Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

topic posted Sat, April 1, 2006 - 12:38 PM by  TreeFrog
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Dear Mr. Calleman,

My regards to you and yours on this sacred day Job’ K’at. I am writing with a few questions and comments elicited by recent e-maisl of yours "Short report of Don Alejandro Oxlaj's meeting with Sri Bhagavan" and “The Breakthrough Celebration - Generating a flow towards oneness by the year 2012" forwarded to me by a friend. Thank you first of all in your efforts in working towards multicultural global unity. You are truly blessed to have experienced this meeting firsthand. Thank you for sharing this blessing with the rest of us. The documentary you mentioned is awaited with eager anticipation.

My chief reason for writing you is due to this statement in your report: "Among other things, Don Alejandro contrary to popular opinion rejected the December 21, 2012 date touted by archeologists as the ending of the Mayan calendar". If it's not too much trouble, i would appreciate a clarification of what it means that Don Alejandro "rejected" this date. In this brief snippet you appear to have provided no direct quotes, so this "rejected" statement i take to be your own paraphrase. In the spirit of bringing unity to Mayan-calendar enthusiasts i feel it would be helpful if you would provide us with a direct quote from Don Alejandro in regard to this matter. 'Reject' is a very strong word, and those of us who have discovered a wealth of wisdom and mystique underlying this 13.0.0.0.0 4-Ahau (Dec. 21, 2012) date in our conscious evolution are, with this pronouncement on behalf of Don Alejandro, left to wonder if we are to be rejected by the oneness community so long as we continue to view the energies associated with this date as pivotal. Furthermore, while Don Alejandro may emphasize the importance of another specific date, other elders such as Carlos Barrios do indeed accept the Dec. 21 correlation as valid. This confirmation by Carlos Barrios is made available by the Saq Be organization, which you have used as an authority on other matters relating to the traditional Maya, so i am curious as to what would lead to the rejection of this particular idea's authenticity. Also, i have read transcriptions of speeches given by Don Alejandro in the past, and there is no hint in any of these transcriptions of a rejection of this interpretation of the Mayan calendar. Rather, Don Alejandro seems to give the impression that the precise date is not so important, but that the pivotal energies coalesce around "2012 or 2013". One specific date mentioned by Don Alejandro is this: "On March 31, 2013 the sun will be hidden for a period of 60-70 hours and this is when we shall enter the period of the Fifth Sun." Elsewhere he says "In 2012, these wise ones will return again."

What i have come to understand from Don Alejandro's words is that there is to be a year-long period spanning 2012 and 2013 known as 'Year Zero'. His words are filled with the spirit of unity and compassion, so i am skeptical when i hear he has 'rejected' the importance of this 4-Ahau, Dec. 21 date, being that it does fall within ‘Year Zero’ and that its rejection would in essence mean a rejection of the teachings of fellow Elders such as Carlos Barrios as well as countless Mayan calendar enthusiasts around the world.

Perhaps, Mr. Calleman, what you mean is that Don Alejandro empasizes the importance of a date other than Dec. 21 2012. The emphasis of one thing does not imply the rejection of another. For example, if we later learn that Don Alejandro simply emphasizes the date of March 31, 2013 as pivotal, does that mean in turn that he rejects the idea that October 28, 2011 has any particular relevance on Mayan time scales? If you would provide us with a direct quote from Don Alejandro in which he says something to the effect of "I reject the idea that the long count ends on Dec. 21, 2012 in favor of the true date of October 28, 2011" it would do much to help clear this misunderstanding. You made no statement in this recent report to the effect that Don Alejandro has recognized this Oct. 28 date as valid. You simply state his rejection of the Dec 21 date and go on to tout your Oct. 28 correlation without mentioning any specific date referenced by Don Alejandro.

As you must be aware, many people have been led to the wonder of Maya cosmovision because they have felt rejected by the materialist and spiritually void culture of consumerism. Many of these people have gained much in their understanding of this cosmovision by studying the dynamics involved with this 4-Ahau Dec. 21 date. In my estimation it would be a great shame if these people become alienated and come to feel rejected by Mayan calendar authorities; a greater shame if this 'rejected' paraphrase of yours is a misrepresentation of Don Alejandro's actual sentiment.

I have strong personal feelings regarding these matters, because i know that part of my life's work is to present and teach about issues relating to natural timekeeping and Maya cosmology. I feel that quibbling over specific dates and the idea of rejecting one person's truth for another's only serves to create separation and conflict where there should instead be mutual understanding and accord. This type of petty discourse will only discourage those looking for a path towards oneness from accepting the Mayan calendar as an important tool in this process, and will in turn only make our work more difficult and a lot less enjoyable. Furthermore it creates a separation and potential for conflict within the Mayan calendar movement itself. How can we proceed forward as one when we are stuck trying to figure out who among us is right and who is wrong?

I feel that there is validity to your teaching that the creation cycles coalesce around the date Oct. 28, 2011. I also feel that the teachings about the Dec. 21, 2012 correlation have their own very powerful significance, and i imagine that the date of March 31, 2013 mentioned by Don Alejandro is also very important in its own way. Is it really the case that in order to accept one point of veiw we must reject the others?

Perhaps you can see what i mean if i put it like this: i am a farmer. In the spring we harvest greens, in the summer we harvest zuccini, and towards the fall we harvest corn. Now just because it’s my job to make sure people are ready for greens does that mean i need to reject the idea of harvesting squash and corn?

