Me: "Seriously!?"
the_real_simon_iff: I would have said "Seriously?" that you did not know this. Trying to find and explore solutions to the various riddles in Liber L is as AC-relevant as it gets. It's the Aleister Crowley Society, not the Aleister Crowley Quote Society.
Seriously!?, like in an individual ( = threefold31 ) using this site to promote his The Book of the Lauds, (source: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-book-of-the-lauds/ ), his own spin on, and his own imitation of, Aleister Crowley's own core text for the latter's religion Thelema. As "LAShTAL.COM doesn’t promote a particular interpretation of Thelema and neither does it seek to teach or initiate." (Source: "Guidelines [...] Introduction" - - - https://www.lashtal.com/guidelines/ )
@wellreadwellbred Maybe you should go and whine to Paul to have this nuisance to you removed from the site? As I said this is NOT the Aleister Crowley Quoting Society. And even when you are not a native English speaker (just like me) you surely realise that Lashtal isn't promoting the Book of the Lauds by allowing it to be discussed here, don't you?
I am in no doubt about there being much to discuss with respect to the well-written and polished The Book of the Lauds by threefold31.
Particularly as threefold31 describes the nature of this book "... as being a conversation with" Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law. And also as threefold31 states that "What appears at first glance as merely imitative is in fact an 'evolution' of the original text, [...] It is entirely possible that the two texts derive from the same source, and are mirror expressions of each other. That would make sense from the perspective of Ma'at; a balancing of the forces."
( Source: page 2 of "The Book of the Lauds", a thread originated by threefold31 - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-book-of-the-lauds/paged/2/#post-124768 )
I am also in no doubt that threefold31 will be reigned in, concerning him potentially using this site to teach or initiate, based on his own spin on, and his own imitation of, Aleister Crowley's own core text for the latter's religion Thelema.
I am also in no doubt that threefold31 will be reigned in, concerning him potentially using this site to teach or initiate, based on his own spin on, and his own imitation of, Aleister Crowley's own core text for the latter's religion Thelema.
You're "in no doubt", eh? It hasn't happened thus far, has it? If you are so disenchanted with the way this website is run, you might consider voting with your feet. You can set up your own website, where you can set the rules that you clearly think should be observed. This is someone else's website: have the decency to concede that it's theirs to run in the way they want to run it.
It seems fairly obvious to me that the text of threefold31 is not an imitation of Aiwaz's The Book of the Law, but a variation thereof. If this is at the root of your obvious animus towards threefold31, then you are getting your knickers in a twist quite unnecessarily.
(Bold by me for emphasis:)
threefold31: "I use some unique methods because I work within the new paradigm of the Now Aeon, which is base 3. Anyone working in the base-10, decimal system is using the paradigm of the Past Aeon. But despite some newer methods, I still incorporate the planets and signs, because they endure from one Aeon to the Next." ( Source: "The Golden Cipher", page 1 - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-golden-cipher/#post-127058 )
"... the Now Aeon", and/or "the new paradigm of the Now Aeon, which is base 3.", mentioned in the above quote from threefold31, did they first originate within the mind of said threefold31?
Or is it the case that those terms were already in use before being used by the aforementioned threefold31?
"... the Now Aeon", and/or "the new paradigm of the Now Aeon, which is base 3.", mentioned in the above quote from threefold31, did they first originate within the mind of said threefold31?
Or is it the case that those terms were already in use before being used by the aforementioned threefold31?
I don't know, and I care even less. Just a thought, but why don't you ask him?
did they first originate within the mind of said threefold31?
Tibetan Dzogchen utilizes a base 3, and since that was around longer than 3X31's personal mind, the answer is Neti-neti.
Or is it the case that those terms were already in use before ...
Oh ... "terms."
The base 3 concept has been around the block and the world. Terms are wishy-washy and may only last a day or two. None of us have original thoughts. What is it you are trying to pry out of 3X31? Who cares about which mind the concept or the terms arose in? The question on the scoreboard asks, Does it work ?
I am also in no doubt that threefold31 will be reigned in, concerning him potentially using this site to teach or initiate, based on his own spin on, and his own imitation of, Aleister Crowley's own core text for the latter's religion Thelema.
Please, @wellreadwellbred, nobody will take you seriously if you don't write this nonsense in ALL-CAPITAL WORDS!
