The Struc­tu­re of Sri Cha­kra yan­tra

ndoub­ted­ly the most im­por­tant and de­mand­ing of all the sym­bologies, it re­presents with an un­im­ag­i­na­ble ge­o­met­ric es­sen­ti­al­i­ty the mo­dal­i­ty in grace of which the U.C. (read Un­dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed Cre­a­tive Unit, or One Cre­a­tor, the "with­out Name", Be of Be­ing) man­i­fests it­self in a cha­in of pro­jec­tions that will ta­ke on in fields of con­scious­ness, be­long­ing and ac­tion such as to re­late ce­les­ti­al In­tel­li­gences, or vi­bra­tion­al lev­els, dis­tinct and dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed in co­or­di­nat­ed hi­er­ar­chies in the most to­tal a­gree­ment.
All this to give space, time and life to each in­di­vid­u­al be­ing, guar­an­tee­ing its ev­o­lu­tion­ary pur­pose with­in the cos­mic lat­tice.

This mod­est at­tempt at ex­po­sure, dif­fi­cult to con­fig­ure as to as­sim­i­late (not to say to trans­late), only vague­ly un­der­lies the idea of the im­mense com­plex­i­ty in en­clos­ing and rep­re­sent­ing its com­plete­ness in a sin­gle em­blem.

Scheme in­tend­ed to high­light the four dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed ar­e­as

Em­blem struc­tur­al­ly made up of 4 con­cen­tric parts, eas­i­ly rec­og­niz­a­ble at pow­ers of 2 such as:

1. central: 2 raised to 1 or the coun­ter­po­int of the two prin­ci­ples o­rig­i­nat­ing from the U. C.. The so-called ‘Trin­i­ty’ is man­i­fe­sted in the jux­ta­po­si­tion of 4 tri­plic­i­ty of pos­i­ti­ve va­len­ce to 4 of op­po­site va­lence, in i­den­ti­cal sym­met­ric pro­gres­sion of con­tain­ment (and there­fo­re not of 5 to 4, as is cus­tom­ary to ar­gue). Giv­en that in our pla­ne vi­sion, the no­tion of the ver­ti­ces at the top (yang, mas­cu­line prin­ci­ple) and bot­tom (yin, fem­i­nine es­sence) ap­pli­es from the
   V
   -o­ri­en­ta­tion of the cen­tral tri­an­gle, the ninth cen­tral tri­an­gle is made up by 4 oth­er two of which, mas­cu­line (sand) and fem­i­ni­ne (blue), in­ter­secting de­fi­ne the li­ne of its ba­se; this then ex­tends to the si­des of the ma­le third (red), while the ba­se of the ma­le ma­jor (white) de­fines its height. It is there­fore au­ton­o­mous, in that its ver­ti­ces do not de­rive from any in­ter­sec­tion, as well as the oth­er two that sur­round it and to­geth­er con­tain it.
   As the nee­dle of a bal­ance with two op­po­site plates (Yang ÷ Yin) in e­qui­lib­ri­um, it in­cor­po­rates the point of Or­i­gin (the One – 2⁰– and Tri­une), the Eye of the sys­tem and not nec­es­sar­i­ly its ver­ti­cal cen­ter (sin­ce this does not change what­ev­er the run­ning mod­el), but it is in­dis­sol­u­ble from it and does not per­tain to any oth­er fi­nite tri­an­gle, al­though in­ter­nal to each of the oth­er eight.
   

