Even if I walk in the light, I am not the light.

Even if I am a taut stringed lute, I am not the lute player

Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Rūmī

Seeing Michael Dowd give a discussion on his work to prevent the catastrophe of global climate change was interesting. He appeared at my local Unitarian Universalism church. Dowd outlined a “new” movement where people of all faiths are coming together with Science and scientists to discuss and hopefully combat climate change.

Religious naturalism is an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus is on the religious attributes of the universe/nature, the understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual and moral). These provide for the development of an eco-morality. Although it has an ancient heritage in many philosophical cultures, this modern movement is currently not well defined. Theistic or nontheistic religious naturalism is a basic theological perspective of liberal religion and religious humanism, according to some sources.

Religious naturalism is concerned about the meaning of life, but it is equally interested in living daily life in a rational, happy way. An alternative, more anthropocentric approach, is to look at it as answering the question: “What is the meaning of one’s life and does it have a purpose?” It is an approach to understanding the natural world in a religious way and does not offer a detailed system of beliefs or rituals. Religious naturalism also attempts to amalgamate the scientific examination of reality with the subjective sensory experiences of spirituality and aesthetics. As such, it is a combination of objectivity with religious emotional feelings and the aesthetic insights supplied by art, music and literature. It is a promising form of contemporary religious ethics and pluralism responding to the challenges of late modern religious transformations and ecological peril. In so doing, it is emerging as an increasingly plausible and potentially rewarding form of religious moral life consistent with the insights of the natural sciences.


This is a very adimarable goal. I enjoyed Dowd’s talk, until he started discussing Humanism. Dowd himself and his wife, Connie Barlow, are partners and Co authors. Both have spent more than a decade on the road discussing their views, books and the problem of the scientific community in our modern lives.

Dowd himself admits he is a preacher, an ordained minister. Connie is described as an author of “popular science” books. Popular science books, the term doesn’t bode well.

Dowd outlined the need to view reality with reverence and the physical as sacred.


The outer world of earthly existence corresponds in all its details to the inner world of man’s soul, and there is a similar correspondence between the Garden of the Heart and the Garden of the Soul, but these are only two particular  instances of the general truth that all the different domains in the Universe correspond to each other in that each is an image of the Universe itself. 

–Martin Lings, THE SYMBOL


(“The top is like the below”)



Now, this is great. Of course reality is sacred as is the very ground beneath my feet. Dowd admirably preaches and teaches a philosophy of reality as sacred. Hardly news to me or anyone with an ounce of sanity, in my opinion.

For Dowd, reality, or God as he interchangeably calls or labels things, is sacred and must be treated as such. Reverence for all, in order to prevent climate change… Dowd outlines this by dismissing God, destroying any notion of the supernatural and proposes that observation is our savior and will enable the unification of science and religion. Of course this is overly simplistic and not something I could get behind.

Not that scientific and aesthetic understanding is not necessary –but it should do its work faithfully and immerse itself and disappear in the truth of the relation which surpasses understanding and embraces what is understandable.

–Martin Buber (I And Thou)

By discarding the divine for:

“reality” is divine, but only that which is
” observable” we are being dishonest. By dishonest that is, to me it is dishonest.

Observation only works due to assumptions.

Assumptions include a shared language, for example if we are discussing chickens it is assumed we are discussing chickens that all have two legs and two wings, in reality what if the chicken is deformed? In a real sense this means we are assuming like and like. We are assuming that 1 (chicken) plus 1 (chicken) is 2 (chickens)…. Assuming that both chickens are equal. Which in the real world they would not be.

Observation only works due to an agreed upon yardstick. To quote Dowd

“You don’t have to believe in the sea, it’s just there.”
No, you are wrong Mr Dowd. The sea is only the sea because we agree it is the sea. If we measured using an electromagnetic measuring device, for example, we may have problems separating the sea from nearby rivers. In turn, if we change our yard stick a drop of rainwater is the sea. Benoit Mandelbrot demonstrates this in his essay on the coastline of Britain, demonstrating it is of infinite length, measuring from rocks, stones, sand… atoms etc.


The work of Werner Karl Heisenberg famously explored the problem of light being a particle and a wave, though I understand to some modern physicists the solution is that it’s a wave. At the subatomic level we can only measure where something is or its velocity, not both. To summarize Heisenberg we can simply say the
“observed and observer are inseparable ”

This means any observation is a compromise as it is fully changed by being observed. People may counter this by saying this is only at the subatomic level. Again though, it depends on our yard stick. There are numerous ways and means that demonstrate this phenomenon of the inseparable nature of observation. In the end, it is just a complex way if stating observation is dependent upon perspective and perception. For example if we only studied the sky at night we could learn many things, during the day, yet other things, at both times we observe the sky.