As i am sure you know, Mr. Calleman, the energies of the Mayan calendar can be approached and appreciated on many different levels and from many different perspectives. I do not feel that it is condusive to the achievement of oneness to cast vague aspersions on other authorities in order to bolster your own theory. For example in your ‘Breakthrough Celebration’ e-mail you state “There are however strong reasons to doubt that archaeologists, who often look upon the Mayan calendar as a superstition to begin with, would be able to address the question when the point of completion of the present creation is.” First of all this is a simple paraphrase that gives the reader no source, no direct quote, only your own rhetoric. As in the case with your ‘rejected’ paraphrase of Don Alejandro one is left wondering, what is the actual wording and context in which these archaeologists purport the calendar to be a ‘superstition’? Futhermore it seems you do a great disservice to those archaeologists who do not regard the calendar as a superstition, but rather as a cultural marvel of a magnificent civilization, of whom there are many. Not only that, but i have never encountered an archaeologist’s interpretation of the calendar that even attempts to “address the question when the point of completion of the present creation is”. Rather, their chief question seems to be when the end of the 13th baktun is, in which case, all superstition put aside, the accepted answer is Dec. 21, 2012. In my experience a preponderance of contemporary Mayan scholars display a high level of respect not only for the calendar, but all aspects of Mayan civilization. If there are indeed archaeologists who are teaching that the calendar is nothing more than superstition i would ask that you have the courage to identify them by name and provide us with direct quotes so that we may use our own discernment rather than relying on your vague pronouncements. In my studies i have found that most archaeologists, or archeoastronomers, actually regard the Mayan calendar as an outstanding tool for gauging astronomical cycles. It can be easily and objectively shown that this is so. Therefore i fail to see how such an idea is superstitious. Works by Anthony Aveni and John Major Jenkins approach Mayan calendrics and astronomy with a high level of respect and objective scholarship, yet they both accept the Dec. 21, 2012 correlation as valid. In fact it is the idea that the calendar, far more than a mere superstition, is a precise scientific tool that may be used to measure astronomical as well as metaphysical phenomena that bestows such high respect upon the ancient Maya that correlated the end of the 13th baktun to winter solstice 2012. I feel the superstitious contention is that the Mayan calendar cannot be correlated to astronomical cycles, being that this contention flies in the face not only of the ancient inscriptions and codices but of the objective mathematical structure of the calendar and the cosmos itself. I find it disappointing that you so readily dismiss the thoughtful and profound research of those who have worked so hard to maintain and retrieve this cosmic knowledge. If there is so much merit to your ‘Calleman Matrix’ i don’t see why you don’t spend your efforts in simply presenting your own research rather than working to reject or marginalize that of others. I can’t help but come away with the impression of a ‘divide and conquer’ tone in your rhetoric, something i have a hard time reconciling with your asserted stance against patriarchal agendas. By attempting to discredit the work of others that obviously speak with authority i feel you only jeopardize your own credibility. A vegetable farmer lets the merits of the veggies speak for themselves. No need to marginalize those who grow fruit.
As Don Alejandro has said "In our sacred book, the prophecy says to raise all up, not just one or two groups, but to raise up all the groups, and together to see our children, to see our people, to see our cities, to see again our land, to see again our oceans, and together recognize we are one."

I do admire your conviction Mr. Calleman, and i fully respect your freedom to think and write what you please. I simply fail to see how your rejection of other perspectives will serve us on the road to oneness. I realize you have dedicated yourself to working towards manifesting this goal of oneness, so i do imagine that the concerns raised in my letter are merely a result of my own confused and fractured view of things and do not serve as an accurate reflection of your true intentions. I do hope you get right to straightening me out on all this.

I send you strength and love for all your efforts in working towards global peace.

In Lakech,

aaron 081
posted by:
TreeFrog
Seattle
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

    Thu, April 6, 2006 - 5:41 PM
    Callemans reply:

    Dear Aaron,
    I hope that the statement by Don Alejandro does not lead any one
    to feel excluded from the path towards oneness. We are living in a time
    where there is always a challenge to keep the focus on Oneness and at the
    same time tell the truth about matters, which at least in the short run
    may seem to be divisive. Yet, on a little longer term, it may turn out
    there could be a tremendous value in clearing the confusion and
    saying things the way they are. Not too far into the future, as of
    November 24, 2006 the energy of Quetzalcoatl will start to rule in the
    Galactic Underworld to be followed by that of Tezcatlipoca on November 19, 2007.
    The confusion of these energies could have disastrous consequences
    as is well known from Mexican history and in a broader perspective the
    discussions that we are now having may serve to avoid exactly such a
    confusion.

    I do not have the actual interviews with Don Alejandro available since they
    are now being edited in Gothenburg and I cannot make an actual transcript
    of what he said. Yet, the issue of the end date was brought up my Don Alejandro himself who clearly feel that the December 21, 2012 date is a miscalculation
    by the archeologists. This happens to be consistent with my own view,
    since for years I have been saying that the December 21, 2012 date is incorrect,
    if possibly on another basis than Don Alejandro.
    Of course, the multitude of explanations given to
    what will happen on the December 21, 2012 date can no longer claim to
    have the support of the contemporary Maya. Hence, a lot
    of people will be unhappy about it.

    I hope that the result of Don Alejandro's statement is that people now
    for themselves starts to dig into the Mayan calendar and
    seek to understand on a deeper level the evolution of consciousness
    and how this is related to the Mayan calendar.
    With every tun that passes I feel people will be able to
    more strongly be in resonance with the divine process of creation
    and so also increasingly feel its rhythm and real end date.

    As you are saying I have presented models for how this
    evolution can be understood and so far the little criticism
    there has been against them has been based on the suggestion
    that the end date I use has been inconsistent with that given by the Maya.
    But this argument is no longer valid at least not
    when it comes to the contemporary council of elders.
    And again what it all boils down to is avoiding the confusion of
    the energies of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca as they are soon about to enter.
    Yet, I do not think we have to agree on everything to craft a path towards oneness.
    We have to be aware that we will continue to have all kinds of different views
    in all kinds of matters and yet seek a way towards oneness, which is
    more of a state of consciousness than a set of opinions
    or logically based ideas. I feel if we listen to the divine God will
    help craft such a path for us despite our sometimes inconsistent views.

    As you are saying the rejection of the December 21, 2012 date
    on the part of Don Alejandro goes counter to what Carlos Barrios
    has been saying. In an interview made with us,
    Don Alejandro however says that Carlos Barrios is not a member of the
    council of elders and not authorized to speak on its behalf.
    Thus, there is no rift on the issue of the end date within the council of elders.
    Don Alejandro and Elizabeth Araujo were also very saddened
    by the so called "urgent messages" that have been broadcasted
    in the past two years in the name of the council of elders
    since the council had not issued any such.
    Many people who received these messages in fact reacted
    negatively feeling that they made a mock of the Mayan calendar.
    So things are not always what they seem and we will have to think
    for ourselves.
    Namaste and In Lak'ech
    Carl Johan Calleman
    Orsa Sweden
    6 Chicchan, 7.6.5 of the Galactic Underworld
    • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

      Thu, April 6, 2006 - 5:42 PM
      my turn again:

      Dear Mr. Calleman,

      Thank you for your prompt reply. I must say I am quite disappointed. You have not addressed a key issue I was raising (apologies if this was muddled by my rambling). That is, just because you and Don Alejandro both reject (using your paraphrase) one thing it does not mean you both support the same thing. I could come up with a theory for the year 3020 AD or whatever and claim that because Don Alejandro and I both reject what the archaeologists say then the Mayan people support my theory. It's a ridiculous argument. The only explanaition i can come up with is that you have such little respect for my intelligence, and that of others reading this, that you expect us to gloss over this major point. Either that or you're ignorant of the gap in your logic, but you seem intelligent to me.
      Whatever the politics of the council of elders, Carlos Barrios is a Mayan person so your statement that "Of course, the multitude of explanations given to what will happen on the December 21, 2012 date can no longer claim to have the support of the contemporary Maya" is also completely off base. the "explanations given to what will happen" is simply the end of the 13th baktun.

