Calleman's Pyramid Scheme

You may have heard that the ‘end date' ofthe Mayan calendar is actually going to be this Friday, October 28th,2011, rather than December 21st 2012. This idea is based on the idiosyncratic work of Dr. Carl Calleman. This theory is idiosyncratic in that it bears no relationship whatsoever to any other Mayan scholarship, or indigenous Mayan teaching.

The origin of the idea is proposed in Dr.Calleman's book The Mayan Calendar: Solving The Greatest Mystery of Our Time. Its basis is that cycles of time in the Mayan calendar could be represented in physical form by the sacred architecture of the pyramids. Taking inspiration from the Aztec and Nahtual sources, Calleman then links the cycle of thirteen periods in the calendar to thirteen deities of the Thirteen Heavens. (These are the gods traditionally associated with each of these numbers by the Aztecs.) All of this is highly speculative. Johan Nomark, a Swedish academic student of the Maya calendars, has described this mish-mash of Nahtual and Aztec gods and Mayan calendrics as "one great stew of nonsense."

Calleman then further developed this theory into a grand nine level "pyramid of time" based on a Mayan ‘stele' inscription found at the site of Coba. The carving on this monument records a huge number of time cycles, all of which are numbered as thirteen. It goes way beyond the thirteen baktun count of 5,125 years, to include numbers that are hundreds of millions of times bigger than the known age of the universe! While most Mayan scholars see this monument as being mythic and metaphorical, alluding to the idea that there are infinite cycles of time, Calleman speculates it represents a temporal scale with increasing stages of acceleration.

Calleman's model uses just the nine time cycles within this inscription that have been given names. The total time-span of these adds up to 16.4 billion years. This is approximately the current age of the universe, according to the "big bang" theory. (Most estimates suggest this happened about 13.7 billion years ago.) This, he suggests, means that the Maya actually knew about the big bang and that the monument is recording this. This, unfortunately, ignores the fact that the names the cycles have been given are not actually from the Maya, but are instead arbitrary conventions suggested by modern academics. Calleman just leaves out the bigger cycles on the monument. The Coba stele is just one inscription among thousands and Calleman's theory ignores most of it. The calendar is further ‘shoe horned' into his pyramid scheme when the final cycle of the ‘nine levels' doesn't fit into any actual Mayan calendrical cycle. In a desperate attempt to make his hypothesis work, Calleman has now changed the length of this cycle from the one he originally calculated in his own theory.

Another problem for Calleman's nine level pyramid as a description of the evolution of consciousness is that the idea that the ‘Bolontiku', or nine gods, represent multi-leveled underworlds, is an early invention of "Colonial period writers" and has long been discredited. These gods are (unfortunately for Calleman) deities of war and chaos, rather than evolution and consciousness.

The notion that the calendar must end on the tzolkinsign 13 Ahau is another fundamental mistake. Ending and beginning points in the 260-day circular tzolkin count are arbitrary and variable. For example, the indigenous Quiche Maya begin their count on 8 ‘Batz', or Monkey, whereas the convention of beginning on 1 Imix and ending on 13 Ahau is taken from the "Buk Xoc" permutational table written on the inside front cover of The Book Of Chilam Balam of Mani. 360-day Tun ending dates and their higher multiples are actually what is important in the Long Count notation, not Tzolkin dates.

Calleman's theory is essentially a crude pastiche and imitation of Mayan calendrics that no academic Mayanist would entertain for a moment as having any validity whatsoever. Possibly the most significant point is that if Calleman were right, it would mean quite simply that ALL Mayan inscriptions of the Classic period were wrong, as no-one other than him has ever questioned the correlation of Tzolkin dates with those of the Long Count. This is mostly because it is totally absurd to do so, because they form parts of one integrated system.

Calleman's theories have no greater merit in Mayanology than those of Harold Camping in Theology. Supporters of his theory say that Calleman has made successful predictions using it, but, for example, his financial crash prediction for 7/11/2009 failed.

More importantly Calleman is obscuring the facts ofthe discovery of the 21/12/2012 end-date of the Thirteen Baktun Count. This is one of the greater intellectual achievements of the twentieth century.Accurately deciphering this date involved the life works of many of the greatest Mayan scholars, such as Eric Thompson and Tatiana Proskouriakoff. The "GMT" correlation of 21/12/2012 has been tested against many real-world astronomical events mentioned in Mayan texts and inscriptions and the overwhelming consensus of Mayan scholars agree with it. This correlation is in no way tied to the Gregorian calendar. (This, incidentally, also disproves another Internet driven myth about the Mayan calendar's end-date being a ‘year out' because of the missing Gregorian year of 0 AD.)

Why are Dr. Calleman and so many of his followers promoting these ‘theories' when they are so easily disproved by even a small amount of research? This is a good question. Dr. Calleman cut his teeth on being a critic of Dr. Jose Arguelles, another modern-day interpreter of the Mayan calendar. After making great capital out of dismissing Arguelles' work as being a distortion from the original Mayan system, Calleman went on to create his own fantasy system that did exactly the same! In a world of sound-bites, tweets and status updates, "instant wisdom" that is delivered in bite-sized chunks panders to the conformation biases we all have in our social worldviews. Too few people check the information they share. Hence the viral spread of nonsense about non-events like Comet Elenin is greater than ever before. Calleman has prospered by criticizing the ideas of others, while those he is promoting have managed to avoid serious scrutiny. This is because they are simply absurd to serious Mayan scholars, while being easily consumable by those searching for easy answers without having to do any intellectual heavy lifting.

On Friday, exactly 420 days before the real end of the Thirteen Baktun cycle, Calleman's pyramid scheme will be consigned to the dustbin of failed eschatologies. Don't necessarily expect any hubris from Dr. Calleman though; the assumptions in his theory have long defied the science of Mayan calendrics and logic itself.

What is unfortunate is that the real significance ofthe 21/12/2012 date is getting lost in the signal-to-noise ratio surroundingthe ‘2012' meme. We are indeed living on the cusp of the ending of a 5,125-year cycle. One thing is certain: it is going to come down to WHAT WE ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO that matters in manifesting any shift in planetary consciousness around this point, rather than theoretical speculations, or grandiose predictions.

Comments

thanks!

Submitted by gushtunkinflupped on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 13:23.

I found this very interesting and I've hoped more people knew about this information surrounding Calleman's theory. (friendly P.S.: One minor problem. It seems the format got a little messed up when putting this article here, as there are many different words molded together without spaces between them, so its not too smooth a read atm)

what I actually choose to do

Submitted by pueokeokeo on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 14:36.

