This is a time of year that calls to mind the story of Christmas. In recent years it also raises the question – What is the Real Christmas Story?
The original Real Christmas Story was presented as a gift from the Eieyani during the workshop trip to Peru in late December 2001. There are memories of it being read for the first time on a long and emotional bus trip from Cusco down to Puno. It was subsequently read and recorded during an FoL get together in the UK. Readings of the Real Christmas Story were a loved feature of FoL gatherings for many years in Phoenix and Sarasota. It is well worthwhile to re-read this story during the 12 days of Christos or Krystos Mass spanning the period December 21st to January 2nd. The Introduction to the story in particular makes abundantly clear that this is a Christmas gift or dispensation from the Eieyani. It can be regarded as the Eieyani version of the Christmas Story. There is immense gratitude to the Eieyani, Ash and the Speaker Team for this gift.
During the latter part of the May 2012 workshop parts of this story were changed under the auspices of the AL-Hum-Bhra (AMCC). This modified story can be regarded as the AMCC version of the Christmas Story.
Unfortunately, some fundamental issues and contradictions arise between the two versions of the Christmas Story. These present certain challenges and are difficult to deal with. However, because they are difficult doesn’t mean they should be ignored. These issues are not confined to the Christmas Story, but run through a number of other elements of the Teachings. The longer term integrity of the Teachings requires that they be addressed.
Sometime after the May 2012 workshop an attempt was made to document various issues arising between the original and modified versions of the Christmas Story. These are summarised separately in the attached Notes document.
There are a number of credibility issues with the modified version of the Christmas Story. For example, the modified version states that Saradi gave birth to Jeshewua 9 (J9) and a twin sister in July 7BC after an affair with John the Baptist. Saradi was also the mother of Merigedra, who was born in September 34BC. This would make for a 27-year time gap between the oldest and youngest siblings from the same mother. This was a time when life was difficult with poor sanitation, little health care for medical problems and so on. Life expectancy was generally short. The time period for bearing healthy children was correspondingly shorter than it is today. It’s extremely unlikely that Saradi would be able to birth healthy twins 27 years after her first child in those times.
Furthermore, the original story states that Saradi was aged and in poor health in 12BC. She was unable to make the short journey on foot from her house to that of Joehius for the ceremonies there. A donkey was needed for the journey. What are the chances of her being fit and active for an affair and the birthing of twins 4 to 5 years later in 7BC?
The modified story also states that after birthing the twins Saradi arranged to have the infant girl brought to her sister in India. This would entail a long journey of at least 2,500 miles across some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet. It would be necessary to get across the Arabian Desert by camel. This would entail severe temperature swings between prolonged exposure to the sun during the day and big temperature drops at night. We can get a feel for what this would be like from the desert crossing scenes in the film Lawrence of Arabia. The alternative would be to take a much longer but also arduous journey around the desert.
Having got to the other side of the desert, we would still only be a third of the way to India. It would be necessary to navigate the marshes at the mouths of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, then the mountainous terrain of western Iran and possibly present day Pakistan before reaching India. Sea voyages would have been equally difficult and dangerous. These would entail long periods at sea tossed in small wooden sail boats with prolonged exposure to the sun and poor quality water, food and sanitation.
This was a time when infant mortality was high, as it presently is in underdeveloped parts of the world. The chances of an infant surviving such a long and arduous journey in those times are close to zero. This wasn’t an era of fast air-conditioned travel. An adult familiar with the local situation would not send an infant on such a journey. The modified story further claims that the girl and her twin brother survived and that their progeny ‘took out’ the descendants of Jesheua 12. This whole scenario stretches credibility to an unrealistic extent.
There are several other such issues, as mentioned in the attached notes. It is possible to argue the details back and forth. However, when we look past the personalities and associated dramas and look more deeply at the underlying influences and what they are doing we encounter more significant problems.
The scope of the modifications made in the May 2012 workshop aren’t limited to the Real Christmas Story. Much of the detail for the Jesheua period is also contained in the Voyagers II book, in The Three Christs section. If the modifications are true, then this also needs to be changed.
For example, Voyagers II details the birth of J9 to Mary after ET Nephilim visitation and how this was covered by the story of the Immaculate Conception. This would all be set aside by the natural birth of J9 to Saradi and John the Baptist. It removes the basis for the traditional story of Mary & Joseph and the Immaculate Conception that has come down through conventional history.
Also the Amsterdam workshop of November 2007 provides a lot of the detail on the Jesheua 12 (J12) lines. There were 6 lines of descendants fathered by J12 with 6 specially chosen women to regenerate a higher level of coding within the human race. The Amsterdam workshop also introduced information on an additional 7th descendent, Aquaelle, who carried specialised coding. She manifested as White Buffalo Woman and propagated a line of descendants in the Phoenix AZ region. These Jesheua codes were also propagated by groups in the Amsterdam and Dublin regions. A hand drawn family tree for the J12 lines and their descendants was shown briefly in the Amsterdam workshop.
