J. W. Barlament
Divinity As Geometry
Updated: Nov 28, 2019
The following is another experiment in what I call iambic prose, or an iambic rhythm without the pairing of a poetic meter.
God can be defined in many ways, and here is one of them – a definition of divinity that’s rooted in geometry.
There are a multitude of numbers we perceive as sacred. I propose they all are based in 1, 2, 3, and 4. The number 1 is Unity; 2 is Duality; 3, Triality; and 4, Quadrality. These all describe the different ways in which we simple people wrap our heads around the monstrousness of God.
Unity is simplest of them all, for we are used to seeing God as One. But this is not to say that God’s a single, separate being. Unity is not that God is One and we are Other. Unity is that we all are part of one uniting substance; of a God that manifests and intertwines in all. So Unity is not announcing any sort of separate deity that is our God. It is, instead, affirming that our God is the Absolute from which we all emerge, exist, and will eventually return. It is a single point, in geometric terms, in which exists all that there is.
Duality is where the technicalities come into play. For many centuries, humanity has split our God in two; two ends, two equals, and two opposites. The first is matter; real; the waking. Next is movement; the ideal; the sleeping. These extremes are what define Duality. Duality is not a point, like Unity; instead, it is a line. One end of it is matter; real; space; known united as the Physical. The other is the movement; the ideal; time; known united as the Spiritual. So this is what is meant when it is said presence requires absence; one requires other; life requires death. So only when both ends are present does the line, or God, become complete.
Next presented is a view of God more personal than anything discussed thus far. Triality, the quality of being three, describes divinity like it is one with us. It is our essences; that is, the ultimate within that is the Self. That is to say the Self and God are all and one. They are of equal substance, consciousness, and basic being. According to this view, there is not one of us who is not totally divine. We are not just some fragments of a higher God. We are, when realized, this God itself. And we, as well as God, are split in three. The three are waking; dreaming; sleeping, using terms from the Mandukya, or the gross; subtle; causal, using terms from the Three Bodies Doctrine. We may think of God, and thus ourselves, as one triangle with three equal points. The first is waking; what we usually perceive and think in everyday existence. Next is dreaming; where the mind can roam unhindered and the hypnagogic state arises. Last is sleeping; non-existence, where the conscious mind retreats and nothingness prevails. No one is more important than the other two. They come together to create a whole and Godly Self, and so, they all are worthy of attention and perfection.
We lastly see a view intrinsically connected with but ultimately adversarial to that espoused within Triality. This view, Quadrality, splits Self in three just like its predecessor. It, however, doesn’t let the Self equate to God. Instead, it is proclaimed within Quadrality that God is Self and Other all in one. Quadrality proclaims that God may be equated with a square; that is, four equidistant, all-important points. The three discussed within the paragraph above apply to three of these four points as well. The final one exists outside the Self, however. It is, all wrapped in one, the culmination of every other Self; the past, the present, possible and every other bit that’s in between. So if Triality asserts a pantheistic view, Quadrality asserts panentheism. God is all four corners of the cosmic square. The Self makes up just three of them. The fourth summates the whole of every other Self. Quadrality asserts the Self and God are not the same. We aren’t God, but of God. Thus, divine geometry meets its completion when it adds not only us, but also all that lies outside, which makes the God within Quadrality a wholly infinite, incomprehensible abstraction.
Although these views all seem colliding and at odds, they really complement each other. It is true that the views they have on God are mostly incompatible. However, it is only through the understanding of them all that we may grasp that which is inherently too grand to grasp. One day, perhaps, we may find ways to reconcile them into one. For now, it must be good enough for us to comprehend them so we better comprehend ourselves. They are separate paths, but they all end at one united, universal truth.