      Disappointed is my diplomatic term. As a diplomat yourself for such a worthy and SACRED endeavor as world peace and oneness I strongly feel that you need to put in some serious work on your language skills and how to express yourself without making misleading statements. Your casual misdirection reflects on all of us peacemakers and you should understand the seriousness of your position and the duty it holds.

      Let me help clarify things for you.

      you say:
      "for years I have been saying that the December 21, 2012 date is incorrect,
      if possibly on another basis than Don Alejandro."

      this sounds like an admission that you don't know Don Alejandro's basis or exact correlation unless you're teasing us

      and you say: "the little criticism
      there has been against (The Calleman Matrix) has been based on the suggestion
      that the end date I use has been inconsistent with that given by the Maya.
      But this argument is no longer valid at least not
      when it comes to the contemporary council of elders."

      if you don't know the 'end-date' given by the the Maya (by which i take you to mean Don Alejandro) then how can you possibly know that it is consistent with yours??

      how can this be interpreted in any other way than MISLEADING! ?

      okay, you have strong convictions regarding the confusion of certain Nauatl deities, apparently because you have been listening to God on the matter. that does not justify willfull distortion and misdirection imho. all sorts of horrendous things have happened because men who claimed to be listening to God overrode common decency in the name of the greater good. if you have the scientific data to back up this superstition of yours then present it openly or at least direct us to it. or if it is a direct revelation then please detail to us the dream/vision/synchronicty/whatever that occured to you.

      otherwise we are left with the impression that you simply wish to deprive the mayan culture of the recognition it deserves for it's outstanding astronomical achievements.

      you even admit that the dec 21, 2012 correlation is the correct one for the ancient mayan long-count.

      from your article Why the Creation Cycles do not end December 21, 2012, but October 28, 2011

      "I do not dispute that the GMT correlation for the Long Count with the Gregorian calendar is the correct one. "

      then you go on with some anti-astronomy superstition to try to prove that the ancients who devised the long-count goofed by over a year and even correlated to the wrong tzolkin energy!

      you are one man arguing against thousands of years of tradition... not just saying you have a new idea, but that the old one is wrong, and that those who support the ancient count are somehow the ones creating confusion.

      (i refer other readers to the article here www.experiencefestival.com/a/20.../1726 )

      look, i have no trouble with you creating your own models and vigorously promoting them... i think it's great actually

      the trouble, and this is important, is that you argue against others who clearly stand on fact, which you even admit! who is creating the confusion here?
      why don't you just admit that the mayan calendar can be tied to astronomy and recognize their achievement in this arena. Jenkins, McKenna and Arguelles are not saying the calendar is without spiritual value, quite the contrary! if you have had any direct experience with the energies of the calendar, which you must, you should know that it is not exclusionary. all cycles, manifestations, and experiences can be harmonized, and that includes material. one of the sublime features of maya cosmovision is that it redeems material phenomena into spiritual experience.

      i can't help but feel you've painted yourself into a corner on this one. the sooner you acknowledge that those who teach the ancient long-count actually do have a valid point the less credibility your own teachings will lose.

      the following is a beautifully profound statement of yours. i do suggest that the next time you feel compelled to insert a partisan statement into a communication supposed to be based on the idea of oneness you will choose instead to use language such as this:

      "I do not think we have to agree on everything to craft a path towards oneness.
      We have to be aware that we will continue to have all kinds of different views
      in all kinds of matters and yet seek a way towards oneness, which is
      more of a state of consciousness than a set of opinions
      or logically based ideas."


      peace be with,

      aaron
      • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

        Thu, April 6, 2006 - 5:42 PM
        Calleman again:

        Dear Aaron,
        Actually this is a discussion you should be having with Don Alejandro
        himself since it seems it is his views that you are primarily interested in.
        Only as the interview with him is released will it be obvious that I did not frame the questions about the end date, but that he himself brought up the issue
        of the miscalculations of the archaeologists. He is not presenting an alternative
        end date, just saying like myself that the December 21, 2012 is wrong
        (which is actually easier to see than to identify the right one).

        I have been part of a team that has made an interview with an authorized representative of the council of elders to make their views available to people on their own terms. Although there are many people out there claiming to represent the Maya I am not aware of such an interview previously having been made, or if it has been, it is not readily available. I frankly do not know why you have this quarrelsome tone since all I did in an email (which was not adressed to you by the way) was to truthfully quote the head of the council of elders of the Maya. Don't you think that its views should be made known?

        You have also criticized me for trying to put down the work of others, but there are certain things in my view that need to be said and there seems only to be certain persons that are willing and able to say it. If Don Alejandro did not say that the "urgent messages" of recent dates were not issued by the council of elders, who then would have said it? If John Jenkins would not have said that the Dreamspell was never used by the Maya who would then have said it? If I would not have said that the Dreamspell was based on the birth dates of Lloydine and Jose Arguelles who would then have said it? Such things may not always be diplomatic to say, and obviously causes negative reactions among many who have been led to believe in them. But what is the alternative you are suggesting? Keeping the truth secret to a broader group of people that may not have the time and background to dig into the real background of the issues at hand? I feel I have at least tried to minimize personal attacks in this and stated things as much as possibly the way they are.
        Carl Johan Calleman
        Orsa, Sweden
        10 Muluc 7.6.9 of the Galactic Underworld
        www.calleman.com
        see also www.breakthroughcelebration.com
        • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

          Thu, April 6, 2006 - 5:43 PM
          and me again:

          Dear Mr. Calleman,

          I first wrote to you specifically because I felt that you were possibly distorting the message of Don Alejandro, and I wanted you to have the opportunity to clarify the matter yourself. I thought you might like to know that some (not just myself) were confused about statements in your recent e-mails.
          If my tone is quarrelsome it's because i feel disrespected by your response which did not address key issues raised but employed what i read as misdirection or at best flawed logic.

          I do not understand how you can say "all i did .. was to truthfully quote the head of the council of elders of the Maya" when you said previously "I cannot make an actual transcript
          of what he said". The whole reason I wrote you in the first place is that you did not quote him but only supplied your own paraphrase. This should be obvious. Quote the man direct and there is no issue. I gave you the chance to clarify and instead you exacerbate your credibility issues with more obfucation.

          I'm not criticizing you for criticizing the work of others. Criticism is good and healthy imho. My critique comes where you on one hand say the Dec. 21 correlation is correct and then on the other say it's wrong. If JMJ had never said Dreamspell was not used by the Maya who would have? Jose did himself in 1992 three years before JMJ's original "Key to the Dreamspell Agenda". I have the copy of "Thirteen Moons in Motion" published in 1992 right here with me to prove it. If you would like to know why your suggestions about Dreamspell's origin are off base please check out my report here: forums.tortuga.com/viewtopic.php

          it's not my intention to turn this into a forum for the promotion of dreamspell, and i'm sure you don't want that either, so to avoid it you may as well not bother with statements against dreamspell or its creators because i have proof of its merit and i will defend it when called to

          I do thank you for engaging me, and I apologize if my patience in attempting to follow your logic is short. Thank you for helping us come to clarity on the matter that Don Alejandro is not on record supporting the Calleman Matrix.