This workshop and Voyagers II indicate that most of the J12 lines (5 of the original 6 + Aquaelle) survived and propagated into modern times. The modified Christmas Story states that these lines were wiped out by the J9 descendants. If that is true, then there is need for significant revision of all this material.
There is however a much more fundamental issue. The Introduction to the Real Christmas Story makes abundantly clear that this material is presented as a gift and is fully authorised by the Eieyani. It is described as direct translation from the Emerald Covenant CDT Plates. It is described as true historical record, factual historical record, to set the record straight, to return the heritage of truth and freedom and so on. In other words, the Eieyani are leaving us absolutely in no doubt about the provenance, validity and integrity of this information.
In the modified version of the story the AMCC are claiming to provide additional information to fill in things that were edited out of the CDT Plates down here. They further claim that the original Amenti records were edited to contain some information that was recorded as official Anunnaki translation.
The AMCC are contradicting the Eieyani here and are effectively undermining the basis for the Eieyani Teachings.
If the Eieyani are dispensing information by direct translation from Emerald Covenant CDT Plates, why would they be relying on edited or Anunnaki modified versions? Since when have the Eieyani been dispensing Anunnaki translation? If the AMCC claims are true, this raises questions about the reliability of Eieyani information sources or about the process by which the information was translated and authorised.
If Eieyani information is unreliable and needs to be modified this raises questions about the reliability of all such information. What else needs to be modified? If past translations need to be modified in this way how can anybody be confident that existing translations are reliable? Will these also need to be revisited and modified in the future?
Unfortunately, the modified Christmas Story has all the hallmarks of something that was put together in a hurry to serve a particular purpose. It doesn’t appear to be have been fact checked against reality nor thought through in terms of its wider consequences. It now presents significant problems for both the Teachings and the wider Shield.
The Shield has been damaged to a degree by the so called ‘Split’ in recent times. It doesn’t make sense for the people to be split. The vast majority of people involved never wanted such a split, don’t want it now and wish it were resolved already. The great majority of people are highly committed to spiritual growth, to doing what they can to help others, to help the planet and to help resolve the challenges we all face in these times. While none of us is perfect the will to good is generally there. Most people are doing the best they know how. What is it that is posing this problem we face?
When we look beyond the personalities and drama we see that the so called ‘Split’ runs to or rather from a much deeper level. The modification of the Christmas Story as well as subsequent events indicate on closer examination that there are contradictions and fundamental issues between what the Eieyani and the AMCC are saying and doing. They are not quite on the same page as claimed. Understanding the deeper nature of the problem is key to resolving these issues.
Source, as the universal life field, is All. It is the foundation for creation. As creation emerges within the boundless freedom and integration of Source we first encounter the Primal Sound fields. These can be regarded as a transition phase between the infinite unity of Source and the separation, definition and structure further out in creation. The Sound fields are non-dimensional. This is an important point. It means that there is still a high degree of unity at this level and only the beginnings of defined structure. Dimensionalisation and the more detailed structure it generates emerges in the Primal Light fields. It develops into ever more specific and polarised forms as we progress further out into and through the matter fields.
When we are dealing with specific structure and forms we are in dimensionalisation. Complexity is a feature of structure and dimensionalisation. Source, in its ground state, is fundamentally structure-less and simple. There isn’t an inner and outer Source. The distinction between inner and outer is a polarity that assumes significance further out in creation.
Creation is fundamentally holographic. It doesn’t matter what level or complexity of structure we look at, from microcosm to macrocosm, that level will have a relationship with the Primal Sound fields and through these with Source. In other words, the Primal Sound fields progressively integrate structure in all its forms into the living unity of Source.
In terms of consciousness, The Yunasai or Central Point of All Union is Source. Life expresses in the Primal Sound fields as highly integrated collectives of consciousness known as the Yanas in the Eieyani tradition. They are also known as the Order of the Yunasai or the Eieyani Elder Council. The Yanas are the first emanation or individuation from Source. In particular, the Yanas of the Eckatic (first) Level of the Sound fields, the Yanas Eckatic Master Council, are right ‘next door’ to Source. There isn’t room for another level of organisation between these and Source. There is a high degree of integration at this level. If there were another level of organisation it would effectively be integrated by and be the Yanas. This integration is represented in the old Biblical expression – ‘In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God’.
In the Primal Light fields, we have a greater degree of personalisation in the Rishi Founder races. The Rishi Founders in our Time Matrix are also referred to as the Density 5 MC Eieyani Master Council. These in turn express as Eieyani Races down through the density and dimensional levels of our universe. The Angelic Human races are a direct descendent from this lineage and effectively are the ‘boots on the ground’.