   	Electricity /Energy

   The ninth tri­an­gle ap­pears to be the ful­crum and pil­lar at the same time of the o­ver­all ap­pa­rat­us, re­sult­ing in 43 tri­an­gu­lar fields(*, of which three are in­ter­nal­ly cut at its ver­ti­ces by two Yang tri­an­gles a­mong those that con­fig­ure it, where­as it it­self cuts out a cen­tral Yin tri­an­gle from the up­per tri­an­gle (which does not need to be e­qui­lat­e­ral): and sin­ce it per­forms the func­tion of en­sur­ing the dy­nam­ic e­qui­lib­ri­um of a struc­tur­al­ly a­sym­met­ri­cal fig­ure, ex­cept­ing its three ver­ti­ces for such dis­tinc­tion it wo­uld also br­ing back the num­ber of ex­ter­nal de­riv­a­tive tri­an­gles to the par­i­ty of 20 (Yin) + 20 (Yang), of which it is the cop­u­lat­ing func­tion.
   “Ve­rum, sine Men­da­cio, cer­tum et ve­ris­si­mum: Quod est In­ferius est si­cut quod est Su­perius,
   et quod est Su­pe­rius est si­cut quod e­st In­fe­rius,
   If you could im­ag­ine a tem­ple, or a ca­the­dral with tri­an­gu­lar naves de­si­gned upon this mag­i­cal pat­tern, it wo­uld un­doubt­ed­ly con­sti­tute its main al­tar.
   
   ad per­pe­tran­da Mi­racula Rei Unius”

   «Sma­rag­di­na Her­me­tis Ta­bu­la» by Her­mes Tri­sme­gi­stus
   from the lat. vers. of H. Kunrath

   The col­ors used in the Ti­bet­an tra­di­tion in­di­cate re­spec­tive­ly: whi­te­=Wa­ter, blue­=Air, red­=Fire, sand­=Earth. For more ef­fec­tive vis­i­bil­i­ty, from way back on the first back cov­er of my es­say [de­scribed on page. 7], I a­dopt­ed white = air and blue = wa­ter, a very fre­quent al­ter­na­tive use by the way; even if in fact it is the sky to ap­pear blue, while the wa­ter does noth­ing but re­flect it in to­tal trans­par­en­cy. May­be to­day I wo­uldn't do it a­ga­in, but my vi­sion of the el­e­ments ­/ tri­an­gles re­la­tion­ships re­mains in­tact.
   
   In the fig­ure at next ¶.2 the sym­bols fol­low the zo­di­a­cal ro­ta­tion, but in the es­o­ter­ic rep­re­sen­ta­tion of Sri yan­tra the col­ors of the El­e­ments at the four Por­tals, such as Earth and Air, are quite op­posed to Wa­ter and Fire: a cross re­la­tion­ship in ap­pear­ance not se­quen­tial, but which pro­ves to be suit­a­ble for a flat view, fol­low­ing the or­der of the sea­sons in their lo­ca­tion on the tet­ra­he­dron (read DNA), where each of the 12 Signs (4×3) crys­tal­lizes at the ver­tex of its own El­e­ment (bet­ter high­light­ed at page 5, with a link to be soon trans­la­ted as well).
   In the mod­el a­dopt­ed be­sides, the way in which the gold­en ex­pan­sion cir­cles col­lide in tan­gen­tia­li­ty with the 40 tri­an­gles is rel­e­vant, es­pe­cial­ly in the re­spec­ti­ve up­per (Fem­i­nine) and low­er (Mas­cu­line) ar­e­as of great­er den­si­ty.
   It should al­so be not­ed that of the 43 tri­an­gu­lar fields only the 4 + 1 + 4 ar­ran­ged on the ver­ti­cal axis have a cer­tain ba­sis, if not north­/south o­ri­en­ta­tion; whi­le to the oth­ers can only be at­trib­ut­ed a rel­a­tive di­rec­tion, be­ing not i­sos­ce­les and there­fo­re not de­fi­ned by any fixed ba­se but a sup­port base (as we view it). And the­se too are 9, the 8 + 1 ver­ti­ces of each to sup­port the whole ar­ran­ge­ment as a back­bone, whi­le the x axis sees eight cros­sings, in­clud­ing hov­ers on­ly the ba­se li­ne of the 9th tri­an­gle.
   There are eight X in­ter­sec­tions in the hor­i­zon­tal band, i.e. cross­es of on­ly two seg­ments and the­re­fo­re four ver­ti­ces, di­verg­ing in the na­tu­re of the squa­re or of 4, where­as in the ver­ti­cal col­umn they con­verge to
   V
   , ob­vi­ous­ly tri­an­gu­lar spe­cies or of 3.
   Con­cur­rent­ly, the ver­ti­cal tri­an­gles are o­ri­en­ted to the ex­pan­sion, the hor­i­zon­tal ones to con­trac­tion. So even the in­ter­sec­tion of the two axis re­flects a mag­i­cal and pow­er­ful a­nal­o­gy, tho­ugh it goes most­ly un­no­ti­ced.
   The same 43 is 4 and 3, com­bi­nes the two prin­ci­ples of 4 and 3, mat­ter and spir­it, the hor­i­zon­tal of the four car­di­nal po­ints and the ver­ti­cal of the as­cent thro­ugh the three phys­i­cal, as­tral, men­tal lev­els; or more deep­ly in­te­gra­tion of con­scious­ness, self and free­dom; per­haps spa­ce and time; but re­flex­ive­ly it is also 40 and 3, to un­der­line the dis­tinc­tion sus­tai­ned by me. Even the ex­pres­sion "Big Bang" oc­curs in two 4 and 3 let­ter words, not lack­ing in a cer­tain se­man­tic af­fin­i­ty.
2. pe­riph­er­al: 2², which re­pre­sents the in­ter­face with the ex­ter­nal in­fin­i­ty, con­sist­ing of the 4 doors or di­rec­tions of space, the four car­di­nal points [as start­ing mo­ments] of each cy­cli­cal or sea­son­al e­vent, which are con­fig­ured in the four El­e­ments in­tend­ed to build phys­i­cal re­al­i­ty; and sin­ce we are on the sub­ject, even in the four el­e­men­ta­ry a­rith­me­tic op­er­a­tions.
   The tri­ple wall which with its 4 doors de­lim­its the who­le, there­fore con­sti­tutes the ba­sis of tan­gi­ble re­al­i­ty.