Every experiment destroys some of the knowledge of the system

which was obtained by previous experiments.

“Critique of the Physical Concepts of the Corpuscular Theory” in The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (1930) as translated by Carl Eckhart and Frank C. Hoyt, p. 20; also in “The Uncertainty Principle” in The World of Mathematics : A Small Library of the Literature of Mathematics (1956) by James Roy Newman, p. 105

This isnt to mention other things like Godel’s incompleteness theorem, that demonstrates that the only logical conclusion of logic is that logic doesn’t work.

A statement sometimes known as Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem states that if number theory is consistent, then a proof of this fact does not exist using the methods of first-order predicate calculus. Stated more colloquially, any formal system that is interesting enough to formulate its own consistency can prove its own consistency iff it is inconsistent.

At a basic level, if we started to discuss Star Wars with a dog, the dog would not understand who Darth Vader is…. sadly humanists are assuming that through observation we can understand reality, just as a dog can one day discuss Luke Skywalker. Uh, no….

But the cult of the intellect knows no bounds.

The point where we seperate from our origins…or the divine/God.

It is this type of world along with its overriding orientation and pursuits which we have destroyed. Our society is man-made, not a divine order. It is one in fact which represents a projection of the human mind that has cut its links with the divine and with the earth; and in so far that it has any ideals these are purely temporal and finite and concern only the terrestrial welfare of its members.


To a humanist mindset and many other similar groups (notably modern scientific pantheists for example) throwing out the divine makes perfect sense. If logic, observation, bar charts and other intellectual tools won’t cover reality then anything else is garbage, to the humanist (collectively humanists but each and every group with this mindset).

I am reminded by the recent book/TV show where Stephen Hawkins disproves God. All these groups seem to have one thing in common, an overly simplified verging on puerile understanding or concept of God. The science may or may not be remarkable, advanced and inspiring, but the understanding of the sacred is childlike at best. Hawkins demonstrated this very adequately in his television appearance, in his defense I have not, nor do I intend to read his book.

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, Infinite. For man has closed himself up til he sees all things thro’ narrow chinks of his cavern.

–William Blake (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell)

Dowd, like Hawkins touches upon God, largely only in a puerile simplistic manner, the sky daddy playing chess. This overly simplistic image betrays a lack of perspective or genuine lack of investigation into the nature of God. As such, there is no place beyond the observable, the logical or even beyond the physical. As such we, to this modernist mindset, are merely dogs learning about Star Wars, one day able through language and concept to discuss the finer points of Star Wars.

Of course the talk was only an hour or so long, and I have not actually read his books, so my understanding may be limited.

Language of course fails us every time. Modernists use mathematics to overcome this.

The problem with secular liberals, as distinct from traditionalist liberals and traditionalist conservatives, is that they insist on inventing reality by denying any higher truth than themselves. They deny the natural law of holistic education, including the metalaw of holistic haqq, which is to be sought heuristic ally and holistically not created by human fiat.

By claiming the source of truth they deny the essence of anything and anything, because without essence everything is relative and truth cannot exist. If everything is relavistic, there is no purpose, then the practice of human responsibilities and the corresponding and resulting human rights has no logical basis.

The denial of any reality beyond the power of personal preference is the source of all totalitarian ideologies, beginning with the liberal logic of the French Revolution, which produced Communism, Fascism, and both Zionist and Muslim Statism today, where the sovereign state or global caliphate claims divinity based on top-down political process of might makes right.

 The Metalaw of Holistic Haqq: Toward a Just Third Way beyond Capitalism and Socialism in the Holy Land
by Robert Dickson Crane


In conclusion, Dowd and other humanists make giant compromises. Dowd does however stress the urgency of climate change. His concepts work for the ignorant i.e. those expecting the rapture, denying evolution, biblical aging of the planet and other ridiculous literalisms that demonstrate once again observer and observed change things; as literalisms as found in modern times, never existed in the ancient world. However, Dowd is educating the small of understanding, the ones that arguably need to be spoon fed understanding. His goals are also good ones. However, I don’t agree with all his political leanings. Sadly, I think Dowd’s allusions fit well at my church amongst the right people (which may or may not be a good thing depending on your perspective). I enjoyed his conclusions i.e. live in harmony with the earth or die, it is not all doom and gloom, we may do better in regards to combating climate change.


