SIGN UP AND RECEIVE A FREE COPY OF "OUR COSMIC DANCE - PREPARATION FOR 2012" BY MARY MAGDALENE
Carl Calleman has very outspokenly promoted a date for the ending of the Mayan Calendar which is different form the accepted date of December 21st, 2012. Calleman’s date is October 28, 2011. This date has been picked up by many “new agers” and has gathered a life all its own, such that many have come to accept this date.
This article aims to examine, in overview, the evidence as I see it.
Calleman has argued his case for October 28, 2011 in many places, and his current position, as I understand it, is perhaps best conveyed on his own website at http://www.calleman.com/content/articles/end_of_creationcycles.htm , reproduced at http://www.2011-2012kencareystarseed.com/why-the-creation-cycles-do-not-end-december-21-2012-but-october-28-2011.html#axzz1SUltCMDP .
I reproduce it in full below:
Why the Creation Cycles do not end
Over the decades much discussion has focussed on finding the exact correlation between the Mayan Long Count and the Gregorian calendar. Most researchers in the field have now come to agree that the so-called GMT correlation, placing the beginning of the Long Count 4 Ahau 8 Cumku on the Julian day 584 283, August 11, 3114 BC, is correct. This means by consequence that it will end on December 21, 2012 and most students of the calendar of the Maya, such as Jose Arguelles, John Jenkins and Terence McKenna, have endorsed this date as the end of the current cycle.
I do not dispute that the GMT correlation for the Long Count with the Gregorian calendar is the correct one. And clearly, the Long Count is an approximately (within a year or so) correct reflection of the divine process of creation. There are however strong reasons to believe that the Mayan Long Count itself does not exactly reflect the shifting energies of the divine creation cycles that we today are interested in. What in this regard is most compelling is that the exact Long Count beginning date ultimately is calibrated based on the date of solar zenith in Izapa, which occurs on August 12. (Izapa is the ancient Mayan site in southern Mexico where the Long Count was first devised.)
This solar zenith day was since long, long before the Long Count was implemented, considered as the day of the year when “time began” and considered as a holy date in the location of Izapa. There is thus every reason to believe that the solar zenith was the reason the initial day in the Long Count, 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, was set on this day, although obviously the date of solar zenith in Izapa has nothing to do with the real beginning of the corresponding divine creation cycle. (Not to use the solar zenith date as the beginning of the Long Count would have been considered as heresy. We may make the comparison with the date of Christmas, which was taken from old solstice celebrations, and has not been changed, despite the fact that few, if any, believes that Jesus was born then).
That the end date of the Long Count falls on December 21, 2012 is thus just a necessary logical consequence of the beginning date chosen by the Izapans and not something that the Maya had intentionally targeted. The creation cycles described by the Maya, including the tzolkin, are fundamentally of a spiritual, non-astronomical, nature. Thus, any theory that implies that the Mayan Long Count would have been designed to reflect astronomical phenomena, be it the precession of the earth or a solar zenith, is a warning signal that its originator is off the mark. It should be obvious that if the Mayan calendar is a prophetic calendar describing cosmic energy cycles of a universal nature then the particular date at which the sun was in zenith in the particular location of Izapa is totally irrelevant for us who live today and must be considered as nothing but a result of a tradition too strong to be changed.
Another equally compelling reason why December 21, 2012 cannot be the true date of completion of creation is that this day is 4 Ahau in the tzolkin count. Since the Long Count consists of exactly 7200 tzolkin rounds then the true end of creation must fall on a day that is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count so that the tzolkin rounds even out. If we want to find out what is the real date of ending of the creation cycles we must therefore look for a day around the year 2012, which is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count. The inscriptions in Palenque, written about a thousand years after the Long Count was devised in Izapa, seem to indicate that the date of relevance is October 28, 2011, which in fact is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count.
The issue of the exact correlation between the creation cycles and physical time may not have been as critical in the age of the Maya as it is to us, since creation is currently operating at a 400 times higher frequency. A discrepancy of a year or so may have meant less earlier than it does to us who live today. If we make a mistake of 420 days in calibrating the end date of the creation cycles we will be totally out of phase with the rapidly evolving Galactic Creation Cycle where the Yin/Yang dualities in the cosmos are switched off and on every 360 days. These energy changes are what a spiritual calendar should reflect if it is to serve humanity in its current phase of evolution.