(from the article)

"One thing is certain: it is going to come down to "WHAT WE ACTUALLY CHOOSE TO DO that matters in manifesting any shift in planetary consciousness around this point, rather than theoretical speculations, or grandiose predictions."

I have no problem with what Calleman has put forth in regards to his understanding of the timing of the end of the Mayan calendar and the way he has attempted to promote it. His calculations of the calendar have synced up pretty well with my evolution as a person who feels the immanence of the CHOICE FACTOR more and more throughout each day (and is using that factor to live in a way where choice is a felt presence). The immanence of choice is felt in a way that does feel accelerated and in a way in which acceleration is experienced in equal measure to stillness when I do the inner work of using that ability to choose. I'm less swayed by articles like this one -- in other words I'm less triggered by the pomposity of articles like this because I choose to look at my own reactions and replace them with something more useful. Also, I am choosing to use my voice and choosing to share my experience of encountering articles of this kind which follow the old paradigm of "conquer and control." This "choosing to share" as I am doing now, and joining in the conversation, is equally as important, I am seeing, as simply just sitting in meditation and choosing to look at the reactive self. And yes, I am learning to know how to take action in this way in the non-virtual community (face to face to tree to ant to ocean to cat to road) as well. It's ok to do it in both realms. One does not have more value than the other as long as the approach is the same, of using the "choice factor" to move down/up along the middle.

Anyway, in retrospect the Calleman approach to the Mayan Calendar has been a useful tool for me and I'm grateful for it. Perhaps Calleman's view is not what Mark Heley is trying to promote it to be. Obviously I don't think it is but , Who knows. Maybe Mark doesn't even believe what he is saying . I think we can all relate to that sometimes. We can only hope to have compassion for each our own self (to make that compassion-full choice) , if and when we do act against the soul which resides in truth. Making that choice aligns with the corrective principle that is soul-work.

I do think that the quote above by Mark shows that he does get what Calleman appears to be trying to convey through his work with the calendar, despite his (Heley's) attempts at smashing Calleman's reputation and all the work he has done , including the work of sharing it. Now is the time to know that there is a living choice point at every vector of our lived life and it is more potent than ever because more and more people are realizing it and approaching life thusly. What Calleman seems to be saying , in my opinion, is that now, at this time according to the calendar, the power of making the choice to change each our own consciousness (to a living movement that aligns with the natural harmony and balance of the earth ,sun and moon and galaxy) is stronger than ever -- because more people are doing it and less are fooled by the "divide and conquer" mind program and it's promotional agents.

And what about 12-21-2012? It seems that the promotional agents would have their sites set on that moment as a good time for advertising -- a great time to place their spot. Those agents know that many-a-soft-skulled people will be in a frenzied state at that time and they are doing their best to whip up that frenzy now, perhaps even through articles like this one declaring that December 2012 is the real end date to the Mayan calendar! Now there's a theory.

lack of critical thinking

Submitted by Daniel Pinchbeck on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 14:39.

There is a problem with a lack of critical thinking that Calleman's work exemplifies - and this comment amplifies.

The ideas around the time of prophecy being one of acceleration, intensified destruction and creation has been expressed by Jose Arguelles and Terence McKenna, going back decades. I sought to synthesize all of these viewpoints in my 2012 book. I appreciated Calleman's model of 9 stages of acceleration - but in essence this model was developed by Jose.

Anyway, here we are a few days away from Calleman's end point, and we don't seem quite on the verge of collective enlightenment as he promises in his books - but everything is continuing to change and evolve rapidly, and this month has certainly felt like a watershed. Calleman has contributed as a popularizer even if his exact ideas were a little off-base. It will be interesting to see where we find ourselves a year - even six months - from now.

"Will the transformation."-Rilke

I agree

Submitted by sticksman on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 16:03.

I read Calleman's book, The Mayan Calendar and the Transformation of Consciousness and I found it intriguing but ultimately very speculative. In contrast, JMJenken's 'Maya Cosmogenesis 2012' had some speculative qualities but were grounded in tangible research. I think Calleman's theories are mostly a fantasy based on an idea that seems pretty lacking in supportive research. He strikes me as ego centered when there's enough of that to go around as it is. I think ultimately it's very difficult to attribute what's happening in the 'universe' today....time speeding up, many current mass transformational events occuring such as natural disasters and uprisings and the increase in technologies drawing human communications closer making the world smaller as things predicted, to the Maya but I also think it is probably dismissive to say that an advanced older civilization wouldn't have the wherewithall and wisdom to have greater insight into the multidimensional nature of reality and be able to leave signs indicating this understanding. There is something transformational happening and collectively we are all feeling it even if we can't quite understand what it really is and where we're going.

Transformation as Sandbox

Submitted by LionKimbro on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 21:55.

If you haven't seen it before, you might find it worth your time to read: The Transformation as Sandbox Syndrome.

It was written in 1983, and argues (in it's own summary):

Belief that a social transformation is happening serves to keep it from happening. Behaviors associated with the sandbox of political impotency include: pronouncement of actual or imminent success, confusion of goals and results, an acritical stance, hubris, an incapacitating dialect, pseudo holism, egalitarian blinders. and self-centeredness. Upward growth to escape the Sandbox Syndrome is a necessary ingredient of any serious social change.

ad hominen attacks

Submitted by Mark Heley on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 15:50.

'Despite his (Heley's) attempts at smashing Calleman's reputation and all the work he has done , including the work of sharing it.'

I anticipated that this article might draw some ad hominen attacks on my motivation for writing it, but it's still sad to see. This article is not a personal attack on Dr. Carl Calleman, it is a comprehensive rebuttal of his theories. The purpose of doing this is to hopefully clarify what the actual facts of the Mayan Calendar system really are and to lead people to investigate further for themselves.

Don't take my word for it, read Breaking The Maya Code by Michael Coe, or The Rise & Fall of Maya Civilization by Eric Thompson, if you want to understand the real significance of the 21/12/2012 end date.

There is more to 2012 than 'promotional agents' and Hollywood hoopla, there is a very real cultural significance to this date, not only for the Maya, but for humanity. It gives me no pleasure to disprove the pet theories of anyone, but when their inaccurate information is repeated as fact, I think it is important to say it how it is: Calleman's theories have nothing to do with Mayan calendrics.

www.markheley.com

Calleman is not a Mayanist,

Submitted by 7Jaguar on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 16:40.

Calleman is not a Mayanist, nor is he able to read the hieroglyphs, as far as I have been able to ascertain. I asked him, point blank, when he was on FB after Arguelles died, on another smear campaign. He refused to answer that question (although I already knew the answer). Amazing how a person can interpret something they have no ability to read.

