The Foundations of

Geometry and Religion

From an Abstract Standpoint

Salilesh Mukhopadhyay

Feasible Solution LLC

1
 Preface to the first edition

The title of the book will cause an instant panic to those who are not mathematician but as you
leaf through the pages you will see the book discusses topics for the future of mathematics and
religion. Precisely this type of research on the applications of mathematics to religion and
philosophy as a whole will be the trend or frontiers of mathematical research, I presume, in
2020 and onwards.

I’m confident that brilliant mathematicians can put forward the unified theory of mathematical
religion and mathematical ethics. In Hindu religion I quote from “CHANDOGYA UPANISHAD”

[ Translated by Mascaro (1965)]:

“Prajapati, the Creator of all, rested in life-giving meditation over the worlds of his creation;
and from them came the three VEDAS. He rested in meditation and from those came the three
sounds: BHUR, BHUVAS, SVAR, earth, air and sky. He rested in meditation and from three
sounds came the sound OM. Even as all leaves come from a stem, all words come from the
sound OM. OM is the whole universe. OM is in truth the whole universe. [2.23.2]”.

2
The present book is an analytic continuation of my previous book entitled “ Mathematics,
Religion and Ethics – An Epistemological study” { vide: Mukhopadhyay [2010].}

As we all know by now that loosely speaking geometry consists of a set of points and a set of
axioms satisfied by the points, lines, planes etc. the religion also consists of a set of people
following or practicing some faith, belief or rituals or just obeying the GURU.

In Hindu mathematics the subject of Geometry originated from the construction of the Vedic
piers or platforms for doing the Fire Oblation. According to Swami Chetanananda [1986] “ The
Vedic sacrificial altar was the origin of geometry” in India. And this conjecture allows me to
think and pursue the notions of the “Mathematical Religion” and “Unified Universal Religion”.

According to Rene Descartes [1629] “I think, therefore I am” leads to the existence of God.
Here I quote from the “MEDITATIONS ON THE FIRST PHILOSOPHY” by Rene Descartes [1987]:

“ The motive which induces me to present to you [TO THE MOST WISE AND ILLUSTRIOUS THE
DEAN AND DOCTORS OF THE SACRED FACULTY OF THEOLOGY IN PARIS] this Treatise is so
excellent, and, when you become acquainted with its design, I am convinced that you will also
have so excellent a motive for taking it under your protection, that I feel that I cannot do
better, in order to render it in some sort acceptable to you, than in a few words to state what I
have set myself to do.

I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of
those that ought to be demonstrated by philosophical rather than theological argument. For
although it is quite enough for us faithful ones to accept by means of faith the fact that the
human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it certainly does not seem
possible ever to persuade infidels of any religion, indeed, we may almost say, of any moral
virtue, unless, to begin with, we prove these two facts by means of the natural reason. And
inasmuch as often in this life greater rewards are offered for vice than for virtue, few people
would prefer the right to the useful, were they restrained neither by fear of God nor the
expectation of another life; and although it is absolutely true that we must believe that there is
a God, because we are so taught in the Holy Scriptures, and on the other hand, that we must
believe the Holy Scriptures because they come from God ( the reason of this is, that, faith being
a gift of God, He who gives the grace to cause us to believe other things can likewise give it to
cause us to believe that He exists), we nevertheless could not place this argument before
infidels, who might accuse us of reasoning in a circle. And, in truth, I have noticed that you,
along with all the theologians, did not only affirm that the existence of God may be proved by
the natural reason, but also that it may be inferred from the Holy Scriptures, that knowledge
about Him is much clearer than that which we have of many created things, and , as a matter of

3
fact, is so easy to acquire, that those who have it not are culpable in their ignorance. This
indeed appears from the Wisdom of Solomon, chapter XIII., where it is said “Howbeit they are
not excused; for if their understanding was so great that they could discern the world and the
creatures, why did they not rather find out the Lord thereof ?” and in Romans, chapter i., it is
said that they are “without excuse”; and again in the same place, by these words “that which
may be known of God is manifest in them,” it seems as though we were shown that all that
which can be known of God may be made manifest by means of which are not derived from
anywhere but from ourselves, and from the simple consideration of the nature of our minds.

Hence I thought it not beside my purpose to inquire how this is so, and how God may be more
easily and certainly known than the things of the world.

And as regards the soul, although many have considered that it is not easy to know its
nature, and some have even dared to say that human reasons have convinced us that it would
perish with the body, and that faith alone could believe the contrary, nevertheless, inasmuch as
the Lateran Council held under Leo X (in the eighth session) condemns these tenets, and as Leo
expressly ordains Christian philosophers to refute their arguments and to employ all their
powers in making known the truth, I have ventured in this treatise to undertake the same task.

More than that, I am aware that the principal reason which causes many impious
persons not to desire to believe that there is a God, and that the human soul is distinct from the
body is that they declare that hitherto no one has been able to demonstrate these two facts;
[Swami Abhedananda (1953) in His book entitled “Life Beyond Death” (Bengali translation:
“Maraner pare”) has proved the existence of the human soul ( ATMA) after death.] and
although I am not of their opinion but, on the contrary, hold that the greater part of the
reasons which have been brought forward concerning these two questions by so many great
men are, when they are rightly understood, equal to so many demonstrations, and that it is
almost impossible to invent new ones, it is yet in my opinion the case that nothing more useful
can be accomplished in philosophy than once for all to seek with care for the best of these
reasons, and to set them forth in so clear and exact manner, that it will henceforth be evident
to everybody that they are veritable demonstrations. And, finally, inasmuch as it was desired
that I should undertake this task by many who were aware that I had cultivated a certain
Method for the resolution of difficulties of every kind in the Sciences – a method which it is
true is not novel, since there is nothing more ancient than the truth, but of which they were
aware that I made use successfully enough in other matters of difficulty – I have thought that it
was my duty also to make trial of it in the present matter.

Now all that I could accomplish in the matter is contained in this Treatise. Not that I
have here drawn together all the different reasons which might be brought forward to serve as
4
proofs of this subject: for that never seemed to be necessary excepting when there was no one
single proof that was certain. But I have treated the first and principal ones in such a manner
that I can venture to bring them forward as very evident and very certain demonstrations. And
more than that, I will say that there is anyway open to the human mind by which it can ever
succeed in discovering better. For the importance of the subject, and the glory of God to which
all these relates, constrain me to speak here somewhat more freely of myself than is my habit.
Nevertheless whatever certainty and evidence I find in my reasons, I cannot persuade myself
that all the world is capable of understanding them. Still, just as in Geometry there are many
demonstrations that have been left to us by Archimedes, by Apollonius, by Pappus, and others,
which are accepted by everyone as perfectly certain and evident (because they clearly contain
nothing which, considered by itself, is not very easy to understand, and as all through that
which follows has an exact connection with, and dependence on that which precedes),
nevertheless, because they were somewhat lengthy and demand a mind wholly devoted to
their consideration, they are only taken in and understood by a very limited number of
persons. Similarly, although I judge that those of which I here make use are equal to, or even
surpass in certainty and evidence, the demonstrations of Geometry, I yet apprehend that they
cannot be adequately understood by many, both because they are also a little lengthy and
dependent the one on the other, and principally because they demand a mind wholly free of
prejudices, and one which can be easily detached from the affairs of the senses. And, truth to
say, there are not so many in the world who are fitted for metaphysical speculations as there
are for those of Geometry. And more than that; there is still this difference, that in Geometry,
since each one is persuaded that must be advanced of which there is not a certain
demonstration, those who are not entirely adept more frequently err in approving what is false,
in order to give the impression that they understand it, than in refuting the true. But the case is
different in philosophy where everyone believes that all is problematical, and few give
themselves to the search after truth; and greater number, in their desire to acquire a
reputation for boldness of thought, arrogantly combat the most important of truths.”

Basically the TRUTH IS THE RELIGION : “Satyameba Joyote---Nanritam!””Truth Alone Prevails,

Not Unreality”.

Here in this book we will explore the geometry of TRUTH and establish that in Samadhi [the
state of trans ] the asymptote of the curve of supraconsciousness and the asymptote of the
curve of ignorance meet transiently causing the state of “nirbikalpa Samadhi” and then
ultimately “ nirvana”. Just as in relativistic physics we deal with the light cone and the
geometry of black holes we will establish similar pattern for the cone of enlightenment.

5
According to Dasgupta [1997] in Buddhist philosophy the soul as birth and death [samsara]
comes forth from the TATHAGATA WOMB [tathagatagarbha], the ultimate reality. But the
immortal and the mortal coincide with each other. Though they are not identical they are not
duality either. Thus when the absolute soul assumes a relative aspect by its self-affirmation it is
called the all-conserving mind [alayavijnana]. It embraces two principles, (1) enlightenment, (2)
non-enlightenment.

Thus in Buddhist philosophy, according to Dasgupta [1997], when it is said that all
consciousness starts from this fundamental truth, it should not be thought that consciousness
had any real origin, for it was merely phenomenal existence – a mere imaginary creation of the
perceivers under the influence of the delusive smriti. The multitude of people [bahujana] are
said to be lacking in enlightenment, because ignorance [avidya] prevails there from all
eternity, because there is a constant succession of smriti [past confused memory working as
instinct] from which they have never been emancipated. But when they are divested of this
smriti they can then recognize that no states of mentation, viz. their appearance, presence,
change and disappearance, have any reality. They are neither in a temporal nor in a spatial
relation with the one soul, for they are not self-existent.

This high enlightenment shows itself imperfectly in our corrupted phenomenal experience as
prajna [ wisdom] and karma [incomprehensible activity of life]. By pure wisdom we
understand that when one, by virtue of the perfuming power of dharma, disciplines himself
truthfully [i.e. according to the dharma] and accomplishes meritorious deeds, the mind [i.e. the
alayavijnana] which implicates itself with birth and death will be broken down and the modes
of the evolving consciousness will be annulled, and the pure and the genuine wisdom of the
Dharmakaya will manifest itself. Though all modes of consciousness and mentation are mere
products of ignorance, ignorance in its ultimate nature is identical and non-identical with
enlightenment; and therefore ignorance is in one sense destructible, though in another sense
it is indestructible. This may be illustrated by the simile of the water and the waves which are
generated by the wind driven circulation creating the surf zone in the ocean. Here the water
can be said to be both identical and non-identical with the waves. The waves are stirred up by
the wind, but the water remains the same. When the wind ceases the motion of the waves
subsides, but the water remains the same. Likewise when the mind of all creatures, which in its
own nature is pure and clean, is stirred up by the wind of ignorance [avidya], the waves of
mentality [vijnana] make their appearance. These three [i.e. the mind, ignorance, and
mentality] however have no existence, and they are neither unity nor plurality. When the
ignorance is annihilated, the awakened mentality is tranquillized, whilst the essence [in the
sense of Spinoza] of the wisdom remains unmolested.” The truth or the enlightenment “ is
absolutely unobtainable by any modes of relativity or by any outward signs of enlightenment.
6
All events in the phenomenal world are reflected in enlightenment, so that they neither pass
out of it, nor enter into it, and they neither disappear nor are destroyed. It is forever cut off
from the hindrances both affectional [klesavaran] and intellectual [jneyavarana], as well as
from the mind [i.e. alayavijnana] which implicates itself with birth and death, since it is in its
true nature clean, pure, eternal, calm, and immutable. The truth again is such that it transforms
and unfolds itself wherever conditions are favorable in the form of a tathagata or in some
other forms, in order that all beings may be induced thereby to bring their virtue to maturity.

“Non-enlightenment has no existence of its own aside from its relation with enlightenment a
priori.” But enlightenment a priori is spoken of only in contrast to non-enlightenment, and as
non-enlightenment is a non-entity, true enlightenment in turn loses its significance too. They
are distinguished only in mutual relation as enlightenment or non-enlightenment. The
manifestations of non-enlightenment are made in three ways : (1) as a disturbance of the mind
[alayvijnana], by the avidyakarma [ignorant action], producing misery [duhkha]; (2) by the
appearance of an ego or of a perceiver; and (3) by the creation of an external world which does
not exist in itself, independent of the perceiver. Conditioned by the unreal external world six
kinds of phenomena arise in succession. The first phenomenon is intelligence [sensation];
being affected by the external world the mind becomes conscious of the difference between
the agreeable and the disagreeable. The second phenomenon is succession. Following upon
intelligence, memory retains the sensations, agreeable as well as disagreeable, in a continuous
succession of subjective states. The third phenomenon is clinging. Through the retention and
succession of sensations, agreeable as well as disagreeable there arise the desire of clinging.
The fourth phenomenon is an attachment to names or ideas [samjna], etc. By clinging the mind
hypostatizes all names whereby to give definitions to all things. The fifth phenomenon is the
performance of deeds [karma]. On account of attachment of names, etc., there arise all the
variations of deeds, productive of individuality. The sixth phenomenon is the suffering due to
the fetter of deeds. Through deeds suffering arises in which mind finds itself entangled and
curtailed of its freedom. All these phenomena have thus sprung forth through avidya, the
ignorance.

7
The relation between this truth and avidya is in one sense a mere identity and may be
illustrated by the simile of all kinds of pottery which though different are all made of the
same clay [ compare Chandeogya VI. I.4 Likewise the undefiled [anasrava] and ignorance
[avidya] and their various transient forms all come from one and the same entity. Therefore
Buddha teaches that all beings are from all eternity abiding in Nirvana.

The geometry of the state of supraconsciousness is initially very transient – just an epoch-
making experience of enlightenment. However at the subsequent states of Nirvana the person
is in a permanent state of enlightenment and thus Lord Buddha can see things differently than
the others.

The geometry of congruence enables us to compare different triangles, circles and other
geometric figures. Here in this book we will find the congruence in religion by comparing
different aspects of those religions. Thus we will establish the congruence of Buddhism to
Judaism and similarly other sects and cults even including the mormons and their congruence
to the Muslim religion.

I take this opportunity to gratefully acknowledge the support and inspiration from Dr. Saibalesh
Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Nikhilesh Mukhopadhyay, Mr. Basudev Mukherjee, Dr. Pranab Kumar
Sarkar and Dr. Arun Bilas Mukherjee.

I express my gratitude to Professor Dr. Kalyan Bhusan Ray for helping me to get a bound copy
of the book and for allowing me to use his personal books.

I’m extremely thankful to Mr. Amitabha Chattopadhyay for taking my portraits for this book.

Finally, I extend my heartiest and profound thanks to my beloved wife Mrs. Sumita
Mukhopadhyay for her endless support, understanding and encouragement.

8
I look forward to receiving comments from readers of this book.

Dr. Salilesh Mukhopadhyay

New Jersey USA

November 24, 2011 [Thanksgiving Day]

9
Presented To:

From:

10
 Dedication

This work and ambition of a life-time is herein humbly

dedicated with supreme reverence to :
The memory of my father Late Suniles Mukhopadhyay
My father-in-law Mr. Nilim Krishna Bandyopadhyay
The memory of my great teacher Late Bibhas Dutta.