It should be said also that those who propose December 21, 2012 as an end date, such as Terence McKenna and John Jenkins, are basing their entire interpretations of the Mayan calendar on this particular date of ending, as if this was what the entire calendar was about. I feel however that what is most important for us to know today is the processes leading up to the completion of creation and the attainment of Cosmic Consciousness. This process is driven forward by the roller-coaster-like Galactic Creation Cycle, and for those seeking to understand this process and its many manifestations an exact calibration of this cycle is imperative. This is now available in calendar form.
In simple terms, I see Calleman’s interpretations as being Darwinism on steroids. It takes the view that the human being is the pinnacle of the evolutionary process and that this period of time is the pinnacle of that evolution. It is clear to anyone willing to look that we are not alone in this cosmos, and we are far from the most evolved (see for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5Kj1pRb9qs). Moreover, if one looks at the history of humanity, there is abundant evidence of very advanced human ability in past times, despite the very committed attempts to deny or destroy this evidence. Some places to look for this are Graham Hancock’s “Fingerprints of the Gods” and many of Graham’s other books, or Michael Cremo’s “Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race”. Further, in “The Purposeful Universe” Calleman seeks to extend this picture by endeavouring to embody the Tree of Life into his evolutionary model, beginning with the Big Bang. Perhaps the fact that his PhD is in physical biology may help to explain this predisposition. I also find it interesting that he spends little time examining the other Mayan Calendars, of which there are several.
This may be so; however is this also true of the Long Count calendar? I would argue that nothing could be further from the truth. Firstly, it is widely accepted that the end of the Long Count Mayan Calendar corresponds with the moment in time when our solar system is in alignment with Galactic Centre, something which occurs twice in every Great Year, one complete cycle of the Precession of the Equinoxes, which means it occurs every 13,000 or so years.
Indeed, the archaeological remains of the Mayans show quite extraordinary knowledge of astrological information. A wonderful illustration of this is “Maya Cosmogenesis 2012” by John Major Jenkins. Perhaps the simplest and most powerful illustration of this is how, on the day of the equinox, the sun casts a shadow down the steps of the pyramid at Chichen Itza http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kOyGZxKh4 . And this is but a tiny glimpse into the complex archaeological alignments that Jenkins introduces us to in his book. Then in “Galactic Alignment” , Jenkins goes onto explain how this alignment is acknowledged in many spiritual traditions across the planet. So, for me, the notion that the ending of the Mayan Long Count Calendar is not astronomical in nature is simply errant nonsense.
In his essay in “The Mystery of 2012”, Jenkins (p40) says the following:
…the “end-date” of the 13-baktun cycle is thus written 184.108.40.206.0…
…How do we know December 21, 2012, is the correct end-date? Why not AD 2230 or AD 1740? This issue involves the correlation of the Mayan calendar with our own, an important question that was of great concern to Mayan scholars. After decades of research, the correlation was finally settled in 1950. An unexpected result of settling the correlation was that the thirteenth baktun would end on December 21, 2012, on the tzolkin day 4 Ahau. This date in the tzolkin confirmed the surviving tzolkin day-count in highland Guatemala and validates the carvings called “creation monuments”, which always correlate 220.127.116.11.0 with 4 Ahau. A fundamental fact that needs to be appreciated, so that we may all act in unity, is what I call “the equation of Mayan time”:
18.104.22.168.0 = December 21, 2012 = 4 Ahau
This “equation” shows how the tzolkin, the Long Count, and the Gregorian calendar are connected.
A fascinating book from 1969 which adds weight to this is “Hamlet’s Mill”, which explains how myth from many cultures is telling the same story; a story sourced from a common source, most likely a lost advanced culture, a story of the precession of the equinoxes and how this defines human experience!!!
And so the ending of the long count calendar is not astronomical in nature? For me, it is very clearly astronomical in nature, with overwhelming evidence to support it.
You may also like to read the exchange between Jenkins and Calleman on this, which is posted on Jenkins’ website - http://alignment2012.com/eldersand2012-exchange.html . Enough said...
Perhaps Jenkins' best contribution to understanding the milieu of scenarios proposed by many as distortions to the message from the Maya is his 2009 book "The 2012 Story". In this book, Jenkins outlines where Calleman and his model came from, its connection to Arguelles' Dreamspell model and much more. Jenkins feels confident enough in himself to finally share much more of himself and his journey, and this adds greatly to our understanding of his very broad perspective on the threads he sees making up what 2012 represents.