The Eieyani therefore are highly integrated in the consciousness at every level in creation. They have a clear, unambiguous and direct line of connection all the way back to Source. They have direct functional relationship with the Yanas, as the first emanation from Source and are not dependent on other levels of organisation.
The claim and grant of authority in these Teachings is detailed in the Speakers and Flame Holder Contracts document. This unfortunately is where a still more serious issue arises.
This Contracts document details that all 3 Speaker contracts were commissioned, endorsed and authorised by the Emerald Order Melchizedek Cloister (EOMC) Yanas Eckatic Master Council. This provides the closest possible connection to Source. It further states that all 3 Speakers are incarnate members of the EOMC Yanas Master Council. It indicates that Speaker 2 holds a Level 6 EOMC ordination of Eckar, like Speaker 1. It further states that Speaker 3 holds a Level 5 EOMC Elder Consummate RishA ordination and, of considerable significance, is the remaining back-up Blue Flame Holder. It details that the integrity of all 3 Speakers has never been in question among the many Guardian Race Councils. The first paragraph indicates that the Contract is determined solely by EOMC Yanas Eckatic Master Council and that it is overseen by EOMC Azurite Maharaji and Eieyani races.
The AMCC are saying in the modified Christmas Story that Speaker 2 ‘blossomed’ or dark flowered in 31BC. They further state that Speaker 3 was FatalE and that she seduced John the Baptist and pushed him into saturation sometime between 12 and 7BC. Furthermore, that they produced a set of Twins with FatalE 6 factor in 7BC.
There is a clear contradiction between the Eieyani and AMCC positions here. If what the AMCC are saying is true, this would have been known by the Yanas and Eieyani. Why would they commission and provide an unqualified endorsement for Speakers 2 & 3 in 2002 in that case? Further, if it is true then the Contract needs to be modified. As a grant of authority, this is a foundation for the Teachings. Any changes to this would undermine confidence in the Teachings generally. What else might need to be changed further down the road? Fortunately, it hasn’t been changed.
If what the AMCC are saying isn’t true that raises other obvious and significant problems in terms of Speaker 1’s present relationship with the Yanas / Eieyani. Unfortunately, in either case the authority is damaged.
There is another issue here. The Speakers Contract is between the Yanas and the 3 Speakers and is administered by the Eieyani. Any changes to this contract should have been made by the Yanas / Eieyani. Where a third party intervenes they not only affect Speakers 2 & 3. They are also affecting the other party involved, the Yanas. For a third party to intervene they would need to defer to the Yanas, particularly given the much higher status of the Yanas. They would need to obtain an explicit grant of authority from the Yanas. For legitimacy, this would need to be declared explicitly and demonstrated clearly during the intervention.
Did the AMCC have a grant of authority to intervene? If so, why didn’t they declare it? Neither the Yanas nor the Eieyani were mentioned in the revocation of the Speaker 2 & 3 contracts nor during the May 2012 workshop final session. There was an attempt to bridge the AMCC back to the Yanas / Eieyani authority at a later date. But that was much too late to be more than a damage limitation exercise. At the very least there is a significant breach of protocol here.
The original grant of authority clearly lies with the Yanas and Eieyani. The original body of Eieyani Teachings constitutes an extraordinarily valuable resource. These Teachings carry purity, strength, clarity and power. All the core principles are there in terms of Source, Law of One, empowerment, engaged detachment and so on. The most important and useful information, in terms of core cosmic structure, dimensionalisation, fundamental spiritual anatomy, history and so on, is there. There are wonderful techniques, codes and Psonns. This material is sublime!
There is great credit and gratitude to the Eieyani, to Ash and the Speaker Team and to all who helped birth this material into physical expression. This is a great achievement!
It is distressing to see what has happened to this material under the stewardship of the AMCC. It has been side lined and the materials effectively taken out of circulation. Fortunately, the most important essence, the spirit of the Teachings, lives on in the lives of those who have integrated them. It is thrilling to see the original Eckasha Code surface again on the internet and in particular to see the Veca Code formation surrounding the Eckasha Code for the 12 days of Krystos Mass more recently. This is a significant straw in the wind.
All talent and effort that goes into the creation of materials needs to be acknowledged, respected and rewarded appropriately. It was never intended, however, that the Eieyani Teachings would become anyone’s personal property. They were drawn forth by world need and belong most where they are needed most, subject to fair exchange.
Unfortunately, there is an ambivalence around the AL-Hum-Bhra / AMCC and their Teachings. On the surface they are pleasant, positive and exciting. But look more deeply under the surface and we find contradictions and other agendas running. There is also an inappropriate level of aggression for a spiritual movement. There has been too much drama, collapse of structures, contraction and loss of function not to question what has been happening.