The father is paradise,embodying the path of Dharma and

the reward of mediatation; Through our reverence of him, all
gods are appeased.
As the unbroken circle of the world and its horizon
surrounds us, Thus revealed are our teacher’s blessed feet,
which we revere.

11
 “Satyam Eva
Jayate-
Nānritam”

“Truth Alone Prevails, -

Not Unreality”
The Mundaka Upanishad [III. 1.6]

12
13
The author

14
15
 Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction…………………………………………………………………….15

Chapter 2: The Foundations of Geometry………………………………………….35

The Five Groups of Axioms…………………………………………………………………39

Axiom of Connection………………………………………………………………………….40

Axiom of Order………………………………………………………………………………….42

Axiom of Parallels………………………………………………………………………………43

Axiom of Congruence…………………………………………………………………………44

Consequences of the axiom of Congruence…..……………………………………48

The Definition of a Curve……………………………………………………………………60

What is a Curve………………………………………………………………………………….62

The Geometry of Truth………………………………………………………………………76

Chapter 3:The Foundations of Religion……………………………………………..82

16
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
Geometry, the most ancient and noble of all mathematical disciplines
has evolved from the time of Euclid [300 B.C] to the modern times. In
mathematics the geometry of Euclid deals in point, lines, angles,
triangles, circles etc. and is called “Euclidean Geometry”. The
“Projective Geometry” which is the first non-Euclidean geometry was
involuntarily invented by the great Italian philosopher, painter,

17
draftsman,sculptor, architect, and engineer Leonardo Da Vinci [1452-
1519].

At the begining of the last century the differential geometry was

developed. W. Blaschke conducted Mathematics Seminar during 1935-
1939 at the University of Hamburg. The series of papers from this
project were published under the generic title “Integral Geometry”
which basically means the classical theory of geometric probability.
Interested readers are advised to consult Blaschke’s book Vorlesungen
uber Integralgeometrie [1955].

Felix Klein [ 1872] in his famous Erlangen Program identified the

criterion that distinguishes one geometry from another as the group of
transformations under which the propositions remain valid. Thus
modern Integral geometry essentially applies the idea of probability to
random elements that are geometric objects such as points, lines,
geodesics, congruent sets, motions, or affinities with a suitably defined
measure for such sets of elements. For the purposes of integral
geometry, it seems obvious to choose the measure in such a way that it
remains invariant under the corresponding group of transformations.

In my previous work Mukhopadhyay [2010] a binary relation ⊛ is

developed between a person and his or her faith. The mathematical
system {S ; ⊛ } is proved to be an Abelian group. As a matter of fact
the binary relation becomes a linear operator and thus partitions the
population into the equivalent classes of people like Budhists, Sikhs,
Jainas etc. This algebraic approach towards the foundations of
Mathematical Religion can be further extended through algebraic
geometry, category theory and similar mathematical disciplines. Here in

18
this monograph we will adhere to the foundations of geometry and
show the influence of geometry in religions. This is not only confined to
the different architectures of the temples, mosques,synagogues and
churches from the time of antiquity but it has the power to provide the
notion of Unified Universal Religion [UUR].

Following David Hilbert [1902] we will establish first the “congruence”

between two triangles and then derive the notion of congruence in
comparative religion and comparative ethics.

Here we provide a brief introduction to the notion of comparative

ethics. According to Encyclopedia Britannica, “Comparative Ethics, also
called Descriptive Ethics, the empirical (observational) study of the
moral beliefs and practices of different peoples and cultures in various
places and times. It aims not only to elaborate such beliefs and
practices but also to understand them in so far as they are causally
conditioned by social, economic, and geographic circumstances.
Comparative ethics, in contrast to normative ethics, is thus the proper
subject matter of the social sciences (e.g., anthropology, history,
sociology and psychology).

Empirical studies show that all societies have moral rules that prescribe
or forbid certain classes of action and that these rules are accompanied
by sanctions to ensure their enforcement.

Of particular interest in comparative ethics are the similarities and

differences between the moral practices and beliefs of different people,
as explained by physical and economic conditions, opportunities for
cross-cultural contacts, and the force of inherited traditions facing new
social or technological challenges. It has been observed, for example,
19
that virtually every society has well established norms dealing with such
matters as family organization and individual duties, sexual activity,
proper rights, personal welfare, truth telling, and promise keeping, but
not all societies have evolved the same norms for these various aspects
of human conduct.

It is the task of comparative ethics, therefore, to discover patterns of

human behavior and to provide, in so far as this is possible, plausible
reasons for cultural similarities and differences noted in the ethical
conduct of various peoples.

Some social scientists are more impressed with the universality of basic
moral rules, such as those forbidding murder, theft, infidelity, and
incest. Others are more impressed with the diversity of moral practices-
e.g., monogamy versus polygamy, caring for the aged versus parricide;
the forbidding of abortion versus voluntary feticide. The question then
arises whether similarity or diversity is more fundamental, whether
similarity supports the validity of the practice, and whether diversity
supports a relativism and skepticism. Clearly a consensus of all peoples
in a moral opinion does not of itself establish validity. On the other
hand, widespread agreement may reflect the fact that morality is
rooted in human nature, and, if human nature is fundamentally
everywhere the same, it will also manifest this similarity in significant
ways, including morality.”

In the subsequent chapters we will provide a geometric significance of

the study of comparative ethics and identify “morality” with proper
enlightenment.

20
Let us start with mindset of geometers and view the world religions
through different geometries as established in mathematics.
Consequently we will find the transperancy in our thoughts,
experiences and realizations. As we progress gradually we are to
accommodate all the religions of the world under the umbrella of the
foundation of geometry.

THE GEOMETRICAL DEFINITION:

The mathematical relation between man and God was explained by

Swamiji in 1893 in the world congress of religion in basically two
dimensions as follows:

Man is an infinite circle whose circumference is nowhere, but whose

center is located in one spot; and God is an infinite circle whose
circumference is nowhere, but whose center is everywhere. The
analytic continuation of this notion in n-dimensional space will be an n-
sphere which encompasses all life [By the way the existence of life has
not yet been proven in space].

Following Midgley [1985] here we draw a comparison between

geometry and religion as follows:

GEOMETRY RELIGION

Superstition

Black Magic

21
The science and art of geometry Versus Wish-fulfilment

Dogmatism

Blind conformism

2. Common sense V. Intuition

Rationalism V. Mysticism

Logic V. Faith, idealism, animism

Materialism V. Vitalism, mind-body dualism,

Commonsense agnosticism

3. Hard, indisputable,definite V. Soft, tender, delicate

Progress V. Tradition

Determination V. Free will

Mechanism V. Teleology

Empiricism V. Rationalism, Metaphysics

Scepticism V. Credulity

Reason V. Feeling or emotion

Objective V. Subjective

Clarity V. Mystery

22
 Science of geometry and Superstition

Which among these antitheses are really the ones we need, which of
them give clear ground for a crusade ? The ones in the first group seem
the most promising for crusaders. In them science of geometry stands
opposed to something undoubtedly bad. But in these cases it is
certainly not the only opponent of the evils in question. Superstition
and the rest find their opposites in clear thinking generally, and a
particular superstition is as likely to be corrected by history or logic or
common sense as by one of the physical sciences.

The second group deals in ideas which are more ambitious, more
interesting, but also much more puzzling, because it is extremely
difficult to define these terms without falling into confusion.

In the third group, we have contrasts which are more distinct. But they
do not seem to provide material at all suitable for a crusade. They
describe pairs of complementery elements in life and thought, both
members of which are equally necessary, and indeed could scarcely be
identified except in relation to each other as parts of a whole. We no
longer need to place that truculent “V.” between them to separate
them. They go very well together, and crusaders must avoid trying to
set them at loggerheads. We no longer want to reduce all these
contrasts to a single underlying shape. The lines of separation cross
each other. Different distinctions are needed for different purposes.

To connect the antitheses in our group 3, Bertrand Russell [1914] in his

interesting and influential paper ‘Mysticism and logic’ expressed the
following:
23
“Metaphysics, or the attempt to conceive the world as a whole by
means of thought, has been developed, from the first, by the union
and conflict of two different human impulses, the one urging men
towards mystics, the other urging them towards science [ I interpret
specifically geometry]…. In Hume, for example, the scientific impulse
reigns quite unchecked, while in Blake a strong hostility to science co-
exists with profound mystic insight. But the greatest men who have
been philosophers have felt the need both of science and of mysticism:
the attempt to harmonize the two was what make their life, and what
always must, for all its arduous uncertainty, make philosophy, to some
minds, a greater thing than either science or religion. … Mysticism, is, in
essence, little more than a certain intensity and depth of feeling in
regard to what is believed about the universe. … Mysticism is to be
commended as an attitude towards life, not as a creed about the world.
The metaphysical creed, I shall maintain, is a mistaken outcome of the
emotion, although this emotion, as colouring all other thoughts and
feelings, is the inspirer of what is best in Man. Even the cautious and
investigation of truth by science, which seems the very antithesis of the
mystic’s swift certainty, may be fostered and nourished by that very
spirit of reverence in which mysticism lives and moves.”

According to Midgley [1985] “Russell has got a lot of things right here.
He has ‘got in’, as they say, many items from the right-hand column of
our antitheses in legitimate relation to science. He has got in emotion
and poetry, indeed he has got in Blake, with his criticism of Newton. He
sees that emotion is so far from being an opponent of science, or a
menace to it, that emotion of a suitable kind is necessary for science,

24
and that part of that emotion can quite properly be called ’reverence’.
He sees something of the sort is necessary for metaphysics too…..

Russell, who had the advantage of having started his philosophical life
as a disciple of Hegel, was not tempted, as Hume and his disciples were,
to suppose that good metaphysics mearly meant cutting down one’s
thoughts on such topics to a minimum. He knew that, far from that,
even highly constructive metaphysicians like Plato and Heraclitus,
Leibnitz and Hegel often had something very important to say,
especially about mathematics. Yet he was now a convert to empiricism,
and he wanted to set limits on the thought-architecture of these bold
rationalists. His solution was on the whole, to concentrate on the
emotional function of this large-scale, constructive metaphysics, and on
the intellectual function of science and of more skeptical philosophy.
Thus mystical, constructive metaphysics was to supply the heart of the
world-grasping enterprise, while science supplied the head.”

Thus we see the foundations of geometry and religion are simply

connected with each other as in human body the heart is connected
with head.

Russell [1914] wrote “ As one of the chief triumphs of modern

mathematics consists in having discovered what mathematics really is,
a few more words on this subject may not be amiss. It is common to
start any branch of mathematics – for instance, Geometry – with a
certain number of primitive ideas, supposed incapable of definition,
and a certain number of primitive propositions or axioms, supposed
incapable of proof. Now the fact is that, though there are indefinables
and indemonstrables in every branch of applied mathematics, there are

25
Logic. Logic, broadly speaking, is distinguished by the fact that its
propositions can be put into a form in which they apply to anything
whatever. All pure mathematics – Arithmetic, Analysis, and Geometry –
is built up by combinations of the primitive ideas of logic, and its
propositions are deduced from the general axioms of logic, such as the
syllogism and the other rules of inference. And this is no longer a dream
or an aspiration. On the contrary, over the greater and more difficult
part of the domain of mathematics, it has been already accomplished;
in the few remaining cases, there is no special difficulty, and it is now
being rapidly achieved. Philosophers have disputed for ages whether
such deduction was possible; mathematicians have sat down and made
the deduction. For the philosophers there is now nothing left but
graceful acknowledgements.”

In this foundational study we will concentrate not only on different

aspects of the queen of mathematics, the Geometry, but also how it
helps to study the Theory of Manifolds and Submanifolds. Chen [1981]
provided a brief exposition of the Geometry of Submanifolds and Its
Applications. The monograph considered Manifolds including
Riemannian Manifolds, Kähler Manifolds and Submanifolds including
Umbilical Submanifolds of Kähler Manifolds.

The primal religions of the primitive people have suffered severely by

the neglect of their native faith but it is coming back in Australia, North
America. Arising like the phoenix from the ashes, tribal peoples are
gathering again in their ceremonial circles, remembering discarded
teachings, renewing the ancient practices. As they do so , perhaps they
are laying the foundations for what they themselves are calling ‘the
fourth world’. Personally I totally disagree with this concept of many
26
worlds. To me we are the habitant of the earth and we are in our
unique world – no third world country exists in my vocabulary.

Life is one

For tribal people, life is one. This concept is not new. They looked at the
sky and found the Sun, the moon and the stars which are all speherical
in appearance. Thus they concluded ‘Everything tries to be round’. This
geometric form of a planar circle is evident in everything they do – in
their myth, ceremony, art and community organization.

⊙
Essential to the circle is its “Center”. From that tiny little point, which
geometrically has no shape but only the position, the circle or sphere is
created. Thus this identifies the Great Spirit. It is reflected in all their
tribal dances around the fire, drum or pole, and in ceremonies such as
the sacred pipe, like Didgeridu, an Australian aboriginal musical
instrument, a foot to eight feet long, that amplifies a nasal whine.

Similar concept is echoed by Tagore [1915] in the following paragraphs:

27
“The civilization of ancient Greece was nurtured within city walls. In
fact, all the modern civilizations have their cradles of brick and mortar.
These walls leave their mark deep in the minds of men. They set up a
principle of “divide and rule” in our mental outlook, which begets in us
a habit of securing all our conquests by fortifying them and separating
them from one another. We divide nation and nation, knowledge and
knowledge, man and nature. It breeds in us a strong suspicion of
whatever is beyond the barriers we have built, and everything has to
fight hard for its entrance into our recognition.

When the first Aryan invaders appeared in India it was a vast land of
forests, and the new-comers rapidly took advantage of them. These
forests afforded them shelter from the fierce heat of the sun and the
ravages of tropical storms, pastures for cattle, fuel for sacrificial fire,
and materials for building cottages. And the different Aryan clans with
their patriarchal heads settled in the different forest tracts which had
some special advantage of natural protection, and food and water in
plenty.

Thus in India it was in the forests that our civilization had its birth, and
it took a distinct character from this origin and environment…. Having
been in constant contact with the living growth of nature, his mind was
free from the desire to extend his dominion by erecting boundary walls
around his acquisitions. His aim was not to acquire but to realize, to
enlarge his consciousness by growing with and growing into his
surroundings. He felt that truth is all-comprehensive, that there is no
such thing as absolute isolation in existence, and the only way of
attaining the truth is through the interpenetration of our being into all
objects. To realize this great harmony between man’s spirit and the
28
spirit of the world was the endeavour of the forest-dwelling sages of
ancient India….Mighty kingdoms were established, which had
communications with all the great powers of the world. But even in the
heyday of its material prosperity the heart of India ever looked back
with adoration upon the early ideal of strenuous self-realisation, and
the dignity of the simple life of the forest hermitage, and drew its best
inspiration from the wisdom stored there.