          Thank you again for your time on this matter,

          aaron
          • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

            Thu, April 6, 2006 - 8:37 PM
            "For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away."
            • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

              Fri, April 7, 2006 - 4:05 PM
              calleman again:

              As I said in my original email, Don Alejandro is on record for having rejected the end date December 21, 2012 (in no uncertain terms). For those that take this to heart it would seem natural to try to find out about what the origin of this purported end date is and what the true end date instead may be. I have tried to explain the reason why December 21, 2012 cannot be the right date in Appendix II of my first book in English, Solving the Greatest Mystery of Our Time: The Mayan Calendar. Unfortunately, the arguments require a fairly strong understanding of Mayan calendrics to grasp and so most people have just preferred to repeat what the archaeologists have been saying. Don Alejandro is also on record for condemning those that without foundation claim to be Mayan elders or represent its council, such as with the purported ”urgent messages” sent out by Earth Changes TV last year, which claimed the December 21, 2012 date.

              Furthermore Don Alejandro is on record for being an ambassador of the breakthrough celebration, www.breakthroughcelebration.com, in other words the world wide movement that seeks to cross cultural boundaries and craft a path towards oneness based on the true Mayan calendar. In so doing he, while still being faithful to his own tradition, is an ambassador of transcending the mentality of quarreling.

              Carl Johan Calleman, Ph.D.
              Orsa Sweden
              11 Oc, 7.6.10 of the Galactic Underworld
              (April 7, 2006)
              • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                Fri, April 7, 2006 - 4:20 PM
                what do i think of lungold and his site?

                i love passion and convicition and lungold had plenty to spare. i wish there was still an opportunity to sit down and talk with him on this plane

                i couldn't take his teachings to heart because i felt like he was not grounded, and that most of his teaching was his own projected process of learning himself

                in my personal experience the mayamajix website is a sore issue because at a medecine ceremony once I approached this man who was identified as a mayan-calendar authority and rather than acting happy that someone else shared his interest he simply told me to be careful what i got into and check out mayamajix.com

                he wasn't interested in connecting with people in person it seemed... but directed me to go on the interenet.... while i want to get off the internet and connect in real life ...

                anyway... he probly didn't have much respect for me cos i'm probly less than half his age

                this shouldn't reflect on lungold directly, but a lot of people i've interacted with who are big on the calleman matrix leave a negative impression on me
                that's my own perception tho and i don't think the calleman matrix is wrong or bad,
                i truly hope it creates a positive change and anyone who' s interested in it, i encourage them to study it
                but just like with dreamspell, it's important to study other perspectives too
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                  Mon, April 10, 2006 - 8:21 AM
                  TreeFrog said:

                  "and you say: "the little criticism
                  there has been against (The Calleman Matrix) has been based on the suggestion
                  that the end date I use has been inconsistent with that given by the Maya.
                  But this argument is no longer valid at least not
                  when it comes to the contemporary council of elders."

                  if you don't know the 'end-date' given by the the Maya (by which i take you to mean Don Alejandro) then how can you possibly know that it is consistent with yours??"

                  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  TreeFrog:

                  From what has been presented here, Calleman's arguement appears to hold. What Calleman is alluding to when he states that, "the little criticism there has been against (The Calleman Matrix) has been based on the suggestion that the end date I use has been inconsistent with that given by the Maya," is that the Maya do not accept the December 21st, 2012 end-date. Apparently the have also refrained from providing another, more appropriate end-date. Therefore, any criticism of Calleman's end-date claiming that it is inconsistent with the one provided by the Maya is unfounded, for the Maya have both rejected the popular 2012 date and, apparently, have yet to provide an alternative. If Calleman had a date from Don Alejandro and the Mayan Council, I'm sure he would be quick to disclose it.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                    Mon, April 10, 2006 - 11:51 AM
                    if by "Calleman's arguement" you mean 'the Calleman matrix"

                    and whatever respect you may have for Don Alejandro, his name is not synonymous with 'the Maya'

                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                      Mon, April 10, 2006 - 1:49 PM
                      "Don Alejandro Oxlaj, who in his native language goes by the name of Wandering Wolf is head of the council of elders of the Maya and in addition head of the Indigenous Council of the Americas which has member tribes from Tierra del Fuego to Alaska."

                      If he is at the head of the council, why shouldn't I believe that he represents the Maya?
                      • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                        Mon, April 10, 2006 - 2:39 PM
                        Well, the Indigenous Council of the Americas has an impressive name, but that doesn't mean it's a representative organization. I just read Bob Sitler's article "The 2012 Phenomenon" (published in the February 2006 issue of Nova Religio), in which he describes a group called the International Mayan League as "a tiny cultural revitalization group in Vermont run by a couple of Maya refugees." This is not to belittle the efforts by these small groups. As Margaret Mead said, "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

                        It would be nice to know more about the Indigenous Council of the Americas, how it was formed, what it does, who gets to be a member, and how. (When I googled on the name, including the Spanish translation "Consejo Indígena de las Americas," every single one of the 214 links I found was a reference to the same 1998 conference in Mérida.)
                        • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                          Tue, April 11, 2006 - 11:33 AM
                          An entertaining email exchange between John Major Jenkins and Carl Calleman on the subject of Calleman's recent announcement about Don Alejandro can be found here: alignment2012.com/eldersand...hange.html
                          • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                            Tue, April 11, 2006 - 11:59 AM
                            I am by no means an expert on the Mayan calendar or the specifics of 2012 from the perspective of indigenous tribes.
                            So when I ask the following, it is based on what I have been able to gather as the seemingly truth of this date which is that there is an ending, signifying a shift or change, not neccessarily an actual end of earth, but end of something as we know it. Also, shifts generally don't happen right away, but gradually.

                            So with that in mind, I am curious so I feel compelled to ask, what is the real significance of whether the calander ends on dec 21,2012 or sometime in 2011? The dates are still close to one another when you take the scale of the calendar.
                            So what's the big deal? Does the person who believes the calendar ends in 2011 and the other one who believes in the other date think something major will happen right on those dates?
                            If not, why does it really matter? If nothing happens right on the specific date, they could, in theory, continue to argue over the date well past 2012.

                            Sorry about my lack of knowledge in this area, but if anyone would like fill me in...
                          • Unsu...
                             