yet the crisis itself is not first of all an ecological crisis. It is not first of all a
crisis concerning our environment. It is first of all a crisis concerning the way we think. We are treating our planet in an inhuman, God-forsaken manner because we see things in an inhuman and God-forsaken way. How we see the world depends above all upon how we see ourselves. Our model of the universe – our worldview – is based upon the model we have of ourselves, upon our own self image. Unless our own evaluation of ourselves, and of what constitutes the true nature of our being, changes, the way we treat the world around us will not change either. The industrial and technological inferno we have produced around us, and by means of which we are now devastating our world, is not something that has come about accidentally. On the contrary, it is a direct consequence
of our allowing ourselves to be dominated by a certain paradigm of thought that impels us to look upon ourselves as little more than two-legged animals whose destiny and needs can best be fulfilled through the pursuit of social, political and economic self-interest. And to correspond with this self-image we have invented a worldview in which nature is seen as an impersonal commodity, a soulless source of food, raw materials, wealth,
power and so on, which we think we are entitled to abuse by means of any scientific and mechanical technique we can devise and produce, in order to satisfy our self-interest. Having in our own minds de-sanctified ourselves, we have de-sanctified nature as well.

Our contemporary secular scientific mentality goes hand-in-hand with a
corresponding and increased erosion in us of the sense of the sacred. We do not have any respect, let alone reverence, for the world of nature because we do not fundamentally have any respect, let alone reverence, for ourselves. It is because we have lost the sense of our own reality that we have lost the sense of every other reality as well. It is because we cripple and mutilate ourselves that we cripple and mutilate everything else as well. Our contemporary crisis is really our own depravity writ large.

So the only real answer to this crisis is to stop depraving ourselves. It is to
recover a sense of our true identity and dignity, of our creation in the image of God, of our self image as sacred beings. Once we repossess a sense of our own holiness, we will recover a sense of the holiness of the world about us as well and we will then act towards the world about us with the awe and humility that we should possess when we enter a sacred shrine, a temple of love and beauty in which we are to worship and adore the Creator. Without a sense of the holy – that everything that lives is holy – and without
humility towards the whole – towards man, towards nature and to God Himself Who is beyond both man and nature, their transcendent source and origin – we will simply proceed headlong along the course to self-destruction to which we are now committed and which is our own choosing and for which we are entirely responsible.

Philip Sherrard (1922-1995)
(The Rape of Man & Nature: An Inquiry Into the Origins and Consequences of Modern Science)

There are practically no athiests among traditional farmers, even in England –a country whose main “intellectual” export right now is atheism. Also in a country like France, which is known for its secularism, where only 11% of people go to church and 40% of people are agnostics and atheists, if you were to go to the French countryside and talk to a farmer who produces that wonderful French cheese you eat for lunch, there are hardly any athiests among them. To do something that is close to God’s world is to participate in a sense in things which are natural, and thereby to circumvent the illusion of the absence of God which the modern world has created, an illusion upon which the modern world is based.

–Seyyed Hossein Nasr

The process of secularization of the microcosm resulted in one impoverishment after another of the human reality. First, the depletion of the angelic content of the microcosm helped transform the three dimensional traditional man into the two dimensional modern man. Since traditional psychology is closely related to angelology the transformation resulted in the disappearance of the idea of the soul from modern science wheras its reality at various ontological levels was affirmed in the traditional sciences. Not only that, the soul served as a key scientific concept in traditional sciences. For example, in Islamic science, we encounter the development of scientific concepts of plant, animal, rational and even universal souls. Second, the human reality became further reduced when two-dimensional man comprising body and mind was transformed into a living organism with a mechanistic body and mind largely determined by the brain. Mechanization of the human body was only one side of the coin of mechanization of the cosmos, the other being the better known mechanization of the macrocosm. The reduction of human reality reached its extreme end when every aspect and dimension of it, including consciousness, is visualized as being entirely determined by matter and physical processes.

–Osman Bakar (From secular science to sacred science: The need for a transformation, sacred web 33)

The traditional man is defined by its three essential components, namely body, soul and spirit. In the constitution of modern man the combined reality of soul and spirit has shrunk to what is called mind, a fused reality without a sacred meaning and significance.

If this metaphysical space is to be known,

such knowledge can be attained only by faith and grace,

not by ‘entering’ but by ‘being entered’

-this is so because the greater must reveal itself to the lesser.

Put differently, that which is immanently ‘Spirit’ can only be known receptively,

through its own intellective vision, and not any derivative faculty such as reason,

feeling or sensation. Reason can only discern conceptually,

at best reducing reality to a dualism of subject and object

(as in the case of Descartes) or catagorical postulate

(as in the case of Kant) or dialectic process

(as in the case of Hegel) – its ‘telos’ will tend to be utopian(as in the case of Marx),

fundamentalist( as in the cases of religious, political or secular dogmatism)

or anthropocentrically consencual (as in the case of Rousseau’s social contract);

while sensation or feeling even where elevated to

the level of empirical ‘science,’ can only discern reality as matter or as psyche,

quantitatively, thereby cutting it off from its transcendent

and qualitative roots, leading to an emphasis on hypertrophic subjectivism

(as in the case of Nietzsche), Psychologism(as in the case of Freud),

or reductive positivism(as in the cases of philosophical positivism and of scientism).