The west seems to take a pride in thinking that it is subduing nature; as

if we are living in a hostile world where we have to wrest everything we
want from an unwilling and alien arrangement of things. This sentiment
is the product of city-wall habit and training of mind. For in the city life
man naturally directs the concentrated light of his mental vision upon
his own life and works, and this ctreates an artificial dissociation
between himself and the Universal Nature within whose bosom he lies.

But in India the point of view was different; it included the world with
the man as one great truth. India put all her emphasis on the harmony
that exists between the individual and the universal. She felt we could
have no communication whatever with our surroundings if they were
absolutely foreign to us. Man’s complaint against nature is that he has
to acquire most of his necessaries by his own efforts. Yes, but his
efforts are not in vain; he is reaping success every day, and that shows
there is a rational connection between him and nature, for we never
can make anything our own except that which is truly related to us.

The fundamental unity of creation was not simply a philosophical

speculation for India; it was her life–object to realize this great
harmony in feeling and in action. With mediatation and service, with a

29
regulation of her life, she cultivated her consciousness in such a way
that everything had a spiritual meaning to her. The earth, water and
light, fruits and flowers, to her were not merely physical phenomena to
be turned to use and then left aside. They were necessary to her in the
attainment of her ideal of perfection, as every note is necessary to the
completeness of the symphony. India intuitively felt that the essential
fact of this world has a vital meaning for us; we have to be fully alive to
it and establish a conscious relation with it, not merely impelled by
scientific curiosity or greed of material advantage, but realizing it in
spirit of sympathy, with a large feeling of joy and peace.”

A very frequent expression in the ceremonies of the tribal people is ‘It

is said…’ This actually refers to the teaching of the ancient people.
Obviously the teacher is the Eldest member of the society and possibly
experienced and subsequently realized a lot of common human nature
including the attitude. Thus the knowledge becomes secred and is very
real – and specially real in some times and places. This is secular
meaning pertaining to this world or the present life as opposed to the
religious or spiritual. It is their tradition and rituals to be observed by
that specific tribe.

30
Two Realities

Tribal people also reflect upon the two-ness of life and nature. North
American natives symbolize this by a divided circle, as in the Plains
shields and many forms of art and craft.

Nature presents itself in pairs: dark and light, cold and hot, male and
female, good and bad and so on. These are not contradictory but
complementary. They are depicted in native North American shields as
mirroring each other. This two-ness is also expressed in myths, such as
that of the two sons of Mother Earth; in the totems of the west coast

31
such as Sisutl of the Kwakiutl, the two-headed serpent which punishes
and protects; in the Thunderbird, threatening and caring; or in
ceremonies such as the forked pole of the Sundance.

But the two are always seen as aspects of the one: the circle. They are
different, but they appear to us in balance, in harmony, the over-riding
virtue. This is the theme of peaceful coexistence of the two apparently
different phenomena.

This is further illustrated in livelihood of the native Arctic dweller, the

Inuit. The intruding explorers complains about a harsh, cruel
environment, and insists when he goes north on taking with him all
modern technologies to beat the climate. The Inuit, on the other hand,
lives face to face with nature and, when untouched by the intruder, is
happy. He has found harmony with his surroundings, and treats the ice
and snow as friends, not enemies.

Three-fold action

Give and take is, for Amerindians, the basis of healthy relationships. It
can be symbolized as a triangle on a circle.

32
Primal people search for the support that will make their venture
succeed. This help is obtained in the ceremonies, whose action is
three-sided. For example, a Mohawk community is threatened by
drought. The corn withers in the fields. Help lies with the
Thunderbeings; the rain must be sought by their aid. The right thing to
do in that circumstance is the rain dance. The community gathers in the
fields. The drum and shaker sound. The dance begins. Prayer is sung.
Water is sprinkled. The rains come.

The same give and take, between human need, heavenly power and
particular action is found in all ceremonies for healing, guidance,
power.
33
The Four Powers

Originally in mathematics, specially while choosing arbitrarily an

infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in Analysis, specifically in
differential calculus, one could choose a circular neighborhood or a
square neighborhood in two-dimensional cases. In topology we defined
similarly the notion of stronger neighborhood. Native people of North
America, as elsewhere, tended to see the structure of the world, and of
the powers that control it, as four sided. The symbol they used for this
is a square circumscribed in a circle

34
Lame Deer, a present-day Sioux, explains: “Four is the number that is
most sacred [Wakan]. Four stands for the four quarters of the earth…
the four winds … seasons …colors .. four things of which the universe is
made [ Earth, Air, Water, Fire]. There are four virtues which a man
should possess… We Sioux do everything by fours…”

Into this structure of fours is gathered and classified all life’s variety. It
is made one [the circle] through the ‘great law of sacrifice’, in which
each part depends upon and contributes to all the others. ‘One dies
that another may live’. The ‘Wheel’ is the pattern of all ceremonies,
because it symbolizes the variety of life in the wholeness of life. The
wheel is the origin of the motion, for any transport.

The concept of unity in diversity and diversity within unity is the

essence of Hindu religion, more specifically a sect or cult among Hindus
called “BRAHMA SAMAJ”. This concept is basic to the goal of harmony
and balance in life. Native people consider this principle as the
foundation of all health, peace and well-being in the world.

The Seven ‘Grandfathers’

A ‘mystery of sevens’ lies at the root of ancient wisdom and is found

among age-old cultures in all parts of the world. We find this same
feeling about seven among the primal people of North America. We
hear of the seven sacred rites of the Sioux, the seven prophecies [or
fires] of the Ojibwa Midewiwin and the seven stopping-places in their
ages-long migration westward. We hear of cycles of seven years and
seven-sages, seven-stars constellation like Orion; we hear of the seven
Grandfathers in Ojibwa mythology. They are symbolized in the teaching
staff hung in the centre of the ceremonial circle. The staff is made up of
35
three straight sticks bound together at their centres. These sticks have
six points standing for the four directions, plus the ‘above’ power [Sky]
and the ‘below’ power [Earth]. There is a seventh at the crossing-point.

It is the ‘here’ place of power, the self, the power within. This is not to
say that I am the centre of all, but that all the powers are available to
me, are flowing through me and I can be a power with them. They
come to them in their visions, dreams and in teachings and ceremonies
working through them.

The Quartered Circle

Finally there is the simple quartered circle, the symbol of wholeness.

36
Geometrically speaking the four quadrants of the circle signify four vital
elements of human relations like love, respect, compromise and
eternity. The participant in the festival is conscious that the whole
universe is around him and responding to his need and his prayer.

37
 CHAPTER TWO
The Foundations of Geometry

While algebra and analysis provide the foundations of mathematics,

according to Chern [2000], geometry is at the core. Euclidean geometry
provides a geometrical treatment of the number system.

According to Bertrand Russell [1914]: “ Geometry, like Arithmetic, has

been subsumed, in recent times, under the general study of order. It
was formerly supposed that Geometry was the study of the nature of
the space in which we live, and accordingly it was urged, by those who
held that what exists can only be known empirically, that Geometry
38
should really be regarded as belonging to Applied Mathematics. But it
has gradually appeared, by the increase of non-Euclidean systems, that
Geometry throws no more light upon the nature of space than
Arithmetic throws upon the population of the United States. Geometry
is a whole collection of deductive sciences based on a corresponding
collection of sets of axioms. One set of axioms is Euclid’s; other equally
good sets of axioms lead to other results. Whether Euclid’s axioms are
true, is a question as to which the pure mathematician is indifferent;
and,what is more, it is a question which it is theoretically impossible to
answer with certainty in the affirmative. It might possibly be shown, by
very careful measurements, that Euclid’s axioms are false; but no
measurements could ever assure us [owing to the errors of
observation] that they are exactly true. Thus the geometer leaves to
the man of science to decide, as best he may, what axioms are most
nearly true in the actual world. The geometer takes any set of axioms
that seem interesting, and deduces their consequences. What defines
Geometry, in this sense, is that the axioms must give rise to a series of
more than one dimension. And it is thus that Geometry becomes a
department in the study of order.

In Geometry, as in other parts of mathematics, Peano and his disciples

have done work of the very gretest merit as regards principles.
Formerly, it was held by philosophers and mathematicians alike that
the proofs in Geometry depended on the figure; nowadays, this is
known to be false. In the best books there are n o figures at all. The
reasoning proceeds by the strict rules of formal logic from a set of
axioms laid down to begin with. If a figure is used, all sorts of things
seem obviously to follow, which no formal reasoning can prove from

39
the explicit axioms, and which, as a matter of fact, are only accepted
because they are obvious. By banishing the figure, it becomes possible
to discover all the axioms that are needed; and in this way all sorts of
possibilities, which would have otherwise remained undetected, are
brought to light.”

Although this study of the foundation of Geometry is no way an

attempt to find the falsity of the axioms of Euclid and the harsh
criticisms of modern geometers like Bertrand Russell, it was Sir Henry
Savile who in 1621 pointed out first the two blemishes in Euclid, the
theory of parallels and the theory of proportion.

The following material is the translation of the lectures given by

Professor David Hilbert as a course on euclidean geometry at the
University of Gottingen during the winter semester of 1898–1899.

The results of his investigations are re-arranged and put into the
present form in which they appeared originally as a memorial address
published in connection with the celebration at the unveiling of the
Gauss-Weber monument at Gottingen, in June, 1899. In the French
edition, which appeared soon after, Professor Hilbert made some
additions, particularly in the concluding remarks, where he gave an
account of the results of a recent investigation made by Dr. Dehn.

As a basis for the analysis of our intuition of space, Professor Hilbert

commences his discussion by considering three systems of things which
he calls points, straight lines, and planes, and sets up a system of
axioms connecting these elements in their mutual relations. The
purpose of his investigations is to discuss systematically the relations of
40
these axioms to one another and also the bearing of each upon the
logical development of euclidean geometry. Among the important
results obtained, the following are worthy of special mention:

1. The mutual independence and also the compatibility of the given

system of axioms is fully discussed by the aid of various new systems of
geometry which are introduced.

2. The most important propositions of euclidean geometry are

demonstrated in such a manner as to show precisely what axioms
underlie and make possible the demonstration.

3. The axioms of congruence are introduced and made the basis of the
definition of geometric displacement.

4. The significance of several of the most important axioms and

theorems in the development of the euclidean geometry is clearly
shown; for example, it is shown that the whole of the Euclidean
geometry may be developed without the use of the axiom of
continuity; the significance of Desargues’s theorem, as a condition that
a given plane geometry may be regarded as a part of a geometry of
space, is made apparent, etc.

5. A variety of algebras of segments are introduced in accordance with

the laws of arithmetic.

This development and discussion of the foundation principles of

geometry is not only of mathematical but of pedagogical importance.

David Hilbert [1902] in his attempt to choose for geometry a simple

and complete set of independent axioms and to deduce from these the
most important geometrical theorems in such a manner as to bring out
41
as clearly as possible the significance of the different groups of axioms
and the scope of the conclusions to be derived from the individual
axioms.

THE FIVE GROUPS OF AXIOMS.

THE ELEMENTS OF GEOMETRY AND THE FIVE GROUPS OF AXIOMS.

Let us consider three distinct systems of things. The things composing

the first system, we will call points and designate them by the letters A,
B, C,. . . ; those of the second, we will call straight lines and designate
them by the letters a, b, c,. . . ; and those of the third system, we will
call planes and designate them by the Greek letters α, β,Г,. . . The
points are called the elements of linear geometry; the points and
straight lines, the elements of plane geometry; and the points, lines,
and planes, the elements of the geometry of space or the elements of
space.

We think of these points, straight lines, and planes as having certain

mutual relations, which we indicate by means of such words as “are
situated,” “between,” “parallel,” “congruent,” “continuous,” etc. The
complete and exact description of these relations follows as a
consequence of the axioms of geometry. These axioms may be
arranged in five groups.

42
Each of these groups expresses, by itself, certain related fundamental
facts of our intuition.

We will name these groups as follows:

I, 1–7. Axioms of connection.

II, 1–5. Axioms of order.

III. Axiom of parallels (Euclid’s axiom).

IV, 1–6. Axioms of congruence.

V. Axiom of continuity (Archimedes’s axiom).

GROUP I: AXIOMS OF CONNECTION.

The axioms of this group establish a connection between the concepts

indicated above;

namely, points, straight lines, and planes. These axioms are as follows:

I, 1. Two distinct points A and B always completely determine a straight

line a. We write

AB = a or BA = a.

Instead of “determine,” we may also employ other forms of expression;

for example, we may say A “lies upon” a, A “is a point of” a, a “goes
through” A “and through” B, a “joins” A “and” or “with” B, etc. If A lies
upon a and at the same time upon another straight line b, we make use
also of the expression: “The straight lines” a “and” b “have the point A
in common,” etc.

43
I, 2. Any two distinct points of a straight line completely determine that
line; that is, if

AB = a and AC = a, where B 6= C, then is also BC = a.

I, 3. Three points A, B, C not situated in the same straight line always

completely determine a plane.

We employ also the expressions: A, B, C, “lie in” α; A, B, C “are points

of” α, etc.

I, 4. Any three points A, B, C of a plane α, which do not lie in the same

straight line, completely determine that plane.

I, 5. If two points A, B of a straight line a lie in a plane α, then every

point of a lies in α.

In this case we say: “The straight line a lies in the plane α,” etc.

I, 6. If two planes α, β have a point A in common, then they have at

least a second point B in common.

I, 7. Upon every straight line there exist at least two points, in every
plane at least three points not lying in the same straight line, and in
space there exist at least four points not lying in a plane.

Axioms I, 1–2 contain statements concerning points and straight lines

only; that is, concerning the elements of plane geometry. We will call
them, therefore, the plane axioms of group I, in order to distinguish
them from the axioms I, 3–7, which we will designate briefly as the
space axioms of this group.

44
Of the theorems which follow from the axioms I, 3–7, we shall mention
only the following:

Theorem

Two straight lines of a plane have either one point or no point in

common; two planes have no point in common or a straight line in
common; a plane and a straight line not lying in it have no point or one
point in common.

Theorem

Through a straight line and a point not lying in it, or through two
distinct straight lines having a common point, one and only one plane
may be made to pass.

GROUP II: AXIOMS OF ORDER.

The axioms of this group define the idea expressed by the word
“between,” and make possible, upon the basis of this idea, an order of
sequence of the points upon a straight line, in a plane, and in space.
The points of a straight line have a certain relation to one another
which the word “between” serves to describe. The axioms of this group
are as follows:

II, 1. If A, B, C are points of a straight line and B lies between A and C,

then B lies also between C and A.

45
GROUP III: AXIOM OF PARALLELS. (EUCLID’S AXIOM.)

The introduction of this axiom simplifies greatly the fundamental

principles of geometry

and facilitates in no small degree its development. This axiom may be

expressed as follows:

III. In a plane α there can be drawn through any point A, lying outside of
a straight line a, one and only one straight line which does not intersect
the line a. This straight line is called the parallel to a through the given
point A.