This is, for me, is one of the more fascinating elements of this position from Calleman. As such, he tries to sweep McKenna up with the same broom he has used for Jenkins. This is complete nonsense. Interestingly McKenna, one of the truly great intellects of our time and who left us prematurely in 2000, wrote the foreword in 1998 to Jenkins’ “Maya Cosmogenesis 2012”, in which he says the following:
In my revised 1993 edition of The Invisible Landscape, I stated that the end-date for my own mushroom-revealed model of the cosmos ended on the same date as the Maya calendar but that the calculation of my end-date has been done by different methods than those of the Maya and without knowledge of those methods.
This journey of McKenna’s is truly fascinating. As he explains in “The Invisible Landscape”, through his experience with psychedelic compounds in the Amazon, McKenna was prompted to investigate “the three-thousand-year-old King Wen sequence of the sixty-four hexagrams of the I Ching.”
Excuse me??? The notion that this could happen sounds bizarre in the extreme, and yet this is very much the journey that the Shaman of the Amazon travel in using these compounds, via natural mixtures such as Ayahuasca. One of the extraordinary aspects of these experiences is how they can flow from the drug-induced state into what we might consider “normal” reality. Similar experiences of this nature are shared by the well-known quantum physicist and spiritual inquirer, Fred Alan Wolf. In reading McKenna’s complex book, it is very clear to me that he was intuitively guided in this unfolding. In summary, the I Ching has calendrical qualities, and in analysing a wave-like behaviour it contains, McKenna concluded that it pointed to December 21st 2012.
So Calleman’s broad brush is sweeping the wrong individual under the wrong carpet. McKenna’s work provides, albeit from a bizarre place, an independent pointer to the December 21st 2012 date.
As Calleman says, the tradition of the cross shows up in many traditions, not just the Mayan. Why? This arises because all human traditions at their core carry knowledge of the Galactic Alignment. We have just forgotten it in our time. Even the Croix Patee of the Knights Templar referred to this, since this understanding was a key part of their hidden knowledge (this understanding arises from our own work, which will be made available in the near future). Their work was in preparation for this time, as well as providing an Ascension path for those in their time, via the Gothic Cathedrals.
If you examine Calleman’s view of the Tree of Life, he seeks to encode it into the recently discovered cosmic axis (The Purposeful Universe). Again, those who carry true spiritual understanding recognise that the Tree of Life is the complex map established by Prime Creator of all of the options that exist within creation that a soul may investigate. Its expression within spiritual and religious traditions on Earth is primarily a reflection of the cosmic Tree of Life, expressing the options as they exist within this consciousness. Calleman seeks to code this statically, because it is clear from his work that he does not embrace the exquisite and dynamic nature of creation. Again, he has tried to code this into his evolutionary model of existence, and for me it misses the point.
In overview, I welcome anyone seeking to contribute their views and ideas for the better understanding of humanity, and Calleman makes a valid contribution to the conversation of the Mayan archaeological material and beyond. However, for me, it does not resonate with what I have come to understand from my own work and my investigations of the work of others.
I have a deep interest in the unfolding of events in this time (see this website) , and we have been given many messages pointing to December 21st, 2012 as being the key date, e.g. http://www.iamjeshuareturned.com/the_means_of_the_trigger.html . I have been dismayed at how many of those who write about this time on the Internet and elsewhere have slavishly adopted Calleman’s views. In my view, it is a sign of our times that those who speak the loudest and longest are taken to be speaking truth. As Gandhi so succinctly put it:
"Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."
It is of particular concern to me because there have been so many attempts to hoodwink humanity from acknowledging the truth of the nature of this consciousness in which we reside and the importance of our appointment with Galactic Centre at the end of 2012. Y2K is a recent example, along with The Rapture predicted for May 21st, 2011, not to mention the clearly deliberate attempts to bury the archaeological evidence of a historical period of higher consciousness that existed and which ended the last time we were in alignment with Galactic Centre.
Whilst I am not clear about Calleman’s agenda, I am clear of its effect, and that is to distract humanity from the underlying truth of things as I see it. Perhaps my words will help to alleviate this distortion.
Dr. Richard Presser
October 18, 2011