The Harmonic Concordance

[mirehiel]

Lorin, Chris, Bill, David and the Group, and hi, Jeremy ;)
I am John Mirehiel. My last name is pronounced "ma RAY he el," and
my friends just call me Johnny.
First, let me thank you, Lorin, for bringing the Harmonic Concordance
up for discussion, independent of any promptings from me. And Chris,
thanks for your interest in following up on Lorin's pointer, and for
all your comments on it.
Some of you will recall that I have been a member of this list since
back near its inception. And that I have mentioned the Concordance
chart in postings to the group before. As David knows, I check in on
the group, through the Digest, every day, and pretty much have been
doing so from the jump, so I am pretty much up on David's work,
including the "Free Bio" and the latest prophecy article. And I am
aware of and respect David's focus for this list. So generally, I
lurk, read what you good people have to say, and keep my own agenda
to myself. (Although occasionally I will reply/comment to one or the
other of you `off list' ? mostly to allow the focus to stay on
David's agenda.)
However, in this case, and only to point out a few misunderstandings
of the astrology of the Concordance moment, I will put my two
astrological cents in. To sort of set the stage, however, let me
make a short(?) comment on what the chart has taught me.
Although www.astrosite.com is built around an analysis of a moment in
time (i.e., it is astrological in nature), the primary message is
very much spiritual and very acutely focused on the Ascension. Put
in the very briefest of terms, the message of the Harmonic
Concordance is that one can experience the ascended state in any
moment of NOW. There are several articles on the site that explore
this idea in far greater detail than I have space or time to dope out
here, but the basic idea is that the Concordance is a pointer that is
focused, first on the planet itself, and secondly inwardly towards
our individual "Godling" selves. As such, it is very important to
keep in mind that the Concordance is about far more than the
astrology. It is about the Christ Conscious moment that it offers to
those who will step into it. It is about holding its mandala in
one's consciousness, and planting that seed every day, until the
moment that the Ascension that sends the planet and everything on it
into the next dimension/density actually does arrive, WHENEVER it
does. It's about living, every moment, "as if?" In that state, how
could one make the wrong choice between STS and STO? (Indeed, how
can one not see that both of those service orientations are
misguided? How could one not see that both paths, when truly trod,
are the path of Service To God?) If that is not the clear message on
the site, it should be, and it is certainly the one that we're
emphasizing in the hard copy book that is being compiled for
publication this November.
So that's the metaphysical rant, I hope without going too far off the
deep end. Now to the astrology.
Lorin, in your first comment you state:
>> sure looks like a stargate to me.<<
And to us too, Lorin, but you also say:
>> If you create a astro chart for any location on Earth on the 8th
of November, 2003, at 8:12 am<<
Actually, what the site says is that the Grand Sextile/Star of David
pattern may be seen from anywhere on the planet, AT THE MOMENT OF THE
ECLIPSE. The local clock time will be different in each time zone,
so that those on the East coast, for example, will "see" the chart at
8:12 PM (not am) and those out here in the high desert of California
will "see" it at 5:12 pm. Therefore, it will be seen in both places
SIMUTANEOUSLY. This is the effect of a LUNAR eclipse, one that does
not apply to a SOLAR eclipse that has an "eclipse path" along which
it may be seen. In short, It does not have a localized trajectory.
It is global. The focus is on Mother first, and her passengers second.
And this from Chris:
>> What is interesting is that the majority of planets are in
Sagitarius (fire)and Taurus (earth)
Chris, thank you also for the reference to the "Chart" page on the
site, but Bill is correct here in stating:
>> You have Pluto and Venus in Sagittarius and the Moon and North
Node in Taurus. That's not majority<<
Also, your comment:
>> some locations may have more or less Sag/Taurus ratio than others
because of their location on earth<<
is not accurate either since the sign placement of the planets will
be the exact same IN ALL LOCATIONS. BTW, I do not feel that the
Moon/Pluto "inconjunct" is a strong enough aspect to warrant the
>>Pluto type effect (regenerative, violent), meaning possible
volcanic activity<< that you mention, especially in light of the fact
that it happens twice every month, coming and going as it were.
Yes, Lorin >>there are obviously some inharmonious aspects<<
