|
Star Fire: The Gold of the Gods
Page 1 of 4 -- Next >>
It is now nearly two years since my book, Bloodline
of the Holy Grail, was published, and for those of you who have not
read this (or have not seen the serialised lecture transcript in NEXUS
magazine), the investigation is essentially concerned with the Messianic
Bloodline as it has descended through the family of Jesus Christ down to the
present day. It is also concerned with comparing the New Testament Gospels with
the first-hand historical accounts of the era, as related in both the Roman and
Jewish archives. In this regard, it details how the eventual Christian High
Church corrupted and manipulated the early records to suit its own political
agenda.
Despite the contrived doctrine that Jesus was born of a virgin
and was the 'one and only' son of God (definitions that did not feature in the
original pre-Roman texts), the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke
actually give details of Jesus' descendant lineage from David of Israel and the
Kings of Judah. This has led to the one question I have been asked more than any
other during the past months. The question (in its various forms) asks quite
simply: What was so special about this Bloodline in the first place?
Given that the dynastic succession from Jesus has been
expressly prominent in sovereign and political affairs through 2,000 years -
with the family constantly supporting constitutional democracy against control
by the Church establishment - its status rests upon the fact that Jesus was a
lineal descendant of King David.
But, what was it that made the line of David so important, and
so different from any other? It was this very question which set me on the trail
for my next book, Genesis of the Grail Kings, which tells the story of the
Messianic line from the very beginning.
The Bible explains that the Bloodline story began with Adam
and Eve, from whose third son, Seth, evolved a line which progressed through
Methuselah and Noah, and eventually to Abraham who became the Great Patriarch of
the Hebrew nation. It then relates that Abraham brought his family westwards out
of Mesopotamia (present-day Iraq) to the land of Canaan (or Palestine), from
where some of his descendants moved into Egypt. After a few generations they
moved back into Canaan where, in time, the eventual David of Bethlehem became
King of the newly defined Kingdom of Israel.
If viewed as it is presented in the scriptures, this is a
fascinating saga; but there is nothing anywhere to indicate why the ancestral
line of David and his heirs was in any way special. In fact, quite the reverse
is the case. His ancestors are portrayed as a succession of wandering
territory-seekers who are seen to be of no particular significance until the
time of King David. Their biblical history bears no comparison to, say, the
contemporary Pharaohs of ancient Egypt. Their significance, we are told, comes
from the fact that (from the time of Abraham) they were designated as 'God's
chosen people'. But even this leaves us wondering, because, according to the
scriptures, their God led them through nothing but a succession of famines, wars
and general hardship - and, on the face of it, these early Hebrews do not appear
to have been too bright!
We are faced, therefore, with a couple of possibilities.
Either David was not of this Abraham succession at all, and was simply grafted
into the list by later writers. Or maybe we have been presented with a very
corrupted version of the family's early history - a version that was
specifically designed to uphold the emergent Jewish faith, rather than to
represent historical fact.
In consideration of this, I was reminded of precisely what I
had found with the New Testament. The Gospel texts that have been in the public
domain for centuries bear little relation to the first-hand accounts of the era.
The New Testament, as we know it, was compiled by the 4th-century bishops to
support the newly contrived Christian belief. But, what if the Jewish scribes
had previously done exactly the same thing?
Clearly, I had to get back to the more ancient writings in
order to find any anomalies. The problem was that, even if this were possible,
the earliest Hebrew writings (which were rehashed many centuries later) were
themselves only written between the 6th and the 1st centuries BC, so they were
not likely to be that authentic in their telling of history from thousands of
years before. Indeed, it was plain that this would be the case, because when
these books were first written their express purpose was to convey a history
which upheld the principles of the Jewish faith - a faith that did not emerge
until well into the ancestral story.
Given that the first group of these books was written while
the Jews were held captive in Mesopotamian Babylon in the 6th century BC, it is
apparent that Babylon was where the original records were then held. In fact,
from the time of Adam, through some 19 said generations down to Abraham, the
whole of Old Testament patriarchal history was Mesopotamian. More specifically,
the history was from Sumer in southern Mesopotamia, where the ancient Sumerians
did indeed refer to the grasslands of the Euphrates delta as the Eden.
When researching for Bloodline
of the Holy Grail, I found that good sources for some background
information were the various Gospels and texts that were not selected for
inclusion in the canonical New Testament. Perhaps, I thought, the same might
apply to the Old Testament. The books of Enoch and Jubilees, for example, were
among those not included.
A further book, to which attention is specifically drawn in
the Old Testament books of Joshua and Samuel, is the Book of Jasher. But despite
its apparent importance to the Hebrew writers, it was not included in the final
selection.
Two other works are also cited in the Bible. The Book of
Numbers draws our attention to the Book of The Wars of Jehovah. And in the Book
of Isaiah we are directed towards the Book of the Lord.
What are these books? Where are these books? They are all
mentioned in the Bible (which means they all pre-date the Old Testament), and
they are all cited as being important. So, why did the editors see fit to
exclude them when the selection was made?
