The fact is, like in any mathematical equation, you make a series of statements, and you reduce one to the other, till you get one clear class. As I was telling Michel . . . the only equation that now remains and remains to be solved, is the hindu-hebraic [sic] one, the vertical or the horizontal, I repeat, the zero or the infinity, historylessness or Krishna or Moses.

(260)

This method is found in its early stage in The Serpent and the Rope, where Rama, the historian, spends most of his time in the same kind of discussions. As Savithri says of him, ‘History for him is a vast algebra, and he draws in unknowns from everywhere to explain it.’ (183) Or as Rama says to himself: ‘And thus I tried to formulate myself to myself. I like these equations about myself or others, or about ideas: I feed on them.’ (195)

Similarly, Siva tries to find the equation or formula of ideas:

[I]n mathematics when you have a certain method to the solution of a problem . . . you apply the same method to all sets of problems in the same series. Similarly, when you understand one fundamental principle in indian [sic] philosophy, you apply the same method of interpretation to every other problem in the same system, the same series. And I treat all indian [sic] mythology as a set of equations, and I apply my technique to it, and the results are astounding.

(271)

This is Siva’s ‘new doctrine of mathematics or philosophy’—‘words are numbers and numbers words . . .’ (318)

Siva’s method is therefore a kind of reduction. The Latin root of ‘reduce’ is reducere, ‘to lead back’—re (back) + ducere (to lead)—whose past participle is ductus (a leading, conducting), which gives us the modern word, ‘duct’, hence ‘conduce’ and ‘conduct’. Among the meanings of ‘reduce’, these apply to Rao’s method: ‘to put into a simpler or more concentrated form’; ‘to bring into a certain order; systematize’; and ‘to break up into constituent elements by analysis’ (Webster’s New World Dictionary). Rao rightly calls his method ‘a doctrine’ because we realize, when we read his books, that his method is far from ‘scientific’ or ‘logical’. This logic is all his own kind; everything must have ‘instantaneous meaning’; that is why Swanston, the Cambridge leftist intellectual, tells Rama, ‘There are too many incomprehensible factors in your statement, sir.’ (200)