This is especially true with the 4 oppositions (Sat/Chi, Jup/Mars,
Sun/Moon, & Merc/Moon) AND the Jup/Ven/Mars and the Sun/Moon/Nep T-
Squares. This issue is also addressed on the site, but briefly, the
case may be stated thusly: A) the oppositions are essentially negated
through the Trines and sextiles that each of the opposing planets
receives (by a ratio of 4-1) thus transforming the "opposition" of
the oppositions into open highways of communication and an extension
of cooperation between the planets involved, and B) the T Squares are
an absolutely vital element for this moment to have the effect that
it does, since they provide the drive and ambition to ACT in the
moment. Remember, the entire chart must be taken into account,
whether it is a chart of a moment or someone's birth chart. Any
astrologer who would not synthesize those "inharmonious" aspects
within a reading would not be doing his/her client a service. It
would be much like focusing on Cindy Crawford's mole.
Speaking of which, I suppose that one could focus on that mole, and
in that case he or she might turn what is a very beautiful image into
one that revolts them. It all depends on whether one chooses to see,
as you point out Lorin, "?a time of opportunity for those who are
focused on the light." or something else.
Bill,
As an astrologer, may I say that I disagree with your assessment, and
your astrology, on the following grounds:
BF: >> I see only one inconjunct aspect (Pluto 150 North Node at 1*
52'<<
JM: Actually, I never count the Nodes as receiving aspects, but be
that as it may, there are actually two other applying inconjuncts in
the chart, Sat/Nep and Moon/Pluto, each w/ about a 2.5 degree orb.
BF: >> This is a "good/bad" chart not all light and roses?I think
Nov. '03 could be an interest rate spike and I plan to be short
interest rate futures because as interest rates go up, T-Bills and
other interest rate derivatives go down.<<
JM: Seems you have chosen to focus on the "bad" half of the
equation. As I've said before, WYSIWYG.
BF: >> The Saturn Asc and Chiron IC go through Syria, Jordan, Lebanon
and Saudi Arabia.
JM: No, Saturn is on the MC in those locations.
BF: >> The Eclipse Sun Asc and Moon Dsc run right through Delhi, India
JM: Actually, the Eclipse Sun, Moon or any other planet do not "run
through" anywhere. This is not a solar eclipse, in which you could
talk about the line of the eclipse "running through" such and such a
place. What you can say, for example, is that the Sun is at the
Ascendant at Delhi, or that Neptune is at the IC in Pakistan.
BF: >> Therefore, with equal soft and hard aspects
JM: Actually, in counting aspects, the good guys win 13 - 11, using
the standard major aspects. A small margin, but a "win" nevertheless.
BF: >> the two grand trines can manifest in two ways: Air signs
Plus: good communications, intellectual, logical, objective,
broadminded and lacking in prejudice or Minus: cold and impractical.
JM: No, the second Grand Trine is in WATER.
BF: >> I don't see this eclipse has that great and certainly less
powerful than the Aug.'99 grand cross eclipse.
JM: It's not so much an issue of which eclipse is more powerful (and
by the way, one should expect that a Solar eclipse would be more
powerful than a Lunar) but rather the issue is to see the connection
between the two. If you read Madalyn Hillis-Dineen's essay on the
site, no doubt you will see that connection. There are also a couple
of other essays that point out the relationship between specific
moments of time (i.e., the astrology) and the Concordance. And I'm
not arguing against the power of the August '99 SOALR eclipse. After
all, it DID produce a series of sever quakes. But again, if I may
refer you to the site, there are a couple of articles
(http://www.astrosite.com/__Quakes.htm) from the New York Times, of
all places, that point out the HEALING effect that those quakes
ultimately brought about.
And finally, Chris,
>> Whatever happens here, it will be big :)<<
JM: Yes, Chris, it WILL be big, especially if one can see it as
being big NOW.
Thanks all, for indulging me with your time and patience to read
through this rather long post. And thank you, David, for maintaining
the focus. I continue to disagree with you about the 2012 date, but
the rest of your work still resonates strongly for me. As I've said
elsewhere, do you really want to wait another 10 YEARS for the
Ascension?
In Love and the One Heart,
Johnny

[Jeremy Weiland]

> Lorin, Chris, Bill, David and the Group, and hi,
> Jeremy ;)

What's up? Long time no read. :-)

> And I am aware of and respect David's focus for this

> list. So generally, I lurk, read what you good
> people have to say, and keep my own agenda to
> myself. (Although occasionally I will reply/comment

> to one or the other of you `off list' ? mostly to
> allow the focus to stay on David's agenda.)