Now look closely at your quote of @threefold31's words again: "It is entirely possible"
Also, from the few remaining Lashtal hardcores here, how many of us do you think will be prone to be "teached or initiated, based on his own spin on, and his own imitation of, Aleister Crowley's own core text for the latter's religion Thelema"?
Did we just have broken AI?
"... the Now Aeon", and/or "the new paradigm of the Now Aeon, which is base 3.", mentioned in the above quote from threefold31, did they first originate within the mind of said threefold31?
Or is it the case that those terms were already in use before being used by the aforementioned threefold31?
Oh my God, you are right! Maybe the aforementioned someone had an original idea!?! I am confused! Thank the aforementioned God you did not use said Capital Letters...
Michael Staley: "I don't know, and I care even less."
My questions about the terms "... the Now Aeon", and/or "the new paradigm of the Now Aeon, which is base 3.", originating inside of, or outside of, threefold31's mind, pertains to the likelihood of the latter just making things up as he goes.
Michael Staley, you and threefold31 have in common a belief in that Aleister Crowley was not the author of his The Book of the Law, and that he received said book from another source.
threefold31 has stated that "It is entirely possible" that his The Book of the Lauds and Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law "... derive from the same source, and are mirror expressions of each other.":
It is entirely possible that the two texts derive from the same source, and are mirror expressions of each other. That would make sense from the perspective of Ma'at; a balancing of the forces." ( Source: page 2 of "The Book of the Lauds", a thread originated by threefold31 - - - https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-book-of-the-lauds/paged/2/#post-124768 )
Is the possibility that Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law, and threefold31's The Book of the Lauds "... derive from the same source, and are mirror expressions of each other.", as stated by the same threefold31, something you would care to discuss on this site?
Is the possibility that Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law, and threefold31's The Book of the Lauds "... derive from the same source, and are mirror expressions of each other.", as stated by the same threefold31, something you would care to discuss on this site?
Are you serious? You just wanted all discussion about it lterally shut down. Why not take a deep breath, check out the thread's topic and shut up?
pertains to the likelihood of the latter just making things up as he goes.
I think you should get help. You sound furious. What would it matter if he or anyone is making things up? Especially on this thread. We are on the fricking internet!
the_real_simon_iff: "I think you should get help. You sound furious."
I am grateful for your concern for my wellbeing, the_real_simon_iff. This site does not have emoticons sufficient to reflect my present blissful state.
the_real_simon_iff: "... from the few remaining Lashtal hardcores here, how many of us do you think will be prone to be "teached or initiated, based on his own spin on, and his own imitation of, Aleister Crowley's own core text for the latter's religion Thelema"?"
My concern is not only for the wellbeing of Lashtal stalwarts like you, but also for the occasional chance passerby at the very beginning of the path.
Is the possibility that Aleister Crowley's The Book of the Law, and threefold31's The Book of the Lauds "... derive from the same source, and are mirror expressions of each other.", as stated by the same threefold31, something you would care to discuss on this site?
No, it's not something which I would care to discuss on this site. It may be the opinion of threefold31 that The Book of the Law and The Book of the Lauds derive from the same source, but it's not one that I share; however, I can't know whether I am right or wrong. Despite the fact that I don't agree with threefold31 on this and other matters, I respect his work.
My concern is not only for the wellbeing of Lashtal stalwarts like you, but also for the occasional chance passerby at the very beginning of the path.
You got to be kidding. You really think it is for the well-being of, well, everyone here, that @threefold31's posts about his Book of the Lauds should be suppressed? Wowsa!
This site does not have emoticons sufficient to reflect my present perplexion of what a dick you seem to be and probably have always been. Wow! Not that I am *really* surprised, but still wow. You really want to suppress The Book of the Laud? Still wow!
Have you tried your luck with the site-owner?
But to be honest, I do not think that me or anybody here will take you seriously from now on, sorry. Of course, I know, I won't, maybe others do and maybe I will also in a few months. Everything is possible. Still, we are on a big maybe-nonsense thread and you top that all by being totally off-topically nonsensical, stupid and rude.
Bye, Well!
I don't understand why any of this is being discussed in this thread. We went from a critical, albeit insulting, discussion of the original subject of this thread to rather or not we should suppress works of certain people. @the_real_simon_iff, I totally feel what you are saying, and as my teenagers would say, no cap on that BS. Dude is out of pocket and needs a lane to slow his roll.
What has happened to the English language... LMAO.
Sorry about that, I will move my discussion about threefold3's The Book of the Lauds, to his thread about that book.