                            Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                            Tue, April 11, 2006 - 1:48 PM
                            www.mayanastrology.com/The%20...nal.pdf

                            This pdf highlights the contents of the recent video interview with Don Alejandro Cirilo Perez Oxlaj in India.

                            Of interest:

                            "There are scheduled impulses of Creation that are affecting global events right now and will continue through the next few years until this cycle ends. December 21, 2012, is the date we have all heard about. Alejandro will explain why there is no exact date. He plans to clarify this in detail for the world’s consideration."

                            -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            My suspicion is that Don Alejandro will explain to us that the actual temporal point at which the new world begins is dependant upon if and when our species aligns itself with the approaching fields of galactic underworld resonance. In that sense, both Jenkins and Calleman are contributing something.

                            I resonate with Jenkins in that the astronomical events of December 21st, 2012 are revealing, and have thus far been the most convincing evidence for major shift. There is also impressive momentum behind the 2012 date, which also speaks to the auspiciousness of this date.

                            With Calleman's discussion of the World Tree and the historical periods geographical resonance, I also feel that there is something significant being said there. I think the name of the game here is the search for an overarching field of resonating synchronicity. We have our individual and communistically pocketed experiences of synchronized phenomena, but to extend the lessons/downloads incurred from local to global synchronized experience, we must discuss how each of each other’s events fit into a larger more complicated puzzle. Our individual ontological and eschatological puzzles need solving for sure, but to address the global field

                            I think it is important to remember that from the creators' point of view (elves do seem the most appropriate), the piecing together of this puzzle isn't always going to go as planned. What if, in anticipation of the eschaton quickly approaching, our species realized that we had to scrap all the tools that we were currently working with in preparation for 2012. If we are truly living at the end of creation, wherein creation is initiating a process of letting go, kind of like the image of a bike with training wheels gliding along, only daddy has to remove the wheels when they are in motion (hrm, there is conveniently no perfect metaphor... yet), then clearly we are the ones who must take the reigns of this beast and tally ho! What is decent about that metaphor is that it demonstrates a very insecure, anxious moment when we are not sure if we are really in command.

                            Jenkins and Calleman are, though they may differ on a specific end-date, both contributing to the consolidation of information. Calleman's evolution of consciousness model is a beautiful tool for us to use and ponder over. It shows us that our roles according to the geography of our cultural heritage factor into the contributions we put toward to the unification of consciousness. And Jenkins' astronomical and archaeological review of the Mayan calendar encourages reductionist, materialist evaluation. Both are quite effective in their own way.

                            Remember, no one ever has to take sides. We can pick and choose and laugh all the way (ho, ho, ho...). What we piece together when the moment is ours is all that matters.

                            Love,

                            Jacob
                            • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                              Tue, April 11, 2006 - 1:57 PM
                              In my personal experience, i dont think it really does matter. whether is 2011 or 2012, either way you should still be paying attention to the flow of creation. Either one will allow this. I kinda wish people would stop arguing about which date is right and start using their energy in a positive way like letting the rest of the world know.
                              • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                Mon, April 17, 2006 - 4:52 AM
                                you can follow this thread at the forum at sacredroad.org
                                prairyearth and chicomozteca have made some great contributions
                                • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                  Mon, April 17, 2006 - 4:53 AM
                                  calleman's latest....


                                  The question of the Mayan calendar end date

                                  by

                                  Carl Johan Calleman

                                  For some time now there has been a discussion going on as to what is the exact end date of the Mayan calendar. This debate was recently fueled by the rejection by Don Alejandro Oxlaj, head of the council of elders of the Maya, of the December 21, 2012 date promoted by archeologists. A newcomer to this field may be surprised at the aggressiveness this statement has been responded to at web pages such as the forum at Sacredroad.org or John Jenkins www.alignment2012.com/eldersa...ge.html. This aggressiveness, which by the way has been directed more against me than to Don Alejandro, who actually made the statement attests to the importance of the question and especially the understanding of the cosmic plan that lies underneath it. Hopefully Don Alejandro’s rejection (in no uncertain terms) of the December 21, 2012 end date will mean that some will dig deeper to understand the evolution of consciousness and make an attempt to understand what this end date really is based on.

                                  Yet, the fundamental issue at hand is not so much what is the actual end date of the Mayan calendar, but how we are to understand this calendar and its relationship to the cosmic plan. This is also why the end date question requires an open mind and even a fairly deep knowledge of Mayan calendrics to address. Those that promote the December 21, 2012 date almost invariably lack a model for understanding evolution based on the Mayan calendar and are instead placing all the importance on what will happen on one particular day; December 21, 2012. What they suggest for this date is typically an event in the sky or a pole shift, a comet that will hit the earth or some other physical or astronomical singular event. In my view the most absurd of these interpretations is probably a book that sets out to prove that this is the day when the world will come to an end because of a pole shift and there is nothing we can do about it (The Orion Prophecy). For someone who does not have a scientific training and background its purported « mathematical proof » for this may even seem impressive. Those supporting the December 21, 2012 date, such as www.diagnosis2012.co.uk, prefer such depressing rubbish to an analysis of the evolution of consciousness, simply because it is consistent with the end date they propose. To them, the end date has become like a religion and if some author agrees with this anything goes. That representatives of the contemporary Maya reject this end date will then obviously not be popular among them as they do not attribute any meaning to the Mayan calendar apart from what may happen on this particular day.

                                  At a time when we may soon expect a much expanded interest in the meaning of the Mayan calendar such interpretations of an event taking place on a special date are obviously very much welcomed by the defenders of the established order for the simple reason that they do not imply that we need to participate in a process of evolution of consciousness. Moreover, if the Mayan calendar is only about an event that happens in the sky what else would there be to do other than sit and wait with arms crossed for this event to take place? Fortunately, for the serious student of the Mayan calendar system, it has a much greater richness than this and may help people understand both the past and the future and at the same time provide a meaningful spiritual context for life.

                                  Those defending the December 21, 2012 date however never link the Mayan calendar to a model for the evolution of consciousness and strongly oppose the very serious work that has been made to verify - literally a mountain of evidence - that it describes an ongoing evolution from the Big Bang until the present time. One of the conclusions that we may draw from this body of evidence is that in the next few years we may expect a downfall of all hierarchical structures and especially those that are based on Western dominance of the world. Another prediction is that the rule of darkness in the time period November 19, 2007 to November 13, 2008, will be a very oppressive period exerted by exactly those forces that will make their last desperate attempt to maintain their dominance of the world. If this time period is confused with a period of light many people will go along with it in the same way as happened when this very same energy ruled the world, and especially Germany, during the era 1932-1952. It then seems obvious that the ruling circles of our planet do not want this information to reach the broader public and the defenders of the December 21, 2012 date that deny that we are living in an ongoing evolution of consciousness are playing directly into their hands. When the reaction comes in November of 2007 the ruling elite, primarily based in the US, would much rather have people think that nobody should be able to question their rule and that spiritual freedom is impossible. In that time the proponents of the December 21, 2012 date will come in very handy for the rulers and all ideas that the Mayan calendar describes an evolution towards oneness and balance will be suppressed. Of course, these statements are not based on some divine revelation, but with analogies that associate this time period with corresponding destructive eras in the past. The primary reason that the end date is important is in my view that it strongly colors our perception of the present and the immediate time ahead.
                                  Would it not be because the question of the end date is important for the present and how people will understand the upcoming energies of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca I would see no reason to discuss it, especially not considering all the negative projections - far from a spirit of oneness - that it seems to give rise to among some. It is at the present time very important to discuss the upcoming energies of Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca, but the December 21 people are trying to sweep it under the rug.