That is genuinely appreciated, John. Thanks for your
understanding.

> Put in the very briefest of terms, the message of
the
> Harmonic Concordance is that one can experience the
> ascended state in any moment of NOW.

I can certainly agree with that. I don't find that
message in conflict with anything we study or believe
in here.

> As such, it is very important to keep in mind that
> the Concordance is about far more than the
> astrology. It is about the Christ Conscious moment
> that it offers to those who will step into it. It
> is about holding its mandala in one's consciousness,

> and planting that seed every day, until the
> moment that the Ascension that sends the planet and
> everything on it into the next dimension/density
> actually does arrive, WHENEVER it does.

Again, on that point, there is no conflict. My
understanding is that there is some discrepancy
between the Ascension2000 view and the Astrosite view
on dates, but those details aside, we're pretty much
on the same page.

> It's about living, every moment, "as if?" In that
> state, how could one make the wrong choice between
> STS and STO?

Well, strictly speaking, there is no wrong choice, but
I say that for the benefit of those who are not
familiar with Ra, since you obviously understand this.
:-)

> (Indeed, how can one not see that both of those
> service orientations are misguided? How could one
> not see that both paths, when truly trod, are the
> path of Service To God?)

Misguided? I would say they are not philosophies that
stem from a completely unified view of creation, but I
wouldn't say misguided.

It would be like me saying that studying the Bible and
fundamentalism is misguided. There is value in any
intellectual / faith-guided endeavour, and entities
study at that level at which they can receive the
highest intensity of light/info. They may not be as
advanced, but if we perceive this, then we are not
looking at them from the unified perspective, either.
:-)

STS and STO are polarities; by definition they are not
the highest level of philosophy available to the
creator. What they do do, however, is allow an entity
the ability to focus intelligent energy in a
sufficient quantity to progress into the higher
densities with efficiency. It is not misguided, but
rather a tool... I don't need a floatation device any
longer to enjoy swimming, but it wasn't misguided to
use it when I didn't understand how to swim. I'm sure
you see what I'm getting at.

Other than that, I agree completely with your point.
I've always thought that polarity tends to be a matter
of identity. Whereas Service to Others identifies
eveything as the creator and Service to Self sees self
as creator. Both perspectives are correct; one is
just incomplete, and so it takes a lot more effort to
progress. But both paths lead to God; no worries!

> If that is not the clear message on the site, it
> should be, and it is certainly the one that we're
> emphasizing in the hard copy book that is being
> compiled for publication this November.

I think I've shown that we're pretty much in agreement
on the message. Good luck with the publishing... I
know that's quite a task!

> So that's the metaphysical rant, I hope without
> going too far off the deep end.

Nope, this is the stuff we eat up here, to keep the
brains in shape! Thanks for the post.

Jeremy

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[mirehiel]

