reply to post by Destiny777
While it is interesting to play numerical games, seeking divinity in numbers, there are a few obvious problems with your numerical scriptures here.
First, you chose the Sumerian cycle—3,600 year course of Nibiru—and the 26,000 Mesoamerican cycle—the ba'ak'tun calendar—along with the
Fibonacci sequence as the base measurements for your "bible code." What exactly do the Mesoamerican, the Mesopotamian, and the Renaissance cultures
have in common which makes these three calculations the only profitable ones?
The Mesopotamian people had widespread belief systems, not all of them believed in Nibiru, or a chaotic ending to existence. From the Babylonians to
the Hittites, Hurrian, and peoples of Akkad, no two cultures agreed on Nibiru, or the end of the world. It was only during intermittent periods of
Babylonian rule that Marduk became the central god, and Nibiru's possible existence was conveyed.
Likewise, the long-count calender was not the same across all of the Mesoamerican cultures. The Maya, Aztec, and Inca used different calender counts.
The long-count even, is actually a scholarly throw-back, which was out of use culturally by the time the Spanish arrived.
Fibonacci, finally, has nothing to say on doomsday prophecies. Quite the opposite: the Fibonacci sequence suggests an infinite, unending expansion of
awareness and growth.
Following, you use the 72 goddesses in Buddhism to suggest a mathematical formula for universal awareness. This, of course, goes against all of the
doctrines of the Tathagata. This mathematical formula would be considered a formation of both the mind, and of consciousness. It therefore fits into
the Aggregate of Consciousness, and the Aggregate of Mental Forms. Anyone who has made a study of Buddhism would know that in the
the Tathagata explained:
all formations are transient; all formations are subject to suffering; all things are without an ego-identity. Form is transient, feeling is
transient, perception is transient, mental formations are transient, consciousness is transient. And that which is transient is subject to suffering;
and of that which is transient, and subject to suffering and change, one cannot rightly say: this belongs to me; this am I; this is my ego.
Therefore, whatever there be of bodily form, of feeling, perception, mental formations, or consciousness, whether one's own or external, whether
gross or subtle, lofty or low, far or near, one should understand according to reality and true nature: this does not belong to me; this am I not;
this is not my ego.
Additionally, the Buddha saw godhood as simply another step along the path of reincarnation, and Karma. Even gods, the Buddha taught, were subject to
Karma and the cycles of Saṃsāra. The ultimate goal of Buddhism was always to see beyond the physical, emotional, visual, mental, and spiritual
realms of existence to Nirvana: the cessation of all being. This too meant disconnection from Akasha, the All, and any form of divinity. The
goddesses, therefore, would not be a key to universal understanding, as they themselves were subject to the universal system of rebirth.
Ignoring the scriptural disagreement, I also have to point out that in your calculations you state that there are 72 goddesses, and then proceed to
add "7+1" to get your calculation of 8. 72 is made up of the numerals 7 and 2, though. So the proper calculation would be "7+2" which equals 9,
not 8. This, of course, changes all of your calculations based off the 72 goddesses of Buddhism.
Take that as you will. Just a few cursory calculation errors, and some cultural inconsistencies I found within your code.
~ Wandering Scribe