Sorry about that, I will move my discussion about threefold3's The Book of the Lauds, to his thread about that book.
Spare your time if it is still about "This doesn't belong here!" But good to move THAT discussion away...
Do what thou wilt
I am not going to directly respond to the obvious trolling being done by WRWB. But I will make a couple points:
One goes to social media to promote themselves. One comes here to discuss topics relevant to AC.
I have made no attempt to 'promote' my views in any way other than talking about subjects relevant to AC, which everyone has done on this site for years and years. Any claim that I'm 'promoting' my views, or that the website is allowing me to do so, are simply trolling. I have given background information on The Book of the Lauds - which has its own thread - so that interested readers can make up their own mind about it. My opinions about it matter far less than the content itself, in exactly the same way that AC's opinions about Liber AL vel Legis are not as important as the book itself.
To make this response somewhat relevant to the topic at hand, the Riddle of AL 2:76, as evolved in Liber MA vel Laudum, has a simple sum of 471, whose antigram is 618, which is symbolic of the Golden Ratio.
Litllwtw
O.L.
I don't understand why any of this is being discussed in this thread. We went from a critical, albeit insulting, discussion of the original subject of this thread to rather or not we should suppress works of certain people.
This is the natural course of threads of any color, gender, or subconscious annihilation. They (usually) start out clean, then diverge, then converge for fisticuffs and folly, then (if we're lucky or have good karma) some gem pops up ... after that, folks like you, and sometimes me, complain about Choronzon in the Clockwork, which makes us feel better, but Shinols still runs downhill ... to the Qliphoth were it ends in decay.
This same principle may be applied to an (any) individual lifespan.
What has happened to the English language [?]
It is under revision, as it has been for every generation since the Middle or even the Dark Times.
Any claim that I'm 'promoting' my views, or that the website is allowing me to do so, are simply trolling.
Any body who types two digits into a post (a single digit doesn't count because the Borg doesn't like single simplicity and it will not post such heresy) is "promoting" their views. They have done an "action" and The Lords of Karma have taken note.
However, on the scale of "Promoting Promotion Projects," where RTC is still the current leader, you are very low on the list. Anytime you (or I - or him/her) mention anything a second time, you are "promoting" your view. To never mention anything again would be "demoting," which is fine.
I think somebody used the word "promote" when a differentiation between sell and inform is required.
... has a simple sum of 471, whose antigram is 618, which is symbolic of the Golden Ratio.
See? Here you are ... Promoting your views.
I'm pointing out their weakness, that Gimel and Gamma do not share the same Yetziratic attributions in any traditional system. They are only similar in terms of phonetics. You are using this method solely because it gives you the 418 result you wanted ahead of time.
I am revisiting this statement based on another related finding. Threefold31 has erroneously stated that I chose the Hebrew to Greek letter equivalencies incorporated within the Tri-key as a deliberate means of making the single-digit numbers in the II:76 puzzle equal 418; the method involves phonetic similarities shared between the letters. In chapter 7 of The Equinox of the Gods, Aleister Crowley does the same thing, establishing a precedent for doing so. Revisiting the equations themselves:
4 = H: Mercury: Beth - Beta = 2 A: Alpha = 1
6 = S: Taurus: Vav - Digamma = 6 I: Iota = 10
3 = O: Fire: Shin - Sigma = 200 W: Digamma = 6
8 = N: Moon: Gimel - Gamma = 3 A: Alpha = 1
2 = T: Aries: He - Epsilon = 5 S: Sigma = 200
4 = H: Mercury: Beth - Beta = 2 S: Sigma = 200
3 = O: Fire: Shin - Sigma = 200
2 + 6 + 200 + 3 + 5 + 2 + 200 = 418 1 + 10 + 6 + 1 + 200 + 200 = 418
Verse III:34 of the Book of the Law predicts the end of the reign of Ra-Hoor-Khuit, and the appearance of another solar god that is to take his place in the East. As with several other verses, the question of why the subject is brought up without a definitive answer is a valid one. Without a key of some sort to decipher the verse, Aleister Crowley had little choice but to rely on what he knew, which is mythology, apparently content to leave verse III:34 and many others without verifiable explanations. Crowley's limited ability sets the stage for someone else to answer the questions he could not, while confirming the truth of statements made in TBOTL that indicate someone else will.