--- In asc2k@y..., Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@y...> wrote:
Jeremy: Again, on that point, there is no conflict. My understanding
is that there is some discrepancy between the Ascension2000 view and
the Astrosite view on dates, but those details aside, we're pretty
much on the same page.
JM: I would say that with the exception of that and the other point
that I make below, that we're very much on the same page, right down
(up?) to the 6th dimension!
Jeremy: Both perspectives are correct; one is just incomplete, and so
it takes a lot more effort to progress.
JM: At the risk of stepping on some toes, I disagree, and here's why:
For me, looking back from the Ascended State (where I REALLY reside
anyway), and acting "as if?" it were so, that is to say, looking back
at the Journey, from the perspective that that leg of it that we
spend in 3-D IS OVER, I saw both paths as having been equally
Incomplete. After all, in admitting to the existence of either the
STS or the STO orientation, I was doing so from a
state/dimension/density that is at least one step away from
Wholeness. It was only the illusion cast by the Matrix/Grid that
made me see either in the first place. For me, I had to think
outside of the box of the Maya that was represented in both. That's
really what the Concordance message said to me that was different
than what I understood David's work to say. I looked at the
Concordance date as though I were looking THROUGH an open,
hexagonally shaped Stargate, as in the movie. I was able to
envision seeing past that "gate," sort of looking outside through a
glass (lightly) and out into the space past it - to the horizon
beyond. What I saw, as though I was looking down a corridor of time,
from a linear time back before the Concordance, was two future
levels, or slices, of TIME, the Stargate date and an unlimited "event
horizon" out past it. The trick was that in order to "fit" through
the Concordance Stargate I had to make myself fit into the pattern of
wholeness that the Stargate demanded. I had to "shape" the Key of Me
to fit the Stargate's lock. I did it by "owning" that pattern of
wholeness, during the linear time that transpired between my first
understanding of the Concordance message, and the linear Moment in
which I passed through the concordance Stardate (8/11/03), I had held
the thought, (as the first manifestation of "the Word"), as though
my "key" had ALREADY opened the Stargate lock. From this
perspective, I see that, if I were to have gotten stuck, either with
a focus on another date, or on the Matrix induced illusion of any non-
whole (STO/STS) reality, I would have altogether missed the Moment
that the Concordance offered. Since that was so, I didn't have to
hang on, for another 10 years of linear time, to a piece of that
decaying rock that the 3-D planet had become. It was a sort of "pay
me now, or pay me later" kind of deal. I knew where my intent was
and, as good as David's stunning work was, as far as I knew it, it
missed the mark by the lack of a simple act of Faith.
(Now THAT was far out!)
And it won't do to take the attitude of "Well, we'll just have to
wait and see. Won't we?" Don't you know that you'll only see it if
you believe it? Start owning it now, and you not only get to enjoy
the rest of your 3-D life as an ascended being (i.e., one who can
choose bliss in every moment) right now, but you get to perfectly
place your own "tile" in the mosaic of that Ascensional moment. No.
it's NOT the only one available, and yes, it has happened before and
will again, but it the one that's most readily available to me now.
One final idea about the STS/STO issue is that you can forget about
the ideological battle between these two stances: the battle is over.
God won, and all in HisHerIts own time: NOW. (btw: ever notice the
Now/Won palindrome?)
Jeremy: Good luck with the publishing... I know that's quite a task!
JM: You can say that again! Thanks for the good wishes.
In Gratitude for your time and in the Love of the One Heart,
Johnny
PS OK, I'll shut up now. Had my two cents for this round. Back to
the book. You know how it is, David. Although I may have an
announcement soon about a world wide "event" that has been proposed
to us that we do on the actual date. I can literally feel the
groundswell beneath my feet.
j

[mirehiel]