This statement of the axiom of parallels contains two assertions. The

first of these is that, in the plane α, there is always a straight line
passing through A which does not intersect the given line a. The second
states that only one such line is possible. The latter of these statements
is the essential one, and it may also be expressed as follows:

Theorem

If two straight lines a, b of a plane do not meet a third straight line c of

the same plane, then they do not meet each other.

For, if a, b had a point A in common, there would then exist in the same
plane with c two straight lines a and b each passing through the point A
and not meeting the straight line c. This condition of affairs is, however,
contradictory to the second assertion contained in the axiom of
parallels as originally stated. The axiom of parallels is a plane axiom.

46
GROUP IV. AXIOMS OF CONGRUENCE.

The axioms of this group define the idea of congruence or

displacement.

Segments stand in a certain relation to one another which is described

by the word “congruent.”

IV, I. If A, B are two points on a straight line a, and if A’ is a point upon

the same or another straight line a’, then, upon a given side of A’ on the
straight line a’, we can always find one and only one point B’ so that the
segment AB (or BA) is congruent to the segment A’B’. We indicate this
relation by writing AB ≡A’B’.

Every segment is congruent to itself; that is, we always have

AB ≡ AB.

We can state the above axiom briefly by saying that every segment can
be laid off upon a given side of a given point of a given straight line in
one and and only one way.

IV, 2. If a segment AB is congruent to the segment A’B’ and also to the

segment A’’B’’, then the segment A’B’ is congruent to the segment
A’’B’’; that is, if AB ≡A’B’ and AB ≡ A’’B’’, then A’B’ ≡ A’’B’’.

IV, 3. Let AB and BC be two segments of a straight line a which have no

points in common aside from the point B, and, furthermore, let A’B’
and B’C’ be two segments of the same or of another straight line a’
having, likewise, no point other than B’ in common. Then, if AB ≡ A’B’
and BC ≡ B’C’, we have AC ≡ A’C’.

47
Definitions. Let α be any arbitrary plane and h, k any two distinct half-
rays lying in α and emanating from the point O so as to form a part of
two different straight lines.

We call the system formed by these two half-rays h, k an angle and

represent it by the

symbol ∠(h, k) or ∠(k, h). From axioms II, 1–5, it follows readily that the
half-rays h and k, taken together with the point O, divide the remaining
points of the plane a into two regions having the following property: If
A is a point of one region and B a point of the other, then every broken
line joining A and B either passes through O or has a point in common
with one of the half-rays h, k. If, however, A, A0 both lie within the
same region, then it is always possible to join these two points by a
broken line which neither passes through O nor has a point in common
48
with either of the half-rays h, k. One of these two regions is
distinguished from the other in that the segment joining any two points
of this region lies entirely within the region. The region so characterised
is called the interior of the angle (h, k). To distinguish the other region
from this, we call it the exterior of the angle (h, k). The half rays h and k
are called the sides of the angle, and the point O is called the vertex of
the angle.

IV, 4. Let an angle (h, k) be given in the plane α and let a straight line a’
be given in a plane α’. Suppose also that, in the plane α’, a definite side
of the straight line a’ be assigned. Denote by h’ a half-ray of the straight
line a’ emanating from a point O’ of this line. Then in the plane α’ there
is one and only one half-ray k’ such that the angle (h, k), or (k, h), is
congruent to the angle (h’, k’) and at the same time all interior points of
the angle (h’, k’) lie upon the given side of a0. We express this relation
by means of the notation

∠(h, k) ≡ ∠(h’, k’)

Every angle is congruent to itself; that is,

∠(h, k) ≡ ∠(h, k)

or

∠(h, k) ≡ ∠(k, h)

We say, briefly, that every angle in a given plane can be laid off upon a
given side of a given half-ray in one and only one way.

49
IV, 5. If the angle (h, k) is congruent to the angle (h’, k’) and to the angle
(h’’, k’’), then the angle (h’, k’) is congruent to the angle (h’’, k’’); that is
to say, if ∠(h, k) ≡ ∠(h’, k’) and ∠(h, k) ≡ ∠(h’’, k’’),

then ∠(h’, k’) ≡ ∠(h’’, k’’).

Suppose we have given a triangle ABC. Denote by h, k the two half-rays

emanating from A and passing respectively through B and C. The angle
(h, k) is then said to be the angle included by the sides AB and AC, or
the one opposite to the side BC in the triangle ABC. It contains all of the
interior points of the triangle ABC and is represented by the

symbol ∠BAC, or by ∠A.

IV, 6. If, in the two triangles ABC and A’B’C’ the congruences

AB ≡ A’B’, AC ≡ A’C’, ∠BAC ≡ ∠B’A’C’

hold, then the congruences

∠ABC ≡ ∠A’B’C’ and ∠ACB ≡ ∠A’C’B’ also hold.

Axioms IV, 1–3 contain statements concerning the congruence of

segments of a straight line only. They may, therefore, be called the
linear axioms of group IV. Axioms IV, 4, 5 contain statements relating
to the congruence of angles. Axiom IV, 6 gives the connection between
the congruence of segments and the congruence of angles. Axioms IV,
4–6 contain statements regarding the elements of plane geometry and
may be called the plane axioms of group IV.

50
CONSEQUENCES OF THE AXIOMS OF CONGRUENCE.

Suppose the segment AB is congruent to the segment A0B0. Since,

according to axiom IV, 1, the segment AB is congruent to itself, it
follows from axiom IV, 2 that A’B’ is congruent to AB; that is to say, if
AB ≡ A’B’, then A’B’ ≡ AB. We say, then, that the two segments are
congruent to one another.

Let A, B, C, D, . . . , K, L and A’, B’, C’, D’, . . . , K’, L’ be two series of

points on the straight lines a and a’, respectively, so that all the
corresponding segments AB and A’B’, AC and A’C’, BC and B’C’, . . . , KL
and K’L’ are respectively congruent, then the two series of points are
said to be congruent to one another. A and A’, B and B’, . . . , L and L’
are called corresponding points of the two congruent series of points.

From the linear axioms IV, 1–3, we can easily deduce the following
theorems:

Theorem

If the first of two congruent series of points A, B, C, D, . . . , K, L and A’,

B’, C’, D’, . . . , K’, L’ is so arranged that B lies between A and C, D, . . . , K,
L, and C between A, B and D, . . . , K, L, etc., then the points A’, B’, C’, D’,
. . . , K’, L’ of the second series are arranged in a similar way; that is to
say, B’ lies between A’ and C’, D’, . . . , K’, L’, and C’ lies between A’, B’
and D’, . . . , K’, L’, etc.

Let the angle (h, k) be congruent to the angle (h’, k’). Since, according to
axiom IV, 4, the angle (h, k) is congruent to itself, it follows from axiom
IV, 5 that the angle (h’, k’) is congruent to the angle (h, k). We say, then,
that the angles (h, k) and (h’, k’) are congruent to one another.
51
Definitions. Two angles having the same vertex and one side in
common, while the sides not common form a straight line, are called
supplementary angles. Two angles having a common vertex and whose
sides form straight lines are called vertical angles. An angle which is
congruent to its supplementary angle is called a right angle.

Two triangles ABC and A’B’C’ are said to be congruent to one another
when all of the following congruences are fulfilled:

AB ≡ A’B’, AC ≡ A’C’, BC ≡ B’C’,

∠A ≡ ∠A’, ∠B ≡ ∠B’, ∠C ≡ ∠C’.

Theorem (First theorem of congruence for triangles).

If, for the two triangles ABC and A’B’C’, the congruences

AB ≡ A’B’, AC ≡ A’C’, ∠A ≡ ∠A’ hold, then the two triangles are

congruent to each other.

Proof:

From axiom IV, 6, it follows that the two congruences

∠B ≡ ∠B’ and ∠C ≡ ∠C’ are fulfilled, and it is, therefore, sufficient to

show that the two sides BC and B’C’ are congruent. We will assume the
contrary to be true, namely, that BC and B’C’ are not congruent, and
show that this leads to a contradiction. We take upon B’C’ a point D’

such that BC ≡ B’D’. The two triangles ABC and A’B’D’ have, then, two
sides and the included angle of the one agreeing, respectively, to two
sides and the included angle of the other. It follows from axiom IV, 6
52
that the two angles BAC and B’A’D’ are also congruent to each other.
Consequently, by aid of axiom IV, 5, the two angles B’A’C’ and B’A’D’
must be congruent.

This, however, is impossible, since, by axiom IV, 4, an angle can be laid

off in one and only one way on a given side of a given half-ray of a
plane. From this contradiction the theorem follows.

We can also easily demonstrate the following theorem:

Theorem (Second theorem of congruence for triangles).

If in any two triangles one side and the two adjacent angles are
respectively congruent, the triangles are congruent.

We are now in a position to demonstrate the following important

proposition.

Theorem

If two angles ABC and A’B’C’ are congruent to each other, their
53
supplementary angles CBD and C’B’D’ are also congruent.

Proof:

Take the points A’, C’, D’ upon the sides passing through B’ in such a
way that A’B’ ≡ AB, C’B’ ≡ CB, D’B’ ≡ DB.

Then, in the two triangles ABC and A’B’C’, the sides AB and BC are
respectively congruent to A’B’ and C’B’. Moreover, since the angles
included by these sides are congruent to each other by hypothesis, it
follows from previous theorem that these triangles are congruent; that
is to say, we have the congruences

AC ≡ A’C, ∠BAC ≡ ∠B’A’C’.

On the other hand, since by axiom IV, 3 the segments AD and A’D’ are
congruent to each other, it follows again from the previous theorem
that the triangles CAD and C’A’D’ are congruent, and, consequently, we
have the congruences:

CD ≡ C’D’, ∠ADC ≡ ∠A’D’C’.

54
From these congruences and the consideration of the triangles BCD and
B’C’D’, it follows by virtue of axiom IV, 6 that the angles CBD and C’B’D’
are congruent.

Furthermore Hilbert [1902] established the following important result:

Theorem (Third theorem of congruence for triangles.)

If two triangles have the three sides of one congruent respectively to

the corresponding three sides of the other, the triangles are congruent.
Any finite number of points is called a figure. If all of the points lie in a
plane, the figure is called a plane figure. Two figures are said to be
congruent if their points can be arranged in a one-to-one
correspondence so that the corresponding segments and the
corresponding angles of the two figures are in every case congruent to
each other. Congruent figures have, as may be seen from previous
theorems the following properties:

Three points of a figure lying in a straight line are likewise in a straight

line in every figure congruent to it. In congruent figures, the
arrangement of the points in corresponding planes with respect to
corresponding lines is always the same. The same is true of the
sequence of corresponding points on corresponding lines.

55
This idea of congruence is so vital to the study of geometry that we
have established the congruence between different geometrical figures
like triangles, circles etc.

The purpose of the present monograph is to extend this geometrical

notion to the realm of religions. Foundational study on the different
religions become the scope and analysis of “Congruence” between
them. And as they are congruent with one another they are also
mutually congruent, leading to the notion of “UNIFIED UNIVERSAL
RELIGION” [UUR].

By the aid of previously proven theorems, it is possible to deduce the

following simple theorem, which Euclid held–although it seems to us
wrongly–to be an axiom.

Theorem
All right angles are congruent to one another.

Proof:

Let the angle BAD be congruent to its supplementary angle CAD, and,
likewise, let the angle B’A’D’ be congruent to its supplementary angle
C’A’D’. Hence the angles BAD, CAD, B’A’D’, and C’A’D’ are all right
angles. We will assume that the contrary of our proposition is true,
namely, that the right angle B’A’D’ is not congruent to the right angle
BAD, and will show that this assumption leads to a contradiction. We
lay off the angle B’A’D’ upon the half-ray AB in such a manner that the
side AD’’ arising from this operation falls either within the angle BAD or
56
within the angle CAD. Suppose, for example, the first of these
possibilities to be true. Because of the congruence of the angles B’A’D’
and BAD’’, it follows from previously proven theorem that angle C’A’D’
is congruent to angle CAD’’, and, as the angles B’A’D’ and C’A’D’ are
congruent to each other, then, by IV, 5, the angle BAD’’ must be
congruent to CAD’’.

Furthermore, since the angle BAD is congruent to the angle CAD it is

possible, by the former theorem to find within the angle CAD a half-ray
AD’’’emanating from A, so that the angle BAD’’ will be congruent to the
angle CAD’’’, and also the angle DAD’’ will be congruent to the angle
DAD’’’. The angle BAD’’ was shown to be congruent to the angle CAD’’
and, hence, by axiom IV, 5, the angle CAD’’, is congruent to the angle
CAD’’’. This, however, is not possible; for, according to axiom IV, 4, an
angle can be laid off in a plane upon a given side of a given half-ray in
only one way. With this our proposition is demonstrated. We can now
introduce, in accordance with common usage, the terms “acute angle”
57
as the angle less than 90 degrees and “obtuse angle” as the angle
greater than 90 degrees.

The theorem relating to the congruence of the base angles A and B of

an equilateral triangle ABC follows immediately by the application of
axiom IV, 6 to the triangles ABC and BAC. By aid of this theorem, in
addition to a previously proven theorem we can easily demonstrate the
following proposition.

Theorem (Third theorem of congruence for triangles.)

If two triangles have the three sides of one congruent respectively to

the corresponding three sides of the other, the triangles are congruent.
Any finite number of points is called a figure. If all of the points lie in a
plane, the figure is called a plane figure.

Two figures are said to be congruent if their points can be arranged in a

one-to-one correspondence so that the corresponding segments and
the corresponding angles of the two figures are in every case congruent
to each other.

Congruent figures have, as may be seen from prevous theorems, the

following properties:
Three points of a figure lying in a straight line are likewise in a straight
line in every figure congruent to it. In congruent figures, the
arrangement of the points in corresponding planes with respect to
corresponding lines is always the same. The same is true of the
sequence of corresponding points situated on corresponding lines.
The most general theorems relating to congruences in a plane and in
space may be expressed as follows:

58
Theorem:
If (A,B,C, . . .) and (A’,B’,C’, . . .) are congruent plane figures and P is a
point in the plane of the first, then it is always possible to find a point P’
in the plane of the second figure so that (A,B,C, . . . , P) and (A’,B’,C’, . . .
, P’) shall likewise be congruent figures. If the two figures have at least
three points not lying in a straight line, then the selection of P’ can be
made in only one way.

Theorem:

If (A,B,C, . . .) and (A’,B’,C’, . . .) are congruent figures and P

represents any arbitrary point, then there can always be found a point
P’ so that the two figures (A,B,C, . . . , P) and (A’,B’,C’, . . . , P’) shall
likewise be congruent. If the figure (A,B,C, . . . , P) contains at least four
points not lying in the same plane, then the determination of P’ can be
made in but one way.

This theorem contains an important result; namely, that all the facts
concerning space which have reference to congruence, that is to say, to
displacements in space, are (by the addition of the axioms of groups I
and II) exclusively the consequences of the six linear and plane axioms
mentioned above. Hence, it is not necessary to assume the axiom of
parallels in order to establish these facts.