The term Great Equinox can only infer one of two things; either the beginning of a Great Year, or the beginning of an astrological age within a Great Year. Knowing the Great Year is defined by the twelve constellations that form the Zodiac, relying on the Zodiac to shed light on the Great Equinox is plausible, if not probable. If the Great Equinox marks the beginning of the next astrological age, then the Equinox of the Gods that occurred on the vernal equinox of 1904 must mark the beginning of the current astrological age, which has to be that of Aquarius. The answer to when the Great Equinox will fall, lies with the phrase, the fall of the Great Equinox:
T: Aries: He: Epsilon = 5
H: Mercury: Beth: Beta = 2
E: Sun: Resh: Rho = 100
F: Libra: Lamed: Lambda = 30
A: Venus: Daleth: Delta = 4
L: Water: Mem: Mu = 40
L: Water: Mem: Mu = 40
O: Fire: Shin: Sigma = 200
F: Libra: Lamed: Lambda = 30
T: Aries: Heh: Epsilon = 5
H: Mercury: Beth: Beta = 2
E: Sun: Resh: Rho = 100
G: Saturn: Tav: Theta = 9
R: Cancer: Cheth: Chi = 600
E: Sun: Resh: Rho = 100
A: Venus: Daleth: Delta = 4
T: Aries: He: Epsilon = 5
E: Sun: Resh: Rho = 100
Q: Pisces: Qoph: Koppa = 90
U: Virgo: Yod: Upsilon = 400
I: Gemini: Zain: Zeta = 7
N: Moon: Gimel: Gamma = 3
O: Fire: Shin: Sigma = 200
X: Neptune: Xi = 60
Sum of the Greek letter values = 2136.
Multiplying the Greek value by 12 results in the product 25632, a known value treated as the length of a Great Year in the 19th century, as can be seen in Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archaeology, Volume V, page 72, which was published in 1877. The product is also used as the length of a Great Year in The Oracle Encyclopedia, Volume II, page 445, published in 1895. In more recent publications, the value is used in Sacred Number and the Origins of Civilization, and also used in Vedic astrology as a possible length of the Great Year. The significance of 25632 to the Great Year, makes 2136 the average length of an astrological age within such a year, and the length of Ra-Hoor-Khuit's reign.
Adding 2136 years to 1904 provides the exact year that Hrumachis shall arise as predicted: 1904 + 2136 = 4040. Not only is the value symmetrical in appearance, it actually expresses the concept of the double-wanded one, based on the number 40 being the English gematria value of the word wand. Also, given that the next astrological age will be that of Capricorn, the twin horns of the goat are symbolic of double wands.
The answers provided also explain why the Book of the Law was named L by Aiwass when he was voicing the text of the book to Aleister Crowley. The current astrological age which began in 1904 is that of Aquarius, the water-bearer, with the letter L signifying the element of Water in the Tri-key.
Note that of the English letters that are used above to produce the value 418 from the numbers in the puzzle, all but one of them are present in the phrase the fall of the Great Equinox, proving that I did not conceive the equivalencies between the English and Greek letters with any preconceived results in mind.
With all due respect, herupakraath, there's nothing in your post that dissuades me from my now-long-settled view that the aeons are not epochs of time but levels of insight. All the same, I await 4040 with interest, always open to be proved wrong.
my now-long-settled view that the aeons are not epochs of time but levels of insight.
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Maybe an epoch manifests when a critical majority of people reach a certain level of development. This naturally doesn't mean that everybody reaches that point, just enough to make it the dominant paradigm.
my now-long-settled view that the aeons are not epochs of time but levels of insight.
A view also propounded by Kenneth G, I understand, who seemed to view that they were all (all the aeons/epochs and levels) simultaneously available now in the present.
I don't see the two as mutually exclusive. Maybe an epoch manifests when a critical majority of people reach a certain level of development. This naturally doesn't mean that everybody reaches that point, just enough to make it the dominant paradigm.
Although K.G.mentions in addition to the Aeon of Maat and the Nameless Aeon, the 'forthcoming' Aeon of Zayin and the Wordless Aeon (I believe he also referenced somewhere an 'Aeon of Choronzon'), which would not have been 'reached' by anyone yet let alone it being a dominant paradigm - unfortunately he doesn't go into a great deal of information as to what the latter ones he mentions (invented?) would entail from his own personal observation and experience.
Incidentally, can anyone recall that this now constitued - with the addition of the Aeons of Isis, Osiris & Horus - the lot of them (as would have been presumably implied by his original position)? In other words, are there any others (levels/epochs) still not listed and unaccounted for?