That which transcends us cannot be known reductively

but only by that transcendent faculty which is immanent in us-which in

Tradition is termed the ‘Intellect’

or the Self-knowing Spirit. To know is to discern BEING.

We must empty ourselves or our ‘self’ in order to know who we ARE.

We must return to the sacred emptiness of the space that is our

ontological core in order to know that which truly IS.

–M Ali Lakhani (the Distance between us, found in Sacred Web issue 31)




Soaring upwards
Can be like reaching down

Pushing forward

Can be like pushing back

Going right

Can be like Going left

Within is within

All things begin

And end at the cross roads

–GraalBaum 2013



This world-mountain was Nizir to the Chaldeans, Olympus to the Greeks, Hara Berezaiti to the Persians of the Avesta, the later Alborz and Elburz; a transfer, as says Mme. Ragozin, of ‘mythical heavenly geography to the earth.’ This mountain—the solar hill of the Egyptians—we shall again refer to in the next two or three chapters. At its apex springs, the heaven tree on which the solar bird is perched. From its roots spring the waters of life—the celestial sea, which, rushing adown the firmament, supplies the ocean which circumscribes the earth or falls directly in rain. At their fountain these springs are guarded by a goddess. In Egypt Nut, the goddess of the oversea, leans from the branches of the heavenly persea and pours forth the celestial water. In the Vedas, Yama, lord of the waters, sits in the highest heaven in the midst of the heavenly ocean under the tree of life, which drops the nectar Soma, and here, on the ‘navel of the waters,’ matter first took form. In the Norse, the central tree Yggdrasil has at its roots the spring of knowledge guarded by the Norns, the northern Fates; two swans the parents of all those of earth, float there. In Chaldea the mighty tree of Eridu, centre of the world, springs by the waters. The Avesta gives a very complete picture—Iran is at the centre of the seven countries of the world; it was the first created, and so beautiful, that were it not that God has implanted in all men a love for their own land, all nations would crowd into this the loveliest land. To the east somewhere, but still at the centre of the world, rises the ‘Lofty Mountain,’ from which all the mountains of the earth have grown, ‘High Haraiti;’ at its

summit is the gathering place of waters, out of which spring the two trees, the heavenly Haoma (Soma), and another tree which bears all the seeds that germinate on earth. This heavenly mountain is called ‘Navel of Waters,’ for the fountain of all waters springs there, guarded by a majestic and beneficent goddess. In Buddhist accounts, the waters issue in four streams like the

Eden from this reservoir, and flow to the cardinal points, each making one complete circuit in its descent. In the Persian Bundahish there are two of these heavenly rivers flowing east and west. To the Hindus the Ganges is such a heavenly stream. ‘The stream of heaven was called by the Greeks Achelous.’ The Nile in Egypt, the Hoang-Ho in China, and the Jordan to the Jews, seem to have been celestial rivers. This mountain of heaven is often figured in Christian art with the four rivers issuing from under the Throne of God.

Sir John Maundeville gives an account of the earthly Paradise quite perfect in its detailed scheme. It is the highest place on earth, nearly reaching to the circle of the moon (as in Dante), and the flood did not reach it. ‘And in the highest place, exactly in the middle, is a well that casts out the four streams’—Ganges, Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates. ‘And men there beyond say that all the sweet waters of the world above and beneath take their beginning from the well of Paradise, and out of that well all water come and go.


It is precisely the challenge involved

in using inadequate words

that drives the mind

beyond all words…

At the borders of speech

we open ourselves

to the positive value of silence….

Literary reading,

through its complexity, its music,

its suggestiveness, points to a fuller realm of being.

–Edward k Kaplan (citing Abraham Joshua Heschel)

The Math of the Word


Tom Saunders

What if the Word, as the ”Gospel of John” uses it, could be shown by Mathematics? Would this change your perception of your spiritual self? It might if you understand that the Word, as used by some very early Christians, was used in a way the Orthodox Church never taught. It can be shown. Actually it needs to be explained in two ways.

Ancient Pythagoreans were historically divided into two distinct groups, the ‘Acusmatici,’ or Aphorist, and the ‘Mathematici,’ the scientist. (Early Greek Philosophy, Penguin Classic, pg. 162.) This is a natural duality of the human intellect. The aphorist tends to describe things through literal description, and the scientist uses measurement or mathematics.

