Talk:Sacred geometry

'7 Classical Planets' and 4 don't cast shadows on Earth, 4 lunar phases of 7 days each: GOD=7_4 Code
I just wrote this on the 'talk page' of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_planet ...

'Seven Classical Planets' is the proper name and the title of this article should be corrected. These were/are the 7 moving objects seen in the heavens with the naked eye and 4 of them don't cast shadows on Earth (Venus does). They are the simple explanation for why the ancients considered the #7 sacred: "As above, so below" was/is the precept of sacred geometry. Also, the 29.5 day lunar months were/are divided into 4 phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each. The lunar year + 7 day week + 4 days = solar year. The ancient Egyptians observed this sacred combination of 7 & 4 in the heavens and using "On Earth as it is in the heavens", took the standard cubit of 6 palms x 4 fingers and added a palm creating the Royal cubits of 7 palms x 4 fingers. All ancient Egyptian architects used royal cubits in their designs of sacred buildings going back to at least the first Step Pyramid of Djoser at Saqqara. The Jewish menorah mystically reflects this GOD=7_4 Code with its 7 lamps and 4 arms representing the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Having the Sun in the middle of the 7 - 4th from the right or left - was also used later by Ptolemy (see planets). This was a BIG aspect of the Ancient Mysteries! Note how the 7 days of the week in Latin were directly named after the 7 Classical Planets, but in English, 4 have been changed and named after Germanic and Norse gods. - Ben Franklin 71.196.95.141 (talk) 16:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting opinion, but please provide sources for all of the above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It's well-known information that can be found on all the referenced Wikipedia articles. 73.57.35.183 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a user-generated site and hence is never considered to be a reliable source itself. If there are reliable sources in those other article then those sources may be reused in this article. See WP:RS. Meters (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * These are socks of User:Brad Watson, Miami, striking his edits.  Doug Weller  talk 13:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sacred geometry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203233504/http://www.kevintownley.com/products/books/restoration-of-masonic-geometry-and-symbolry/ to http://www.kevintownley.com/products/books/restoration-of-masonic-geometry-and-symbolry/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sacred and geometric
I just reverted an addition that does not seem to belong here. Maybe there are other sources that do not actually talk about the subject; I had a quick look and could not find any. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This is woeful
To begin with, this article doesn't really define "sacred geometry". It suggests it's some ancient tradition using a scattered handful of mathematicians with spiritual views about the subject, or in the case of the Gauss and Yau quotes, even less. I can find no evidence of this term being so used, it seems to be a term and that has cropped up recently to refer to a decidedly modern cultural phenomenon. To quote some guy who was mean to Hilbert, "das ist nicht mathematik". This is hippie mysticism, with no ties to the serious discipline, which this article makes little attempt to elucidate. A guy who writes about "magic, feng shui, sacred geometry and alchemy" is quoted, without pointing out said. There are no sources linking Islamic and Hindu design principles to beliefs that God or gods want things designed that way. The Indic Today source is clearly unreliable as to the presence of fractal patterns in Hindu design, and conflates self-similarity with being a fractal. A line is self-similar but is not a fractal. Most fractals are not self-similar. Certainly, I don't think ancient Hindus had knowledge of Hausdorff dimension. The Christian section is better-sourced, but still doesn't clearly suggest that designs are divinely ordained and holding spiritual powers, so much as representative of religious themes. Overall, this article is rambling, misleading, vague and poorly sourced. BayesRawlsBoole (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, taking some trash out would do good. --Hob Gadling (talk) 03:19, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There is no sacred geometry in Islam
Give me one authentic Islamic source that says Islam identifies any geometric shape or pattern as sacred. The fact that some artistic patterns are used to decorate certain Qur'an editions does not make that art in itself sacred. If you can't substantiate this claim, then remove the entire Islam section. 105.71.132.2 (talk) 11:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


 * "To express the sacred, one can also make use of abstract forms of sacred geometry, which symbolize the intelligible world, as in Islamic art and in certain other forms of art" (251)
 * Nasr, Seyyed Hossein, and Ramin Jahanbegloo. In Search of the Sacred: A Conversation with Seyyed Hossein Nasr on His Life and Thought. Praeger, 2010. https://ia801203.us.archive.org/34/items/HosseinNasr/Nasr%2C%20Seyyed%20Hossein%20-%20In%20Search%20of%20the%20Sacred%2C%20A%20Conversation%20with%20Seyyed%20Hossein%20Nasr%20on%20His%20Life%20and%20Thought%20%282010%29.pdf Permareperterra (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)