N Joy
there's nothing in your post that dissuades me from my now-long-settled view that the aeons are not epochs of time but levels of insight.
If this were NOT true, then everybody on the planet would move forward at exactly the same time; the authorities, or the scientists, or the hippies, would have noticed this, and govs everywhere would erect National or Global holy-days like The New Year Celebration (that coincides with no significant astrological configuration - it is entirely man-made made-up ... and everybody follows it - or they lose their location in 3D time-space.
Maybe an epoch manifests when a critical majority of people reach a certain level of development.
Maybe this is all man-made made-up constructs to help us find our way in time-space. Wherever two people agree on a paradigm, it becomes a shared reality. The more converts that can be pulled in, the greater the reality becomes.
Nothing is fixed, stable, or rock-solid. But it does appear to be dense. People want fixed time-space coordinates so that they wont worry about inconsistencies. There is also a tendency for people to have insights, and then want to push their para-dime on others.
Perdurabo went to AEgypt and got initiated into a paradigm that is intended for all people, everywhere - a planetary upgrade, if you will. Great. It has been shown that all his concepts, words, icons, etc were already in existence, and other heavyweights moved out in the same time-era-zone, such as Tesla, Planck, Curie, Ford to do their part in the new age.
English is currently the international lingo of commer$e. The US petrodollar is (currently, but slipping) the global standard for buy-sell. These examples (English, $) are samples of consensual reality. That is, a lotta people consent to use a given system or concept as a governing factor in daily reality.
The bottom-line illustration in my point is that there are people, scattered everywhere, who do not speak English and who have not ever even seen a $. I am forced to conclude that humanity will move forward in time, group by group culture, with different standards, morals, and outlooks.
This naturally doesn't mean that everybody reaches that point, just enough to make it the dominant paradigm.
Eactly. The problem (according to Bailey and me) is that an artificial paradigm is being introduced into an obvious time of global change (I refer to the weakening Magnetosphere and large amounts of solar plasma that are upgrading the frequency of everybody, whether they feel it or not. Everybody will be stripped away from their usual and customary, comfortable attachments, and they will have to decide some things. This (the increased frequency) will cause the change, many things will break down or be destroyed (out there and in one's mind). After that, things will reorganize. How they reorganize is dependent on their new belief system. This has been a one-paragraph description of Armageddon.
(Bold by me for emphasis:)
ignant666: "... perhaps he [ = "the Prophet 418", aka Timothy Moss, aka @herupakraath] will now deign to reply and explain why He says that 143 is a Fibonacci number, despite the fact that 143 is not in fact a Fibonacci number.
I would guess that the answer lies in the "Hand-grenades, Horseshoes, and Gematria" Rule, which states that "Kinda close is good enough". After all, 143 is kinda close to 144." [...]
@sermo-nihil: "You can't horseshoe this kind of thing. In Math, it either is or is not, just that simple. And if you are going to proport to be some kind of Chosen One, it would seem that a basic understanding of math would be at least a starting point. Especially when you are using Gematria. Perhaps it does not apply to him." [...]
Shiva: Yes, there are those things called direct correspondences. This is where the (= sign) comes in. I have made attempts to follow the =s, but then one comes invariably to solutions, resolutions, or conclusions that are themselves, or based on numbers, that have been rounded-off !"
(Source[-s]: Qoutes from postings posted on the first page of this thread: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-golden-cipher/ )
["]"Posted by: @patriarch156 While he [ = Aleister Crowley ] had planned to publish it [ his The Book of the Law ] publicly as an appendix in Volume 3 of his Collected Works in 1907, the presentation of it then was entirely different than the presentation he gave it in THELEMA and then in The Equinox I(7), and it ended on the cutting-floor."
[...]
"Posted by: @jamiejbarter I take it you are referring to the fact that he [ = Aleister Crowley ] intended to include it [ his The Book of the Law ] as an example of "automatic writing" rather than a transmission from a disembodied "praeter-human intelligence"? N j0Y[."]
(Source: Quotes from posting posted by James J Barter 05/11/2023 8:20 pm on page three in this thread: https://www.lashtal.com/forums/thelema/the-golden-cipher/paged/3/#post-127998 )
I do not know if Patriarch156 is referring to the fact you mention in the above quote from you James J Barter, but when mentioning this fact in another thread on this site, Patriarch156 has pointed out that "... he [= Aleister Crowley] was at pains at stressing that it [= his The Book of the Law] was made by direct communication [to him].":
"[...] The accounts I have read by Crowley put her [= Crowley's wife in 1904] in another room and Crowley himself seems to dispell any such notion of channelling. In fact he was at pains, after first noting it an interesting example of automatic writing (again not conducive to Rose being the channel), he was at pains at stressing that it was made by direct communication.
