compiled by Dee Finney


2-25-02 - DREAM - I was working in an office with a group of people, both men and women. My Father was the CEO of this company. 

There was a meeting of all the people who worked in this office. I was strongly attracted to one of the men - one of those tall studly handsome blonde guys.

I made all the appropriate hussy noises and come-ons in person and on the phone and he and I were going to get together later. 

I had a job to do in the office first. My Father was making a change to a contract. Several copies had already been printed, but I needed to make 20 more and put them in plastic see-thru sheet holders which were on legal-size paper.

I saw the contract change paragraph, which was colored bright red, but didn't read it.  It was numbered 133.33.  

I needed to go into my Father's office to get the extra plastic folders from his supply closet.

I started to go into his office and the studly man was there. (I never knew his name) He said, "You'd better not come in, your Father is in his underwear."

I said, "That's okay! I've seen my Father in his underwear before."

I walked in and my Father was standing in the opposite doorway - 1/2 way in the dark - wearing a white T shirt, boxer shorts, long dark socks with leg suspenders. 

He had dark skin like an Italian Mafia Don. (Godfather) 

I started to put the contracts together in the supply closet. 

I knew I wasn't beautiful and started to wonder why Mr. Studly would want to be with me. 

I walked out into the hallway and Mr. Studly was standing there with a tall, blonde, statuesque woman who was taller than he was. She had to be at least 7 feet tall. She was carrying a young blonde boy about 1 1/2 years old.

Mr. Studly introduced her as the mother of his son from a one-night stand. She wasn't in love with him - they were only connected through the child (the son). She didn't care that he and I were going to be together. 

He stood there, right in front of her to show me what I was going to get. Mr. Studly was built like a bull. (You have to picture that)  I was almost embarrassed at the size of it. 

I saw a red-headed young pretty woman standing close by and watching. She wanted him after me, when I got done with him.

I still couldn't figure out why he wanted me instead of one of them. 

The women left and Mr. Studly and I went into a large office where I locked the door behind us. This room had a men's and women's bathroom in it.

He immediately went into the men's room and turned on the water to wash himself.  So, I went into the ladies room to do the same thing.  

I still couldn't figure out why he would want me. I looked in the mirror. I had dark skin like my Father and my cheeks were round like a chipmunk.  I turned on the water to wash myself and hoped that didn't make 'his' water get too cool.

While I was standing there washing myself, Mr. Studly came out of the men's room and started washing the light green carpeting, which was like spring grass, in the office. He poured water on it and started scrubbing it and pulling it up off the floor and tearing it up. 

I was dismayed because he was making so much noise. 

I said, "Don't you think we should be a little more quiet?" afraid someone would walk in and catch us together.

But he didn't care. He had a job to do - he had to pull up the carpet and clean it. 

and I woke up. 


From: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sdcommnt/sdc-3.htm

Secret Doctrine Commentary (Transactions of the Blavatsky Lodge) by H. P. Blavatsky

Meeting 3

Meeting held at 17, Lansdowne Road, London, W., on January 24th, 1889; Mr. T. B. Harbottle in the chair.

STANZA 1. (continued).


Q. Is "Darkness" the same as the "Eternal Parent Space" spoken of in Sloka (I)?

A. Not at all. Here "the boundless all" is the "Parent Space"; and Cosmic Space is something already with attributes, at least potentially. "Darkness," on the other hand, and in this instance, is that of which no attributes can be postulated: it is the Unknown Principle filling Cosmic Space.

Q. Is Darkness, then, used in the sense of the opposite pole to Light?

A. Yes, in the sense of the Unmanifested and the Unknown as the opposite pole to manifestation, and that which falls under the possibility of speculation.

Q. Darkness is not opposed to Light, then, but to differentiation; or rather, may it not be taken as the symbol of Negativeness?

A. The "Darkness" here meant can be opposed to neither Light nor Differentiation, as both are the legitimate effects of the Manvantaric evolution -- the cycle of Activity. It is the "Darkness upon the face of the Deep," in Genesis: Deep being here "the bright son of the Dark Father" Space.

Q. Is it that there is no Light or simply nothing to manifest, and no one to perceive it?

A. Both. In the sense of objectivity, both light and darkness are illusions -- maya; in this case, it is not Darkness as absence of Light, but as one incomprehensible primordial Principle, which, being Absoluteness itself, has for our intellectual perceptions neither form, color, substantiality, nor anything that could be expressed by words.

Q. When does Light proceed from that Darkness?

A. Subsequently, when the first hour for manifestation strikes.

Q. Light, then, is the first manifestation?

A. It is, after differentiation has begun and at the third stage of evolution only. Bear in mind that in philosophy we use the word "light" in a dual sense: one to signify eternal, absolute light, in potentia, ever present in the bosom of the unknown Darkness, coexistent and coeval with the latter in Eternity, or in other words, identical with it; and the other as a Manifestation of heterogeneity and a contrast to it. For one who reads the Vishnu Purana, for instance, understandingly, will find the difference between the two terms well expressed in Vishnu; one with Brahma, and yet distinct from him. There, Vishnu is the eternal x, and at the same time every term of the equation. He is Brahma (neuter) essentially matter and Spirit, which are Brahma's two primordial aspects -- Spirit being the abstract light.* In the Vedas, however, we find Vishnu held in small esteem, and no mention made whatever of Brahma (the male).

[*In the second chapter of the Vishnu Purana (Wilson's translation) we read -- "Parasara said: Glory to the unchangeable, holy, eternal, supreme Vishnu, of one universal nature, the mighty over all: to him who is Hiranyagarbha, Hari, and Sankara, the creator, the preserver, and destroyer of the world: to Vasudeva, the liberator of his worshippers: to him whose essence is both single and manifold; who is both subtile and corporeal, indiscrete and discrete: to Vishnu, the cause of final emancipation. Glory to the supreme Vishnu, the cause of the creation, existence, and end of this world; who is the root of the world, and who consists of the world."

And again: "Who can describe him who is not to be apprehended by the senses: who is the best of all things; the supreme soul, self-existent: who is devoid of all the distinguishing characteristics of complexion, caste, or the like; and is exempt from birth, vicissitude, death, or decay: who is always, and alone: who exists everywhere, and in whom all things here exist; and who is, thence, named Vasudeva? He is Brahma (neuter), supreme, lord, eternal, unborn, imperishable, undecaying; of one essence; ever pure, as free from defects. He, that Brahma, was (is) all things; comprehending in his own nature the indiscrete and discrete."]

Q. What is the meaning of the sentence, "Father, Mother and Son were once more one"?

A. It means that the three Logoi -- the unmanifested "Father," the semi-manifested "Mother" and the Universe, which is the third Logos of our philosophy or Brahma, were during the (periodical) pralaya once more one; differentiated essence had rebecome undifferentiated. The sentence, "Father, Mother, and Son," is the antitype of the Christian type -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- the last of which was, in early Christianity and Gnosticism, the female "Sophia." It means that all creative and sensitive forces and the effects of such forces which constitute the universe had returned to their primordial state: all was merged into one. During the Mahapralayas naught but the Absolute is.