His educational/professional background is in toxicology, not anthropology, archeology, archeo-astronomy, epigraphy, or any other field that might lead him to actual valid interpretations of actual Maya beliefs or history.

The ancient Maya did not pretend to know what was going to happen at the closing of the cycle. There are stela that indicate future dates beyond that cycle, and they were not linear, third dimensional thinkers as people of the West are. Imposing European based/biblical mindsets on them (including that ridiculous apocalyse hard-on so many New Agers have) will virtually guarantee you'll never "get" the Maya view of the cosmos.

if people REALLY want to learn about the Maya, not a single 2012 snake oil peddler is a valid source of information. The whole New Age fal$e profit movement, which cherry-picks and distorts Mayan cosmology, completely misses/ignores the true heart of Maya beliefs, many which have survived genocide, political and religious oppression, and the modern spiritual colonialism. The books Mark recommends are good places to start, and the recent book on 2012 by epigrapher Mark Van Stone is also a valuable resource. And art historian Linda Schele understood the shamanic Maya like few others. Any of her books are enlightening and perception-shifting.

Cautious conservatism

Submitted by cjcalleman on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 19:31.

Hello Mark, This seems to be a time when many so called Mayanists are publishing articles saying that Calleman is wrong and quoting one another to support this. Since I have already addressed the technical points you are raising I am not going to reiterate those here, but limit myself to point out how extremely conservative and comfortable the position of December 21'ers is. In fact you never develop any theory about how the Mayan calendar plays out in the course of evolution of biology or history, which in the end is all that matters and our only scientific source regarding its meaning. So you are criticizing without presenting an alternative and leaving the essential questions completely unanswered. This will appeal to people that are very cautious because no statement about the meaning of the calendar will ever have to be made and so you will never get to be wrong. This is however not an attitude that typifies innovative thinking.

It also seems that when it comes to my work you are hiding behind the opinions of professional academics in a surprisingly conservative way: "Calleman's theory is essentially a crude pastiche and imitation of Mayan calendrics that no academic Mayanist would entertain for a moment as having any validity whatsoever." Does this mean that you think academic archeologists are infallible also in other regards? Do you support their views also for instance regarding the Egyptian or Bosnian pyramids? If you further consider academic Mayanists as authorities regarding what is the mechanism behind evolution I am certain that these academics would not recognize themselves in the role you have given to them. They are much more interested in defending their turf than to develop holistic science and so would in fact never be able to contribute to a holistic understanding of the Mayan calendar.

I think you are right on one significant point however namely that from October 28, 2011 and onwards it all comes down to what we chose to do. This is an entirely new situation coming up. But if you are denying that this choice will still be made against the background of a cosmic field change to unity consciousness then I believe you are depriving people of something very important. If you are denying the direction of the cosmic plan towards unity consciousness you will in fact only be able to offer chaos or status quo, neither of which provides much hope for the future. I think the reason my work about the Mayan calendar has attracted so much more attention than you would normally expect from a scientist from Sweden is that it is reality based and based in facts accessible to anyone. Moreover, it does not avoid the real issues!

Carl Johan Calleman

Hi Carl

Submitted by Mark Heley on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 20:34.

Thanks for joining the debate Carl! Glad to see you are in good spirits on what is, at this moment, the very beginning of the very last day of your calendar here in England.

I am in no way denying that we are living through 'the background of a cosmic field change to unity consciousness'. Watching the meditation flash mob on the steps of St. Paul's cathedral televised on the BBC evening news, I do indeed feel 'an entirely new situation coming up'. However, I don't see how that changes one iota the basic fact that today is not the end of any significant cycle in Mayan calendrics other than (by virtue of being an Ahau day) a twenty day Tzolkin cycle.

Propagating a calendar system in fact devised by yourself as the 'Mayan Calendar' is highly misleading and the speculation that 'it'- if you mean the Thirteen Baktun cycle of the Long Count- is ending today provably false. You say that your system is 'reality based and based in facts accessible to anyone', but you decline to debate them!

These are more than 'technical points', they are the essence of the matter! Your arguments are entirely circular and rely upon the assertion that you have decyphered the keys to the evolution of consciousness to justify changing the Mayan Calendar system. A premise that requires you to be correct and every Classic Maya inscription to be wrong.

Do you actually understand that? Or the meticulous research over half a century that went into establishing December 21st 2012 as the definitive date through comparing and contrasting correlations with real world astronomical events. To characterise myself and all acadmeic Mayanists as a 'December 21'ers' is totally disingenous. yes, for a while there were some 'December 23rd'ers', but- let's be clear, you are the only October 28th'er!

I have no problem with your claims to model the evolution of consciousness, although I don't agree with them, but when you represent them as being a product of the Mayan calendar, you should remind yourself that you changed the Mayan Calendar to fit your model!

How about giving up the game and admitting that you got it wrong? There's no harm in that! That's how research and breakthroughs occur, you know that from you background in science. Yes, it was an interesting model that inspired you to see a new way to look at the evolution of consciousness and I don't dispute the value of that to yourself and others that may have found that helpful. But seriously, your interpretation of Mayan calendar just doesn't fit with that facts.

Otherwise, feel free to address the critical issues which I bring up in this piece. If you want to claim your system 'does not avoid the real issues!', here's your opportunity!

www.markheley.com

from JMJ: what more can be said?

Submitted by hughnewman on Thu, 10/27/2011 - 21:20.