This raises some fundamental questions –
- Apart from claims, who are the AMCC as indicated by real outcomes?
- What is their real relationship with the Yanas / Eieyani?
This isn’t a question of blaming, pointing fingers or shunning. There has been too much of that already. Taking responsibility is the highway to spiritual maturity. The Shield is a collective and the mission a collective responsibility. Certain issues are personal and belong to the people involved. Broader issues arise in the shared space and are ‘family business’, as it were. Many such issues are too big for any one individual or for a group of people to resolve. But if we all play our part they become much more manageable. Facing issues in a real and effective way entails going to the root of a problem rather than just grappling with its surface expression.
There can be a temptation to expect someone else, e.g. parents, politicians, Guardians or Eieyani, to fix the problems. When the Eieyani tell us to ‘Sort it out’, they really mean it! The broader mission and the preservation of the spirit and principles of this or indeed any pure Teaching is a collective responsibility.
The Eieyani wear authority lightly. Challenging environments may require a framework of authority, e.g. a hierarchical structure. However, this is only a temporary arrangement. The ideal is that we empower ourselves, grow into maturity and move towards the organisational model of a ‘free association of empowered individuals’. In other words, the intention is to outgrow a hierarchical structure of authority.
We have the example of parents supervising children. In the early stages a framework of discipline is needed to support the child. This can be relaxed progressively as the child matures and is eventually withdrawn in adulthood. Problems can arise where a parent is fearful and tries to control the child too much. This can suffocate the child’s development eventually leading to the child rebelling and pushing away from the parent. Too much control is eventually out of control!
A crisis of authority is painful to go through, but longer term isn’t necessarily a bad thing. When people step into their own power and maturity, it can be a healing crisis that liberates parties from an unhealthy degree of co-dependency. In addition to a vertical line there always is a horizontal line to the world around us, to common sense and to what the hologram is telling us. It is wonderful to see so many people on both sides of the so called ‘split’ stepping up, empowering themselves, speaking from their own integrity, bringing forth their own spiritual gifts and putting these out to the world. There has been a wonderful growth in maturity. This is the real meaning of freedom in the Freedom T’s.
The Eieyani carry a fundamental kindness that wells up in the pools of human kindness and decency. They are available to help, but in a non-interfering way. There is also a significant degree of allowance. There is an Eieyani way of doing things and it is very different from the AMCC way. We are all learning here, including Source. Learning involves making some mistakes. Mistakes aren’t the problem. It’s how we handle the consequences that matters. Sometimes we may need to stew in the consequences long enough to fully absorb the lessons. Again, as with a parent and child, it is a question of letting the child explore as much as possible, take its knocks and only intervene where really necessary. When they do intervene, the Eieyani can be quite firm. They really mean business.
There is an old saying that the collective reflects the consciousness of the people. The inner microcosm and outer macrocosm reflect each other. Our first and most important responsibility is for and to ourselves. If there are splits and related problems in our hologram, what does this signify for us? How is our Source relationship? How is our grounding? Are we projecting unresolved shadow? Are we naïve or gullible, leaving ourselves open to manipulation? Are we discerning and realistic without getting into too much fear or drama? Are we expecting too much and so on? As we empower ourselves by taking responsibility and ground this in our bodies and lives we strengthen both ourselves and the collective. We are then in a better position to be of practical assistance to others. Our attitude to others is a reflection of relationship with self.
There is a natural temptation to identify with our inner hero. We can view ourselves as heroic David’s fighting valiantly to overcome vast Goliaths of victimisation. We can see ourselves as knights in shining armour going forth to slay dragons and rescue damsels in distress. This is exciting for a time. But maturity calls us to own our hologram – all of it. Some of our biggest challenges are facing not someone else’s dragons, but our own inner dragons, e.g. the shadow issues we have taken responsibility for resolving.
It needs to be recognised that there has been and still is quite a bit of pain, hurt and damage in the collective. There probably still is some anguish and confusion to wash through the Shield. As family we can reach out, help, support and encourage each other and receive the same in kind. The damage done by divide and conquer routines at every level needs to be recognised and actively worked around or repaired, where possible.
The Law of One applies to all. As we grow in maturity we can look further beyond personalities and specific group identities. The larger human family is suffering from a lot of fragmentation and division. Helping heal this can lead to a significant increase in coherence and effectiveness in action. The world situation is begging for a greater degree of openness and collaboration between groups that have a will to good and can do good.
Despite the fact there are still some significant issues on the table to keep us on our toes, there has been a lot of learning and growth, often in surprising ways. There can be many twists and turns on the path, as there are in the Christmas Story itself. The Festival of Lights marks a re-orientation with higher guidance to move forward with renewed direction and purpose. Have a lovely FoL!