Q. What are the different meanings of Father, Mother and Son? In the Commentary, they are explained as (a) Spirit, Substance and Universe, (b) Spirit, Soul and Body, (c) Universe, Planetary Chain and Man.

A. I have just completed it with my extra definition, which is clear, I think. There is nothing to be added to this explanation, unless we begin to anthropomorphize abstract conceptions.

Q. Taking the last terms of the three series, do the ideas Son, Universe, Man, Body correspond with one another?

A. Of course they do.

Q. And are these terms produced from the remaining pair of terms of each trinity; for instance, the Son from the Father and Mother, the men from the Chain and the Universe, etc., etc., and finally in Pralaya is the Son merged back again into its parents?

A. Before the question is answered, you must be reminded that the period preceding so-called Creation is not spoken about; but only that when matter had begun to differentiate, but had not yet assumed form. Father-Mother is a compound term which means primordial Substance or Spirit-matter. When from Homogeneity it begins through differentiation to fall into Heterogeneity, it becomes positive and negative; thus from the "Zero-state" (or layam) it becomes active and passive, instead of the latter alone; and, in consequence of this differentiation (the resultant of which is evolution and the subsequent Universe), -- the "Son" is produced, the Son being that same Universe, or manifested Kosmos, till a new Mahapralaya.

Q. Or --the ultimate state in layam, or in the zero point, as in the beginning before the stage of the Father, Mother and Son?

A. There is but slight reference to that which was before the Father-Mother period in the Secret Doctrine. If there is Father-Mother, there can, of course, be no such condition as Laya.

Q. Father, Mother are therefore later than the Laya condition?

A. Quite so; individual objects may be in Laya, but the Universe cannot be so when Father-Mother appears.

Q. Is Fohat one of the three, Father, Mother and Son?

A. Fohat is a generic term and used in many senses. He is the light (Daiviprakriti) of all the three logoi -- the personified symbols of the three spiritual stages of Evolution. Fohat is the aggregate of all the spiritual creative ideations above, and of all the electro-dynamic and creative forces below, in Heaven and on Earth. There seems to be great confusion and misunderstanding concerning the First and Second Logos. The first is the already present yet still unmanifested potentiality in the bosom of Father-Mother; the Second is the abstract collectivity of creators called "Demiurgi" by the Greeks or the Builders of the Universe. The third logos is the ultimate differentiation of the Second and the individualization of Cosmic Forces, of which Fohat is the chief; for Fohat is the synthesis of the Seven Creative Rays or Dhyan Chohans which proceed from the third Logos.

Q. During Manvantara when the Son is in existence or awake, does the Father-Mother exist independently or only as manifested in the Son?

A. In using the terms Father, Mother, and Son, we should be on our guard against anthropomorphizing the conception; the two former are simply centrifugal and centripetal forces and their product is the "Son"; moreover, it is impossible to exclude either of these factors from the conception in the Esoteric Philosophy.

Q. If so then comes this other point: it is possible to conceive of centripetal and centrifugal forces existing independently of the effects they produce. The effects are always regarded as secondary to the cause or causes.

A. But it is very doubtful whether such a conception can be maintained in, and applied to, our Symbology; if these forces exist they must be producing effects, and if the effects cease, the forces cease with them, for who can know of them?

Q. But they exist as separate entities for mathematical purposes, do they not?

A. That is a different thing; there is a great difference between nature and science, reality and philosophical symbolism. For the same reason we divide man into seven principles, but this does not mean that he has, as it were, seven skins, or entities, or souls. These principles are all aspects of one principle, and even this principle is but a temporary and periodical ray of the One eternal and infinite Flame or Fire.



Q. If the "Causes of existence" had been done away with, how did they come again into existence? It is stated in the Commentary that the chief cause of existence is "the desire to exist," but in the sloka, the universe is called the "son of necessity."

A. "The causes of existence had been done away with" refers to the last Manvantara, or age of Brahma, but the cause which makes the Wheel of Time and Space run into Eternity, which is out of Space and Time, has nothing to do with finite causes or what we call Nidanas. There seems to me no contradiction in the statements.

Q. There certainly is a contrast. If the causes of existence had been done away with, how did they come into existence again? But the answer removes the difficulty, for it is stated that one Manvantara had disappeared into Pralaya, and that the cause which led the previous Manvantara to exist is now behind the limits of Space and Time, and therefore causes another Manvantara to come into being.

A. Quite so. This one eternal and therefore, "causeless cause" is immutable and has nothing to do with the causes on any of the planes which are concerned with finite and conditioned being. The cause can therefore by no means be a finite consciousness or desire. It is an absurdity to postulate desire or necessity of the Absolute; the striking of a clock does not suggest the desire of the clock to strike.

Q. But the clock is wound up, and needs a Winder?

A. The same may be said of the universe and this cause, the Absolute containing both clock and Winder, once it is the Absolute; the only difference is that the former is wound up in Space and Time and the latter out of Space and Time, that is to say in Eternity.

Q. The question really requests an explanation of the cause, in the Absolute, of differentiation?

A. That is outside the province of legitimate speculation. Parabrahm is not a cause, neither is there any cause that can compel it to emanate or create. Strictly speaking, Parabrahm is not even the Absolute but Absoluteness. Parabrahm is not the cause, but the causality, or the propelling but not volitional power, in every manifesting Cause. We may have some hazy idea that there is such a thing as this eternal Causeless Cause or Causality. But to define it is impossible. In the "Lectures on the Bhagavat Gita," by Mr. Subba Row, it is stated that logically even the First Logos cannot cognize Parabrahm, but only Mulaprakriti, its veil. When, therefore, we have yet no clear idea of Mulaprakriti, the first basic aspect of Parabrahm, what can we know of that Supreme Total which is veiled by Mulaprakriti (the root of nature or Prakriti) even to the Logos?

Q. What is the meaning of the expression in sloka (7), the visible that was, and the invisible that is"?

A. "The visible that was" means the universe of the past Manvantara which had passed into Eternity and was no more. "The invisible that is" signifies the eternal, ever-present and ever-invisible deity, which we call by many names, such as abstract Space, Absolute Sat, etc., and know, in reality, nothing about it.


Q. Does the "Eye" open upon the Absolute: or are the "one form of existence" and the "All-Presence" other than the Absolute, or various names for the same Principle?

A. It is all one, of course; simply metaphorical expressions. Please notice that the "Eye" is not said to "see"; it only "sensed" the "All-Presence."

Q. It is through this "Eye" then, that we receive such sense, or feeling, or consciousness?

A. Through that "Eye," most decidedly; but then one must have such an "Eye" before he can see, or become a Dangma, or a Seer.

Q. The highest spiritual faculty, presumably?

A. Very well; but where, at that stage, was the happy possessor of it? There was no Dangma to sense the "All-Presence," because there were as yet no men.