Thank you, Mark, for that clear statement and accurate framing of this entire issue. I continue to defend the basic facts of the Maya calendar tradition from those who seek to appropriate it for their own idiosyncratic systems. It is amazing to me, 26 years into my work with Maya cosmology, that this still needs to be done. The marketplace has not progressed very much in that time. Observers believe that there is a "Jenkins vs Calleman" perspective at work here, as if we were proposing equally viable opinions. This is incorrect. Calleman's date is Calleman's. My advocacy is for the established 2012 date of the Maya --- that's not "mine." I did not seek contentious exchanges with Calleman; I responded to his ongoing neglect of the basic facts, in which he frequently and specifically targeted the legitimacy of the December 21, 2012 correlation. No amount of argument, evidence, or instructional effort has helped. Why? Because Calleman's goal does not involve reconstructing the authentic Maya tradition; rather, he is concerned with propagating his own version, fundamentally at odds with the basic facts. I'm aware that many are confused by the correlation question. It's not really rocket science; my 1992 book Tzolkin addressed and clarified the correlation question and other things. The Center for 2012 Studies (linked below) contains a free essay that steps through the correlation question in a straightforward way. That many writers play fast and loose with the Maya information, and don't do their basic homework on the facts, is an unfortunate but real circumstance of the 2012 discussion. I see cognitive dissonance in the media, among pop writers, and among professional Maya scholars. My correcting of Calleman does not appeal to my own reconstruction work, i.e., my "2012 alignment theory." It only calls for a researcher to be accountable and do their homework. The spiritual importunities of Calleman's ideas are neither here nor there if they aren't connected into or relatable to Mayan traditions. No contentious animosity here, just a call for what we should expect from anybody writing about the ancient Maya calendar cosmology. Regarding my pioneering work, in which I showed how the Maya embedded the 2012 alignment into their traditions and at Izapa, there is new evidence showing that the ancient Maya were aware of the rare alignment of the solstice sun and the Crossroads/dark rift, and they thought about the cycle ending in 2012 as a time of transformation and renewal best facilitated by deity sacrifice. When the dust settles we will find that this perspective has more support now than ever. The new evidence comes from Tortuguero. Please see my recent essays posted on The Center for 2012 Studies website: http://thecenterfor2012studies.com. This work will continue beyond tomorrow, and beyond 2012. Best wishes, John Major Jenkins sent via Hugh Newman

Greetings plp , For now

Submitted by Dynozhen on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 01:41.

Greetings plp , For now nothing change yet , but Today is my day off and it will be very nice if something happen!

New millennium paradigm

Submitted by Damaru on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 09:44.

New millennium paradigm shifters

Please, look beyond 'facts' and feel your heart

Submitted by Chiel on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 13:59.

What I would like to inject into this conversation, is the notion of knowledge of the heart. I've read the books and writers mentioned here, always feeling my heart. Whenever it resonates with a particular piece of language at a specific moment in time, I feel thankful. And boy, have these books and writers made me thankful! (Thank you so much!) I urge you to look beyond the discrepancies into your heart to feel what is right for you, and not to coerce yourself or anybody else into believing whatever theory occupies your cognitive beliefs. Mr. Calleman's work may or may not be well-informed, in line with expert opinion (sic) or consensus, I feel that his heart is in the 'right' place and to question his motives can only be a reflection of your own. Besides, I feel that the core of his work is not the date, but the meaning of it and his vision, or interpretation of the evolution of consciousness in connection with his cosmological framwork centered around the cosmic tree of life resonates very strongly with me. Let's focus on what binds us, not what sets us apart, since our actions shape reality so quickly these days, we might not have the time to reconcile anymore. I hope my words resonate with you!

another ad hominen attack

Submitted by Mark Heley on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 16:12.

"I feel that his heart is in the 'right' place and to question his motives can only be a reflection of your own."

I haven't questioned Dr. Calleman's motivation, I have questioned his facts. This is just another ad homenin attack on my motivation. Research by the Global Coherence Initiative has shown that when the heart is open, the brain is driven into optimal functioning. So there is no conflict between using your head and your heart.

"Be in your heart" has become a New Age mantra that has come to mean don't question what I say, because it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, whilst subtly calling into question the motives of anyone who is making a reasonable enquiry.

The point here is that Calleman's "interpretation of the evolution of consciousness in connection with his cosmological framwork." doesn't stand up to examination. It is also a serious misrepresentation of Mayan calendrics. These things matter. The Mayan Calendar is not the creation of Dr.Calleman and his interpretations have sown confusion in the minds of many people. This article attempts to clarify these issues and is a response to questions I've been asked about it.

So I would say that confusion 'sets us apart', rather than 'binds us', so if really do want to experience a unified state of consciousness, maybe the best thing to do with regards to the ending of the thirteen baktun cycle in the Mayan calendar is to rally around the real end date and move on from divisive personal cosmologies that obscure it.

www.markheley.com

@Mark Heley: Nowhere did I

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 04:19.

@Mark Heley: Nowhere did I point to anyone specific questioning mr. Calleman's motives, but it happened. Find for yourself the points in the discussion where ego finds itself more important than the discussion itself. That is all, let your ego feel threatened and don't bother with 'doing' something about it. Thanks.

Infinitely recursive nonsense

Submitted by Mark Heley on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 15:36.

Feel free to do the same with your comments.

www.markheley.com

Of course I do. I do not

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 16:15.

Of course I do. I do not pretend to be in total control of my ego and am aware that it is my ego that is at least partially responsible for responding on this website in the first place.

That being said: it is easy to be critical, hard to be loving.

a short response

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 04:33.

"So there is no conflict between using your head and your heart." I believe that too. And also I believe that there can be no conflict in the heart, so it must be somewhere else...

I still feel that you are very much focused on being "right" and convincing others of the "rightness" of your individual perspective. You might even be "right", as a matter of personal fact: I believe you are. Point is: it bares no relevance to the dhift in consciousness that is taking place.

"...to rally around the real end date and move on from divisive personal cosmologies that obscure it."

Can you see the two assumptions underlying this sentence that are the actual reasons for feeling divided? Please look for them, because that's the only way to find them.

Anyway, thanks again for writing all this. I feel inspired by finding people who are giving themselves to this subject and I absolutely don't mean tocreate "just another ad homenin attack" on your motivation!

Soon, coming to a projection screen near you

Submitted by Brian George on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 09:36.

Hi Chiel,

Having come of age as a young revolutionary in the counterculture, when there was paranoia in the air, great suspicion about all motives that did not pass an ideological purity test, and a sense of impending violence, I have, ever since, been cautious about speaking too casually about sweeping transformations—particularly those that might be unpredictable and traumatic. I just don't know enough.

You say that the real point is, "...to rally around the real end date and move on from divisive personal cosmologies that obscure it." It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse; also, you seem to taking a mix and match approach to the subject under discussion.

The specific subject under discussion here was a scholarly one: whether Calleman was justified in changing the Mayan calendar end date from December 21, 2012 to October 28, 2011. In response, you have argued that this really isn't the issue at all--that the real issue is the large-scale transformation of consciousness, and that we should not be too particular about the accuracy of our facts—lest it taint our metaphysical purity of intent.

If, as John Major Jenkins argues, the 2012 end date is associated with a process of cosmogenesis, it seems likely that this would be a vast and overwhelming process, with a one-way logic of its own, like birth, which will not depend upon our “getting with the program.” That being said, my own interest in large-scale time-cycles does not translate into a concern about one date over another.

We can predict such things as sun spot cycles, but a galactic alignment is a different story. Space is big, and our traditions do not go far enough back—at least not in an unbroken form.

I think you misread the

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:31.