If we take, in, addition to the axioms of congruence, the axiom of

parallels, we can then easily establish the following propositions:

59
Theorem:

If two parallel lines are cut by a third straight line, the alternate interior
angles and also the exterior-interior angles are congruent. Conversely,
if the alternate-interior or the exterior-interior angles are congruent,
the given lines are parallel.

Theorem:

The sum of the angles of a triangle is two right angles.

Definitions:

If M is an arbitrary point in the plane α, the totality of all points A, for

which the segments MA are congruent to one another, is called a circle.
M is called the centre of the circle.

From this definition can be easily deduced, with the help of the axioms
of groups III and IV, the known properties of the circle; in particular, the
possibility of constructing a circle through any three points not lying in
a straight line, as also the congruence of all angles inscribed in the same
segment of a circle, and the theorem relating to the angles of an
inscribed quadrilateral.

Geometry is bound to be distinguished between its local and global

aspects and similar is the case with any religion. Local churches,
synagogues, temples, mosques always have a priest and their
interpretation of the respective religion influences the local
community. When geometry is treated analytically, most of the
60
properties are local, and an effective tool is the infinitesimal calculus.
This gives rise to differential geometry whose great scope is still
puzzling to mathematicians and physicists alike. While there is much
interesting local differential geometry, one must not forget the total
space. This includes the Euclidean and non-Euclidean spaces and an
important class consists of Riemannian spaces. They find applications to
the theory of general relativity and are indispensible in relativistic
physics. Riemannian geometry is the central topic in differential
geometry, which one could easily call Riemann-Finsler geometry. These
are elaborated in Berger [1998] and Bao et. al [1999].

On the other hand, another important extension should be the theory

of Manifolds. Such an extension should include boundaries and
singularities and the polyhedral in the classical sense. An obvious
candidate is the notion of a stratified manifold in the sense of Whitney.
Recent works in solid-state physics and physical chemistry all indicate
the usefulness of differential geometry, the exterior algebras and the
necessity of the generalization of the notion of a manifold.

One may choose to stay with classical differential geometry; even

surface theory has a wealth of interesting problems. Sphere geometry
and line geometry are subjects which deserve further investigation. Just
like complex numbers make mathematics, and life, simple so is the
scope of Complex Geometry which goes beyond Euclid.

In this foundation of geometry we briefly outline the trend of research

on the mathematical foundations and the concept of the
geometrization conjecture for manifolds. McMullen [2010] describes
the evolution of geometric structures on 3-manifold. In 1300, Dante

61
described a universe in which the concentric terraces of hell—nesting
down to the center of the earth – are mirrored by concentric celestial
spheres, rising and converging to a single luminous point. This is the
concept of Dante’s cosmology. Topologically, this finite yet unbounded
space would today be described as a three-dimensional sphere. In
1904, Poincare asked if the 3-sphere is the only closed 3-manifold in
which every loop can be shrunk to a point; a positive answer become
known as the Poincare conjecture. Although the theory of manifolds
developed rapidly in the later years, this conjecture remained open.

In 1980s, Thurston showed that a large class of 3-manifolds are

hyperbolic – they admit rigid metrics of constant negative curvature. He
proposed a geometric description of all 3-dimensional manifolds,
subsuming the Poincare conjecture as a special case. This leads to the
fact that algebra, geometry and topology are mutually compatible in
dimension two.

We here provide a brief description of how the concept of a curve has

evolved throughout the ages. Special curves appeared as solutions to
problems in what we now call the calculus of variations. Willmore
[2000] provided a summary of properties of differential manifolds
carrying connections, especially pseudo-Riemannian manifolds and to
curves intrinsically related to them such as geodesics. Special curves
which arise from the immersion of a manifold into a Riemannian
manifold are considered, giving rise to extrinsic invariants such as mean
curvature. Closed curves play an essential part in the definition of the
holonomy group of a Riemannian manifold. The holonomy groups in
their turn give rise to the natural appearance of special manifolds, like
Kähler manifolds.
62
The following discussion has been influenced by the book “Einstein
Manifolds,” by Arthur L. Besse [1987].

The Definition of a Curve

The primitive idea of a curve must be as old as civilization itself, but it

took aeons of time before a satisfactory definition was reached. The
distinction between straight lines and curved lines in mathematics is
sorted out with notion of metric that is the shortest distance between
the two point is the straight line and all other joing the points A and B
are curved lines.The Greeks restricted their mathematics mainly to
Geometry, but even they were primarily concerned with figures which
could be obtained from lines and circles. The plane was an acceptable
notion, as were polyhedral made from planes. The only other surfaces
which were admitted were obtained by rotating lines and circles about
an axis, that is to say surfaces of revolution, for example cylinders,
cones, spheres and generated surfaces like the hyperboloid of two
sheets. Conics were treated as plane cross sections of cones.

Other plane curves like spirals and the cissoids of Diocles were
admitted but since they were not constructable from lines and circles
they were regarded as being essentially on the fringe of geometry.
Indeed they were recognized as “Mechanical Curves” rather than
“Geometrical Curves”.

The next epoch-making event in studying curves is due to Descartes

who, in 1737, published his “Discourse de la method pour bien conduire
sa raison, et chercher la verite dans les sciences”. As his usual bias
Descartes turned to the application of algebra to geometry, and
created “Analytical Geometry” whose central scheme is the association
63
of algebraic equations with curves and surfaces. He used what we
would now call an oblique system of coordinate axes and represented a
point by its distances x, y from the point of intersection of the axes.
That point of intersection was named as “Origin”. A curve was
determined by an algebraic equation involving x and y. The points of
intersection of two curves were obtained by solving the corresponding
simultaneous equations. Descartes rejected the legacy from the Greeks
that only the curves constructable by ruler and compass are legitimate.
For Descartes geometric curves are those which can be expressed by a
unique algebraic equation of finite degree. Thus the cissoids deemed
“Mechanical Curve” by the Greeks now becomes “Geometrical Curve”
because its equation can be written as

Descartes used the word “Mechanical curve” to describe those curves

like the logarithmic spiral whose equation was not algebraic and the
corresponding functions as “Transcendental Functions”.

Later in the 17th century the development of the infinitesimal calculus

by Leibnitz and Newton led to the study of curves and surfaces from
the point of view of their differential geometric properties. However
although a large number of new geometrical results were obtained in
the following century, the exposition was often ambiguous being based
upon the idea of infinitesimally near points. However the steady
progress of analysis gradually led to stricter rigour in geometrical
arguments. Weierstrass constructed an example of a curve represented
by a function which is everywhere continuous but nowhere
differentiable, challenging the idea of the tangent for a continuous

64
curve. To put simply it implies the fact that the curve cannot have a
tangent anywhere. Since this doesn’t fit with the general idea or
definition of a curve the question naturally arises

“What is a curve ?”

In his Course d’ analyse, Volume 3,1987, p. 593, Jordan gave the

definition of a curve as the set of points represented by the continuous
functions

for ≦ t ≦ .

In particular if multiple points are to be excluded he restricted his

curves by the requirement

For t, t’ in the open interval (t0 , t1).

Jordan added the restriction f(t0) = f (t1), g (t0) = g (t1) to obtain a closed
curve, and obtained the celebtrated theorem that a closed Jordan curve
containing no multiple points divides the plane into two parts, an
inside and an outside.

65
However it was shown by Peano in 1890 that Jordan’s definition was
too broad. He discovered a curve which satisfied Jordan’s condition but
which passed through all the points of a square at least once!!!!
Curves in Euclidean Space E3 and On Surfaces in E3
In the 18th and early part of 19th century curves and surfaces were
automatically assumed to be immersed in Euclidean space of dimension
3 denoted by E3. In the 21st century we now realize that for the purpose
of differential geometry a curve is a differential mapping γ: t0 ≦ t ≦ t1
into the receiving space which is a differential manifold with or without
additional structure.
Following the work of Descartes, Claraut studied curves immersed in E3
by considering their projections on the three coordinate planes. This
was followed by work of Monge who was fully aware of the rwo
curvatures of a space curve but it was not until 1819 that the term
“torsion ” was explicitly used by Vallee to denote the second curvature.
It was Augustine Luise Cauchy who explicitly defined the principal
normal, situated in the osculating plane, by
d2r / ds2
in modern notation, where r denotes the position vector of a point on
the curve and the parameter s is the arc length. Cauchy defined the
curvature by

Frenet [1847] and Serret [1850] obtained what we now call the
Serret-Frenet formula which in modern notation is given by
dt/ds = n, dn/ds = b – t, db / ds = - n.
Please note that here we want the field of principal normal vectors to
be continuous so we have allowed the curvature to be negative. One
66
has to be extremely careful not to assume that even if the curvature is
infinitely differentiable that both curvatures are well-defined.
In 1760 Euler calculated the curvature of curves formed by normal
sections at a point P on a surface in E3. Euler proved that if all normal
sections did not have the same curvature at P, then there were two
orthogonal directions at P, called principal directions, such tat the
curvature assumed a maximum and a minimum value. Monge called
lines of curvature those curves with the property that at each point the
tangent to the curve was along one of the principal directions. We
denote the principal curvatures by k1 and k2. From these we define the
total [or Gaussian] curvature by K = k1k2 and the mean curvature by H =
( k1 + k2) / 2. These invariants play a major role in surface theory as
exposed in the magnificient work of Darboux Theorie des Surfaces,
Volumes I – IV [1887 -1896].
A similar role is played by the notion of geodesic curvature of a curve
on a surface. A curve with zero geodesic curvature is a geodesic. The
notion of geodesic as the “shortest distance” between two points on a
surface not too far apart was well known after the work of Newton.
However a curve was also regarded as a geodesic if its principal normal
coincided with the surface normal at all points. The idea of geodesic
curvature of a curve at a point P was measured by the ordinary
curvature of the projection of the curve on to the tangent plane at P.
Only much later it was realized that the geodesic curvature at a point P
on a surface is an intrinsic invariant as it is measured by Dt/ ds involving
the covariant derivative induced from the metric of the surface.
Several special curves appeared naturally as a result of problems in the
calculus of variations. This subject also goes back to antiquity – the
story is told of the problem facing Queen Dido who wished to enclose a
region of maximal area bounded by a river bank using a chain of fixed
length. As in most calculus of variations problems the answer is not a

67
number but a curve. It could be argued that the mathematical origins of
the subject go back Christiaan Huygens who using geometrical
arguments introduced the idea of involutes and evolutes of a plane
curve. He proved that the evolute of a cycloid is another cycloid, a
result subsequently confirmed by Euler using analysis. But it was
Huygens who proved that a pendulum bob swinging along a cycloidal
arc takes exactly the same time to complete swings of large and small
amplitude. Here the unknown is the shape of a curve, in this case a
cycloid.
In book II of the Principia Newton considered the shape of a surface of
revolution moving through a fluid at constant velocity in the direction
of its axis which offered the least resistence to motion. Historically
perhaps the most important early example came from applied
mathematics, namely the brachistochrone [also spelled
brachystochrone [From Greek: brachistos meaning shortest + chronos
meaning time] problem which was proposed by John Bernoulli in 1694.
This involves finding the path down which a particle will slide from one
given point to another not vertically below it in the shortes time, when
friction and the air resistance are neglected. To Bernoulli’s surprise the
required curve was the cycloid previously considered by Huygens.
Phrased differently, as described by Alexanderson [2011], Calculus
students recognize the cycloid as the solution to the brachistochrone
problem, the curve that allows a bead rolling down a trough in the form
of the curve to reach the lowest point on the curve in the least amount
of time. And, surprisingly, it is also the curve on which a bead rolling
down from any point on the left side of the inverted arch of a cycloid
reaches the bottom at exactly the same time as a bead rolling from any
point on the opposite side – that is to say, it is also the solution to the
tautochrone [From Greek: tauto meaning the same] problem, the curve
providing the “same time of descent”. These and similar problems were
of widespread interest in the late 17th. And early 18th. Centuries.
68
Historically speaking, it was Galileo who coined the term “Cycloid” and
investigated some of its properties around 1599. He was looking for
curves of least time of descent, though without much success. At the
same time Mersenne, Roberval and Torricelli became interested in the
curve. Pascal made some real contributions to the subject, primarily in
calculating the length of the curve and various volumesas it is rotated
about axes ( though he often used the French word for it, roulette).
Torricelli correctly found the area under one arch to be three times the
area of the generating circular disk.

Finally we consider another important class of problems concerning the

geodesics regarded as curves of shortest distance between two points
on a surface. The origin of the problem goes back to 18th century. For
navigational purposes the shape of the earth was considered to be that
of an ellipsoid. Euler was interested in this topic and together
subsequent work by Lagrange this led to the famous Euler-Lagrange
equations which still play a vital role in the subject. In the modern era
geodesics play a significant role in the theory of relativity as world lines
of particles, while null geodesics are light paths. Moreover the calculus
of variations has been transformed by the development of Morse
Theory which relates the critical points of a real-valued function
defined on a differentiable manifold to the topology of the manifold.
Interesting work is still being produced on extending Morse Theory to
problems involving manifolds of infinite dimension.
Next we study the foundation of geometry from the perspective of
“Probability Theory” which leads to the study of “Integral Geometry”
and the “Stochastic Geometry”. “Integral Geometry” is an outgrowth of
what in olden days was referred to as “Geometric Probabilities”.
Originating , as legend has it, with the Buffon needle problem [ which
after nearly two centuries has lost little of its elegance and appeal],
69
geometric probabilities have run into difficulties culminating in the
paradoxes of Bertrand which threatened the fledging field with
banishment from the castle of Mathematics. In rescuing it from this
fate, Henry Poincaré made the suggestion that arbitrariness of
definition underlying the paradoxes could be removed by tying closer
the definition of probability with a geometric group of which it would
have to be an invariant.
Thus a union of concepts was born that was to become “Integral
Geometry”. It is unfortunate that in the past half of a century or so
years during which Probability Theory experienced its most spectacular
rise to mathematical prominence, Integral Geometry has stayed on its
fringes. Only quite recently has there been a reawakening of interest
among practitioners of Probability Theory in this beautiful and
fascinating branch of Mathematics.
The original work was limited almost entirely to metric [Euclidean and
non-Euclidean] geometry and the probabilistic ideas were those of the
classical geometric probability initiated by Crofton [1868, 1885] and
Vzuber [1884] in the 19th century. After the second world war the new
methods of differential geometry and group theory made it possible to
unify and to generalize several questions in integral geometry, which
led to new problems and enormous progress in this field. Consideration
of a differentiable manifold [instead of Euclidean space] and of a
transformation group operating on it gave rise to integral geometry in
homogeneous spaces, and the whole theory was illuminated by the
ideas of the theory of locally compact groups and their invariant
measures. The inclusion of the methods of integral geometry within the
framework of the theory of homogeneous spaces was the work of
Andre Weil [1938, 1942] and Chern [1942]. However, integral geometry
generally has been restricted to Lie’s transformation groups – more
precisely, to matrix Lie groups – for two reasons. First, because they are
the most important from the point of view of their geometric
70
applications, and second, because they lead to more computable
results.
As main references on integral geometry, after the work of Blaschke
[1955] we have the books of M.I Stoka [1967, 1968]. Also closely
related are Hadwiger’s [1955, 1957] books. Santalo [1976] intended to
provide a synopsis of the main topics of integral geometry, including
their origins and their applications, with the aim of showing how the
interplay between geometry, group theory, and probability has become
fruitful for all of these fields.
Miles [1969,1970, 1971,1973] works have enriched the field of
differential geometry by the introduction of the ideas and tools of
stochastic processes. In a symposium on integral geometry and
geometric probability held at Oberwolfach [Germany] in June 1969,
D.G. Kendall, K. Krickeberg, and R.E. Miles suggested the term
“Stochastic Geometry” to indicate precisely those contents of
geometry and group theory that are in a sense related to stochastic
processes. Mukhopadhyay [1992] provided the analysis of asymptotic
normality via stochastic geometry, which constitutes a promising field
recently. Santalo [1976] deals with integral geometry in spaces of
constant curvature [non-Euclidean integral geometry], in particular
integral geometry on the sphere, and some trend in integral geometry
[integral geometry and foliated spaces, integral geometry in complex
spaces, symplectic integral geometry, and integral geometry in the
sense of Gelfand [1966] and Helgason [1962].
Next we discuss the foundations of conformal differential geometry
and its generalizations as depicted by Akivis and Goldberg [1996].
The work of Akivis and Goldberg [1996] presents the foundations and
applications of local conformal differential geometry and the theory of
conformal, Grasmann, and almost Grassmann structures. Conformal

71
differential geometry was developed within the framework of classical
differential geometry at the end of nineteenth century and the
beginning of twentieth century. It included concepts such as surfaces
with isothermic or spherical curvature lines, canal surfaces, congruence
of circles, triply orthogonal systems of surfaces, and conformal
differential invariants and conformally invariant differential quadratic
forms of a surface.