                                  Hence, the issue of the end date is not so much a question of the particular date we favor, but what philosophy we adhere to and what vision of the world we would like to promote. Those denying the existence of a cosmic time plan leading towards a state of oneness have nothing to offer but the status quo and those seems to be the very people that are obsessed by being right about the December 21 end date. To them, the most important argument in favor of the December 21, 2012 date seems to be that there is agreement among the archeologists about it and hence no one should question it. But since modern archeologists approach the Mayan calendar as a superstition to begin with how could they possibly know when the completion date of the divine process of creation would be? The divine plan is not their field of study. Only someone who sets out to understand how the Mayan calendar describes the cosmic plan would be able to arrive at the correct end date for this.

                                  To grasp the origin of this end date it needs first to be pointed out that there is a fundamental misunderstanding among modern people about the Mayan Long Count. This misunderstanding is that the ancient Maya devised this calendar by targeting a particular end date. Although this may seem exciting to ourselves as we are living in that time it simply is not correct. The inscriptions from the ancient Maya in fact exclusively deal with describing the beginning of the Long Count, the creation date, which was set at August 11, 3114. The Mayan royalty living some 3500 years later sought to legitimize their positions by tracing their ancestry back to the beginning of this creation and wanted to understand this creation that their power was based on. Only those that have studied Mayan calendrics in some depth will know that the inscriptions deal with the creation date and not with the end date. The exact placement of this beginning date of the Long Count falls on the date that the sun was in zenith in Izapa, where the Long Count most likely was devised. Hence we have every reason to believe that it was this solar zenith day that its ending date was based on. The end date of the Long Count will simply fall exactly 1.872.000 days after this zenith date, which places it at December 21, 2012. Hence, the end date touted by the archeologists, December 21, 2012, directly depends on the fact that the people living in Izapa at the time thought of August 11, the date the sun was in zenith in their own particular temple city, as a holy day. Because of its zenith character it had probably for a long time been regarded as a day « when time began », as indeed it meant the beginning of a yearly cycle that determined the changing seasons in that location.

                                  From a wider perspective the problem with this beginning date is then that it lacks relevance to the world at large. Why would this zenith date, which the beginning of the Long Count is set at, matter to people living in other locations than Izapa (or on the same latitude)? Well, it obviously does not play a role for people living in other parts of the world, and is simply based on the desire of the Izapans to emphasize their own particular location and tradition. Hence, believing that the energetic beginning of the Long Count falls on the day that « time began » in Izapa is like believing that Jesus was actually born on Christmas Day. The parallel is that in both cases an older tradition, the pagan midwinter solstice in the case of the Christians, which was not related to what really was to be celebrated, was simply taken over by a new calendrical tradition. That such an ancient established highly localized tradition of the importance of the solar zenith in Izapa now seems to dominate the perception of some currently interested in the Mayan calendar and so the modern proponents of the December 21, 2012 date are stuck in the same established tradition as the ancient Izapans were. Thus, to many of them it is not permitted for a scientist to broaden his perspective or question something that the archeologists all seem to agree upon. One might wonder where science would be today if such local traditions would never have been questioned. In my view, it is the task of science to arrive at an increasingly holistic understanding of the world and being stuck in a local tradition (even if it is Mayan or proto-Mayan) prevents the emergence of an understanding of the cosmic plan that is relevant to our entire planet.

                                  The second reason that we may understand the December 21, 2012 date to be wrong is that it falls on the tzolkin day 4 Ahau, since this is not a completion energy. It must fall on a date that is 13 Ahau, since this is the tzolkin energy towards which all the tzolkin energies are moving. This may be a more difficult argument to grasp than that the beginning of the traditional Long Count is based on a local tradition. To realize that the actual end date must fall on an energy that is a 13 Ahau date essentially requires of someone that he or she for a relatively long time have followed exclusively the true tzolkin count. Only in that way would one be able to personally experience the energy shifts, and unfortunately not so many people do that. If people mix two different counts that we may be certain that there is too much confusion for the actual energy shifts to be felt. Yet, it is important to know that Don Alejandro speaks about a prophecy of the return of 13 Ahau that seems to have survived through the ages. Carlos Cedillo also alerted me to a passage in the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel that describes the energy of 13 Ahau as follows: « Holy completion of time, truly » - a statement not found regarding any other tzolkin energy in these prophetic Mayan books written a few hundred years ago. From a knowledge of the tzolkin it simply seems logical that the true Mayan calendar should end on a day that has the energy of 13 Ahau.

                                  The placement of the end date of this creation at the particular 13 Ahau energy of October 28, 2011 is supported by what seems to be a correction made in Palenque to the original Izapan Long Count several hundred years later. Most likely the priests of Palenque,
                                  who obviously meticulously followed the true tzolkin count then started to feel that there was something wrong with the correlation between the Izapan Long Count and the tzolkin. (Since they were living in Palenque they were not attached to or tuned in to the Izapan solstice date). The correction that they hinted at was however not implemented as a change of the Izapan Long Count because of the forbidding consequences. (Somebody who doubts that should consider how easy it would be to change the Gregorian calendar if the date of birth of Jesus was determined with absolute certainty). Such a change would not have been possible because of the enormous role that the Long Count had in legitimizing the rule of the Palenquean dynasty and providing stability to its society. Hence, its priests could only hint that the Izapan Long Count missed the mark by 420 days.

                                  Hence, you might say that the Palenquean priests around AD 600 began to feel something that is similar to what many are beginning to feel today. This is that there is something wrong with the December 21, 2012 end date of the Long Count. This experience will only increase in the years to come at least among those that are not content with repeating what other people are saying and who actually are able themselves to experience the wave movement of divine creation towards the state of oneness. And it is to those that I am primarily addressing myself, because it is those that may craft the path that the divine plan seems to be laying out for us. I am not primarily addressing myself to those for whom it is more important to be right about a date than to facilitate the spiritual future of humanity. In this context I would also like to point out that many people have a strong intuitive sense that the year 2012 will mean something special. This intuitive sense is fully consistent with the October 28, 2011 date, since if the divine process of creation is completed on that day it will indeed be the year 2012 that will usher the great change. If instead the completion of divine creation would fall on the Izapan end date, December 21, 2012, it would be the year 2013 that would harvest the change. Intuitively, most seem to favor the 2012 date and I feel this promises that as we come closer people will increasingly be drawn to the energetically correct end date, October 28, 2011.