Q. With reference to sloka (6), it was stated that the cause of Light was Darkness?

A. Darkness has, here again, to be read in a metaphorical sense. It is Darkness most unquestionably to our intellect, inasmuch as we can know nothing of it. I told you already that neither Darkness nor Light are to be used in the sense of opposites, as in the differentiated world. Darkness is the term which will give rise to least misconceptions. For instance, if the term "Chaos" were used, it would be liable to be confounded with chaotic matter.

Q. The term light was, of course, never used for physical light?

A. Of course not. Here light is the first potentiality awakening from its laya condition to become a potency; it is the first flutter in undifferentiated matter which throws it into objectivity and into a plane from which will start manifestation.

Q. Later on in the "Secret Doctrine," it is stated that light is made visible by darkness, or rather that darkness exists originally, and that light is the result of the presence of objects to reflect it, that is of the objective world. Now if we take a globe of water and pass an electric beam through it, we shall find that this beam is invisible, unless there are opaque particles in the water, in which case, specks of light will be seen. Is this a good analogy?

A. It is a very fair illustration, I believe.

Q. Is not Light a differentiation of vibration?

A. So we are told in Science; and Sound is also. And so we see that the senses are to a certain extent interchangeable. How would you account, for instance, for the fact that in trance a clairvoyant can read a letter, sometimes placed on the forehead, at the soles of the feet, or on the stomach-pit?

Q. That is an extra sense.

A. Not at all; it is simply that the sense of seeing can be interchanged with the sense of touch.

Q. But is not the sense of perception the beginning of the sixth sense?

A. That is going beyond the present case, which is simply the interchanging of the senses of touch and sight. Such clairvoyants, however, will not be able to tell the contents of a letter which they have not seen or been brought into contact with; this requires the exercise of the sixth sense, the former is an exercise of senses on the physical plane, the latter of a sense on a higher plane.

Q. It seems very probable from physiology that every sense may be resolved into the sense of touch, which may be called the co-ordinating sense. This deduction is made from embryological research, which shows that the sense of touch is the first and primary sense, and that all the rest are evolved from it. All the senses, therefore, are more highly specialized or differentiated forms of touch.

A. This is not the view of Eastern philosophy; in the Anugita, we read of a conversation between "Brahman" and his wife concerning the senses, seven are spoken of, "mind and understanding" being the other two, according to Mr. Trimbak Telang and Professor Max Muller's translation; these terms, however, do not convey the correct meaning of the Sanskrit terms. Now, the first sense, according to the Hindus, is connected with sound. This can hardly be the sense of touch.

Q. By touch most probably sensibility, or some sense medium, is meant?

A. In the Eastern philosophy, however, the sense of sound is first manifested, and next the sense of sight, sounds passing into colors. Clairvoyants can see sounds and detect every note and modulation far more distinctly than they would by the ordinary sense of sound -- vibration, or hearing.

Q. Is it, then, that sound is perceived as a sort of rhythmic movement?

A. Yes; and such vibrations can be seen at a greater distance than they can be heard.

Q. But supposing the physical hearing were stopped, and a person perceived sounds clairvoyantly, could not this sensation be translated into clairaudience as well?

A. One sense must certainly merge at some point into the other. So also sound can be translated into taste. There are sounds which taste exceedingly acid in the mouths of some sensitives, while others generate the taste of sweetness, in fact, the whole scale of senses is susceptible of correlations.

Q. Then there must be the same extension of the sense of smell?

A. Very naturally, as has been already shown before. The senses are interchangeable once we admit correlation. Moreover they can all be intensified or modified very considerably. You will now understand the reference in the Vedas and Upanishads, where sounds are said to be perceived.

Q. There was a curious story in the last number of Harper's Magazine of a tribe on an island in the South Seas which have virtually lost the art and habit of speaking and conversing. Yet, they appeared to understand one another and see plainly what each other thought.

A. Such a "Palace of Truth" would hardly suit modern society. However, it was by just such means that the early races are said to have communicated with one another, thought taking an objective form, before speech developed into a distinct spoken language. If so, then there must have been a period in the evolution of the human races when the whole Humanity was composed of sensitives and clairvoyants.



Helios the physical sun is equated with the number 666.  

The "magic square of the sun," was one of the most important symbols used to represent the sun in antiquity because of all the symbolism it possessed involving the perfect number "6." There are six sides to a cube, the numbers 1, 2, an 3, when added or multiplied together are equal to "6," and the sum of all the numbers from 1 to 36 arranged in a 6x6 magic square are equal to the number "666." The square is "magic" because the sum of any row, column, or diagonal is equal to the number "111." 

Since the early Christians were converted pagans, one of the ploys the early teachers of the church used to convert pagans to Christianity was that Jesus Christ had more solar attributes than any other god. Matthew 17:2 states that His face was even reputed to shine like the sun.

Matt. 17:2 - And was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun and his raiment was white as the light.

The Greek alphabet has 26 letters, each one with a different numerical value. The Greek spelling of Jesus is IESOUS. The numerical value of IESOUS = 888 which represents The Spiritual Sun or Solar Logos.

"In the beginning was the Logos" the Gospel of John states, and in the words of the Logos itself, "I am the Light of the World."  All those who are born into the world is outwardly illuminated by the physical sun, but only those wh otrun their attention back to the world of first principles are inwardly enlightened by the Spiritual Sun of the Logos.

The early Christians maintained that IESOUS was "a name above all names".

Early Gnostic Christians were aware enough  to make this comparisons. The raised Jesus (888) was known as the Spiritual Sun. 

From: http://www.greatdreams.com/solar/phases.htm

In a dream I divined that that the three phases of the sun were fear, sharing, and love.

In the book, Jesus Christ, Sun of God, (p 264) David Fideler writes:

Those who turn their attention back to the world of first principles are inwardly enlightened by the Spiritual Sun of the Logos. 

The early Christians maintained that Iesous was 'a name above all names." Origen, the early church father, even went so far as to boast about how the name of Jesus possessed more magical efficacy than those of the pagan divinities. 

In the same way that the names of Apollo, Hermes, Abraxas, and Mithras were designed to represent aspects of the Universal Loos, the values of both IESOUS (888) and CHRISTOS (1480)  are obtained from 74, the most characteristic number from the magic square of the sun. (It is the numbers of the 4 corners)

It is unlikely that this is a coincid4ence, for, as dr. Eisler has pointed out, the name Iesous is "an artificial and irregular Greek transliteration" of the Aramaic name Joshua, designed to bring out the number 888. One can see an unmistakable parallel between the names Iesous and Christos, and the names of Hebrew planetary Spirits and Intelligences which were likewise derived from the magic squares of the planets. 

As the Spiritual Sun of what was then a new age, Jesus represents the idea of the Solar Logos incarnate, the Logos as Illuminator, Healer, Mediator, and Gnostic Revealer. "

The Greek name for Jesus, Iesous, adds up to 888. So the numbering to arrive at 888 is from Greek, not Hebrew.