In the following explanations, do not confuse yourself by forgetting that you, as an intellect, are not one or the other, you are both. So was everyone in the group of Pythagoreans.

The natural separations or dualities of the human mind are very much part of the Word. However, because this is a natural duality, separating these traits from one another, destroys its natural value. This holds true for both the literal and mathematical explanation of the Monad, and Monadology. This is how good and evil are shown to be controlled. Later it will be shown how the Monad, is equal to, and part of the Word, and ‘Jesus Wisdom’ equals the status of the Word. The ancient Christian Gnostics used a method called Gematria to study the mechanics of the Word.


Gematria: The study or science and art of number and letter manipulation. This would include geometric forms such as the Tetraktys of the Decad. ”I {Jesus} have turned their (periods of) influence and their quadrangles and their triangles and their figures of eight , since their (periods of) influence remained turned to the left from the beginning, together with their quadrangles and their triangles and their figures of eight.” (”Pistis Sophia,” See also; Tetraktys of the Decad.” See also; ”Marsenes.” ) (Source: “Saunders Gnostic Glossary.”)

What the above statement is about, is the study of the Monad. The Monadology. Everything in the Nag Hammadi Library has an underlying philosophy of the Monad tied to it. Its really unavoidable, as I will show. Jesus in terms of the Sethian Monadology, and the first sentence of the ”Gospel of John,” becomes the Word, and the Monad in Gnostic Christianity. In Orthodox Christianity this knowledge was forbidden and being tied to it meant the penalty of death. This knowledge is still considered heresy.

The intellect of the Aphorist, and Scientist become important in the Christian Gematria, because duality is the basis for much of how both the mathematical and literary descriptions define how the Sethians used the Pythagorean Monadology. The Gnostics who adopted Christianity, or the other way around, left behind literary descriptions of the monad, and some are full Monadological sequences.

These are literary descriptions of the Monad, i.e. Monadology.

“As I said earlier, (said Jesus), among the things that were created the
Monad is first, the dyad follows it, and the triad, up to the tenths. Now the
tenths rule the hundredths; the hundredths rule the thousandths; the thousands
rule the ten thousands. This is the pattern <among the> immortals. First Man is
like this: His monad […]. ( is His God, my insertion.) (From “Eugnostos the
Blessed,” Nag Hammadi Library, Codex III, Robinson, 1990.)

(b.) Again it is this pattern that exists among the immortals: the Monad and the
thought are those things that belong to Immortal Man. The thinkings are for
<the> decads, and the hundreds are the teachings, and the thousands are the
counsels, and the ten thousands are the powers. Now those who come from the
[…] exist with their […] in every aeon […].” (From “Eugnostos the
Blessed,” Nag Hammadi Library, Codex III, Robinson, 1990.)

Students of Chinese Philosophy may recognize the description above, is very much like that given in the explanation of the Tai Chi. In fact they are both the same formula. For those not familiar with this philosophy I have prepared two short video presentations that explain the advanced workings of the Tai Chi, and another for how the Monad works as a parallel to the Tai Chi.

Here are two passages that will confirm to most that the above descriptions from the Nag Hammadi, are in fact describing the same concepts….

(a.) “Wu Chi {The Great Void} creates Tai Chi, Tai Chi is the one Chi. One Chi
generates Yin and Yang, and Yin and Yang can change in infinite ways.” (From
The History of Chinese Philosophy,” Fung Yu-Lan, Princeton Press, 1953.)

(b.) ” Tao produced oneness. Oneness produced duality, Duality evolved into the
ten thousand things. The ten thousand things support the yin, and embrace the
yang. It is the blending of the breaths (of yin and yang) that their harmony
depends.” ( from “Lau Tzu,” or the “Tao Te Ching” sixth c. B.C. ).Ibid, Fung

I have prepared two video presentations that will give the reader an advanced insight into the above passages. The first is how the Asians preserved Ba Gua Science as far as how it is applied. The next is an explanation of how Ba Gua Science, works like the Monadology, and some about how it is used.

The Mathematical explanation of the Monad, does not involve what is pre-Monadic. Its a mathematical formula that shows what is contained within the space of the Monad itself. However, the nature of the Mathematical monad, does tend to show a very important aspect of duality. The use of the term Tai Chi, and Monad, include the aspects and the meaning of the terms Yin and Yang, and dyad, or duad. By the mathematical gematra, these both mean virtually a double aspect of the same thing. Dyad does not mean two things separated from the Monad, but it does show the aspect of one becoming two things, if you don’t lose the perspective of being both an Aphorist and Scientist.