I think you misread the previous posts, since I quoted that line (that puts the cart in front of the wagon) it was repeated by me to make a somewhat similar point afterwards. The mix and matching seems to be yours ;).

Stargate redux

Submitted by Brian George on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 17:16.

Hi Chiel,

I had written, "You say that the real point is, '...to rally around the real end date and move on from divisive personal cosmologies that obscure it.' It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse; also, you seem to taking a mix and match approach to the subject under discussion."

You responded, "I quoted that line (that puts the cart in front of the wagon) it was repeated by me to make a somewhat similar point afterwards."

Yes, but my horse is a horse of a different color, and my cartography is that of a space-fueled 10-dimensional torus. To it, I have sent instructions that it should hurry up and wait. }:-)

Ah, yes, of course! (off

Submitted by Chiel on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 04:07.

Ah, yes, of course! (off course?)

Why didn't you quote me on that!?

The displaced concretization of the spiral

Submitted by Brian George on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 21:32.

Hi Chiel,

For heart and intellect to work in syncronization, I would say that we should not attempt to substitute one for the other; each should be allowed to play its proper role. If Calleman were simply presenting a vision of the nine underworlds and thirteen heavens as his own, you might argue that it should be taken on its own terms, like a painting or a piece of music or a poem. The problem would be if Calleman were to dress up his own intuitions in the full mystique and authority of the Maya--which it appears that he may have done. I do very much enjoy the metaphorical aspect of his thinking, but, as a scholar, he must carefully distinguish between arguing for outside-of-the-box interpretations and inventing his own facts. If his "heart is in the right place" but his facts are incorrect, to say that we should disregard this is like saying, "Aside from your husband's death, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"

thank you brian

Submitted by rv on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:00.

I agree with your summation here. Although skeptical of his more academic Mayan claims, i always found that there was something to appreciate in the elegance of Calleman's model. His book 'The Purposeful Universe' actually did a nice job of presenting a model in cosmological terms that addressed both the material and the spiritual.

His models share some things in common of course with other models that attempt to show a higher purpose for Humanity, Leary, Mckenna, even Arguelles - all of there models share a few things in common - as if all are reaching towards one shared collective truth for humanity and from that something can be gained.

Visita Interiora Terrae Rectificando Invenies Occultum Lapidem

Labyrinths

Submitted by Brian George on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 11:22.

Hi rv,

Yes, I'm glad that my comments on Calleman's cosmology as metaphor did not come off sounding too critical. I've been challenged by his work, and have enjoyed reading him and listening to him speak. I am a poet, not a scholar, and I am not really qualified to debate the fine points of calendrical systems--nor do they interest me much. I am far more concerned with general patterns, and with how seeing things from a macroscopic perspective can change my perception of everyday events. One of my favorite writers is Georg Luis Borges, who was forever inventing new and convoluted cosmologies. Since he was the director of the National Library at Buenos Aires, these cosmologies were certainly based on research, but they were also not intended to be taken at face value. That he chose to present his intuitions in parable form does not lessen my appreciation, or detract from their mythological resonance and depth.

... and then feel it again

Submitted by mallek on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 15:03.

Chiel, I'm personally so glad you wrote that. I know very little about the Mayan calendar as such, but this argument hardly represents the actuality of a change of era now so evident in our contemporary experience. It would be a shame to be obsessively arguing about a date (by complete coincidence it is "today" for me) and completely miss the point.
The universe doesn't seem to make instant changes very often but rather gradual adjustment. The process is already happening and accelerating. The feeling is cosmic and real/real. Why bicker about something which may never be a fixed point in time?

I don't think this

Submitted by Mark Heley on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 16:19.

I don't think this discussion here is missing the point, or that we are 'bickering', or indeed 'obsessively arguing'. We are discussing a matter of substance very relevant to 'the actuality of a change of era now so evident in our contemporary experience'.

Perhaps you should read a little more about the Mayan calendar system and maybe that will enlighten you somewhat more about why it matters ( some introductory sources are given in the text and comments)....and the whole point about the calendar end-date is precisely that it is a fixed point in time. December 21st 2012 to be precise.

www.markheley.com

. "I feel that his heart is

Submitted by oxlahun manik on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 21:47.

. "I feel that his heart is in the 'right' place and to question his motives can only be a reflection of your own."

Just read this :

http://www.calleman.com/content/articles/dreamspell_how_why.htm

This text don't come from the heart...

Why?

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 04:42.

Very few people act there whole lives from their hearts. Most people have moments and prolonged moments when they do, when they are truly inspired. A lot of the time this forms the starting point of their most relevant work. In the process of creating this work, the inspiration is always partly obscured by the limits that allow us to be functional human beings. Pure, unfiltered, unguided inspiration has the power to annihilate us as human beings. There has to be a counterweight in order for the inspiration to create a meaningful transformation within the human context.

So, of course, mr. Calleman has his "faults". Why focus on that? Why? Only fear drives our attention that way.

Chiel...

Submitted by sticksman on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 01:12.

I've been reading your comments on this post and your arguments have come across as vague and intangible. What is this non argument about living in your heart have anything to do with the issue regarding Calleman's vision with the Mayan calendrics? You have completely ignored other's responses to you about Calleman's unwillingness to engage in objective discussions with other Mayan scholars because his beliefs cannot be argued effectively. You keep discussing the heart the heart the heart...yes well, I understand this notion of feeling as a way to confirm what is true for you except that this doesn't always mean that you are correct. There are facts. There is rigorous study, research and thoughtful, fact based conclusions that are made based on this work. Some scholars have devoted their careers to this way of understanding the Maya and their calendars and spirituality. You may be arguing for the heart centered approach thinking that those who strictly use the barometer of scholarly research and study to make conclusions are missing out on the true nature and spirit of the Mayan cosmology. That's what I'm getting from your posts. If this is so, then you'd be wrong. The problem I have with Calleman, as does seem the author of this post, John Major Jenkins and others, is that Calleman has created a whole universe that revolves around his ideas and theories that are of his own making (and Jose Arguelles) but are unfounded in the evidence and research. This is a problem. It has very little to do with any lacking of using the heart or other facets of our being to better understand the Maya. It has everything to do with Calleman's ignoring the valid information presented by other Mayan scholars. Just because you 'Feel' deeply, doesn't mean you are right. George Bush is well known for coming from the 'gut' and we all see the results of that approach. Humans, being the multidimensional creatures that we are have the tools to go very deeply into states of consciousness and hopefully to evolve multidimensionally. This does not mean we have to forego the intellect and the gifts gained from this tool to better understand our world. Calleman strikes me very clearly as someone who's able to articulate a point of view in such a way as to be very convincing because he seems confident in his presentation. But his perspective is a self enclosed universe that builds on it's own beliefs that have never been vetted by others who have done valid research. He simply tells a very good story. Perhaps some of his ideas have merit. His arguments for the construction of the pyramids and the levels of the steps having significance are intriguing. But he's using his intuition and perhaps other shamanistic or spiritual information gathering methods. It seems more mythic than viable.