In pursuing an answer to this question and in studying the
substance of the Old Testament prior to its corruption, one fact which becomes
increasingly clear is that in English-language Bibles the definition 'Lord' is
used in a general context, but in earlier texts a positive distinction is drawn
between 'Jehovah' and 'the Lord'.
It has often been wondered why the biblical God of the Hebrews
led them through trials and tribulations, floods and disasters, when (from time
to time) he appears to have performed with a quite contrary and merciful
personality. The answer is that, although now seemingly embraced as 'the One
God' by the Jewish and Christian churches, there was originally a distinct
difference between the figures of Jehovah and the Lord. They were, in fact,
quite separate deities. The god referred to as 'Jehovah' was traditionally a
storm god, a god of wrath and vengeance, whereas the god referred to as 'the
Lord' was a god of fertility and wisdom.
So, what was the name given to the Lord in the early writings?
It was, quite simply, the prevailing Hebrew word for 'Lord', and the word was 'Adon'.
As for the apparent personal name of Jehovah, this was not used in the early
days, and even the Bible tells that the God of Abraham was called 'El Shaddai',
which means 'Lofty Mountain'.
The apparent name 'Jehovah' came from the original Hebrew stem
YHWH, which meant 'I am that I am' - said to be a statement made by God to Moses
on Mount Sinai, hundreds of years after the time of Abraham. 'Jehovah' was
therefore not a name at all, and early texts refer simply to 'El Shaddai' and to
his opposing counterpart, 'Adon'.
To the Canaanites, these gods were respectively called 'El
Elyon' and 'Baal' - which meant precisely the same things ('Lofty Mountain' and
'Lord').
In our modern Bibles, the definitions 'God' and 'Lord' are
used and intermixed throughout, as if they were one and the same character, but
originally they were not. One was a vengeful god (a people-hater), and the other
was a social god (a people-supporter), and they each had wives, sons and
daughters.
The old writings tell us that throughout the patriarchal era
the Israelites endeavoured to support Adon, the Lord, but at every turn El
Shaddai (the storm god, Jehovah) retaliated with floods, tempests, famines and
destruction. Even at the very last (around 600 BC), the Bible explains that
Jerusalem was overthrown at Jehovah's bidding and tens of thousands of Jews were
taken into Babylonian captivity simply because their King (a descendant of King
David) had erected altars in veneration of Baal, the Adon.
It was during the course of this captivity that the Israelites
weakened and finally conceded. They decided to succumb to the 'God of Wrath',
and developed a new religion out of sheer fear of his retribution. It was at
this time that the name of Jehovah first appeared - and this was only 500 years
before the time of Jesus.
Subsequently, the Christian Church took Jehovah on board as
well, calling him simply 'God' - and all the hitherto social concepts of the
Adon were totally discarded. The two religions were henceforth both faiths of
fear. Even today, their followers are classified as 'God-fearing'.
So, where does that leave us? It leaves us knowing that within
an overall pantheon of gods and goddesses (many of whom are actually named in
the Bible), there were two predominant and opposing gods. In different cultures
they have been known as 'El Elyon' and 'Baal'; 'El Shaddai' and 'Adon'; 'Arhiman'
and 'Mazda'; 'Jehovah' and 'Lord'; 'God' and 'Father'. But these styles are all
titular; they are not personal names.
So who precisely were they? To find the answer we have to look
no further than where these gods were actually operative, and the old Canaanite
texts (discovered in Syria in the 1920s) tell us that their courts were in the
Tigris-Euphrates valley in Mesopotamia, in the Sumerian Eden delta of the
Persian Gulf.
But what did the ancient Sumerians call these two gods? What
were their personal names? We can trace the Sumerian written records back to
about 3700 BC, and they tell us that the gods in question were brothers. In
Sumer, the storm god who eventually became known as Jehovah was called 'Enlil'
or 'Ilu-kur-gal' (meaning 'Ruler of the Mountain'), and his brother, who became
Adon, the Lord, was called 'Enki'. This name is really important to our story
because 'Enki' means 'Archetype'.
The texts inform us that it was Enlil who brought the Flood;
it was Enlil who destroyed Ur and Babylon, and it was Enlil who constantly
opposed the education and enlightenment of humankind. Indeed, the early Syrian
texts tell us that it was Enlil who obliterated the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah
on the Dead Sea - not because they were dens of wickedness, as we are taught,
but because they were great centres of wisdom and learning.
It was Enki, on the other hand, who, despite the wrath of his
brother, granted the Sumerians access to the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of
Life. It was Enki who set up the escape strategy during the Flood, and it was
Enki who passed over the time-honoured Tables of Destiny - the tables of
scientific law which became the bedrock of the early mystery schools in Egypt.
Many books talk about the hermetic school of Tuthmosis III of
Egypt, who reigned about 1450 BC. But it is not generally known that the school
he originally inherited was the Royal Court of the Dragon. This had been founded
by the priests of Mendes in about 2200 BC and was subsequently ratified by the
12th dynasty Queen Sobeknefru.