The algebraic equation that shows how a Word is formed in the equation, is based upon the aspect of the Monad being composed of unit forms (axioms), and modification axioms. In other words the algebraic formula shows the Monad as having the aspect of the ability to mutate. This is what the literal descriptions say. The following videos explain the mathematical Monadic theory much better than I can…Watch them as a balanced Aphorist and Scientist and you’ll see the gematra of the Catsters show you the Word, right before your eyes.

Mathematical Monad……(Presentation study by The Catsters)

{Natural transformations, See also Klein Jars}

See also, on Pythagorean Math…..

Right before your eyes if you gaze at the illustrations and the way the base forms grow, it confirms the literary, and mathematical concepts alined with the Aphorists, and Mathematicians.

A Note on Leibnitz

The term Monadology comes into the modern lexicons of our language through the work of Gottfried Leibnitz. However, the term Monad, and its connected concepts is far older. It is not known to me at this time when the mathematical study of the Monad existed. It would be my best guess that the Pythagoreans knew it and kept it an occult study, as they did the literalist study of the Monad.

Leibnitz’ work shows that a person is his own Monad. This is consistent with what I am showing, and I suspect Leibnitz, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjiman Franklin, knew a lot more than they revealed about Leibnitz’ work. The Preamble to the U. S. Constitution is a Monadic sequence. Follow the below formula, and you can see for yourself… Once you know how to recognize them, they stand out, like those in the Nag Hammadi Library. (This may well be part of how Pythagoreans kept the secrets hidden. If you know the formula, you know what to look for. If you don’t, you don’t see the formula. This means the list that is a Monadic sequence, jumps out. A list that is just a list, is just a list.

The Church was still so powerful at the time of Leibnitz, he stood on the brink of being killed by the Church. In my opinion all he or even Jefferson, and Franklin had to do was reveal they were investigating the Monad mentioned in the works of Ireaneus, and they would have been killed. I trust with this essay I divulge what they could not.

The Christian Monad

The Sethian use of the Monad, as with the Tai Chi, begins before the Monad, with a void, or emptiness. In the Sethian Christian texts, this emptiness is called Silence. From Silence comes the One, or the Monad, which is Jesus Wisdom, i.e. the Word. The obvious purpose of the ”Secret Sayings of the Living Jesus,” otherwise known as the ”Gospel of Thomas,” would be to provide the literal source of this virtual set of the Word. I say set because the Monadic equation shows ((abc) (ex)) <~> (abcex) {a word}. This virtually means the monad, and monoid equal the Monad, and dyad. One equals one, the monad equals the Word. Actually the formula shows, the Monad equals, (Word) <~> ( 114 ‘type’ (sayings) as a set which is the ”Gospel of Thomas.”)

Note: { I am using the tilda (<~>) to show what is a straight line in the formulas of the videos, this is due to the keyboard functions of my computer. The tilda between the arrows equals a straight line.}

The concept of emptiness or the ‘great void,’ is described by Aristotle, who reveals emptiness from the Pythagorean perspective. One of the rare clues about Pythagorean concepts starting with emptiness, is quoted by Aristotle, in “Physics.” (213b22-27) “Early Greek Philosophy,” pg. 171.

“The Pythagoreans too said that empty exists, and it enters the heavens from the limitless breath, as though the heavens actually inhale the empty which distinguishes natural things, and is sort of separation and distention of contiguous things. {Limit} They hold that this appears first among numbers for the empty separates their natures.”

Actually there is a lot more to take in after you grasp emptiness. The Gnostics took the study of emptiness to a level called Kenosis….

Kenosis: A Greek term meaning emptiness, or to make empty. As in Philippians 2:7, “Jesus made himself nothing…” In Christian theology, Kenosis is the concept of the ‘self-emptying’ of one’s own will and becoming entirely receptive to God and his perfect will. It is used both as an explanation of the incarnation, and an indication of the nature of God’s activity and condescension.

The use of kenosis is actually broader than the definition above might suggest. If you have viewed the videos so far you have an idea of what comes next with the ‘numbers,’ and what can be made of the nature of those numbers. From duality, comes the Ba Gua, or Monadic sequence.

Both the Chinese and Pythagoreans, learned to apply sciences extending outside the realm of the (One) Monad, and learned to form sets, which are governed by the natural laws of ‘limit,’ and form. This means that the limits of form, correspond with other aspects of the natural forces of perhaps the Word, Wisdom, or language itself. This is why things like evil as a form have seven ‘types,’ (See lies in the video). Sets form out of natural cycles and influences, i.e. patterns.