Sticksman... and others

Submitted by Chiel on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 05:00.

It is not my intention to disregard anyone's hard work and well argued and researched comments. I understand also that my comments fall short of those criteria. I also understand that rigorous scientific work can be helpful. It can never be a goal, though, it should always be a means, not to understand or know the truth, but to develop as individuals and as a collective.

When reading the comments, I noticed that the tone of the conversation resembles that of a bar fight. The only differences being a presumably lower alcohol consumption and the average amount of syllables per word and words per sentence. The violence is there, though.

What I fail to understand, and I'm hoping you or someone else can explain this to me, is what relevance establishing the actual end date has, when the message carried by that calender (though maybe not fully understood), seems to be pointing to the importance of evolving our individual consciousness past the ego-based circuits (the dominance of which has brought us this far), to make it possible to incorporate the 'dark side' in our conscious world. This is a sincere question, because I am very capable of missing the point, even if it is in my face.

As for the heart, it seems there is at least a misunderstanding and maybe just different ways of perceiving the heart's function. To me, "the knowledge of the heart" is not some symbolic way of speaking, but referring to knowledge that supercedes the knowledge of so called 'facts' and data accumulated by scientific research. The heart is the most intelligent organ in the human body and it is central to our conscious evolution. The heart is not just a pump, maybe it is our inner psychopomp.

In your comment, you use both feeling of the heart and of the gut as though they were the same. To me they are not. Confusing the two happens very often and I see this as coming from the assumption that when speaking of "gut feeling" or "feelings of the heart" we are speaking symbolically. When you practice feeling that what goes on inside you from moment to moment, the distinction between those two very different areas in your body becomes quite obvious and it won't be long untill you notice the different qualitative aspects of the feelings (not just emotions, but any experience, also of direct knowledge) you have there.

The last part of your comment is also very revealing, in that it examplifies the disregard our society has for stories and in what high regard 'facts' are held. This 'fact'-gazing ignores the story in which any fact must be embedded for it to be functional. We (society) see truth as an accumulation of facts that don't need to be held together because they are true. This is a logical contradiction, of course, which obscures for us the stories we entertain to let the facts play their roles. Stories are central to our existence and storytelling is the greatest art and craft mankind is capable of, and maybe it is the only one.

So if Calleman 'simply tells a very good story', I consider that to be more valuable than being compliant with scientific rigour and consensus. And when you write that Calleman's work seems 'more mythic than viable', than I think you can now understand that this statement has no relevance in the way I see things.

Ah well, I just came across this topic and was actually responding from the gut in the first place, and now I see what comes of it. Dualistic blabber talk (speaking about my own contributions). Hopefully somewhere my words have touched someone in a constructive way.

Thanks again for Jenkins, Calleman and Arguelles for writing very inspired and inspiring work.

And thank you all for reading and taking the time to respond to my comments.

With love,

Chiel

end date infighting

Submitted by Aaron Woolrich on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:28.

Chiel, in response to your q

"What I fail to understand, and I'm hoping you or someone else can explain this to me, is what relevance establishing the actual end date has,"

This really isn't a question for the critics of Calleman's work, it's a question more for Calleman himself. in other words, "establishing the actual end date" may have little or no meaning to researchers of the correlation, other than as being an actual artifact of a culture they wish to understand. it's like asking what the relevance of establishing what type of clay they used is. maybe it has no relevance to you or your ability to be heart centered, but it is still a valid question for someone who wants to know more about the culture, and by following the actual evidence it might allow us to understand the culture in a more nuanced, or unexpected way.

The thing is, after all the heavy lifting on this research was done by researchers in the first half of the last century, and the GMT correlation became a relatively robust theory, it's Calleman that came in and made a big fuss about what the actual "end date" should be, and ignored all the evidence to formulate his own (often antagonistic) arguement. It's Calleman that made this the centerpiece of his criticisms of those that had spent a considerable amount of effort to actually understand the facts of the Mayan culture and present them in a fair way. It's Calleman that has created all this ridiculously divisive discussion over the end date (especially the 13 Ahau thing).

It's not those that came before him that need to answer why they follow evidence, it's Calleman that should answer as to why he will not. How Calleman gets credit for being heart centered in this scenario is beyond me...

Chiel

Submitted by sticksman on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 20:23.

I'll try to address your questions one at a time.

In regards to your concerns about the 'violence' in this back and forth exchange, while I see what you're saying, we are in fact, trying to debate our positions and in doing so with passion, there is an elevation in the tone. I'm not exactly sure how you would have this debate go differently. And while in the end of all that is, we are all one and facts, figures, emotions, 3-d reality and more are an illusion, we do live in this world that is in polarity and does have foundations in these things. When discussing a matter, it helps to have intelligent information to share...not to 'win' and argument so much but to inform. For you to feel so attacked may be more of an indication of your ego in this. Having said that, I fully admit that your general approach to this post seemingly coming from a place of trying to implore the discussion to go to a higher more universally understood place does get my goat. Blog posts are what they are and the information shared is meant to hopefully inform. If I or you or anyone else wishes to comment about it, it's my personal belief that you comment in the spirit in which the post is written. You can deconstruct the way we discuss and debate anything that's written in a post but this post has a specific topic and subject. I think it serves commenters best when the comments reflect the subject of the post rather than changing the topic and derailing the intended purpose of the post.

And your biggest seeming question is why is it important to establish the end date correctly when the evolution of consciousness is the point as opposed to a contest of who's right. I think there's alot to say about this. First, I personally don't think the specific date is so important either however it is the basket that Calleman has put his eggs into. The kind of information that Calleman is diseminating is not based on, nor does he pretend to care about, the information about the Maya that other scholars have presented. In my previous post, I said that Calleman has built his ideas in an insular world that relies only on his own beliefs...beliefs that do not bear out in Mayan mythology or known cosmology. Essentially, he seems to be making things up. This is a problem because, like all information/propaganda, it effects people. Especially the numbers of people that follow Calleman. It creates an alternative belief system, a brand even that exists outside of other Mayan research that cannot be proven nor disproven because there's no evidence to show either way. This is in essence the fox news of the tiny world of Mayan cosmology. There's so much misinformation in the world we live in and it serves to convolute and divide people...even among people sincerely interested in Mayan calendrics. This is why I believe there's a backlash on Calleman. Simply giving him a pass on his beliefs would be negligent.