   The same nu­mer­i­cal se­quen­ce in­di­ca­tes with the pow­ers 1 and 2 the in­ner and out­er ex­tre­mes: po­ten­tial and im­ple­men­ta­tion, in­ter­sper­sed with 3 and 4 which in­dex two in­ter­me­di­ate com­pen­sa­tion sta­ges.

3. me­di­um: 2³, con­sist­ing of a cir­cle of 8 fields or ar­e­as, cal­led pet­als;
4. in­ter­me­di­ate: 2⁴, with a cir­cle of 16 pet­als, which sur­ro­unds the first two.
   As I not­ed at the writ­ing of the es­say on the 5 Ti­bet­an Rites (page 122 – read­a­ble from here), “the se­quence: 4, 4+4, 4×4 is the only case of nu­mer­i­cal co­he­sion in which n, n*2, n^2 gen­er­ates three val­ues in dou­bling”.

5. ---

   Of course all four com­po­nents grav­i­tate a­ro­und the Cre­a­tive Unit, that Fac­tor at the cen­ter of the en­tire sys­tem, im­me­di­ate­ly rep­re­sent­a­ble by 2 rai­sed to 0 that is 1, the unit pre­cise­ly, in the to­tal ab­sence of du­al­i­ty.
   “Et si­cut res om­nes fu­e­runt ab Uno, me­di­ta­tio­ne u­ni­us:
   sic Om­nes Res na­tae fue­runt ab hac Una Re a­dap­ta­tione.”
   The po­ten­tial of the rings that last­ly sur­ro­und the he­art of the who­le Man­i­fes­ta­tion, re­ver­ber­ates and ta­kes place fur­ther in the dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed sea­son­al ca­dence, prop­er of mat­ter and well re­pre­sen­ted by the in square (cru­ci­form) and stat­ic pla­nim­e­try – where the tri­an­gle ex­press­es ver­ti­cal dy­nam­ic move­ment, made of high and low (ver­tex and base) – giv­ing rise to a spa­ti­al­i­ty in which eve­ry­thing ex­ists and from which it must go back to the So­ur­ce, that is to the cen­ter, which is the Be­ing.