                                  Carl Johan Calleman
                                  Orsa, Sweden
                                  4 Cib (4 Vulture)
                                  7.6.15 of the Galactic Underworld
                                  • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                    Mon, April 17, 2006 - 4:55 AM
                                    me...

                                    Thanks to Chicomozteca and PrairyEarth for the thoughtful responses!

                                    I understand that Mr. Calleman is convinced that his adjusted count is a more accurate model of the evolution of consciousness than is the classic Maya long-count, and this is a perfectly reasonable opinion. I feel however that it is unfortunate that those who wish for communications issued on behalf of Oneness to be clear, reasonable and unmotivated by personal agenda, are now, because of asking some simple questions and raising some important points, to be categorized as part of the ‘December 21 people’ which connotes a disdain for open-mindedness, a superstitious view of the Mayan calendar, a dogmatic belief that something big will happen in the sky in the year 2012, a disinterest in conscious evolution, and perpetuation of fascist energies.

                                    Perhaps Mr. Calleman has an airtight lock on the truth and these are accurate reflections. Perhaps the questions elicited by his communications following the meeting with Don Alejandro were simply aggressive projections. It does seem strange to me that Don Alejandro who is known for his communications which emphasize unity would wish for a message following this meeting to imply such a direct rejection. Perhaps it is only my cynical nature which led me to imagine that Mr. Calleman who had vociferously rejected the Dec 21 date in the past chose to magnify a passing statement by Don Alejandro for the purpose of defending his own agenda. Perhaps my doubt that Don Alejandro actually endorsed the Calleman Marix, due to his statement in a previous communication that we will enter the 5th Sun on March 31, 2013, which occurs 520 days after the end point of the Calleman Matrix, is only a sign of my lack of faith.
                                    So really the ‘rejection’ of the Dec 21 date by Don Alejandro was not any “news”, as it was already known he had accepted another date. What warranted attention and response was the insinuation that Don Alejandro supported the Calleman Matrix. And maybe, being that Don Alejandro is now an ambassador for ‘The Breakthrough Celebration’ which is based on the Calleman Matrix, this isn’t such a wild insinuation. Still I feel that when issuing statements on behalf of respected individuals, if powerful and polarizing terms like ‘reject’ are called for it is best to have a direct contextual quote rather than a vauge paraphrase that leaves people wondering.

                                    The spokesman in such a case should not be surprised to field questions, and if the answers to the questions are dismissive and misleading it should not be surprising that the spokesman’s credibility would diminish.

                                    I agree with Mr. Calleman that it is inimical to oneness to be obsessed over being right. Once we think we have the only truth that’s when we forget the unique truth that is the mystery of life. So I would like to encourage those who think Mr. Calleman or myself, or anyone else has lock on the whole truth to please consider the following perspectives. I do not present these as my own beliefs only as suggestions that we should all think for ourselves and never be afraid to question.


                                    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


                                    “It has been argued by Malstrom (1978), among others, that the beginning date of the Long Count may also be astronomically significant if it is read as a zenith passage date. Because the date of the zenith passage of the sun varies with latitude, the fact that 0.0.0.0.0. 4-Ahau 8-Cumku fell on August 11 focuses attention on the vicinity of lat. 15 N. Because he was uing a different correlation constant, Malstrom assumed that the date was Aug. 13 and supposed that this date also marked the point at which the sun would have spent 260 days south of the zenith and would then pass to the north for 105 days, thus aligning the katun, tzolkin, and haab with a significant celestial event. Malstrom calculated that this made Izapa a likely focus for the invention of the Long Count.
                                    “The astronomy behind this brillian speculation is not as solid as it sounds. The correct date of August 11 corresponds to a latitude of about 15 39' N... whereas the point at which the 105/260 division of the year occurs corresponds to the latitude of Izapa and Kaminaljuyu but a date of zenith passage on August 14...
                                    “Although the zenith-passage argument is intriguing, it does not seem to be a possible determinant of the establishment of the Long Count, even though that event is most likely to have occurred somewhere between the sites of the four earliest known Long Count dates ... But the starting point of the Long Count is determined by numerology once the ending point is fixed, and the correct prediction of the ending on a winter solstice would be a much stronger motive... There is only one degree of freedom to fixing the course of the Long Count erea. If it was done predictively, as I believe it was, its beginning is merely a numerological consequence of that fact and cannot therefore be indicative of anything else.”
                                    -Munro Edmonson
                                    Book of the Year
                                    1988



                                    The date of solar zenith at the latitude of Izapa is not August 11, but August 13th or 14th.
                                    The point here being, Mr. Calleman, that your theory about the motives of the Izapan priests really only stands if you accept the correlation used by Malstrom which is in a two-day discrepancy to the traditional count, in which case today would be 5-Kaban rather than 7-Cauac, a contention which I’m sure you do not support.
                                    A conscious placement of the end of the long-count on a solstice would not be “based on the desire of the Izapans to emphasize their own particular location and tradition” since a solstice is a simultaneous world-wide event.


                                    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

                                    The contention that “The inscriptions from the ancient Maya in fact exclusively deal with describing the beginning of the Long Count” is not supported by inscriptions on Monument 6 of the classic Maya site of Tortuguero which have been translated to read: "At the end of the 13th b'akhtun, on 4 Ajaw 3 K'ank'in)...it will happen” or "The Thirteenth Bak'tun" will be finished (on) Four Ahaw, the Third of K'ank'in.”

                                    <<<<<<<<<<<<<

                                    The following quotes all come from Don Alejandro himself:


                                    “On March 31, 2013 the sun will be hidden for a
                                    period of 60-70 hours and this is when we shall enter the period of the Fifth
                                    Sun.”

                                    “During 2012-2013 there will be a great comet and a red comet.”

                                    “The first teachers from the Pleiades taught the astronomy and the beginning of creation, the Great Mysteries.”



                                    So the idea that physical or astronomical events will play roles in the conjunction of relevant cycles of Mayan time is not a heresy, although I agree strongly with Mr. Calleman that it is unwise to wait around for such an event or put all the emphasis on one day. (Isnt’ it really all about NOW?)