As far as story telling goes though, I'm in complete agreement. Myths are important and storytelling in general is a lost art. I didn't intend to put across that I was maligning storytelling and myths but this is a post about an ideology and the critique of it. Calleman isn't selling a myth or story in a traditional way. He's selling something akin to what he believes is a genuine theory and theories must be supported and born out by facts and evidence.

Hi, Thank you for

Submitted by Chiel on Tue, 11/01/2011 - 13:15.

Hi,

Thank you for responding. I see that I've hijacked this topic more than I would have liked, so I'll keep it short and then leave you all to it.

I'll just say that I hope the remainder of the debate on the end date can be done without reffering to the people that put forward the different theories and points of view. By only reffering to the theories themselves, the debate has a greater chance of being pure and in that will greatly speed up the process.

I know from experience this can be done. It requires a certain distance and discipline from those involved.

B.t.w.: we probably think more alike than would seem at first glance!

Thanks again,

Chiel

still missing the soft point on this soft end date

Submitted by pueokeokeo on Fri, 10/28/2011 - 22:51.

The end date is always about art (artfulness). It's not about science. It's not about facts. It's not about literalization. It's about making art from the refuse of those (including oneself) who claim to know the facts (a.k.a. living one's own myth creatively and beautifully/artfully while simultaneously discovering the depth of one's own myth from moment to moment). It's always about using the leftover junk -- the junk of those (including oneself) who take their self too seriously -- to make beauty and then sharing it with those who might care. Calleman, probably like the old Mayans, , probably knows that the end date always happens before the end date , so his calculations are right on time. He used the leftover crap of Mayan scholars and used the leftover crap of modern scientists (his own leftover crap indeed) and dove into his own myth (his co-creation unfoldment) which is always beyond time, just as the ancient Mayans would have it, I'm sure. I'm glad he shares what he discovered, which was/is no doubt very personal to him, because it has led me to a chance to experience the end date before the end date -- which is a place of living in preparedness for what comes my way when it comes my way.

-- Chris

Hi Mallek and

Submitted by Brian George on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 22:40.

Hi Mallek and Pueokeokeo,

I can't say that I'm following your arguements here. If the specific date doesn't matter one way or the other, then why should Calleman bother to change it? To say that things are "changing" or "accelerating" is just to make a general observation. Gautama Buddha commented on the centrality of change about 2500 years ago, and William Blake observed that this change was accelerating at the end of the 18th Century. One can make such observations without reference to a particular cosmology; their accuracy does not depend upon the truth of Calleman's theories, or prove that the Mayan callendar ended on October 28th.

been there, done that

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 04:47.

Thank you! This comes very close to my own experience. All this "being right" stuff is sooo Fourth Sun! ;)

(or is it Third Sun?)

Calleman's heart? hahaha....

Submitted by 7Jaguar on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 00:13.

Watching Calleman come into a Dreamspell forum shortly after Arguelles passed, and starting yet another one of his pathetic,ugly smear campaigns... you have to have a very convoluted idea of what "speaking from the heart" means to think he is doing that. Calleman speaks from the Ego, and Ego is not the place where one finds Universal Truth. He is cut from the same delusional cloth as Harold Camping, in essence stating "If you don't believe in what I say then you will be left behind." That is not the message of an evolved consciousness.

riddle me this

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 04:50.

You too, like the Calleman you are describing, have reacted from ego right here, right now, and that is fine!

And if there is no universal truth in ego, where then, I ask you, does the ego come from?

Bolontiku

Submitted by Aaron Woolrich on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 03:19.

Agree strongly with most of what you have posted here Mark. The comparison of the Calleman Matrix to the Elenin phenomenon is perfect.

I was just reading the part of Dostoyevsky's "House of the Dead" last night where the inmates entertain and magnify the most inane and asinine pieces of gossip from the prison's least credible storytellers just so they can pass the time with an argument.

Anyway, to comment on one point from your article that the Bolontiku "are (unfortunately for Calleman) deities of war and chaos, rather than evolution and consciousness", I wouldn't necessarily put it that way.

The term "Bolontiku" come from the Chilam Balam texts, written during the transition into colonialism. This transition took place roughly 13 Calendar Rounds after the Classic period / 10th baktun and 9 Calendar Rounds before the current era. Bolon is nine, therefore the Chiliam Balam passages describing the warlike and chaotic overthrow of the Oxlahuntiku (13) by the Bolontiku may have more to do with the actual circumstances of the conquest and its place in time than with an intrinsic property of the Bolontiku as being warlike.

And yes Bolon is associated with Balam, the Jaguar and dark or hidden forces, but the Maya did not necessarily posit a divide between these forces and enlightenment. The Jaguar is the master magician, paragon of conscious evolution.

Unlike the era of the Chilam Balam texts, which describe (according to some) the beginning of a cycle 9, the Calleman Matrix describes the completion of a cycle of 9, therefore (although I hold the Calleman matrix in no regard) it would oversimplify things to say that the quality of the Bolontiku (or Bolon Yokte, etc) should be the same in both instances.

I think there is something to the idea that an important cycle of 9 (the unconscious) is at a close, and a return of the 13 (conscious awareness) is at hand, and we can turn to the unconscious power of 9 for more than chaos and war, so long as its icon is placed in the proper shrine, so to speak.

a Dios,

Bolontiku

Submitted by Mark Heley on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 15:29.

Always appreciate your erudite points of view, Treefrog.

I broadly agree with you about the Bolontiku. My statement that the Bolontiku 'are (unfortunately for Calleman) deities of war and chaos, rather than evolution and consciousness' was based upon what most academic Mayanists think and was just there to point out another piece of Dr. Calleman's re-creationism.

Personally, I think there is a good argument for the Bolontiku being essentially the same as the 'Bolon Yokte' found on monument 6 at Tortuguerro. This would make these deities directly connected to the 21/12/2012 end date.

I'm not so sure about your suggestion that 'an important cycle of 9 (the unconscious) is at a close'. It is after all, the close of the 13 Baktun cycle, rather than the 9 Baktun cycle.

I do think that you could make an argument however, that this 9 faceted deity group are 'closers of the cycle' (to borrow a term from Dr.Arguelles).