Why it is hard to believe that Aiwaz materialized (whether in his mind or person) and dictated the book to Crowley and simultanously believing the rest of the odd events that took place during the Cairo Working is beyond me.
That being said, as the first Scarlet Woman I agree that she [= Crowley's wife in 1904] did more than any other Thelemite alive today."
(Source: Quote from posting posted 14/10/2008 5:04 pm, by Patriarch156, on page one of one, in the thread Rose Kelly : https://www.lashtal.com/forums/scarlet-women/rose-kelly/#post-27078 )
Also, Richard Kaczynski does in his book Perdurabo: The Life of Aleister Crowley, mention that Aleister Crowley did already in 1905 ask for help to "... found a new world religion.", and Aleister Crowley not long thereafter rejecting to present his The Book of the Law as an example of "automatic writing", does make sense with respect to using this book to found a new world religion, being the will of Aleister Crowley, to begin with.
Although K.G.mentions in addition to the Aeon of Maat and the Nameless Aeon, the 'forthcoming' Aeon of Zayin and the Wordless Aeon (I believe he also referenced somewhere an 'Aeon of Choronzon'), which would not have been 'reached' by anyone yet let alone it being a dominant paradigm
We could have theoretical prerational and transrational Aeons, representing states of consciousness outside of our current apprehension.
In other words, are there any others (levels/epochs) still not listed and unaccounted for?
I can't recall any others within Thelemic channels. I'm willing to be corrected, though. I have my own interpretation of a couple of others outside of that.
Maybe this is all man-made made-up constructs to help us find our way in time-space. Wherever two people agree on a paradigm, it becomes a shared reality. The more converts that can be pulled in, the greater the reality becomes.
It's really all models to aid us in apprehending our experience of reality. Consciousness will move on and the universe will continue universing itself.
This has been a one-paragraph description of Armageddon.
Armageddon just being a description of a particularly catastrophic Aeonic shift.
Although K.G.mentions in addition to the Aeon of Maat and the Nameless Aeon, the 'forthcoming' Aeon of Zayin and the Wordless Aeon (I believe he also referenced somewhere an 'Aeon of Choronzon'), which would not have been 'reached' by anyone yet let alone it being a dominant paradigm
We could have theoretical prerational and transrational Aeons, representing states of consciousness outside of our current apprehension.
I should have said: outside of the 'reach' of the {then-}current apprehension of anybody with the exception of Kenneth Grant, that is, who has unfortunately not left the vast majority of the rest of us who haven't been so priviliged with a great deal of informative data on what these "states of consciousness" might particularly entail.
But he might have 'dreamed' these concepts up, of course, in the same way he came up with those of the 'Tunnels of Set', the fortnights of the "Kala-ends", the 'Mauve Zone', the backside nightside of the Tree of Life, Etc etc &c...
Anyone of a Typhonian mind-set care to chip in on, for example, what the Wordless and Zayin Aeons or levels of insight / consciousness might actually involve in real terms in the here and now for the rest of Us (in a nice little nutshell that is, if possible)? Go On, exercise your imagination!
N Joy
Armageddon just being a description of a particularly catastrophic Aeonic shift.
Yeah, I know that one. I researched and printed the deal. First, I heard that Napoleon marched through or by The Valley of Megiddo, Megiddo itself being a city high up on a hill overlooking the expanse. Napoleon sid, "My God, there is enough room here to marshal all the armies of the world." I believe they are working hard on that right now.
Next, I found than some trouble-makers from Syria bother (who was it? Thutmose II? IV?). The Pharaoh mounted his army, chased the buggers to Megiddo (theoretically impossible, but he found a crack in the mountain) ... and he wiped out Megiddo.
So it's a real place, in one of our current hotter hot zomes of Mars or Horus, you choose. Of course, there are other hot zones. I suppose we might see many zones, like a brief but intense New Year's fireworks show. Please try to not drag it out.
Isn't Arma-g biblically referenced as The Final Battle Between Good and Evil ? I think that term has also been previously applied. Everybody keeps thinking if they can only stamp out evil this time and for ever by throwing themselves full-filled against some enemy. Funny how it always rises up again.