   It is dif­fi­cult to es­tab­lish the re­la­tion­ship be­tween this cen­ter and that of the cir­cle, since they may not cor­re­spond.
   I be­lieve that the dy­nam­ic cen­ter, that is the cen­ter (which can be cal­cu­lat­ed in var­i­ous ways) of the in­ner­most mi­nor tri­an­gle re­flects the First Man­i­fes­ta­tion, where the cen­ter ab­so­lute is up­stream of Cre­ation it­self and there­fore of the chak­ra yan­tra.

   

   To learn more

   If the so-called Big Bang has crys­tal­lized in or­der to a cos­mic tex­ture, ca­pa­ble of al­lo­cat­ing and con­nect­ing ev­ery sin­gle part of the ex­is­tent, this could be the first and most prob­a­ble sense of the sym­bol.

   ---

   We could re­late the sche­me, for each in­di­vid­ual­ity both mi­cro and mac­ro cos­mic, to the fun­da­men­tal de­scrip­tion of the "Struc­tur­al ap­pa­ra­tus of the spir­it", giv­en in the re­port con­tained in «Il Cono dell´Er­rore» (§ 1.1), as re­gards its com­po­nents of Con­scious­ness, Mem­o­ry, I and fi­nal­ly Free­dom, whose ab­so­lute un­at­tain­able bal­ance is con­tained in the cen­tral part of the Yan­tra, where it rests on the two pil­lars (of the 4 + 4 tri­an­gles) with the com­ple­men­tary va­lences of Will and In­tel­li­gence.
   This char­ac­ter­is­tic of the cen­tral ap­pa­ra­tus is well sym­bol­ized by the ideo­gram of the tran­scen­dent Pi Greek: Π, an in­fi­nite and non-pe­ri­od­ic num­ber which is not by chan­ce con­sid­ered the key to the read­ing of the Uni­verse, whose pres­ence mul­ti­pli­ed by the Ra­di­us, as is known, de­fi­nes the cir­cle cir­cum­fer­ence if mul­ti­pli­ed by 2, the area con­tai­ned in it if raised to 2, that is, when the val­ue mul­ti­plies by it­self.
   All sur­round­ed by four neigh­bor­ing cir­cles, which sep­a­rate it from the off­set of the ma­te­ri­al di­men­sion – the Big Bang stage? – rep­re­sent­ed by the walls of a squa­re fra­me, also qua­dru­ple with the four do­ors stret­ched out like a cross as the last pos­si­ble re­al­i­ty; from the time­less con­ti­nu­ity of the ab­stract to the cir­cum­scri­bed spa­ti­al­ity of the pre­sent.

   The map re­pro­du­ces and ex­pres­ses, though on a two-di­men­sion­al plane, the en­tire tran­si­tion proc­ess from the Spir­it First to the Mat­ter, from the top to the bot­tom or from the cen­ter to the 4 doors, pro­vid­ing a sort of sche­me of the cre­ation cer­tain­ly less ab­stract than it might seem. The ex­plo­sion of the ini­tial pow­er that is pro­ject­ed in­stant­ly in ev­ery di­rec­tion in the per­fect weave of its thre­ads, i.e. a po­ten­tial in­ef­fa­ble fra­me of log­i­cal, en­er­get­ic and func­tion­al in­ter­con­nec­tions.
   

   The pro­duc­tion of three-di­men­sion­al icons of the Yan­tra has lit­tle to add, in my opin­ion, to the in­trin­sic and po­ten­tial mean­ing of the di­a­gram, as its in­te­gral rep­re­sen­ta­tion wo­uld re­quire more di­men­sions than we can con­ceive of it and it has noth­ing to do with any sche­me of a mere­ly phys­i­cal type. It can only ser­ve the pur­po­se of pro­pos­ing an ob­ject in­stead of a sim­ple de­sign, per­haps eas­i­er to be in­ter­pret­ed but, of course, de­fin­i­tive­ly ne­glect­ing any ne­ed for gen­u­ine pre­ci­sion.
   