NOTE:  When you divide 888 by 666 - the result is  133.333333333333


From: http://www.siriusresearchgroup.com/rcomments1.htm

Note: Mrs. Trimble is a professional astronomer and I believe an editor for "Physics Review". It is also my understanding that she has done some elaborate calculations on the positions of certain stars. Apparently, it was some sort of a research project conducted for a well-known Egyptologist, who had the notion to determine the alignment of these stars with the 'shafts' of the Great Pyramid, as it occurred several thousands of years ago. Since such calculations are based exclusively on the theory of 'precession', I have sent here my paper on the Precession Paradox.

Here it might be appropriate to include our message that EGYPTNEWS posted on 4/12/99 at


We would like to bring a certain fact to your attention, so that you may understand what dilemma Bauval and present-day astronomers are facing, not to mention all of the orthodox Egyptologists.

According to Mr. Bauval's statement (The Orion Mystery) Sirius was aligned with the southern shaft of 39°30'00" about 4450 years ago. Assuming that Sirius has no proper motion, i.e. its own motion relative to other stars, Sirius should have changed its position since those 4450 years by roughly 47° × 4450 ÷ 12900 = +16.21° (north). Since the position of Sirius is at present almost aligned with the 45° shaft of the Great Pyramid (exactly 1.67° below the shaft), Sirius has changed its position in those 4450 years by only 3.83°, according to Bauval. This would mean that during this time period of 4450 years Sirius has a negative declination deviation of 16.21° - 3.83° = 12.38°. In other words, a steady and fast motion in southern direction by about 10 arc.sec per year relative to the celestial background. That is absolute nonsense! If on top of this one is also convinced that a precession of the earth's axis must exist, while Sirius continues to distance itself from the other fixed stars, then how is Sirius suppose to return to its former position every 25800 years? Nobody in his right mind will ever believe that any star is about to follow the apparent precessional motion of our planet's axis. Just imagine this absurd cosmic phenomenon:

Sirius would have to perform the extraordinary task of moving away rapidly from the other fixed stars, while going around our solar system at roughly 5 arc hours per year (!) following the earth's axis, only to return to its original position every 25800 years after our "important" Earth completes its precession period apparently due to its wicked moon!

As mentioned, the present position of Sirius is at 1.67° below the 45° shaft. It is important to realize that this alignment does not occur every 25800 years, but that it is permanent; i.e. with every meridian transition of Sirius over this shaft. This will only function, if the axis of the earth does not precess, i.e. always aligned towards Sirius - actually somewhat between Sirius and Procyon. The annual regression of the fixed stars by about 50.26 arc sec on average is therefore caused by our entire solar system orbiting the Sirius system - our central sun. The cosmic phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes has been falsely attributed to a precession of the earth's axis itself

It is correct that Sirius has presently a negative declination, e.g. in the period 1970,0 to 1991,5 it was - 01'50". But this fact is due to the following reasons: 1) We should not forget that Sirius B and Sirius A revolve in a period of almost 50 years about a common center of gravity. This motion occurs almost vertical with respect to our celestial equator. 2) There is no exact measurement of the Right Ascension from the vernal equinox, since astronomers ignore the precise synchronization of our civil calendar to Earth's exact revolution period around the sun.

Explanation: The difference in time between a mean solar day and a mean sidereal day (Sothis day) is always exactly 86400 s - 86164.0905382 s = 235.9094618 s. When a calendar year ends, precisely 365 × 86400 s = 31536000 s have passed. However, relative to the essential sidereal point of reference (inertial space - vernal equinox) or actually relative to Sirius(Sothis) 366 × 86164.0905382 s = 31536057.137 s have elapsed, i.e. about a 57.14 s time difference. After four calendar years this ignored time difference accumulates to 4 × 57.137 s = 228.548 s. Only every four years (365.25 day cycle) we will finally have a leap day which brings us the essential solar-sidereal day difference of 235.9094618 seconds to compensate for the previous time-difference of 228.548 s. Because the compensation is a little too much, it means that every four years another time difference must occur: 235.90946 s - 228.548 s = 7.36 seconds. It is these crucial 7.36 s that will accumulate again to the mentioned solar-sidereal day difference of 235.90946 s, and a leap day is again required in roughly 128 years (235.90946 × 4 ÷ 7.36 = 128.18).

The disadvantage of the Gregorian calendar is its long leap cycle. Besides the normal four year leap cycle it has a 400 year cycle (time-keepers are trying to come as close as possible to the 128.18 year period, i.e. 400 ÷ 3 = 133.33 years). But due to this leap system eventually another leap day is needed to correct the calendar again every 3319.88 years. We can see that this makes the synchronization to the essential tropical-sidereal year somewhat difficult, causing data concerning the "Right Ascension" never to be exact.

The fact that astronomer do not take Math very seriously, is proven by their so-called Julian Period, "commonly used by astronomers, because it avoids some of the annoying complexities of the civil calendar", as the Observer's Handbook of the Royal Astronomical Society tells us. The Julian Day system counts the days that have elapsed since January 1, 4713 B.C., commencing at noon (12h) UT Greenwich meridian. Despite its modification in the geophysical year 1957/58 the Julian day system is off by about 39.75 days!! The Modified Julian Date starts on November 17, 1858 at 0h0m0s and it is said to be equal to 2 400 000.5 JD. However, according to calculation exactly 6570 years have passed since January 1, 4713 B.C. until December 31, 1857. And from January 1, 1858 0h0m0s to November 17, 1858 0h0m0s there are 320 days. Since a tropical year has 365.24219878 days, we can multiply this time period by 6570, add the 320 days and subtract the half a day time difference (12h to 0h) for a total of 2 399 960.75 days. Clearly, a difference of +39.75 days occurs. Now the question is, how can such an error have been neglected in the geophysical year 1957/58? According to the figure of 2 400 000.5 a tropical year must have had a duration of 365.2482498 days. Such a year does not make any sense - astronomically it just does not fit in. The only explanation would be, that one has taken the four-year leap cycle into consideration, but totally ignored the time difference of the additional seconds, which accumulate eventually to a full day. Instead of the actual 128.18-year period, one arrived somehow at an unusual 571.3-year cycle.


The co-author of "The Orion Mystery", Mr. Adrian G. Gilbert, had made the following statement in a letter to me on March 23, 1997:

"Thank you for your long fax and subsequent letter, both of which I have now studied. Whilst I find some of the explanation a little technical, I am now sure you are right: Precession is a mathematical con-trick, just like Ptolemy's epicycles. What we see and interpret as the earth's 'wobble' is really the effect produced by our sun going round the star Sirius. This seems perfectly logical to me and I would have thought would come as a great relief to astronomers, who have been scratching their heads for decades trying to understand the forces responsible for precession."