In the 1920s affine and projective differential geometries became

independent branches of differential geometry, while conformal
differential geometry lagged behind in its development. This
phenomenon can be explained by the fact that in works of affine and
projective differential geometry, the coordinate systems natural for
these geometries, namely the affine and projective systems, had been
used, whereas in the works on the conformal differential geometry the
investigations were conducted in the rectangular Cartesian coordinate
system.

In 1918 Herman Weyl published his paper which is very important for
the development of conformal differential geometry. In this paper H.
Weyl studied conformal invariants of Riemannian metrics and their
relation to general relativity, which was intensively developing at that
time. Following Weyl’s ideas in the 1920s and 1930s É. Cartan, V.
Hlavaty, S. sasaki, J.A. Schouten. I.M. Thomas, T.Y. Thomas, K. Yano and
others intensively developed the theory of multidimensional
conformally connected spaces.

72
After World War II the geometry of submanifolds of the conformal
space ∁n was intensively developed. As apparatus, tensor methods, the
method of exterior forms and moving frames were applied.

Although multidimensional conformal differential geometry is

important for other parts of differential geometry and in other
branches of mathematics, and there are numerous papers on the
subject, there as yet no book in which multidimensional conformal
differential geometry has been presented systematically.

There exists a connection between conformal geometry and the

geometry of Grassmann and almost Grassmannian structures. It was
Felix Klein who noted that geometry of the manifold of straight lines of
a three-dimensional space is equivalent to the geometry of a four-
dimensional pseudoconformal space. Grassmann and almost
Grassmann structures on a manifold are close to conformal structures,
since both kinds of structures are determined on a manifold by a field
of cones. The difference is that for conformal structures these cones
are cones of second order, while for Grassmann and almost Grassmann
structures they are more complicated algebraic cones called Segre
Cones.

Akivis and Goldberg [1996] tried to combine all these and the study of
conformal and almost Grassmann structures on a differentiable
manifold, the differential geometry of conformal and pseudoconformal
spaces and Grassmann manifolds with their submanifolds. They
provided a clear geometric treatment of theory of conformal,
pseudoconformal and almost Grassmann structures and constructed
their realizations on submanifolds of conformal and projective spaces.

73
Using multidimensional webs, obtained other realizations of these
structures.

The four-dimensional pseudoconformal structure plays an important

role in general relativity. The space-time in general relativity is a four-
dimensional Riemannian manifold of signature (1,3).

The study of Grassmann and almost Grassmann structures is important,

since these structures find a wide variety of applications in the theory
of hypergeometric functions, integral geometry, representation theory,
field theory, theory of multidimensional webs, etc.

Hilbert [1902] concluded as follows : “The preceding work treats

essentially of the problems of the euclidean geometry only; that is to
say, it is a discussion of the questions which present themselves when
we admit the validity of the axiom of parallels. It is none the less
important to discuss the principles and the fundamental theorems
when we disregard the axiom of parallels. We have thus excluded from
our study the important question as to whether it is possible to
construct a geometry in a logical manner, without introducing the
notion of the plane and the straight line, by means of only points as
elements, making use of the idea of groups of transformations, or
employing the idea of distance. This last question has recently been the
subject of considerable study, due to the fundamental and prolific
works of Sophus Lie. However, for the complete elucidation of this
question, it would be well to divide into several parts the axiom of Lie,
that space is a numerical multiplicity. First of all, it would seem to me
desirable to discuss thoroughly the hypothesis of Lie, that functions
74
which produce transformations are not only continuous, but may also
be differentiated. As to myself, it does not seem to me probable that
the geometrical axioms included in the condition for the possibility of
differentiation are all necessary.

In the treatment of all questions of this character, I believe the

methods and the principles employed in the preceding work will be of
value. As an example, let me call attention to an investigation
undertaken at my suggestion by Mr. Dehn [1900], and which has
already appeared [ Math. Annalen, 53 ]. In this article, he has discussed
the known theorems of Legendre concerning the sum of the angles of a
triangle, in the demonstration of which that geometer made use of the
idea of continuity.”

Following Hilbert [1902] we may combine the results in the following

table:

75
THE SUM OF THE NO PARALLELS ONE PARALLEL TO A AN INFINITY OF
STRAIGHT LINE
ANGLES OF A TRIANGLE IS TO A STRAIGHT PARALLELS TO A

LINE STRAIGHT LINE

CAN BE DRAWN CAN BE DRAWN CAN BE DRAWN

THROUGH A GIVEN THROUGH A GIVEN THROUGH A GIVEN
POINT POINT POINT

> 2 right angles Riemann’s (elliptic) This case is impossible Non-legendrian

geometry geometry

< 2 right angles This case is impossible Euclidean (parabolic) Semi-euclidean

geometry geometry

= 2 right angles This case is impossible This case is impossible Geometry of

Lobatschevski
(hyperbolic)

76
Here we see the variety of different geometries in the study of
mathematics. Anyway these topics are not exhaustive at all of the
variety of geometries one need to study. We have just outlined the
foundations of geometry from the basic notion of congruence. The
purpose being pretty self-evident we later introduce the congruence of
religion. As two triangles are called similar if and only if they are
congruent, the same applies for different religions.

The first great philosopher of the Italian Renaissance period of science

was Rene Descartes who lived in the first half of the 17th. century.
Those of his ideas that are most important for the development of
scientific thinking are contained in his Discourse on Method. On the
basis of doubt and logical reasoning he tries to find completely new and
as he thinks solid ground for a philosophical system. He does not accept
revelation as such a basis nor does he want to accept uncritically what
is perceived by the senses. So he starts with his method of doubt. He
casts his doubt upon which our senses tell us about the results of our
reasoning and finally he arrives at his famous sentence: “cogito ergo
sum”. I cannot doubt my existence since it follows from the fact that I
am thinking. After establishing the existence of the I in this way he
proceeds to prove the existence of God essentially on the lines of
scholastic philosophy.Finally the existence of the world follows from
the fact that God had given me a strong inclination to believe in the

77
existence of the world, and it is simply impossible that God should have
deceived me.

This basis of the philosophy of Descartes is radically different from that

of the ancient Greek philosophers. His starting point with the “triangle”

“God-World-I” simplifies in a dangerous way the basis for further

reasoning. The division between matter and mind or between soul and
body, which had started in Plato’s philosophy, is now complete. God is
separated both from the I and from the world. God in fact is raised so
high above the world and men that He finally appears in the philosophy
of Descartes only as a common point of reference that establishes the
relation between the I and the world.

While ancient Greek philosophy had tried to find order in the infinite
variety of things and events by looking for some fundamental unifying
principle, Descartes tries to establish the order through some
fundamental division. But the three parts which result from the division
lose some of their essence when any one part is considered as
separated from the other two parts. If one uses the fundamental
concepts of Descartes at all, it is essential that God is in the world and
in the I and it is also essential that the I cannot be really separated from
the world.
78
As Heisenberg [1958] stated “ Of course it would be wrong to say that
Descartes, through his new method in philosophy, has given a new
direction to human thought. What he actually did was to formulate for
the first time a trend in human thinking that could already be seen
during the Renaissance in Italy and in the Reformation. There was the
revival of interest in mathematics which expressed an increasing
influence of Platonic elements in philosophy, and the insistence on
personal religion. The growing interest in mathematics favored a
philosophical system that started from logical reasoning and tried by
this method to arrive at some truth that was as certain as a
mathematical conclusion. The insistence on personal religion separated
the I and its relation to God from the world. The interest in the
combination of empirical knowledge with mathematics as seen in the
work of Galileo was perhaps partly due to the possibility of arriving in
this way at some knowledge that could be kept apart from the
theological disputes raised by the Reformation. This empirical
knowledge could be formulated without speaking about God or about
ourselves and favored the separation of the three fundamental
concepts “God-World-I”…

But at this point the situation changed to some extent through

quantum theory and therefore we may now come to a comparison of
Descartes’s philosophical system with our present situation in modern
physics. It has been pointed out before that in the Copenhagen
interpretation of quantum theory we can indeed proceed without
mentioning ourselves as individuals, but we cannot disregard the fact
that natural science is formed by men. Natural science does not simply
describe and explain nature; it is a part of the interplay between nature

79
and ourselves; it describes nature as exposed to our method of
questioning. This was a possibility of which Descartes could not have
thought, but it makes the sharp separation between the world and the I
impossible.”

The Geometry of Truth

Here we consider the light-cone like figure and describe the geometry
of Nirvana.

The domain of ignorance at the bottom meets the domain of

enlightenment at the top by dint of “Samadhi” – a state of trans. There
are mainly two types of “Samadhi”—One is with determination of
achieving worldly success the other is without any desire whatsoever.

80
The purpose of human life is to get enlighted by severe meditation for
seeing and achieving the God. Lord Buddha achieved that Nirvana
possibly by this method of continuous meditation.

Similar geometry is described in Hawking and Penrose [2000] for the

nature of Space and Time. To discuss cosmic sensorship in the context
of certain ideas concerning ideal points for spacetimes Seifert [1971]
and Geroch,Kronheimer, and Penrose [1972] incorporated into the
spacetime actual “singular points” and “points at infinity”, namely the
ideal points. Let me first introduce the concept of IP, i.e., an
indecomposable past-set. Here a “past-set” is a set which contains its
own past set, and “indecomposable” means that it cannot split into two
past-sets neither of which contains the other. There is a theorem which
tells us that one can also describe any IP as the past of some timelike
curve.

There are two caregories of IP, namely PIPs and TIPs. A PIP is a proper
IP, i.e., the past of a spacetime point. A TIP is a terminal IP, not the past
of an actual point in spacetime continuum.TIPs define the future ideal
points. Furthermore, one can distinguish TIPs according to whether this
ideal point is “at infinity” ( in which case there is a timelike curve
generating the IP of infinite proper length) – an ∞-TIP – or a singularity
(in which case every timelike curve generating it has finite proper
length) – a singular TIP. Obviously all these concepts can be similarly
applied to future-sets rather than to past-sets. In this case we have Ifs
[indecomposable futures], divided into PIFs and TIFs, the TIFs being
subdivided into ∞-TIFs and singular TIFs. Let me also remark that for all
this to work we have to assume, in effect, that there are no closed

81
timelike curves – actually a marginally weaker condition: no two points
have the same future or the same past.

Although we started with a set of points and set of axioms to arrive at

any geometry we have seen there are other tools of the trade like
tensor calculus, differential calculus etc to work with. The same thing
happens with the foundational study of any religion. They have their
unique rituals, ceremonies, festivals and so on in conjunction with the
beliefs and the scriptures.

82
 CHAPTER THREE

The Foundations of Religion

Rabindra Nath Tagore [ 1964] described very elegantly the foundation

of all religions as follows: “ Mere information of facts, mere discovery

83
 of power, belongs to the outside and not to the inner soul of things.
Gladness is the one criterion of truth as we know when we have
touched Truth by the music it gives, by the joy of the greeting it sends
forth to the truth in us. That is the true foundation of all religions; it is
not in dogma. As I have said before, it is not ether waves that we
receive light; the morning does not wait for some scientist for its
introduction to us. In the same way, we touch the infinite reality
immediately within us only when we perceive the pure truth of love or
goodness, not through the explanation of theologians, not through the
erudite discussion of ethical doctrines.”

Thus we see that according to the poet’s realization of the foundation

of religions it is not at all necessary to connect the foundation of
geometry to the foundation of religion. Apparently they are at
quadrature to each other, as is depicted geometrically below:

Here by choosing the foundation of religion as the independent

variable we recognize the fact that religion precedes even geometry. As
a matter of fact, from pre-historic time people concentrated their mind
84
by just clapping their hands and worshipping The Sun, The Air, The
Water, The Fire and The Earth.

However if we consider the broad definition of geometry we see it

comprises of a set (preferably a Convex set) of points together with a
set of axioms on the points, (straight lines, planes, affinities etc.).

Similarly the broadest definition of religion can be a set of people

(followers / believers) together with a set of believes (faiths) associated
with the birth of some epoch-making person (Guru, the deliverer, the
priest, …) like Jesus Christ, Lord Krishna, Lord Buddha, Mohammed,
Tao, Jarathrusta, Tirthankar, Guru Nanak …).

Thus in the light of the foundation of projective geometry we see the

apparently parallel developments of the foundation of geometry and
the foundation of religion meet at the ideal point, the so called “Point
at Infinity,” where all parallel lines meet. In this context it would be far
easier to explain the theory of Duality just as the principle of Duality in
projective geometry where points are replaced by lines etc. to the
existence of the self (Atma or Soul) and the GOD in the same body.

Our main purpose is to extend the idea of geometric congruence to the

corresponding notion of congruence in religion which basically
identifies the origin and subsequent deviations of religion from the
parent pattern. Thus Buddhism becomes an offshoot of Hindu religion
and so on so forth.

Thus we have been able to identify the similarities between several

religions and being able to lay the foundation of Unified Universal
Religion.