In the Gnostic schema, dualities, are referred to as Powers, Archons, Aeons, Autogenes, Monogenes, etc., all pretty much exactly show the same powers. All are the cause and effects of duality, in the schema, or ‘stages’ which mutate out of the Monadic form. At this point the most likely mathematical correspondence with the way the sequences mutate is by aligning the Monadic sequence with the binomial aspects of the Tai Chi. Ba Gua, are in fact, trigrams which represent a binomial system. The mathematical aspects of this fact are beyond the scope of this essay.

Form, Separation, and Limit

Pre-Christians used different ways including using Seth to show how the separation of good and evil forces worked. Dualities like good and evil, extending out of emptiness, are represented by actions. What the Monadic sequence does is teach the Gnostic how to encounter adversity with skills applied to the kenosis process, with the tools he develops from learning the sequences of good and evil. This is exactly how the martial artist learns to confront adversity, you develop skills.

This requires knowledge and study of how the Monadic or Ba Gua Sequence takes shape. The skills needed for the arena or form of the fight, requires you understand the physical forms and limits, as well as the all the literal ones. Through a natural process of human form, and natural duality the experienced fighter sees the opponents actions and corresponds to the natural grid, of wisdom which determines offense, defense, boxing moves, or grappling moves. Every arena has different dualities, and hence different limits of types in a set, this is the basis for separation.

The Gnostic learns the dualities of good actions and evil ones, based upon how he needs to keep his faith, with his own actions. These are learned skills. Part of this is learning are the forms, the number of types, in sets like good, and evil, and learning how to control the skills you need to apply in the ‘void.’ This is the point of learning to use the Monadology in your psyche.

There seems to be a natural separation in the ”Gospel of Thomas.” It is obvious, as to the first real duality you can make in the text, if you use the process of separation to examine the sayings. The type of saying that is obviously a special part of the text are the parables. Apply all the knowledge of the text to the problems, i.e. forms of the Parables, using what you glean from the entire text and, you have merged your own mind with Jesus. According to the way the Monadology is applied, this makes sense as how you apply it to the Thomas text.

Then you apply this knowledge to yourself, and the form of you as your own parable.

This makes the Mathematical formula for you bonding with the Word, ( (y) (o) (u) ) <~> (Word/Monad), which would equal the mathematical equivalent of achieving Christian Gnosis. This has lots of happy connotations if you know the Gnostic texts.

The Trinity

The trinity, is after the duality. The Aphorists both Chinese and early Christian, again share aspects of how this mutation happens. The trinity in the Tai Chi system can be characterized by what is known as the ‘Taoist Trinity,’ which states…”Man’s Mind, is the same as heaven and earth.” This means in most aspects that the Mind, as an empty space, is like the Great Void, ( Wu Chi ) of Chinese philosophy. Being like heaven means the dualities of the Mind, and the collective on earth, work the same way in the kenosis process. In other words what comes into the voids of heaven and the human mind are much the same things.

In the Christian Gnostic texts the concept of trinity is literalized in different places, and in a few different ways, in some of those places. This is because the Monad is an occult study, and this idea is lots older than when the early Christians made Jesus the Monad. As the Monad and part of a trinity, the Monad, becomes the primary influence in the dualities shown in the form of the trinity.

Gnostics to my knowledge called the primary evil influence, a demon(s), like the Seven Forms of Wrath, in the “Gospel of Mary,” but did not refer to them as Monads. There is an evil Trinity in the Gnostic texts, its darkness, desire, and ignorance. There is also the ‘Father, Son, and Holy Ghost,” but the Gnostic version follows a broader alignment according the the way trinity is used in the various Gnostic texts.

In the Trinity, Jesus is the Monad, as the control factor over all duality.

This extends the mathematical formula to (Word) <~> (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, Darkness, Desire, and Ignorance.) There is no separation of good and evil, until the Gnostic becomes a controlling factor.

The Tetrad and Higher Forms

The Gnostic or Sacred Tetrad is preserved in the Works of both Basilides, and Valentinus. Its Word, Man, Life, and Church, (Truth). These terms have specific meanings in the ‘Gnostic lexicon.’ In the higher forms, referring to those with larger numbers of types in the Monadic sets, remain as associate axioms all influenced by the cause and effects of how the duality through the form is handled.

In the higher forms starting with the Word as the Monad in the sequence, the Gnostics added the term Knowledge, Gnosis, or free will, to the end of the sequence. This designates the Gnostic as the controller over the set. In other words duality like good and evil become controlled by the Gnostic, designated by the last member of the set of types in the associate side of the Monadic axiom.

This may be seen as adding another factor into the designated equation, one that can make a designated choice of producing one side of dualistic expression. This equation could be shown a couple of different ways to explain how the control of the set goes from its natural form, to one manipulated in part by the Gnostic.