There is no actual astronomical measurement that does not contain a fraction or decimal..... A "day", as we measure it, is not a precise 24 hours...the actual day is approximately 3+ seconds longer than 24 hours. This slight difference also helps to account for why the sun rises and sets at a different time every day (in addition to the shift of the earth on her polar axis). The tropical calendar presumes that the sun enters the first degree of Aires on the Vernal Equinox every year..however, every (approx.) 72 years there is a one degree precession of everything that is viewed from the earth. The phenomenon of precession is caused by Man's attempt to put the length of a day into an exact 24 hour context. The precise precessional movement CAN be measured contrary to your statement below and it is measured at the Vernal Equinox and the annual rising of Sirius with the Sun....the measurement is approximately one degree of precession every 72 years....in fact, this is the method by which we measure the length of astrological ages.....which is the amount of time that it takes the Sun to preces through one complete 30 degree sign of the zodiac. There is no real mystery here...it's just that the calendar has been adjusted (leap years, etc) to the point that the 3+ seconds EXTRA each day cannot be conveniently accounted for by the addition of a day every 72 years....so the result is what we call precession.

If you were in a car travelling at 24.003 miles an hour and started out next to a car travelling exactly 24 miles an hour the "second car" would gradually appear to "preces" (or go backwards relative to the vehicle that you are in)......

Your gyroscope analysis is logically a fallacy....the earth is not "precessing"...everything viewed from the earth is "apparently" precessing from the viewpoint of the earth. If your wristwatch gained 3 1/2 minutes of time every day, and if you geared your day by the time that was displayed on your watch then everything in your world would appear to "preces" relative to your activities. There is "something" that you are not "getting"...perhaps this will assist you a bit.

Man's egocentric disposition (we are the center of the universe, etc) has had him think that the entire universe was precessing when the real issue is that the actual day is slightly longer that the 24 hour box that we have tried to put it into (like the wristwatch analogy).....so everything else appears to be going backwards relative to our "egocentric" position.

Very Best Regards,


My reply:

In deed, in case a precession of the Earth were to exist, not only must the mean solar day of 86400 seconds, but also the mean sidereal day of 86164.09054 s be about 3 seconds (3.34 s) longer. If you do not trust mathematical and physical laws, as I have presented them in my paper, then I suggest the following method: Measure the total elapsed time period of at least 10 meridian transitions of Sirius (a simple transit-instrument, solidly mounted, will work just fine), by using the precise UTC time signal from Fort Collins, Colorado for example. You will be surprised to find out that the additional 3+ seconds per day do not even exist.

If you were to study my paper carefully, you will also see that a precession of the Earth's axis itself does not occur, as claimed. Instead, our entire solar system is orbiting the Sirius system, thereby creating the effect of a "precession of the equinoxes" with respect to the other stars.

Best wishes, Karl-H. & Uwe Homann



To: Karl-Heinz Homann

I have examined your web page <<The Mathematical Problem of the "Precession-Time Paradox">>. I found that you mistakenly add different rotations that are in reality two different ways to describe the same thing. More specifically, your sentence:
<<A gyroscope at point B on the line A-C makes n rotations with respect to the central point A in one complete period of revolution around A. Logically, the gyroscope must make n + 1 rotations with respect to the distant point C.>> does not apply to the other examples in the text.

Your line of argumentation and your mathematical proof is wrong, because of the FALSE claim that a precession cycle must cause an additional year with respect to the sun. I have spent enough time with this matter and explained briefly what was wrong with your argumentation.

No wonder Dr. Stephen Hawking or the other institutes have not responded. You should learn about classical mechanics before finding paradoxes caused by your own ignorance!



In response I wrote:

Thank you for your e-mail from February 18, 2000. It seems to me that your comments are based on a simple misunderstanding. The claim that a precession cycle must cause an additional year with respect to the sun is indeed false. But this is NOT my claim! Such a false claim is the result of the official textbook claim that a precession of the earth is supposed to exist, and that a time difference of about 1223 seconds or about 20.38 minutes per year must occur as a result of such a precession. Since mathematically speaking 20.38 minutes times roughly 25 800 years (apparent precession cycle) comes to a time period of one year, it would be safe to assume that this "additional year" must be accounted for somewhere. However, as a matter of fact, these approximately 20.38 minutes per year simply do not exist in reality! I am sorry that despite all the time you have spent on my paper, you could not get the point I am trying to make. Hopefully, my open letter to the IAU will shed some more light on what this issue is all about.

Thanks for your time and interest.

Best regards, Uwe Homann


Some more thoughts on Gravitation:

Lately, a few people have asked me how I would describe the 'force' that is supposed to exist between our sun and Sirius, given my assertion that our solar system is in orbit with the Sirius system?

Before I will try to answer this question it should be noted that Einstein's theory of non-linear gravitation is a proven scientific fact. Therefore, I strongly believe that it would be a mistake to describe the force of gravitation in space solely as a linear function and to assume that it is a direct attraction of masses. According to Einstein, matter 'bends' space, or as I see it: Any given mass tends to create a 'lower point' in its region of space.

I think to better understand the 'mysterious' force of gravity a further aspect of space needs to be addressed, namely the vacuum. I am referring in particular to the enormous energy density of the vacuum of about 1094 g /cm3 (according to J.A. Wheeler) and its still underestimated influence on matter in the universe. Such an energy density seems to be incomprehensible to our intellect, since it is already difficult to imagine the density of the most compact matter known to us, namely that of a neutron star, which is about 1014 g/cm3. In other words, just one cubic centimeter of such neutron matter would weight 100 million tons on Earth. Perhaps the idea of 'bend space' or 'lower points in regions of space' will make more sense, if we look at the formation of a hurricane. A vacuum or rather a difference in air pressure exists between the eye or the 'lower point' and the outer regions of the hurricane, causing a very turbulent movement of air molecules, especially in the outer regions. The entire system can have a radius of several hundred kilometers with sustained wind velocities of more than 200 km/h at its edge as it moves towards lower areas or regions of pressure. Galaxies rotating around their centers, while moving around larger centers in the universe remind us of a hurricane. Similar to the turbulent air molecules far away from the 'governing' center of the hurricane, we can visualize how within a galaxy, planets not only orbit their suns, but entire solar systems revolve around other star systems.

For instance, we know that the Procyon system is about 10.3 light-years away from our solar system. It is quite possible that this system is also in orbit with the Sirius system, given that its distance is about 4.5 light-years from the Sirius system. This fact would imply that its orbital radius is about halfway between our sun and Sirius. Both of these double star systems have a combined mass of roughly 5 solar masses. Certainly, these masses create a significant bending of a region of space that could reach as far as to our solar system. Based on scientific observations and meridian time-measurements of Sirius, it can be assumed that our solar system lies in the 'outskirts' of such a 'lower region' of space, while revolving around it.

Maybe if Johannes Kepler would have had our modern precise instruments and atomic clocks during his lifetime, he might have completed the formulation of his laws. While trying to explain the empty focal point of the elliptic orbits of planets, he could have contemplated the possibility that a distant star may determine this crucial second focal point. The question is whether or not the 'lower' region of space of the Sirius system can cause the elliptic orbits of our planets, considering the fact that earth's perihelion occurs on January 2 as the earth crosses the imaginary line between our sun and Sirius? The revolution of Sirius B and Sirius A around their common center of gravity proceeds in an almost vertical plane relative to the planetary plane of our solar system. Such a motion could create a 'pulsating bending' of space during a cycle of 49.68 years. Not only would this particular motion of the Sirius system keep the planets of our solar system in their exact orbits, but it would also cause their revolution periods to be constant. In other words, the orbital motion of the Sirius system may act like the pendulum of a clock mechanism. It requires further study to see if the 49 year cycle of the Sirius system can provide us with an explanation of the large fluctuations and annual irregularities in earth's rate of rotation that have been observed around 1941 by experts at the US Naval Observatory. I note that these large fluctuations also occurred again around 1990.