85
The word Trinity is a creation of English language; it is not found in the
Bible. It began to be used around 150 C.E.; Theodotus, a heretic, used it
first, and then it was taken up by Tertullian (d. 220), a great third
century theologian and one of the first to formulate the doctrine of the
Trinity, wrote, “ Where the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are,
there also is the Church, which is the body of the three.” According to
Boff [1988, 2000] the Trinitarian mystery is reflected in each human
(Christian) person, in the family, and in society.

But it is in the church that this august mystery of communion and life
finds its most visible expression in history.

The church is inherently the community of faith, hope, and love seeking
to live the ideal of union proposed by Jesus Christ himself: “ … that they
may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also
be in us” [Jn 17:21]. The unity of Christians lies not in bureaucratic
leveling, but in a commingling of the faithful with one another and with
their pastors at the service of others.

The church is built along three fundamental lines of force, and that is
where its likeness with the divine Three is seen most specifically: it is
built on faith; celebration of faith; and organization for the sake of
internal cohesion,charity and mission in the midst of human beings.
These three moments are the embodiment of the community that
comes together to proclaim and deepen faith, to celebrate the
presence of the risen Christ and his spirit in human history and
speciallyin the Christian community itself, and to become organized for
solid service to all people, starting with the poor. Faith, celebration
and organization are not independent of one another; they are the

86
church itself in a dynamic movement of life and service. The church’s
communion is not expressed merely in the religious field. It also takes
place in a social project of communion of goods, sharing of life, and
creation of kinship, as can be clearly seen in the Acts of the apostles,
which gives an account of the life of the early apostolic community
[Acts 2:44-45, 4:34-36].

According to the believers of the theory of creation “All creation is

work of the blessed Trinity”.

The geometry of the Christian trinity can be best described as the

equilateral triangle. It has three equal sides, making up a single
surface.

87
In Christian doctrine the God is eternal communion of the divine three-
Father, Son , and the Holy Spirit. We do not know what life is, but it
involves work, movement, spontaneity, freedom, future, and newness.
The Trinity is eternal life, and so it is freedom, perennial giving and
receiving, invention and unconditional giving of self without ceasing.
The Trinity is newness, as is each life, ever changing but without
dispersion. Each Person is future for the others and hence ever new
and surprising. “The child is the father of the man.”

The purpose of practicing religion is to evolve at every moment of one’s

life. There should always be a subliminal thought of God behind
everything one performs daily. Thus with regular domestic chores one
can achieve MOKSHA [ or renunciation].

But as we are enlightened daily by rigorously practicing our religion,

after a considerable period of time one should not ever think that he or
she is God.

Thus when man becomes God it is an impossibility and is no longer

acceptable. Just as in different geometry there are specific postulates
or axioms which does not hold true for the other type of geometry.

As the leader of his ncongregation Warren Jeffs did the same things to
his followers under the umbrella of Fundamentalist Latter-Day Saint
[FLDS] cult as opposed to the Latter-Day Saints [LDS] church in Salt
Lake city. He’d married teenage girls to older men. It is extremely
difficult to determine the correct number of his wives who are beautiful
and younger women. He could demand sex from them whenever he
wanted to, and they’d been taught to obey his every command. One-
88
man rule in any form is thus simply becomes “dictatorship.” On the
aspects of having multiple wives and terrorizing the community I here
establish a congruence between the Muslim religion and the mormons.
Radical muslim Imams are also giving a false promise to their suicide
bombers scores of virgins in heaven for fulfilling their deadly missions.

According to Swami Vivekananda [1986] the structure and practice of

any religion can be classified according to the following schema:

FUNDAMENTALS OF RELIGION

Human mind can best grasp the religions of the world, ancient or
modern, dead or living, through this four fold division:

1. Symbology – The employment of various external aids to preserve

and develop the religious faculty of man.

2. History – The philosophy of each religion as illustrated in the lives

of divine or human teachers acknowledged by each religion. This
includes mythology, for what is mythology to one race or period,
is or was, history to other races or periods. Even in cases of
human teachers, much of their history is taken by mythology by
successive generations.

3. Philosophy –The rationale of the whole scope of each religion.

4. Mysticism –The assertion of something superior to sense

knowledge and reason, which particular persons, or all persons
under certain circumstances, possess.

89
“Religion is the realization of spirit as spirit.” As we mentioned in
Mukhopadhyay [1910] about the numerous religions or beliefs or
practice of the individual as their own choice so is their
experience and realization. Every person is different and so is his
or her religious practice. To simplify things we just consider the
major religions and cults here. Tagore [1915] being the priest of
“BRAHMASAMAJ” [People who believe in the Hindu Lord Brahma
alone] expressed the unity of religions among the apparent
diversity of human kind as follows:

The bass and treble strings of our duty are only bonds so long as
we cannot maintain them steadfastly attuned according to the
law of truth; and we cannot call by the name of freedom the
loosening of them into nothingness of inaction. That is why I
would say that the true striving in the quest of truth, of dharma,
consists not in the neglect of action but in the effort to attune it
closer and closure to the eternal harmony. The text of this
striving should be, Whatever works thou doest, consecrate them
to Brahma [Yadyat karma prakurvita tadbrahmani samarpayet.]
That is to say, the soul is to dedicate itself to Brahma through all
its activities. This dedication is the song of the soul, in this is its
freedom. Joy reigns when all work becomes the path to the
union with Brahma; when the soul ceases to return constantly to
its own desires; when in it our self-offering grows more and
more intense. Then there is completion, then there is freedom,
then, in this world, comes the kingdom of GOD.

Who is there that, sitting in his corner, would deride this grand
self-expression of humanity in action, this incessant self-
90
consecration? Who is there that thinks the union of GOD and
man is to be found in some secluded enjoyment of his own
imaginings, away from the sky-towering temple of the greatness
of humanity, which the whole of mankind, in sunshine and
storm, is toiling to erect through the ages ? Who is there that
thinks this secluded communion is the highest form of religion ?

…We must be able to say,”In my work is my joy, and in that joy

does the joy of my joy abide.” Whom does the Upanishad call
The chief among the knowers of Brahma?
[BRAHMAVIDAMVARISTHAH] He is defined as “He whose joy is
in Brahma, whose play is in Brahma, the active one.”
[ATMAKRIRHA ATMARATIH KRIYAVAN]

Similarly in Sikh religion we see the idea of guru which is

synonymous to the GOD and his divine and creative words
[shabad] came to mankind in a distinctive way through ten
historical figures, each of whom was called a guru and the sacred
scriptures are said to be the Guru Granth Sahib.

The following is a chronological list of the orthodox Sikh Gurus:

Nanak 1469-1539 A.D.

Angad 1504-1552 A.D.

Amar Das 1479-1574 A.D.

Ram Das 1534-1581 A.D.

Arjan 1563-1606 A.D.

Har Govind 1595-1644 A.D.

91
 Har Rai 1630-1661 A.D.

Har Krishan 1656-1664 A.D.

Tegh Bahadur 1621-1675 A.D.

Govind Singh 1666-1708 A.D.

Sikhism is basically the religion founded and promulgated by the

“Gurus”. Guru Nanak taught that there is no Hindu, there is no
Muslim – there are Sikhs. What was mainly a religious idea for
Guru Nanak in fifteenth century has later became the justification
for a distinctive political and military community. After Guru
Nanak, Guru Angad had introduced the physical fitness and Guru
Amar das in later years established the LANGER which is the
communal eating facilities served by a common kitchen. The
notion of communal eating in Hinduism is called
“PONKTIBHOJAN” which translates to eating while sitting in a line
format. But the Brahmins, the highest cast in Hinduism will not sit
next to a non-Brahmin. Contemporary Sikhism still possesses strict
internal divisions of caste. According to the orthodox Sikh
interpretation of what took place at the very end of the
seventeenth century, the living guru transferred his authority in
1699 to the community itself on the one hand, and in 1708 to the
compendium of the sacred scriptures on the other. A shift in the
notion of guruship was taking place. At the “GURUDWARA” [The
door of the Guru, the center of the religion], instead of a living
individual directing men in their spiritual quest and giding them in
worldly affairs, there is a community [The Guru Panth] and a book
[ The Guru Granth ]. Guru Govind Singh named the new
92
community of the pure ones, the “KHALSA” [ This is another name
for the Guru Panth]. The names of Singh [Lion] and Kaur
[Princess], given to the male and female members of the new
community, replacing names which indicated caste, and giving
women a mlore equal standing with men. Boys and girls at the
age of fourteen may be initiated into full membership of the
KHALSA. This is very much similar to baptism for Christians or bar-
mitzva for the Zewish people. This act of “taking AMRIT” consists
of singing certain prayers and preparing a solution of sugar in
water, the priest initiate the candidates by sprinkling the solution
on their heads and eyes. They are also instructed in the basic rules
of KHALSA membership, of loyalty and moral conduct. Their hair
nust be left uncut. They must avoid adultery and tobacco, and
they must reject meat killed in the Muslim way [HALAL MEAT].

The holiest shrine for the Sikhs is the Golden Temple situated at
Amritsar [Pool of nectar] in Punjab. The striking difference in the
architecture of this temple with other such shrines of different
religions like Hindu, Muslim, Christian etc is that the outer
courtyard possesses four entrances, unlike the single door ways of
other religions. This feature claims the universality of truth of
Sikhism that the religion is open to all. For Sikhs this temple is the
court of the Lord [DARBAR SAHIB] and the Hindi and Punjabi
hymns of the early gurus, together with those of other non-Sikh
mystics, were collected together in the GURMUKHI [Mouth of the
Guru] script by Arjan in 1604.

Now the religious congruence will be established between

Sikhism and the Bahai Faith. According to the New Encyclopedia
93
Britannica Bahai Faith is the religion founded in the mid-19th
century by Mirza Husayn Ali, known as Baha Ullah [q.v. Glory of
God]. Baha Ullah was a follower of the Bab [q.v] who, some years
after the Bab’s execution in 1850, claimed leadership of his
community. In 1867 [or 1863] Baha Ullah publicly proclaimed
himself “him whom God should manifest,” a divine spirit foretold
by the Bab. The Bahais believe Baha Ullah to be the latest of a
series of past and future divine manifestations that include Jesus,
Muhammed, Zoroaster, and the Buddha. His teachings are
believed to initiate a new dispensation of our age. The
cornerstone of Bahai belief is the conviction that the Bab and
Baha Ullah are manifestations of God, who in his essence is
unknowable. The third important figure in the Bahai Faith was
“Abd ol-Baha” [ Servant of the Glory; 1844-1921], eldest son of
Baha Ullah and the perfect exemplar and infalliable interpreter of
his teachings. The writings and spoken words of these three
central figures of the Bahai Faith form the sacred literature. Thus
one can see the similarity between Sikhism and the Bahai Faith as
the religions of successive Gurus and following their scriptures.
Moreover the membership in the Bahai community is open to all
who profess faithin Baha Ullah and accept his teachings. There are
no initiation ceremonies, no sacraments, and no clergy. Every
Bahai, however, is under the spiritual obligation to pray daily; to
fast 19 days a year, going without food or drink from sunrise to
sunset; to abstain totally from narcotics, alcohol, or any
substances that affect the mind; to practice monogamy; to obtain
the consent of parents to marriage; and to attend the Nineteen
Day Feast on the first day of each month of the Bahai calendar.
94
The Nineteen Day Feast , originally instituted by the Bab, brings
together the Bahais of a given locality for prayer, the readings of
the scriptures, the discussion of community activities, and for the
enjoyment of one another’s company. The feasts are designed to
ensure universal participation in the affairs of the community and
the cultivation of the spirit of brotherhood and fellowship.
Eventually, Bahais in every locality plan to erect a house of
worship around which will be grouped such institutions as a home
for the aged, an orphanage, a school, and a hospital. In the early
1980s houses of worship existed in Wilmette, Illinois; Frank furt
am Main; Kampala, Uganda; Sydney, Australia; and Panama City.
I’ve personally visited the one in New Delhi, India in 1986. In the
temples there is no preaching; services consist of recitation of the
scriptures of all religions.

The Bahai use a calendar established by the Bab and confirmed by

Baha Ullah, in which the year divided into 19 months of 19 days
each, with the addition of 4 intercalary days [5 in leap years]. The
year begins on the first day of spring, March 21, which is a holy
day. Other holy days on which work is suspended are the days
commemorating the declaration of Baha Ullah mission [ April 21,
April 29, and May 2], the declaration of the mission of the Bab
[ May 23], the birth of Baha Ullah [November 12], the birth of the
Bab [ October 20], the passing of Baha Ullah [ May 29] and the
martyrdom of the Bab [July 9].

The Bahai community is governed by the democratic process of

election of a local spiritual assembly. The electoral process
excludes parties or factions, nominations, and campaigning for
95
office. On the national scale, each year Bahais elect delegates to a
national convention that elects a national spiritual assembly with
jurisdiction over the entire country. All national spiritual
assemblies of the world periodically constitute themselves an
international convention and elect the supreme governing body
known as the Universal House of Justice. This Universal House of
Justice acts according to the scriptures of Baha Ullah and is the
supreme administrative, legislative, and judicial body of the Bahai
commonwealth. The seat of the Universal House of Justice is in
Haifa, Israel, in the immediate vicinity of the shrines of the Bab
and Abd Ol-Baha, and near the shrine of Baha Ullah at Bahji near
‘AKKA’.

Principal among Bahai teachings are the unity of religions and the
unity of mankind. Bahais believe all the founders of the great
religions have been manifestations of God and agents of a
progressive divine plan for the education of the human race.
Despite their apparent differences the great religions, according
to Bahais, teach an identical truth. Baha Ullah’s peculiar function
was to overcome the disunity of religions and establish a universal
faith. Logically speaking this is the foundation of the “UNIFIED
UNIVERSAL RELIGION”[UUR] which fosters brotherhood of all
human being and thus accomplish the abolition of racial, color,
class and religious prejudices.

The essence of Hindu religion is to accept every individual by

recognizing the fact : “As many faiths, so many paths”. The word
Hindu has lost its significance. Originally those who used to reside
on the banks of the Sindhu river were called Hindu and the
96
civilization thus grew was the famous Indus valley civilization at
Mahenzodara and Harappa. Unfortunately there were
Mohammedans, Christians, Jains and other religious people who
live in India as it is a secular country. Following Swami
Vivekananda I would prefer using Vaidikas or Vedantists
meaning followers of Vedanta. The Vedas [ From Vid to know] of
the Hindus is the oldest religious book according to the scholars of
the West. The term Vedanta refers to the Upanishads – a
compendium of verses in Sanskrit composed by the great “RISHIS”
[sages]. Hinduism has no founder and no prophet. It has no
particular ecclesiastical or institutional structure, nor set creed.
It’s a life style for an individual to enlighten himself or herself.
According to Radhakrishnan, a former president of
India:’Hinduism is more a culture than a creed.’ People at times
get confused and ask ‘whether Hinduism is one faith or many ?’
Hinduism embraces a wide diversity of religious belief as follows:

 The vast majority of Hindus believe in God in some form like

the Sun in the sky or the pebble found near the bank of a
river, not necessarily the Ganges but there are some who do
not.

