Hello there,
I would like to know one thing: is there any inscription, any archaeological proof showing that the Tomb of Pakal was dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0, 692 AD, as José Argüelles claims? I like confirming things and not blindly believing anything I read, so that's why I'm asking this.
Any help, any clue will be of the greatest importance. Thanks for your time!
Regards,
Tezcatlipoca
I would like to know one thing: is there any inscription, any archaeological proof showing that the Tomb of Pakal was dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0, 692 AD, as José Argüelles claims? I like confirming things and not blindly believing anything I read, so that's why I'm asking this.
Any help, any clue will be of the greatest importance. Thanks for your time!
Regards,
Tezcatlipoca
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Tue, October 9, 2007 - 7:58 PMI did a google search on "9.13.0.0.0 pacal" and came up with 6 or 8 different sites, but my knowledge of who's who is limited so I suggest you do the same search.
Consensus seems to be that Pacal died 9 years before, but that 9.13.0.0.0 was such an auspicious occasion that dedication was posponed til then.
Let me know what you make of this. I'm glad you asked this question. -
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Wed, October 10, 2007 - 9:54 AMHello d2a, how are you? :)
Yes, I've done that. However, even though there are several webpages connected to the Dreamspell calendar and/or José Argüelles that say that the tomb of Pakal was dedicated in 692 AD (9.13.0.0.0), 9 years after his death in 683 AD, not even one of them offers any clue, any photograph of a monument or inscription showing that the tomb of Pakal really was dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0. As far as I know, the only mention to 9.13.0.0.0 in Palenque involved some kind of rituals celebrating the end of the Katun... and strangely enough, that's all there is!
My personal opinion, at least while I don't dispose of any other clues or proofs, is that Argüelles himself invented this "fact", in order to bring some 'importance' to the fact that there are 1260 years (12:60) between 692 and 1952 AD (when the tomb of Pakal was discovered), and 1320 years (13:20) between 692 and 2012 AD (the End of the Cycle). Doing that, he could fool all those who blindly believed that he was telling the truth. And this isn't as strange or shocking as it might appear, as he had already lied concerning Pakal's enthroning and death dates, saying that they were respectively in 631 AD (specifically kin-day 1'366'560 = Long Count 9.9.16.0.0, 4 Ahau, 8 Cumku) and 683 AD (kin-day 1'385'540 = LC 9.12.8.13.0, 4 Ahau, 8 Cumku). I would like to ask one thing to all Dreamspell followers. If you yourselves say that 6 ETZNAB (kin 118), one the so-called "Pacal Votan signs", was the day of his death, howcome do you continue even today to support Argüelles, if the date that he himself gives is a 4 AHAU (kin 160) day? Don't you think that MAYBE Argüelles have been fooling you all of this time? I bet he has!
Well, despite the fact that kin-day 1'366'560 falls in 629 AD and kin-day 1'385'540 in 681 AD [difference of minus 2 years], Pakal himself was *NOT* born on those kin days. According to academic studies [ www.mesoweb.com/palenque/r..._table.html ], Kinich Janaab Pakal --his real name-- acceeded to the throne on kin 1'361'608, which was LC 9.9.2.4.8, 5 Lamat, 1 Mol (gregorian July 27, 615 AD), and died on kin 1'386'478, which was LC 9.12.11.5.18, 6 Etznab, 11 Yax (gregorian August 29, 683 AD). Now this is *way* different from the dates given by Argüelles, the self-proclaimed Messiah --or "Planetary Healing Doctor" as he says-- Valum Votan.
Now you may ask me: why did he lie about all this? Well... one possible answer is that any self-proclaimed Messiah must try to bring a powerful aura to any of his books and works, even if it is through lies, half-truths, and fact manipulation (in this case, it was the book called "The Mayan Factor"). We have already seen this before, and it surely is repeating itself again.
Did I help you? :P
Best regards,
Tezcatlipoca -
-
Re: Tomb of Pacal dedicated in 9.13.0.0.0 ???
Sat, October 13, 2007 - 3:40 PMIt is a bit beyond my grasp, dear Tezc, but I do get the gist of it. And I tend to agree with you that it is a bit of smoke and mirrors to garner fame and fortune. Time will tell.
-
-