It was Newton who wrote at the end of the book of Principles, "All these very regular movements (of planets and satellites in the same direction, almost in the same plane and in almost circular orbits) have no mechanical cause, since the comets move in all parts of the sky and in very eccentric orbits." And at the end of his Optics he says, "A blind destiny could never make the planets to move in this manner, save for some hardly noticeable irregularities that could stem from the action of planets and comets upon another, irregularities which will probably increase after a long period of time, until at last this system need be ordered anew by its author."

Is there more order in the universe than modern science cares to admit?

Karl-Heinz Homann

From: http://siriusresearchgroup.com/ecomments3.htm

For readers who are interested, the precession of the Earths axis is easily measured in one lifetime, in fact the axis of the Earth precesses one Degree every 71.6 years...very easy to measure. The figures are as follows: one day=1/7"; one week=1"; one year, 50.274"; 30 years 25.14' (1950-1980); 71.6 years, one degree; 100 years 1.397 degrees; 2150 years (one sign of the Zodiac) 30 degrees; 25,800 years, 360 degrees.

The author talks about an "Axis Star" which is "orbited by our solar system". It would require a massive body for that to occur, so massive, it would be observable as a binary companion of the Sun. However, I really appreciate this intuition, for in an Einsteinian Hyperspherical Universe every frame of reference moves about every other. Frames of reference are not prioritized by the respective increasing masses of heavenly bodies in a given system. Each point in Einsteinian Space Time has its own equally valid frame of reference. This prediction is experimentally verifiable, and as I recall, some expensive equipment was sent into space this year (1999) to test Einstein once again. I haven't heard the results, but if the Einsteinian prediction was incorrect, the whole world would know about it by now!

My final comment is on "significant" figures: The letter JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory-NASA) sent to Mr. Homann stressed the fact that because of many factors (many of which I have mentioned), most of the places in his mathematical figures are not significant. This means they are not really meaningful, and it is not good science to try to use them. Even seconds of arc in Mercuries orbit are significant, but millionths of seconds of arc? There are just to many factors here. The problem is much like the one we have in physics when we try to evaluate an eggs coming together and jumping on the table using forces and vectors. As the recent experiments with infinite points in space/ time, each representing a separate frame of reference, evaluating Humpties "resurrection" requires that the world-line of each atom be taken into consideration...a job for an advanced form of probability theory, and computers about 10,000 times larger than anything we have today!...if we want to learn anything significant.

I am impressed with Mr. Homanns interest in Astronomy! Little things are important, and we need to be watchful of experimental deviations from our models of any kind, however seemingly insignificant. If we begin to see a pattern of deviation, it is time to take a hard look at our models and re-evaluate them mathematically.

I wish Mr. Homann my best in his personal quest for exactness!


Sam Cox: College of Micronesia


December 23, 1999

Dear Mr. Cox,

Thank you very much for commenting on my paper "The Mathematical Problem of the Precession-Time Paradox". I am very glad that you have taken the time to review and evaluate my work. Thanks to your critical and objective comments it seems to me that it is necessary to try to explain a few details a little better. I sense a certain misconception that most people might have regarding my "desire for utmost precision" and therefore I must clarify an important point.

Because of the jobs I have done in my lifetime I learned to love mathematics and mechanical precision. But the issue here is not really about small and insignificant fractions of a second, but about the immense time difference of 1223 seconds per revolution period. These 1223 s per year can only exist if a precession of the earth's axis exists. There is, however, absolutely no scientific proof that this enormous time difference does indeed occur in reality. Therefore, it can be concluded that earth's precession cannot be viewed as a physical fact. The slow regression of the fixed stars (including our pole star) with respect to earth's equinoctial points must have a different cause.

We seem to agree that the mean rotation time of the earth on its axis is about 23h56m4.09 s, or about 86164.091 s relative to the fixed stars. This figure by the way coincides with my measurement of Sirius. Of course, this is a "mean" time based on continues measurement over a period of 5 years. As a matter of fact, I have observed and measured significant variations in earth's sidereal rotation time from anywhere up to roughly plus minus one second per day. But it is important to remember that all these fluctuations in earth's rotation time average out with each complete period of revolution; i.e. earth's actual orbit time remains nearly constant. It is said to deviate by no more than 0.1 seconds in roughly 6500 years. As we can see, such a tiny difference in time is very insignificant as compared to the time discrepancy of more than 1223 seconds, which should occur due to a precession of the earth's axis.

You mentioned that rotation, revolution and precession are separate processes and that precession has only small direct effects on the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution about the sun. Basically, I must agree with what you say. But unfortunately astronomers view the effect that precession has on our earth's revolution period very different - due to precession we are suppose to have two different years which differ by more than 1223 s per revolution from each other. It looks like we have no other choice as to first examine physically what effect precession would really have on the earth's mean rotation and revolution time.

We said that earth's mean rotation time relative to the fixed stars is about 86164.091s (86164.09054 s to be more exact). With every rotation of the earth a retrograding precessional motion of the earth's axis causes a time delay of about 9.12 ms relative to the position of the fixed stars. This means, the mean sidereal rotation time of the earth increases to about 86164.1 s (86164.09966 s). For example, after 366 rotations of the earth this time difference accumulates to about 3.34 s, which is equivalent to the observed regression of the fixed stars of about 50.26" per year. We must keep in mind that no matter by how much earth's actual rotation time on its own axis may vary, the "apparent" time delay caused by precession will remain at its constant rate of about 9.12 ms per day. Obviously this "apparent" time delay has no direct effect on the earth's actual rotation time on its axis. Precession can also have no influence on the actual revolution period of the earth about the sun relative to the fixed stars, since this time interval is independent of earth's rotation period. So why is there a time difference of about 1223 s with every revolution of the earth about the sun? Why does precession cause during every rotation of the earth a time delay of 9.12 ms relative to the fixed stars and simultaneously a time delay of about 3.34 s relative to the sun?

Here begins the problem of a unique physical and mathematical paradox. Because a precession of the earth's axis causes a gradual shift of the earth's seasons (equinoctial points) relative to the sun, the earth appears to move "backwards" around the sun by 50.26" per day (!) or about 1° every 72 periods of revolution. In other words, precession is responsible for a steady "decrease" in earth's orbit time about the sun, when compared to the position of the fixed stars - the essential sidereal point of reference. We know that earth's actual 360° orbit time around sun is 31,556,925.9747 s - this is the defined time interval of a tropical year. Question: If the fixed stars regress from this essential time interval by about 3.34 s, then where do those mysterious 1223 s fit in? Answer: Nowhere. Since they are definitely not a physical fact that can be verified and substantiated by actual sidereal time measurement, these 1223 s per year are an just an illusion, seemingly created by a so-called precession of the earth's axis. In order to solve this problem we must understand two very important things:


  1. The fundamental principle of the civil calendar.
  2. The actual revolution period of the earth around the sun relative to the inertial position of the fixed stars.