   It should be clear that

   in the best of such ca­ses, the man­u­fac­tu­red ob­ject could have no oth­er en­er­gy charge but that im­print­ed by the op­er­a­tor, de­pend­ing on his in­di­vid­ual abil­i­ties (how many will be able to evo­ke all the Em­py­re­an For­ces?); thanks to its an­a­log­i­cal mean­ing, let's say a lit­tle more than what could be at­trib­ut­ed to any dif­fer­ent tal­is­man; cer­tain­ly not the bril­liant and self-con­ta­ined pu­ri­ty of the in­te­gral and per­fect THE­O­RY S.Y. sym­bol.
   Each area of the fig­ure - but also some un­cam­ped parts - per­tains to an In­tel­li­gen­ce with its own iden­ti­ty and at­trib­utes, which is not the task of this work to ex­am­ine; that we pre­fer def­i­ni­tions such as those of the ranks of Ser­a­fini, Che­ru­bi­ni, Thro­nes, Dom­i­na­tions, Vir­tues, Pow­ers, Prin­ci­pal­i­ties, Arch­an­gels, An­gels (which re­call the nine main tri­an­gles) or tho­se de­scri­bed in the Olym­pus of East­ern Tan­trism by the var­i­ous Schools (not al­ways ho­mo­ge­ne­ous, ac­cord­ing to Gé­rard Huet – "Sri Yan­tra ge­om­e­try" ebo­ok, page 12), what mat­ters in this con­text is to high­light the in­ev­ita­ble and es­sen­tial per­fec­tion and cor­re­la­tion of the var­i­ous sec­tors and con­cen­tric lev­els, ex­press­ing dy­nam­ic sym­me­try and har­mo­ny over­all much mo­re than py­ram­i­dal (term re­fer­ring in this ca­se to the usu­al con­cept of hi­er­ar­chy) where One is All.

   ---

   In es­tab­lish­ing a sort of map con­se­quent to the ini­tial ex­plo­sion, the S.Y. it is not only a sym­bol or an icon like many oth­ers, as it con­ta­ins in its math­e­mat­i­cal con­struct - or in the mul­ti­di­men­sion­al sec­tion pro­file that it re­flects - the per­fec­tion of the up­per­most man­i­fes­ta­tion and the­re­fo­re it sho­uld not em­bed the slight­est neg­li­gen­ce, but only com­ple­te cor­re­spond­ence among all the top­ics that com­po­se it and that are com­bi­ned the­re, in­di­vid­ual­ly or in sets, vis­i­ble or not. As dras­tic the sen­ten­ce it may ap­pear, no one is for­ced to draw it!
   At the same time, this pre­sup­po­ses an ide­al form­/sub­stan­ce which, as such, can nev­er be ex­pres­sed in its en­tire­ty, and even less in a two-di­men­sion­al rep­re­sen­ta­tion, suit­able only for the out­er cross.
   Af­ter all, the same well-known cir­cum­fer­ence can nev­er be de­fi­ned in an ab­so­lute way, but only ex­am­ined from po­int to po­int, with a de­gree of pre­ci­sion grad­u­al­ly in­cre­as­ing, but still ap­prox­i­mate.
   How­ev­er, where­as the trac­ing of a cir­cle is rel­a­tive­ly sim­ple to theo­rize, here we are deal­ing with qui­te an­oth­er prob­lem, start­ing from its very con­ceiv­abil­ity. Pol­y­gons with their own bo­un­da­ries must con­fine them­sel­ves, cross and over­lap from one end to the oth­er of the cir­cle that hosts them (but will it re­al­ly be a cir­cle and not an el­lipse?), match­ing ex­act­ly in the in­ter­sec­tions with the oth­ers in mul­ti­ples of three, then­ce with a mo­dal­ity whose geo­met­ric sym­me­try is hor­i­zon­tal­ly mir­ror, but does not ex­ist ver­ti­cal­ly sin­ce it in­si­sts on a ter­na­ry struc­ture.
   It is there­fore im­por­tant to un­der­stand that  only the whole  guar­an­te­es the bal­an­ce of the En­er­gies that are as­si­gned over the­re, as each par­ty can only obey this prin­ci­ple (see: Co­stru­zio­ne dello Shri Yan­tra).