--- In asc2k@y..., Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@y...> wrote:
Jeremy: Again, on that point, there is no conflict. My understanding
is that there is some discrepancy between the Ascension2000 view and
the Astrosite view on dates, but those details aside, we're pretty
much on the same page.
JM: I would say that with the exception of that and the other point
that I make below, that we're very much on the same page, right down
(up?) to the 6th dimension!
Jeremy: Both perspectives are correct; one is just incomplete, and so
it takes a lot more effort to progress.
JM: At the risk of stepping on some toes, I disagree, and here's why:
For me, looking back from the Ascended State (where I REALLY reside
anyway), and acting "as if?" it were so, that is to say, looking back
at the Journey, from the perspective that that leg of it that we
spend in 3-D IS OVER, I saw both paths as having been equally
Incomplete. After all, in admitting to the existence of either the
STS or the STO orientation, I was doing so from a
state/dimension/density that is at least one step away from
Wholeness. It was only the illusion cast by the Matrix/Grid that
made me see either in the first place. For me, I had to think
outside of the box of the Maya that was represented in both. That's
really what the Concordance message said to me that was different
than what I understood David's work to say. I looked at the
Concordance date as though I were looking THROUGH an open,
hexagonally shaped Stargate, as in the movie. I was able to
envision seeing past that "gate," sort of looking outside through a
glass (lightly) and out into the space past it - to the horizon
beyond. What I saw, as though I was looking down a corridor of time,
from a linear time back before the Concordance, was two future
levels, or slices, of TIME, the Stargate date and an unlimited "event
horizon" out past it. The trick was that in order to "fit" through
the Concordance Stargate I had to make myself fit into the pattern of
wholeness that the Stargate demanded. I had to "shape" the Key of Me
to fit the Stargate's lock. I did it by "owning" that pattern of
wholeness, during the linear time that transpired between my first
understanding of the Concordance message, and the linear Moment in
which I passed through the concordance Stardate (8/11/03), I had held
the thought, (as the first manifestation of "the Word"), as though
my "key" had ALREADY opened the Stargate lock. From this
perspective, I see that, if I were to have gotten stuck, either with
a focus on another date, or on the Matrix induced illusion of any non-
whole (STO/STS) reality, I would have altogether missed the Moment
that the Concordance offered. Since that was so, I didn't have to
hang on, for another 10 years of linear time, to a piece of that
decaying rock that the 3-D planet had become. It was a sort of "pay
me now, or pay me later" kind of deal. I knew where my intent was
and, as good as David's stunning work was, as far as I knew it, it
missed the mark by the lack of a simple act of Faith.
(Now THAT was far out!)
And it won't do to take the attitude of "Well, we'll just have to
wait and see. Won't we?" Don't you know that you'll only see it if
you believe it? Start owning it now, and you not only get to enjoy
the rest of your 3-D life as an ascended being (i.e., one who can
choose bliss in every moment) right now, but you get to perfectly
place your own "tile" in the mosaic of that Ascensional moment. No.
it's NOT the only one available, and yes, it has happened before and
will again, but it the one that's most readily available to me now.
One final idea about the STS/STO issue is that you can forget about
the ideological battle between these two stances: the battle is over.
God won, and all in HisHerIts own time: NOW. (btw: ever notice the
Now/Won palindrome?)
Jeremy: Good luck with the publishing... I know that's quite a task!
JM: You can say that again! Thanks for the good wishes.
In Gratitude for your time and in the Love of the One Heart,
Johnny
PS OK, I'll shut up now. Had my two cents for this round. Back to
the book. You know how it is, David. Although I may have an
announcement soon about a world wide "event" that has been proposed
to us that we do on the actual date. I can literally feel the
groundswell beneath my feet.
j

[Jeremy Weiland]

Hey John,

I'm completely OK with your view of the STS/STO
dichotomy as irrelevant (I think that's what you're
saying). I don't think it's irrelevant, but I'm open
to the possibility that there is truth in what you
say. So if you will allow me to indulge, I'd like to
examine this critically.

> Jeremy: Both perspectives are correct; one is just
> incomplete, and so it takes a lot more effort to
> progress.

OK, before I get to what you said, let me explain what
I meant here; I think we're more in agreement than
disagreement.

STO is the path of reality - because unity of the
creator is the truth, regardless of the illusion - it
is the path of wholeness, completion, and acceptance.
It is whole and complete *because* it accepts the dark
side, the STS side, as the self, just as it accepts
all "seemingly outside" aspects of the self. To
accept the fact that one does not seem to be able to
immediately reunify all aspects of the creator, an
entity progresses down a path of experience in which
it learns about the self more and more until that
reunification is possible. This is the STO path.

STS is the path of unreality - because it denies
unity, and sees itself as separated from the creator
an all other aspects of the self. It rejects other
parts of the self and thus denies itself unity and the
power that comes with that; this is why STO is more
efficient and less painful than STS evolution; because
STO is accepting the reality of creation while STS is
always fighting against it. It is also why it takes
so much dedication to separation to continue on that
path; to fight against reality requires an enormous
expenditure of effort.

That is my understanding of the dichotomy, just for
the record. So now to your points.

> For me, looking back from the Ascended State (where
> I REALLY reside anyway), and acting "as if?" it were

> so, that is to say, looking back at the Journey,
> from the perspective that that leg of it that we
> spend in 3-D IS OVER, I saw both paths as having
> been equally Incomplete.

Based on my above definition of STO/STS, you can see
why I disagree. STO *is* the path of completeness,
and STS *is* the path of incompleteness. You can be
both at the same time, which is why polarizing, making
a choice on which path you are going to favor, going
to emphasize, is so important. And that's why 3D
makes such a good place to refine that choice to
sufficient levels.