 Some Hindus believe that a respect for all living creatures

demands that they be vegetarians, others will sacrifice
animals at the temple and joyfully share the meat as
“PRASADAM”, meaning the holy food.

97
  Some Hindus worship the lord Shiva, others Vishnu or his
incarnations [Avatars], most notably Lord Krishna or Lord
Rama; others again are worshippers of some goddesses.

 The individual Hindu may reverence one God, a few, or

many, or none at all.

 He or she may also believe in one God and in several Gods as

manifestations of him or her.

 He or she may express the ultimate in personal or

impersonal terms.

Thus Hinduism is ‘a federation of cults and customs, a collage of

ideas, belief and spiritual aspirations’ for a better life in this
lifetime.

The Hindu Gods

The Gods of the Vedic Period

AGNI INDRA VARUNA

The life-force of nature. The sky-god and the God of war The upholder of the cosmic order,
with power to punish and reward.
The God of fire and sacrifice.

The Later Gods

BRAHMA—THE CREATOR VISHNU—THE PRESERV ER MAHESWAR—SHIVA—THE

DESTROYER

The lord of all creatures. He
is above and beyond
worship, and there are
hardly any temples
dedicated to him.
The controller of human fate. The source of both good and evil.
He draws near to mankind in The destroyer of life and also the
ten incarnations [Avatars]. He is one who re-creates new life.
generally kindly.

SARASVATI—THE GODDESS LAKSHMI—THE GODDESS OF KALI/DURGA—THE GODDESS OF

98
OF LEARNING,KNOWLEDGE. WEALTH BANISHING HUMAN DISTRESS

Consort of Brahma. The Wife of Vishnu. The goddess of Consort of Shiva. The ‘Great
goddess of truth, knowledge fortune and beauty. Mother’. She is the symbol of life,
and learning or education. joy and the killer of evil Demons
inside and outside us.

The ten Avatars of Vishnu

1. MATSYA -- The Fish 2. KURMA—The Tortoise 3. VARAHA—The Boar

4. NARA-SIMHA-The 5. VAMANA—The Dwarf 6. PARASHU-RAMA—Rama

man-lion with an Axe

7.RAMA-CHANDRA-The 8. KRISHNA-The lover, a 9. BUDDHA—‘The enlightened

hero of the Ramayana epic warrior and a King. The most one’.The ninth Avatar is Gautama,
popular God. the Buddha founder of Buddhism.

10. KALKI –Yet to come.

Judaism as a religion

Generally speaking it is the outsider who is anxios to name and to

define a religious system. Those following the religion tend not to
see it as a system, an “ism”. Nothing could be more true of the
Jewesh religion. Strikingly, the sacred language of Jews, Hebrew,
contains no word for “Judaism”. Indeed the Hebrew language
does not really have a word for “religion”. These facts are
significant and should make us cautious about defining and
describing Judaism as a religion.

It was in the 1880s that the term “Judaism” became widely used
and accepted because social and political emancipation then
made it necessary for Jews to work out for non-Jews, and to a
lesser extent themselves, what it was distinguished them from
99
adherents of other religions. It was particularly against the
backdrop of Christianity that describing Judaism as a religion, with
specific beliefs and scriptures like Torah, began.

By referring to Jews as “people of the book”, Islamic texts rightly

draw attention to the centrality of holy books in Judaism. These
books are the Bible, the Talmud [rabbinic writings] and the siddur
[prayer book], but it is the first of these on which all expressions
of the Jewish faith depend.

The religion portrayed in the Bible cannot be simply equated with

Judaism. The religion of the Bible represents diverse circles with
divers viewpoints developed over centuries. Neither is there one
circle or viewpoint which can be said to represent modern
Judaism. The essence of Judaism revolve around the triangle of
people, God, and Torah. Inextricably the Jewish people is linked to
the land.

The Talmud tells the story of a prospective convert who comes

Rabbi Hillel, asking to be taught the whole of the Torah [the
compendium of instructions for Jewish teaching] while standing
on one leg. Hillel responds to his request with the words:
100
That which is hateful unto thee do not do unto thy neighbor.This
is the whole of the Torah. The rest is commentary. Go and study.
[Shabbat 31a].

The reply has become the “Golden rule” and is striking in its
emphasis on doing rather than on intellectual believing. There
have been other Talmudic attempts to distil the essence of
Judaism. In the 12th. Century, the great Talmudic scholar and
philosopher Maimonides [ his full nam is Rabbi Moses
BenMaimon and he is sometimes known by the acronym
‘Rambam’] lays down 13 principles of faith which, in his view and
that of many later Jewish teachers, are essential to Judaism.

They can be summarized as:

 God exists
 God is one
 God is not in bodily form
 God is eternal
 Jews must worship him alone
 God has communicated through the prophets
 Moses is the greates of the prophets
 The Torah is of divine origin
 The Torah is eternally valid
 God knows the deeds of human beings
 God punishes the evil and rewards the good
 God will send a Messiah
 God will resurrect the dead.
101
Though much criticized and variously interpreted in different
Jewish traditions, this attempt at a summary of the foundations of
Jewish belief has found its way into Jewish liturgy. In hymnic form,
it is sung in synagogue worship. The hymn is called the yigdal
from its opening word in Hebrew, meaning ‘exalt’. In English, it
begins: ‘The living God we praise, exalt, adore.’

Details of the Judaism can be found in Pilkington [1995] under the

title of the series of books as “Teach Yourself World Faiths”.

We here establish the congruence between the Judaism and

Budhism. Lord Buddha was a Hindu by religion and ultimately
attained the “Nirvan” through mediatation and started teaching
the way to enlightenment.

The Buddha’s Teaching

Karma

The law of karma, or cause and effect operates in both moral and
physical dimensions of human life. Man is in bondage to this cycle
of the results of good and evil actions.

The Four Noble Truths

The Buddha’s experience has been summed up in the following

Four Noble Truths:

 The first is that the universal human experience of

suffering,mental and emotional as well as physical, is the
effect of past Karma.

102
 The second is the perception that the cause of such suffering
is craving or grasping for the wrong things, or for the right
things in the wrong way. The basic human problem is a
misplaced sense of values, assigning to things or persons in
the world a value that they cannot sustain. Nothing in the
material world is worthy of ultimate reverence, or can be
depended upon in any ultimate sense.
 The third is that it is possible for suffering to cease or to
come to an end. Gautama or Lord Buddha, proclaimed that
the universal human dilemma can be solved.
 The fourth is also the Noble Eightfold Path, the way to
solution of human problems.

The Noble Eightfold Path

 Right knowledge
 Right attitude
 Right speech
 Right action
 Right living [or occupation]
 Right effort
 Right mindfulness
 Right composure

The eight items of the path may be further classified under

the following three major disciplines:

 The first two under the discipline of wisdom or

understanding.

103
  The next three under ethical conduct.
 And the last three under mental discipline.

Nirvana
The goal of human life is “Nirvana”. This is not
annihilation of the self or self-destruction through
addiction to drug or alcohol. On the contrary, Nirvana
is a transformed mode of human consciousness, also
an independent reality with a dynamism of its own. It
is, geometrically speaking, the vertex of the cone of
enlightenment. It is radically different from the
material world: the eternal realm, the utterly
dependable, the truly peaceful refuge.

Lord Buddha spoke of “Dharma” as lovely and taught that the

essence of religious life consists in friendship, in intimacy, with
what is beautiful. Friendship with the lovely is the proper
condition for both the beginning and the sustained practice of the
Noble Eightfold path. Just as a flame ignites another flame so is
our human life can enlighten another life and so on and so forth.

104
 Bibliography

1. Akivis, Maks,A and Goldberg, Vladislav,V [1996]: Conformal

differential geometry and its applications, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
2. Alexanderson, Gerald,L [2011]: “About the cover: The cycloid
and Jean Bernoulli”, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 48, #4, P. 525-530.
3. Bao,D, Chern,S and Shen, C.M [1999]: Introduction to Riemann-
Finsler Geometry, Springer, Berlin.
4. Berger, M [1998] Riemannian Geometry During the Second-half
of the 20th. Century, Deutsche Mathematiker Vereinigung.

105
5. Besse, Arthur L [1987]: Einstein Manifolds, Ergebnisse der
Mathematik und ihre Grenzebiete, 3, Folge, Bd 10, Springer,
Berlin.
6. Blaschke, W [1923]: Vorlesungen űber Differentialgeometrie
Vol. 2. (Affine Differential Geometrie), Springer, Berlin.
7. Blaschke, W [1955]: Vorlesungen űber Integralgeometrie, 3rd.
ed. Deutsch. Verlag Wiss. Berlin.
8. Boff, Leonardo [1988, 2000]: Holy Trinity, Perfect Community.
Orbis Books, New York, USA ISBN: 1-57075-332-6.
9. Chen, Bang-yen [1981]: Geometry of Submanifolds and Its
Applications.Science University of Tokyo.
10. Chern, S.S. [1942]: “On integral geometry in Klein Spaces”,
Ann. Of Math. (2), 43, 178-189.
11. Clegg, Jerry, S [1977]: The structure of Plato’s Philosophy.
Associated University Presses, Inc.
12. Crofton, M.W [1868]: “on the theory of local probability”
Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc.London, 158, P. 181-199.
13. Crofton, M.W [1885]: “Probability”, in Encyclopaedia
Britannica, 9th. Ed. Vol. 19, P. 768-788.
14. Dasgupta, Surendranath [1922,1987, 1991]: A History of
Indian Philosophy Vol. I to V, Cambridge, Motilal Banarsidass,
Delhi. India.
15. Descartes, Rene [1987]: Great Books of the Western World,
Vol. 31, Encyclopedia Brittanica, Inc.
16. Dillen, Franki, J.E. and Verstraelen, Leopold, C.A. [2000]:
handbook of Differential Geometry, Vol. 1, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, New York.

106
17. Gelfand, I.M., Graev, M.I., and Vilenkin, ya.N.[1966]:
Generalized Functions, Vol. 5: Integral geometry and
Representation Theory. Academic Press, New York.
18. Geroch,R.,Kronheimer, E.H. and Penrose, R. [1972]: Ideal
point is space-time. Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A347, P. 545-567.
19. Hadwiger,H [1955]: “Eulers Charakteristik und
kombinatorische Geometrie,” J. reine Angew. Math. (Crelle),
194, p. 101-110.
20. Hadwiger, H [1957]: Vorlesungen űber Inhalt, Oberfacheund
isoperimetrie, Springer, Berlin.
21. Hawking, Stephen and Penrose, Roger [2000]: the Nature of
Space and Time, Princeton University Press, Princeton and
Oxford.
22. Heisenberg, Werner [1958, 2007]: Physics and Philosophy:
The revolution in Modern Science, Herper Perennial Modern
Thought, New York.
23. Helgason, S. [1962]: Differential Geometry and Symmetric
Spaces. Academic Press, New York.
24. Hilbert, David [1902]: Project Gutenberg’s The Foundations
of Geometry. This ebook is available online:
www.gutenberg.net.
25. Mascaro, Juan [1965]: The Upanishads, The Penguin Classics,
Penguin Books, Baltimore, USA.
26. McMullen, Curtis T [2010]: the Evolution of Geometric
Structures on 3-Manifolds, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 48, #2,
P.259-274.
27. Midgley, Mary [1985]: Evolution as a Religion. London:
Methuen& Company.
107
28. Miles, R.E [1969]: “Poisson flats in Euclidean space, Pt. I: A
finite number of random uniform flats” Advances in Applied
Probability, 1, 211-237.
29. Miles, R.E [1970]: On the homogeneous planar Poisson point
process, Math. Biosci. 6, P. 85- 127.
30. Miles, R.E. [1971]: “Poisson flats in Euclidean Spaces, Pt. II:
Homogeneous Poisson flats and the complementary theorem”.
Advances in Appl. Prob. 3, P. 1- 43.
31. Mukhopadhyay, S [1992]: Asymptotic Normality – A
Bayesian Approach, Ph.D Thesis, Copy right: La Trobe
University, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA.
32. Mukhopadhyay, S [2010]: Mathematics, Religion and Ethics
– An Epistemological Study. Feasible Solution LLC. ISBN: 978-1-
4507-3558-2. New Jersey, USA.
33. Pilkington, C.M. [1995]: Judaism, Teach Yourself World
Faiths, NTC Publishing Group, Chicago, USA.
34. Rohr, Janelle, Book Editor [1988]: Science and Religion:
Opposing Viewpoints, Greenhaven press, Inc. ISBN: 0-89908-
406-0.
35. Russell, Bertrand [1914]: Mysticism and Logic, Hibbert
Journal. Mysticism and Logic And Other Essays, Barnes & Noble
books, New Jersey, USA.
36. Santalo, Luis,A [1976]: Integral geometry and Gepmetric
Probability, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications,
Vol. 1, Gian-Carlo Rota, Editor. Addison_wesley Publishing
Company.
37. Santalo, Luis, A [1952]: Introduction to integral geometry.
Actualites Sci. Indust. 1198.
108
38. Seifert, H.J [1971]: “ The causal boundary of space-time”,
J.Gen. Rel. and Grav. 1, P. 247-259.
39. Singular, Stephen [2008]: When Men Become Gods:
Mormon Polygamist Warren Jeffs, his cult of fear and the
women who fought back, St Martin’s Press, New York. ISBN:
978-0-312-37248-4.
40. Sister Nivediata [1991]: The master as I saw him.Udbodhan
Office, Calcutta, INDIA.
41. Sri Aurobindo [1914, 1988]: The Synthesis of Yoga. Sri
Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry.
42. Stoka, M.I.[1967]: Geometria Integrala. Ed. Acad. R.S.
Romania.
43. Swami Abhedananda [1953]: Life Beyond Death. Ramkrishna
Vedanta Math, Kolkata,INDIA.
44. Swami Chetanananda [1986]: Vedanata: Voice of Freedom
by swami Vivekananda, Vedanta Society of St. Louis, USA.
45. Swami Vivekananda [1986]: Vedanta: Voice of Freedom.
Edited and with introduction by Swami Chetanananda.
ISBN: 0-916356-62-0; 0-916356-63-9.
46. Tagore, Rabindranath [1915]: Sadhana – The Realisation of
Life. The Macmillan Company.
47. Tagore, Rabindranath [1964]: The Boundless Sky, Vishva
Bharati Press, Calcutta, INDIA.
48. The World’s Religion- A Lion Handbook. ISBN: 086760 985 0
[Australia].
49. Weil, Andrea [1938]: “L’integration dans les groups
topologisques et ses applications,” Actualites Sci. Indust. 869.

109
50. Weil, Andrea [1942]: “review of Chern’s article”, Math.
Reviews 3, P. 253.
51. Willmore, Tom [2000]: Curves , Handbook of Differential
Geometry, Vol. 1 Edited by F.J.E. Dillen and L.C.A. Verstraelen,
P. 997-1023. Elsevier Science B.V.

110