                                    I would also like to point out that Don Alejandro’s correlation of March 31, 2013 is perfectly in line with the idea of a 13-Ahau prophecy, as March 31, 2013 is 13-Ahau, just as is Oct 28 2011; so the 13-Ahau prophecy, Don Alejandro speaks of appears to relate more to year 2013 than 2011.
                                    It’s interesting to me that 420 days after 13-Ahau is 4-Ahau and 4-Ahau, because Ahau is the twentieth of the day-signs, can be conceived as 4-20. And as mentioned in the quote from Don Alejandro above, the Pleiades figure very important in Maya cosmology (‘coincidentally’ one of the Pleiades is named ‘Maia’) and the Pleiades are about 420 light years from earth.
                                    Furthermore, the relationship of 4-Ahau to 13-Ahau in the tzolkin describes the Golden Ratio, the underlying pattern of life, so I don’t see why one needs to be wrong for the other to be right. It is my understanding that while 13-Ahau may be a ‘completion energy’, 4-Ahau is important in that it is a ‘CREATION energy’.
                                    The relationship of these two energies also highlights an important connection between the numbers 4 & 13, something I would be happy to elaborate on for those interested.

                                    I wonder if Mr. Calleman is capable of seeing in such complimentary perspectives anything more than ‘too much confusion’.

                                    A few more things I have been wondering about Mr. Calleman’s perspective. If the Mayan calendar cannot be based on astronomical considerations, why is the calendar’s fundamental unit one day? Afterall, isn’t a day, one rotation of the earth on its axis in relation to the sun simply an astronomical event itself? Furthermore, if the Underworlds extend all the way back to The Big Bang... well isn’t the Big Bang an astronomical theory? After all the telescopes showed the astronomers that the universe is expanding in all directions, isn’t it the astronomers in turn that came up with the Big Bang theory? What does the Big Bang describe but the relation of physical structures throughout the universe? And, why are we currently in ‘The Galactic Underworld’? Isn’t a galaxy an astronomical concept itself? If you acknowledge that galactic cosmology plays is a large factor in Maya time cycles, why is it such a heresy to point out the galactic alignment which takes place on (northern hemisphere winter) solstice in the years from 1987 to 2012?

                                    I would also like to add my two cents that Mr. Calleman is not the first to offer a model of the evolution of consciousness based on the Mayan calendar. This model is actually encoded into the calendar itself. From Imix to Ahau is described a period of conscious evolution as is made apparent in the placement of the signs Serpent, Dog, Eagle, and Lord (Ahau). When combined with the recurring evolution of time based on the number 13 this evolutionary pattern (the tzolkin) can be utilized on any scale and is therefore a relevant guide independent of any set correlation. When we open to the eternal nature of the NOW, agendas based on arguments for specific dates and day-counts become unnecessary. All the energies of the tzolkin are eternally present in the NOW. This is an evolutionary model that has informed Maya consciousness as long as the tzolkin has been known. Don’t fall for linear head–games.

                                    I don’t wish to discourage anyone from digging deeper into the Calleman Matrix and the relation between its Underworlds and the Aztec pantheon, I only hope that those who regard Mr. Calleman as an unquestionable authority might also consider other perspectives on the Mayan calendar and make their own conclusions.

                                    May we learn to find unity in the heart of diversity in the times to come,

                                    In Lakech

                                    TreeFrog

                                    ps. We have been having the most picturesque spring days... I’ve even been working barefoot already... everything is so green and full of budding life... the Magnolia tree in full bloom shedding its petals in a pink carpet below the boughs.... life is a miracle... gratitude to the divine
                                    • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                      Mon, April 17, 2006 - 6:06 PM
                                      TreeFrog,

                                      i am so very thankful to you for the show of inimical consciousness and effort to do your part; it's very impressive. You obviously think long and hard, stop to ponder and hone your projections and end up producing very sophisticated work upon the planet and brethren

                                      really, you rock, celebrate yourself for a moment, if only because it feels so good to be alive and be committed! if not for the fact that you are out there doing what you believe, then for the fact that we must!
                                      • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                        Tue, April 18, 2006 - 3:06 PM
                                        my show of inimical consciousness? hmmm.... thank you for the compliment?

                                        i hope i'm not displaying inimical consciousness, but if anything positive beyond that has come of these dialouges It is the responses of others

                                        most specifically Adam Rubel of the Saq' Be' organization has just posted a response at the sacredroad.org forum that everyone should read...

                                        forget inimical me and listen to Adam!
                                        • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                          Wed, April 19, 2006 - 2:14 AM
                                          Check out this critique of calleman, quoted straight forem Beyond 2012:

                                          www.diagnosis2012.co.uk/call.htm
                                          • Re: Open letter to Carl Johan Calleman

                                            Thu, August 24, 2006 - 4:02 AM
                                            A few words from an article I wrote with some editing:
                                            Investigation of the principal trends in the 2012 phenomenon reveals few connections with the realities of the Mayan world and even these tenuous links at times expose extremes of misinterpretation of Mayan culture by some associated with the movement. Contemporary Maya themselves have thus far contributed little to the 2012 phenomenon since only a small number have had any prior exposure to the topic. The Long Count calendar fell into disuse well before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors and knowledge of its rediscovery by Western academics has reached extremely few of today’s Maya apart from the most educated. Those Maya who know of the date, learned of it directly or indirectly through contact with non-Mayan sources. Curiously, apart from several notable exceptions, those actively promoting the significance of the 2012 date are not Maya and few have had significant practical experience living within Mayan culture. In fact, most are Westerners who do not speak Mayan languages and whose familiarity with Mayan ways is minimal. The few participants in the 2012 movement who are actually of Mayan ancestry are generally urban-oriented, middle-class, heavily involved with foreign associates, and primarily speak in Spanish rather than their own particular mother tongue. Not surprisingly, many of their contributions are idiosyncratic musings with little foundation in the Mayan tradition. Several Maya religious practitioners now figure prominently within some New Age circles and their contributions have helped bolster interest and add legitimacy to the broader 2012 movement.
                                            In particular it should be noted that Carlos Barrios is not Maya even though he allows himself to be presented as one. Also, there are numerous organizations of Maya elders, not just the one led by don Cirilo, and apart from tiny groups from a specific locale, are of very recent origin and are based on Western hiearchical structures that run counter to the traditional localized nature of Mayan spirituality. I met with numerous Maya daykeepers and elders and daykeepers this summer in Guatemala and Mexico, for example, and not one of them recognized don Cirilo as their spokesperson, even though those who knew him said he's a good guy..

                                            bob

Recent topics in "Year 2012"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
Skeptics or Scoffers? Oba 53 Today, 9:31 PM
World's Largest Intention Heals Project a Success offlinedreamweaver 4 Today, 9:23 PM
2012 suicide cult CALI 4 Today, 9:04 PM
The Weapon of Language davidsjelly 18 Today, 8:45 PM