Now, from the unified perspective that a 6th density
entity would have, I can see STO and STS entities in
their individual evolutions as being incomplete
because dedication to a path is never absolute, nor is
it required. And it's good to acknowledge the unified
perspective because it is the truth. But in this
world, we can accept the fact that, our present
consciousness not being unified, it is *OK* to use the
tool of polarity as a learning device. No, it is not
the absolute truth of unity, but it is an efficient
way of regaining it.

> After all, in admitting to the existence of either
> the STS or the STO orientation, I was doing so from
> a state/dimension/density that is at least one step
> away from Wholeness.

Yes. But there's nothing wrong with being there, at
that state. We are all God-like beings, and we change
and learn and grow, and that's OK. It's where we're
at right now. Not that you can't be more than this 3D
existence, but to reject the 3D experience because it
is not unified is a rejection of unity, which accepts
*all*.

> It was only the illusion cast by the Matrix/Grid
> that made me see either in the first place.

Yes, but what I'm arguing is there is a usefulness to
that Matrix/Grid of illusion.


> From this perspective, I see that, if I were to have

> gotten stuck, either with a focus on another date,
> or on the Matrix induced illusion of any non-
> whole (STO/STS) reality, I would have altogether
> missed the Moment that the Concordance offered.

From the viewpoint of the Ascension (my paradigm :-) I
completely agree with you. But you seem to see the
polarity as an adversarial relationship. I see it as
a polarity between the embrace of unity and the
embrace of adversity, disunity. The STO polarity
accepts the STS.

> And it won't do to take the attitude of "Well, we'll
> just have to wait and see. Won't we?" Don't you
> know that you'll only see it if you believe it?

No, and that's one thing I don't understand about the
Concordance. Just because we want it to be so doesn't
mean that it will be so. I mean, look at all the
Nibiru people who *want* the world to end in 2003.
But that doesn't change the fact that all the evidence
points away from such a scenario.

See, I don't believe that just wanting it is enough.
I mean, I don't need to even wait for the Concordance
if I don't want to; I could ascend right now. The
point of David's work is to show that there is
evidence for a galactic event, and that it does have
spiritual significance.

Obviously, it is more important to have faith in your
own spiritual identity and progress than in any
outward event. When I ascend is something that will
happen when I'm ready, whether or not it is
precipitated by an event or not. So yes, I agree that
living in the now is the most important message to
keep in mind, but moving the ascension date up a
decade shouldn't change that, right?

> One final idea about the STS/STO issue is that you
> can forget about the ideological battle between
> these two stances: the battle is over.
> God won, and all in HisHerIts own time: NOW. (btw:
> ever notice the Now/Won palindrome?)

Yes, which is why we're encouraged not to oppose the
negative forces but to concentrate on helping whenever
possible and our own spirituality.

I realize we may not agree, but as long as we
understand one another, that's what matters. Thanks
for allowing me to bounce these ideas off of you.

Jeremy

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

[mirehiel]

--- In asc2k@y..., Jeremy Weiland <greenlantern113@y...> wrote:
Jeremy,
This is really an interesting discussion for me, and at this time,
because it helps me to focus down to the depths of "the root of the
root of me." Actually, that's a paraphrase of a Rumi line, but, if
we do indeed operate in the 3-D, which of course we do, that is the
only place for me to go to grow and to know, not only who I AM, but
how to best be that Godling while here. So I appreciate this
dialogue.
Two things: one is that I don't have much time to devote to it right
at the moment and the other is that I'm reluctant to engage in it in
David's forum.
While I agree that we are mostly on the same page, there remain some
distinctions, which may or may not, be resolvable. I would prefer to
resolve them, so I'd like continue, perhaps off list.
There is the other possibility that such a discussion between two
Godlings might be interesting to other Godlings of the group. In
that case, and with a nod from David, I'd continue here. The other
alternative to a private off list discussion would be to have it
through the Concordance e-group, or perhaps better yet, in a chat
room tet-a-tet, either here or at astrosite. This assumes, of
course, that you'd like to continue youself. RSVP
In the Love of the One Heart
Johnny