance in the mathematical sacred keys. Well, some Sumerians counted up to 60 before they would make a place for a new number (again, like the tens place, but for 60s in this case.) So what? What is so important about the three and the one and the four and the 'five' and the nine and the two and the six and the eight and the seven and--whereever further it occurs in Pi--the 12?
First of all, how can you say 'the one and the four and the five' or whatever when it is really 'the one and the four and the fifteen?' If you ignore a repeated digit but then pick an arbitrary double-digit, e.g. 12, then how can you analyze it with any order at all?
Maybe the stanzas of Dzyan are about a base less than ten that happens to occur as stated without skipping digits. But, why should something esoteric do numbers-based math proofs? Maybe it really says something about the earthly universe, but should it not be saying something about the heavenly universe of ideal forms? And, what if I want to 'read into' Pi in a different base like hexadecimal. Then it should probably go 'the three and the two and the 3F.'
With the latter manner of not skipping digits and just taking the next chunk until a new number until all numbers in the base have been used you get some sort of unique data. Since Pi is infinite it will also repeat itself within itself--in parts--and have other different parts that also repeat with the repeated parts--and alone--ad infinitum. That is just why I think you should take chunks of digits and eventually you get back to something you have seen before.
Maybe this has nothing to do with Dzyan. I guess its idea is that it either has Pi in base 8, 9, or 13 or that it has approximation related to other symbolism. I say base 13 because HPB said 'the 12' and perhaps it should be its own digit in the analysis--like it would be in hexadecimal 'C,' i.e. from 9, A, B, C, D, E, F in which the letters are merely numbers.
In the latter case just ignore my statements about taking chunks of such numbers.
If the stanzas of Dzyan are really in a different base than ten one still must ask why it is using numbers and whether it would say the same thing if it used any base. Ideally it should. Maybe other parts that are not about Pi use other bases for something, and we do not even have the whole book. The stanzas of Dzyan are in any case limited but they try to express the illimitable. If they use (an)other base(s) there is a lowest and highest and maybe pattern and beyond that set that it uses there may be other truths.
I started out questioning the value of the stanzas of Dzyan from an optimist math viewpoint and then a more skeptical one because of what Paul Johnson may say in his books. We do not really know if the books of Kiu-te exist. Nevertheless, I think the symbolic language in the given stanzas are anaylzable with the two methods I gave above.