I think this is an interesting area for debate. Further decyphering the Tortuguerro monument and work like Geoff Stray's essay on distinguishing the differences between the 13 Baktun cycle and the 20 Baktun cycle are, I think, at the cutting edge of 2012 research.

www.markheley.com

Bolontiku

Submitted by Aaron Woolrich on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:41.

yea, Geoff's article on the baktun cycles was right on. funny how the academic researchers have such a hard time seeing these things. you'd almost expect them to say the trecena was actually an unimportant component of the tzolkin and only the winal really mattered.

anyway, the cycle of 9 we are emerging from that i mentioned is the number of calendar rounds since the conquest (we're now in the first half of the 10th). ... y'know that whole Harmonic Convergence thing,

and of course, all LC intervals, tun and greater, are factors of 9, something i think may have to do with bolon yokte's name

bolon = 9 ok = step = cycle of 40 days

9 x 40 = 360

Game over Calleman.

Submitted by Cerna on Sat, 10/29/2011 - 23:29.

I like to get a second opinion on claims and I quickly found that comet Elenin was total nonesense, but people assume that because there are lots of people talking about it, that must be evidence that it's true. As for the issue of the Mayan calender, most academics point to the end of 2012 and this is backed up by people like Gerald Celente and Charles Nenner. I tried to see if any academics, besides Calleman, believed in his theory and there were none, it was very hard to get any academic information on this subject.

But with 2012, it's everywhere in academic circles. I found Calleman's theory to be really techical and awkward and I didn't understand it. October 28 came and went and nothing happened. Just another day. The good thing was that Calleman's theory didn't generate the buzz that 2012 did and peole weren't led down the wrong road. In a similar way 9nania has made constant false predictions about comet Elenin and people still follow her. You can't win. I'm not an expert in the Mayan calender or religion,

I study the pyramid on the other side of the world and to me it is much more interesting than what the Human sacrificers in the Americas came up with. This particular subject has been neglected for too long: http://www.orderofmelchizedek.com/pyramidprophecy.htm

Thank you for enlightening me Mark Heley.

A little reminder

Submitted by Chiel on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 10:35.

A little reminder of the quote on Evolver's home page: "Banish the word 'struggle' from your attitude and your vocabulary. All that we do now must be done in a sacred manner and in celebration. We are the ones we have been waiting for." — Hopi elders

12/2011 calendar end date?

Submitted by Chasmal on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 16:54.

What do folks know and think about the calendar end date of Coe and frank Waters(Mexico Mystique) of December 24th, 2011, also discussed in relation to Aztec and Zapotec prophecies?

Old and abandoned

Submitted by Mark Heley on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 17:13.

This was long ago abandoned by Coe. I think that date was quoted in some of his work back in the 60's. I'm unfamiliar with the particular Aztec and Zapotec prophecies that you are referring to. I read Frank Waters book, but too long ago to remember the details. He was probably quoting Coe in regards to his 'end date'.

www.markheley.com

Below is from a website -

Submitted by Chasmal on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 17:28.

Below is from a website - www.bibliotecapleyades.net: "The Eagle Bowl Calendar The sacred Aztec calendar is properly called the Eagle Bowl. It represents the solar deity Tonatiuh. The amazingly accurate calendar has been in use in various forms for more than 2,000 years. A Zapotec prophecy, based on the Eagle Bowl, states: "After Thirteen Heavens of Decreasing Choice, and Nine Hells of Increasing Doom, the Tree of Life shall blossom with a fruit never before known in the creation, and that fruit shall be the New Spirit of Men." The 13 Heavens and 9 Hells were each 52 years long (1,144 years total). Each of the 9 Hells were to be worse than the last. On the final day of the last Hell (August 17, 1987), Tezcatlipoca, god of death, would remove his mask of jade to reveal himself as Quetzelcoatl, god of peace. In the mythology of the Aztec, the first age of mankind ended with the animals devouring humans. The second age was finished by wind, the third by fire, and the fourth by water. The present fifth epoch is called Nahui-Olin (Sun of Earthquake), which began in 3113 BC and will end on December 24, 2011. It will be the last destruction of human existence on Earth. The date coincides closely with that determined by the brothers McKenna in The Invisible Landscape as “the end of history” indicated by their computer analysis of the ancient Chinese oracle-calendar, the I Ching. he Mayan calendar is divided into Seven Ages of Man. The fourth epoch ended in August 1987. The Mayan calendar comes to an end on Sunday, December 23, 2012. Only a few people will survive the catastrophe that ensues. In the fifth age, humanity will realize its spiritual destiny. In the sixth age, we will realize God within ourselves, and in the seventh age we will become so spiritual that we will be telepathic." I have heard of this mix of Mexican prophecies since the seventies when I studied the great works of Chicano writer and scholar, Tony Shearer. I find the date of this december interesting for other reasons though - a Christian style preacher named Dan Mathews - of "Holy Divine Healing" uses the same date as a junture to the last and highest paradigm shift in his teachings. It also is a significant day on the Jewish and obviously christian calendars. My expertise is in the Hebrew tradition which from studying Shearers work on the Aztec calendar has some incredible synchronistics - the Jewish and Aztec count being only 28 years apart(one revolution of the planet saturn/tezcatlipoca). I have dealt with all this extensively in my own blog over the last several years. http://seventytwonames.blogspot.com and all these traditions synchronistically dovetail since 1990/5750 when we entered a new epoch in the hebrew tradition. The seven planetary number grids called kameas/magic squares hold a lot of numerical keys to the various calendar harmonics.Thanks for listening and answering my questions and responding so quickly. Peace!

Do you know whats cool?

Submitted by Scrubycritter on Sun, 10/30/2011 - 21:13.

The theory that I came up with that says that the pyramids in Egypt are actually huge sundials which indicate true universal time.

duplicate post

Submitted by Aaron Woolrich on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:29.

duplicate post

Chiel

Submitted by Feritciva on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 10:57.

Chiel, while I'm reading the comments I found myself nodding to all your posts! So I'm with you on most of things you've elegantly elaborated, I also think Calleman is a good story-teller.

But I also really enjoyed Mr. Heley's article. Because there was seriously a lot of incoherence in Calleman's system - most of them in plain sight. It's good to see all these mistakes mentioned in one short article.

This is the problem with so-called metaphysical/spiritual theories. It is easy to create & get lost in "one's own fantasy system" as Mr. Heley writes. Discernment is essential in this minefield!

"Living with heart" is not easy. It is even harder when you see people making apparent mistakes on subjects that you've researched for so long. I thank Mr. Heley again for his passionate article - which sparked that much comment. And thank you Chiel for your warm messages. I learn from all of you.

Calleman's Pyramid Scheme

Comments

Most Commented

Popular Tags

Sponsored By

Featured

Contributors