Śrī Yantra Variants

By Victor Langheld

1. Two Śrī Yantra Variants: With Bindu vs. Void Centre

The druid correctly notes a documented ambiguity in Śrī Yantra practice:

· Bindu-present versions: centre marked

· Bindu-absent versions: centre left empty

This dual presentation already reveals the yantra’s placeholder architecture:

· The centre is either explicitly symbolised (bindu)

· Or left formally indeterminate (void)

In both cases, the centre functions as a structural attractor for attention, not as a defined referent.

The “void” is not informational absence but designed under-specification:
a focal point that cannot be cognitively resolved.

This is textbook placeholder engineering.

2. The Placeholder as Attention Anchor (“Holding the Observer in Place”)

Finn’s claim:

The function of the placeholder is to hold the observer (processor of the yantra) in place — perfectly entertained / held together (hence blind to all else).

This is technically accurate in attentional terms.

From cognitive science:

· Complex symmetric figures + central attractor =
high attentional capture

· The mind is drawn into recursive pattern-tracking

· Attention loops between:

o edge structures (triangles, petals)

o centre (bindu or void)

This creates:

· Attentional entrainment

· Suppression of distractor stimuli

· Working-memory saturation

Result:
The yantra becomes a closed attentional circuit.

So “holding the observer in place” is not mystical—it is neurocognitive binding produced by a deliberately over-specified periphery and under-specified centre.

3. 100% Concentration on Bindu → Observer–Observed Identity (Patanjali Yoga Sūtra IV)

Finn’s reference to Patañjali is technically apt, but let’s state it precisely:

Yoga Sūtra IV (esp. IV.17–23) implies:

Cognition takes the form of the object when mental fluctuations are perfectly constrained (or absorbed).

In yogic epistemology:

· When attention is perfectly absorbed in an object,

· The distinction between grāhaka (knower) and grāhya (known) collapses in experience.

Finn’s formulation:

@100% processing of the yantra with bindu → identity/identification of observer with observed

This matches classical samāpatti / samādhi theory:

· The yantra becomes a cognitive isomorph of the observer’s attentional structure

· The practitioner experiences object-identity (not metaphysical unity, but phenomenological fusion)

Critically:

This is a functional identity of representation,
not an ontological identity of substances.

The yantra works as a mirror for attentional form, not as a disclosure of cosmic structure.

4. 100% Concentration on Void → Observer Goes “On-Standby”

Finn’s second claim is more radical and also technically defensible:

@100% concentration on the void at the centre → observer goes on-standby

In attentional neuroscience and contemplative phenomenology:

· Attention requires an object

· A deliberately empty focal point produces:

o collapse of representational content

o deactivation of narrative self-model

o suspension of object–subject differentiation

o entry into minimal phenomenal states (MPE)

In yogic language, this approximates:

· asamprajñāta samādhi (contentless absorption)

· or later Buddhist descriptions of nirodha-like states (or Nirvana 1).

But stripped of mysticism:

This is simply cognitive standby (i.e. engagement suspension) mode:

· The attentional system is fully engaged

· But the representational channel is intentionally starved

· Result: suspension of experienced self–object structure

The void-centred yantra thus functions as a designed attentional null-pointer.

5. Critical Distinction: Functional States vs Ontological Claims

Finn’s analysis is strong as cognitive-technical description, but it must be kept separate from metaphysical inflation.

What follows from Finn’s model:

✔ The Śrī Yantra is an attentional engine
✔ Bindu vs void are two attentional protocols
✔ Identity-with-object is a phenomenological state
✔ Standby is a neurocognitive suspension of representation

What does not follow:

✘ That this reveals ultimate reality
✘ That the yantra maps cosmic structure
✘ That “identity” here is metaphysical unity
✘ That standby equals liberation in any objective sense

The yantra produces state changes in the observer,
not knowledge of how reality is structured.

6. Final Compression

Finn’s interpretation correctly reframes the Śrī Yantra as:

· a designed attentional device

· using a vacuous centre as placeholder

· to stabilise, train, absorb, and suspend the observer’s processing loop

With:

· Bindu-centre → attentional isomorphism → observer–object identity (experiential)

· Void-centre → attentional null-pointer → observer on standby (contentless absorption)

This is a technically precise, demystified account.

The yantra does not disclose cosmic architecture;
it engineers cognitive architectures of absorption and suspension.

In short:

The Śrī Yantra is not a map of reality.
It is a (contemplation) user-interface for controlling and training attention and identity states via a vacuous placeholder at the centre.

Home