One way would be to express the Word and Gnostic is one factor together. This would reflect the Gnostic and Word, as bonded as one…

( (Word) (The Gnostic)) <~> ( abcd {good} abcd {evil})

However, at this level, where the Gnostic takes control over the duality the mathematics would best serve to show plus or minus the factors of good and evil. After all this is the choice for the Christian Gnostic, and how the Monadic sequences start to become a viable heuristic device.

The Pentad

At the level of the pentad, another equation can be shown that demonstrates the power the Gnostic has to take control over what happens in the cause and effect within the types of a given set. Control would be shown something like this…

(Word) = (The Gnostic) <~> ( (abcde {good}) +/- abcde {evil} )) = (The Gnostic plus good or evil, contingent upon the chosen action. Sometimes Gnostics do evil deeds for very good reasons, although my best guess is this would be rare.

At this point the Aphoristic explanations of the Monadology show the Pentad as a circle. This of course represents the way the Monadology is used in the ‘arenas’ of human action, as shown in the video. This is where the Gnostic learns to gain control of these environments.

The sequence at the level of the Pentad, and higher in the Gnostic teachings include the designation of the Gnostic as a controlling factor. The sequence therefore looks like this….

(Word), (dyad or influence of duality), (c.), (d), (e), etc. depending upon the size of the set, and the last unit being the Gnostic, (Knowledge). So the Seven Forms of Wrath in the “Gospel of Mary,” as an evil form looks like a simple list. This is the passage from which the Seven Forms are introduced…

“When the soul had overcome the third power, it went upwards and saw the fourth power, which took seven forms.

The first form is darkness, the second desire, the third ignorance, the fourth is the excitement of death, the fifth is the kingdom of the flesh, the sixth is the foolish wisdom of flesh, the seventh is the wrathful wisdom. These are the seven powers of wrath.” (Chapter 8., “Gospel of Mary“)

Here the evil power (form) can be shown as, (darkness, desire, ignorance, excitement of death, kingdom of the flesh, foolish wisdom of the flesh, and wrathful wisdom.) The reader will note the last member of this set, uses the term wisdom, and this denotes the use of ‘evil knowledge.’ This would be congruent with the Christian Gnostic form.

When Mary in the Gospel says she is overcoming the demons, the formula in the Monadology looks like this…

(Word), (darkness, which is the duality factor in this set), (desire), (ignorance), (excitement of death), (kingdom of the flesh), (foolish wisdom of the flesh), and ( The ‘Knowledge’ to control the wrathful wisdom under the influence of darkness).


The Aphorist, and Mathematician in regard to the understanding and demonstration of the Word, (Monad) can be shown to coincide in showing the use of the term, and defining ‘Word’ in Christian theology.

The Pythagoreans adopted the Chinese method of study which includes Ba Gua Science. They converted it at some time in early history to include their rendering of form, separation, and limit. The Sethians both pre Christian and Christian adopted this theory, and made the teachings of Jesus the Monad. Monad = Word.


Many times I cross-post essays to religious groups that I belong to. So is the case with the essay “The Math of the Word.” There is one important difference about this essay that I would like to explain.

This particular concept of putting the Word, into mathematical terms, qualifies the Gnostic learning in a way never before realized in modern times.

I knew the Pythagoreans had a mathematical companion to the literal or aphorist side to the explanation of the Monadology. My problem regarding math is, I’m very weak and almost inept at doing any kind of math. I never thought I could make the mathematical argument but the “Catsters” did it for me. This is in spite of the fact they don’t know who I am yet. They don’t know I’ve connected their work to mine, and are certainly unaware of the Gnostic connection. I’m sure they will be surprised.

If this material is a little overwhelming, I understand. The algebra in the Catsters’ videos is complex at first but not impossible to get even if you don’t know anything about algebra. I’ve been told that the literalist descriptions are not easy either. The saving grace is, when you can show the math, the real arguments over speculation can be put to rest. One = One, is a hard argument to beat.

It is like proving there is a Bigfoot. You show up with a real Bigfoot, in front of reliable sources then you have the right evidence. My work just put Gnostic science on that same level. The ancient Monadology is a large heavy beast the Orthodox Church has never been able to explain. I have no doubt that modern Bible scholars will be slow to respond. They always are. Again, One = One, is a hard argument to beat.

It might actually be easier to show up with a Bigfoot, than a Monad.

Whatever happens in the Bible scholar community is no longer much concern to me. I intend to put the Monad to use, and I’m not waiting on anyone else to do it. What the Nag Hammadi texts say can be made clear, and without major speculation.

A camel is a horse built by a committee that didn’t know what a horse looked like. This has been what the Gnostic scholarship has been like, without an adequate explanation of the underlying philosophies. This has hampered qualifying real Gnostic Science. No more.

Tom Saunders