The Monad and the Demiurges
of the Tarot

Here is the Chapter of the Demiurgic Fowler, Seeker, or Brooder, from the Book of Lights (Book Nought/Thirteen: Chapter Nine):

0/13: Let each and all honor the SPIRITUAL FOWLER; that Protectress, Seeker and Brooder Who lives within Us all; Who is Our Dark-Daughter; Who dwells within Our navel and in Our liver; Who holds the roundel of the Archangel Aurael, Phoenix of the World, and the Coven of Twelve Power Soul-Birds.
1: Seeker am I in My Green-Blue robes; ninefold are My orbs of Scorpio, and Blue-Green is the Grand Novile, the Seeded Cube between;
2: My name is Hieronona; is Hiera'wys; is Maha-Saras-Uata, Vata, Wotan; is Iuno; is Westa, Vesta, Hestia; is Set; is the Aditya Vivasvat, embodiment of ancestral patterns of morality; is Leulata, Lilith; is Tiw; is Aradia;
3: My Gift is the Bell, tolling the rites of passage; and the nine-knotted Cord of Divine Life of the Earthly Daughter;
4: Warded by Arto, by Arduina, My Bear of the nine fires; My folk who protect My Turquoise Realm, West in the Northwest Quarter of the Central Isle;
5: My flower is the Lotus, growing;
6: Upon My Tungsten hills, and within My ringwall of Bronze and of Steel;
7: Around My nine-sided city of Turquoise; My city of Aquamarine;
8: Near Autumn-Tide Channel, River of the Lake; bordered all with Holly-groves; entwined in the Vine of the Grape.
9: Protected by My Peafowl; under the wing of My Vulture, folk of Late Autumn's After-Sext;
10: My treasure is Athanaus Mana'wytan; Birth-Vessel of this EMPRESS of Tarot;
11: My music is Hypo-Mixolydian;
12: My sphere of knowledge is Paernaussos; is Neptune.


On, esoterically Annu

A. From Swift Platinum Eastons Topical Bible :

On: light; the sun, (Gen. 41:45, 50), the great seat of sun-worship, called also Bethshemesh (Jer. 43:13) and Aven (Ezek. 30:17), stood on the east bank of the Nile, a few miles north of Memphis, and near Cairo, in the north-east.

The Vulgate and the LXX. Versions have "Heliopolis" ("city of the sun") instead of On in Genesis and of Aven in Ezekiel. 

The "city of destruction" Isaiah speaks of (Isaiah 19:18, marg. "of Heres;" Heb. 'Ir-ha-heres, which some MSS. (manuscripts) read Ir-ha-heres, i.e., "city of the sun") may be the name given to On, the prophecy being that the time will come when that city which was known as the "city of the sun-god" shall become the "city of destruction" of the sun-god, i.e., when idolatry shall cease, and the worship of the true God be established. 

In ancient times this city was full of obelisks dedicated to the sun. Of these only one now remains standing. "Cleopatra's Needle" was one of those which stood in this city in front of the Temple of Tum, i.e., "the sun." It is now erected on the Thames Embankment, London.

"It was at On that Joseph wooed and won the dark-skinned Asenath, the daughter of the high priest of its great temple." This was a noted university town, and here Moses gained his acquaintance with "all the wisdom of the Egyptians."

B. From Naves Topical Bible:

 On: Capital of Lower Egypt (also known as Heliopolis or Annu of the North) (Genesis 41: 45, 46: 20). 

C. From the Bible- King James Version: 

Genesis 41: 45  And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt. 

Genesis 41:50  And unto Joseph were born two sons before the years of famine came, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.

Genesis 46: 20 And unto Joseph in the land of Egypt were born Manasseh and Ephraim, which Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On bare unto him.

 Acts of the Apostles 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. 

D. From Swift Platinum Eastons Topical Bible :

Moses at length became learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts 7:22). Egypt had then two chief seats of learning, or universities, at one of which, probably that of Heliopolis (On), his education was completed. (emphasis added)


FROM: http://uk.geocities.com/songoftaliesin/intromag.htm

The attributes of all the seven Divine Rays and their Grail Guardians are brought together in The Magdalene, wife of Jesus; sometimes known as The Dark (or Black) Madonna. In the same way that the colour black comes about by absorbing into itself all the colors of the spectrum, so The Dark Madonna absorbs all the seven coloured Divine Rays - before combining them all into the brilliant White Light of God emanating from The Holy Grail - The Sangreal. From this Grail, this Holy Light radiates outward to heal all the ills of Planet Earth, our Mother and our Home.

It is believed that Mary Magdalene was born in the year 3 B.C. In Gnostic tradition she was associated with Wisdom, and represented by the Moon, the Sun and with a halo of stars -thought to be the constellation of Corona Borealis or The Northern Crown. Mary's name is derived from a Hebrew word migdal, meaning "a tower".

During the Qumran era in which she lived, the name Mary was a form of the name Miriam. This had been the name of the sister of Aaron and Moses, and as well as being a long-standing and popular name for women, it had also become used as a title. In the Palestine of Jesus' time, women called Miriams( or Marys) were priestesses who carried out a formal ministry within spiritual and holy orders. Mary Magdalene was a follower of the Gnostic faith.

At the age of 27, Mary Magdalene married Jesus of Nazareth. Theirs was a dynastic marriage, as Jesus was of the Royal Line of King David. It was arranged and proceeded with according to the Messianic tradition of his people. By tradition, Jesus was obliged to marry and to have at least two male heirs, to ensure the continuation of King David's Royal Line. Jesus and Mary were betrothed to each other in June in 30 A.D. Jesus' & Mary's marriage took place later that year. Information that it took place was later suppressed by being taken out of the text of The Bible, and all references to it were banned by a Church Decree several hundred years after the deaths of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. However, the facts of their lives remained in the written civil administration records of the Roman Province in which they lived.

In order to change the history of Jesus and Mary, the Roman Catholic Church chose to discredit Mary Magdalene and keep the marriage secret, so as to make Christianity a solely patriarchal religion. To accomplish this they made use of ambiguous comments in the New Testament, put mis-translations into Bible texts, and issued Church Decrees to make the story of Jesus to be read as the Church wished it from then on. This began a period of almost two thousand years in which the feminine aspect of God The Creator was denied, although The Catholic Church were later obliged to restore it in part by introducing worship of The Virgin Mary, Jesus' mother, into its rites.

In 63 A.D., Mary Magdalene died at St. Baume, aged 60. Her remains were preserved in the Abbey of Saint Maximus in the nearby village. In 1279 A.D., King Charles II of Sicily, who was also Le Compte de Provence (The Count of Provence), disinterred Mary's body. Her skull and an upper arm were removed and the body was reburied. The removed bones were set in gold and silver and preserved in a casket as holy relics in St. Maximus' Abbey, where they have remained ever since.

