RegisterLogin with Google+ Login with Facebook


Sacred Geometry
#11
I did love your post Anashri, and so important that we grasp the simplicity of things, then we can decipher the bases for the more complex, you are a wise one, simplicity can reveal truth from false
Light, Life and Love
[-] The following 1 user Likes Gerhard Botha's post:
  • anushri
#12
Dear Anushri,
     I apologise for offending with the question I posed. I will try to explain.
    For me it is a serious question and, further on, I offer my serious answer. I accept what you write and I find your explanations on various subjects more than just informative. Some are more than intellectually challenging; they carry profound spiritual meaning.
     However, In the royal households, of both east and west, there was, historically, a court jester. Originally this would be somebody who would use humour to mock and joke, who could speak without causing offence, and who also had the ability to sing or dance Later, his role was not only to amuse his royal master or mistress with jokes and antics; he would be a learned and erudite student, perhaps master even, of world affairs, philosophy, mathematics, (perhaps even sacred geometry) economics, legal and other matters. He was, in fact, a very important member of the royal household, charged with the duty of keeping everyone, dare I say, in the loop.                                                               
     What I am trying to say is that sometimes I try to bring a little light-heartedness to serious discussion. Not with the intention of mocking or offending anyone and certainly not in this case.
     If I might offer my own answer to my own question – any shape we can see or imagine, whether it be in the formality of sacred geometry or the freeform imagery of nature, (which itself comprises elements of the same geometry,) might exist at any size from miniscule to enormous. But it exists. Only when we know that it exists, do we require numbers to define it in its relationship to its environment and other shapes in that environment. So, if I am comprehending my own line of reasoning correctly, I see the shape as having ‘been’ before the numbers that define it.
     Do you read my limericks thread, Anushri? Perhaps my humour is not always clear to other cultures, but every one of those sometimes-amusing limericks carries a serious message and its subject is related to the list of threads that accompanies it.

[Image: KTjKbAgTq.jpeg]
I am a Spiritual Being having a Human Experience
[-]
  •
#13
(01-27-2017, 06:13 PM)Gerhard Botha Wrote: I did love your post Anashri, and so important that we grasp the simplicity of things, then we can decipher the bases for the more complex, you are a wise one, simplicity can reveal truth from false

And so are you Gerhard (wise one) and thanks for understanding the intent of my post. I hope you have a  successful spiritual journey as you are a good seeker.  
Take care.
[-]
  •
#14
(01-27-2017, 07:01 PM)MOONBEARSPEAKS Wrote: Dear Anushri,
     I apologise for offending with the question I posed. I will try to explain.
    For me it is a serious question and, further on, I offer my serious answer. I accept what you write and I find your explanations on various subjects more than just informative. Some are more than intellectually challenging; they carry profound spiritual meaning.
     However, In the royal households, of both east and west, there was, historically, a court jester. Originally this would be somebody who would use humour to mock and joke, who could speak without causing offence, and who also had the ability to sing or dance Later, his role was not only to amuse his royal master or mistress with jokes and antics; he would be a learned and erudite student, perhaps master even, of world affairs, philosophy, mathematics, (perhaps even sacred geometry) economics, legal and other matters. He was, in fact, a very important member of the royal household, charged with the duty of keeping everyone, dare I say, in the loop.                                                               
     What I am trying to say is that sometimes I try to bring a little light-heartedness to serious discussion. Not with the intention of mocking or offending anyone and certainly not in this case.
     If I might offer my own answer to my own question – any shape we can see or imagine, whether it be in the formality of sacred geometry or the freeform imagery of nature, (which itself comprises elements of the same geometry,) might exist at any size from miniscule to enormous. But it exists. Only when we know that it exists, do we require numbers to define it in its relationship to its environment and other shapes in that environment. So, if I am comprehending my own line of reasoning correctly, I see the shape as having ‘been’ before the numbers that define it.
     Do you read my limericks thread, Anushri? Perhaps my humour is not always clear to other cultures, but every one of those sometimes-amusing limericks carries a serious message and its subject is related to the list of threads that accompanies it.

[Image: KTjKbAgTq.jpeg]
Smile  Moon BS,

That's okay . Thanks for the clarification. But I do not think the discussion was  so serious that it  required a jester to lighten up everythingSmile. It was just a general discussion like the ones the members here usually have.
[-] The following 1 user Likes anushri's post:
  • Admin




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Myspiritualgroup.com

This is an online spiritual group which seeks to gather all genuine truth seekers from anywhere in the world irrespective of their cultural, intellectual or spiritual backgrounds, in order to share and learn from each others.