The Chipmunk

Chipmunk, like squirrel, embodies the quality of trust.  They have little fear of people and are often found in rural areas, city parks and in the wild.  Chipmunks are very curious and take the time to explore everything that comes across their path.  They are inquisitive, fearless and playful.  They do what they want to do in their own time frame.  They are quite vocal often drawing attention to themselves.  Chipmunk medicine people will not tolerate being told what to do or when to do it.
They make good leaders and spokespersons.

When a chipmunk is twelve weeks old they have the ability to be on their own.  The symbolism of the number twelve or the combined numbers of one and two should be studied by those with this totem.  Cycles occur regularly in a persons life and those with chipmunk medicine will often find that changes will occur in their life approximately every twelve weeks or twelve months.  Knowing this gives you forewarning and the opportunity for preparedness.

By watching the chipmunks behavior much can be learned.  They appear to scamper to and fro always in a hurry to get somewhere.  Starting in one direction, circling around and arriving back where they started from.  There is no detail that goes unnoticed by the chipmunk as they circle around and see beyond the obvious. Chipmunk teaches the art of observation and appropriate movement.

Chipmunks have an air of independence and certainty about them.  Their inquisitive nature leads them into unexplored territory and their detailed mind leaves no stone unturned.  If chipmunk is your totem pay attention to how your energy is being used.  Are you thoughts constructive or destructive?  Are your fears keeping you from playing and enjoying life?  Are you in charge of your life or have you given you authority over to another?

Chipmunk is the messenger of many realms. 



Lying between blue and yellow, the color green evokes a consciousness of life. Where there is green, there is life-sustaining human habitation. It is not coincidental that green vegetables provide exquisite nutrition for the human body. We feel alive and rejuvenated because we associate green with growth.

Green can also indicate immaturity, as in the immature apple. Having insufficient training or being too new is expressed by the term greenhorn. Envy, that deadly sin, is described as green. When we turn green, we are nauseated; hence green can be a sign of sickness.

Use green to:


133.33 I Ching - Geomancy - THE BOOK OF CHANGES

The I Ching is a book of oracles. It has dominant influnce on the daily lives of many people through its role in astrology, geomancy, life-nurturing practices, medical theory and fortune-telling.

The Beginning Of All Things

The Absolute begins with taji. When this is differentiated into 2 states, it becomes Yin and Yang. When Yin and Yang are further differentiated, we have Major Yin, Minor Yang, Minor Yin and Major Yang. When each state is further differentiated, what results is the 8 Trigrams, which consist of 3 full lines and 3 broken lines, with the possible combinations. When the 8 Trigrams are further subdivided 3 times, we have 64 hexagrams. This is what is commonly referred to as "Fu Xi's hexagrams".

I CHING [pronounced 'Yee Jing'] means "THE BOOK OF CHANGES".

For over 5000 years the I CHING has been used to explain present circumstances and to predict the outcome of future events. The uncanny precision stemming from these prophesies form sound advice to those who seek an answer.

The predictive principle stems from the fact that the entire universe is undergoing continuous change. Yet, at any given moment, the pattern fits a cosmic holistic design. I CHING reveals this truth to the wise listener and seeker of the truth. Be aware, however, that the advice is relevant only for that particular instant of time.

The I CHING answer comes from using 64 TILES each of which is composed of six lines. A line on a tile will be either broken or unbroken. The program used on these web pages graphically represents each type of line as follows:

BROKEN          ---------- ------------
UNBROKEN     ------------------------

Six of these lines appear on each tile. Two complete TILES are generated where one TILE represents the PRESENT and the
other TILE represents the FUTURE.

Interestingly, There are 64 Elements (codons) of the DNA are the total of 20 amino acids with varying quantities of this 64 codons plus two and one stop codon. It started to get interesting, because Cabala and Tarot both describe a belief system with 22 elements too.

The universe is now no longer seen as a machine made up of a multitude of separate objects, but appears as a harmonious indivisible whole-a network of dynamic relationships that include the human observer and his consciousness in an essential way. Modern physics, the manifestation of extreme specialisation of the rational human mind, now has made contact with Eastern mystic philosophy- the essence of religion and the manifestation of extreme specialisation of the intuitive mind.

One of the main lessons that physicists had to learn in this century was that all the concepts and theories used to describe nature are limited. Scientific theories can never provide a complete and definite description of reality. They will always be approximations of the true nature of things. Even scientists do not deal with the truth-they can only deal with limited and approximate descriptions of reality.
Both the quantum theory and relativity theory, the two foundations of 20th century physics, force physicists to now see the world very much in the way a Hindu, Buddhist, or Taoist sees it. The effect on the physicists' view of reality is truly shattering. They make the parallels between modern physics and Eastern mysticism most striking.

One aspect of the I Ching that appeals to modern physicists is the relation between spirit and matter. The Chinese believe spirit and matter are two aspects of the same thing. To them spirit is inherent in matter. Albert Einstein's field theory agrees with this. Psychologist Carl Jung studied the text for years and discovered it contained profound truths. Nobel physicist Niels Bohr recognised parallels with modern atomic science. Other top scientists found that the 64 hexagrams in the I Ching correspond exactly to that the 64 DNA condons of the genetic code of all life on earth.

Photo: Steve Alexander

It is interesting, that Michael Glickman has interpreted the 1997 Etchilhampton 'Grid' formation as a pointer to 2012 (see SC 68), with its 30 X 26 grid indicating the 30 26-week periods between 1997 and 2012. What Michael didn't mention is that the 780 squares of the grid are exactly divisible by the
TZOLKIN, or Mayan Sacred Calendar, which is a grid of 260 squares of sides 13 X 20. Three Tzolkins fit into the crop grid - two fit straight in and the third after bisection. Actually, the grid seems to relate to a "map" called "Psi Bank Warp and Holonomic Woof", consisting of eight Tzolkins joined together, showing relationships between the Mayan calendar, the I Ching, and the 64 DNA codons, in a book called Earth Ascending by Jose Arguelles (page 121). Arguelles' research into the Mayan calendar, plus physics, philosophy, geomancy and the I Ching convinced him that Mankind is creating a "noosphere" or mind layer around the Earth, which is evolving towards Teilhard de Chardin's 'Omega Point of Planetary Awakening' in 2012. When he published Earth Ascending in 1984, he was unaware of the work of the McKenna brothers, who had published a book in 1975 called The Invisible Landscape, with details of a sophisticated mathematical analysis of the I Ching. The brothers concluded that the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching oracle, or 'Book of Changes', was originally used as a calendar and portrays 64 timewaves which interact to form a "modular hierarchy" of 26 levels. The modular hierarchy is a Mandelbrot fractal where each of the levels is 64 times greater than the one below. When the fractal was mapped against history, the end-of-time climax where the waves all peak together was found to be 2012. The McKennas were not aware until later that this is the end of the Mayan calendar!