This sovereign and priestly Order passed from Egypt to the
Kings of Jerusalem; to the Black Sea Princes of Scythia and into the Balkans -
notably to the Royal House of Hungary, whose King Sigismund reconstituted the
Court just 600 years ago. Today it exists as the Imperial and Royal Court of the
Dragon Sovereignty, and after some 4,000 years it is the oldest sovereign Court
in the world.
But what were the earliest aims and ambitions of the Order
back in Pharaonic times? They were to perpetuate and advance the alchemical
strength of the Royal Bloodline from Lord Enki, the Archetype.
The kings of the early succession (who reigned in Sumer and
Egypt before becoming Kings of Israel) were anointed upon coronation with the
fat of the Dragon (the sacred crocodile). This noble beast was referred to in
Egypt as the Messeh (from which derived the Hebrew verb 'to anoint'), and the
kings of this dynastic succession were always referred to as 'Dragons', or
'Messiahs' (meaning 'Anointed Ones').
In times of battle, when the armies of different kingdoms were
conjoined, an overall leader was chosen and he was called the 'Great Dragon'
(the 'King of Kings') - or, as we better know the name in its old Celtic form,
the 'Pendragon'.
One of the interesting items from the archives of the Dragon
Court is the origin of the word 'kingship'. It derives from the very earliest of
Sumerian culture, wherein 'kingship' was identical with 'kinship' - and 'kin'
means 'blood relative'. In its original form, 'kinship' was 'kainship'. And the
first King of the Messianic Dragon succession was the biblical Cain (Kain), head
of the Sumerian House of Kish.
On recognising this, one can immediately see the first anomaly
in the traditional Genesis story, for the historical line to David and Jesus was
not from Adam and Eve's son Seth at all. It was from Eve's son Cain, whose
recorded successors (although given little space in the Old Testament) were the
first great Kings (or Kains) of Mesopotamia and Egypt.
Two more important features then come to light when reading
the Bible again with this knowledge in mind. We all tend to think of Cain as
being the first son of Adam and Eve, but he was not. Even the Book of Genesis
tells us that he was not, and it confirms how Eve told Adam that Cain's father
was the Lord. Who was 'the Lord'? The Lord was Adon, and Adon was Enki. Even
outside the Bible, the writings of the Hebrew Talmud and Midrash make it quite
plain that Cain was not the son of Adam.
So what else have we been wrongly taught about this particular
aspect of history? The Book of Genesis (in its English-translated form) tells us
that Cain was 'a tiller of the ground'. But this is not what the original texts
say at all. What they say is that Cain had 'dominion over the Earth' - which is
a rather different matter when considering his kingly status.
In fact, the Bible translators appear to have had a constant
problem with the word 'Earth', often translating it to 'ground', 'clay' or
'dust'. But the early texts actually referred to 'The Earth'. Even in the case
of Adam and Eve, the translators got it wrong. The Bible says: 'Male and female
he created them, and he called their name Adam.' The older writings use the more
complete word 'Adama', which means 'of the Earth'. But this did not mean they
were made of dirt; it means that they were 'of The Earth' - or, as the Anchor
Hebrew Bible explains in absolutely precise terms, they were 'Earthlings'.
There is a lot to be said about the story of Adam and Eve and
of how they were the result of clinical cloning. Writers such as Zechariah
Sitchin have written at some length in this regard, and my new book delves far
more deeply into the subject. I shall not dwell upon this particular aspect now
because I want to move more directly into the alchemy of the Messianic Bloodline
of the Earthly Dragon Kings. What I will say is that the Sumerian records state
that around 6,000 years ago, Adam and Eve (known then as 'Atabba' and 'Ava', and
jointly as the 'Adama') were purpose-bred for kingship at the House of Shimti by
Enki and his sister-wife Nin-khursag. In Sumerian, the word Shi-im-ti meant
'breath-wind-life'.
Adam was certainly not the first man on Earth, but he was the
first of the alchemically devised kingly succession. Nin-khursag was called
'Lady of the Embryo' or 'Lady of Life', and she was the surrogate mother for
Atabba and Ava who were created from human ova fertilised by the Lord Enki.
It was because of Nin-khursag's title, Lady of Life, that Ava
was later given the same title by the Hebrews. Indeed, the name Ava (or Eve) was
subsequently said to mean 'Life'. And there is an interesting parallel here,
because in Sumerian the distinction 'Lady of Life' was Nin-t� (Nin meaning
'Lady', and t� meaning 'Life'). However, another Sumerian word, ti (with the
longer pronunciation, 'tee'), meant 'rib'; and it was by virtue of the Hebrews'
misunderstanding of the two words, t� and ti, that Eve also became incorrectly
associated with Adam's rib.
Both Enki and Nin-khursag (along with their brother Enlil, the
later Jehovah) belonged to a pantheon of gods and goddesses referred to as the
Anunnaki, meaning 'Heaven came to Earth'. In fact, the Grand Assembly of the
Anunnaki (later called the 'Court of the Elohim') is mentioned in Psalm 82
wherein Jehovah makes his bid for supreme power over the other gods.
According to the Dragon tradition, the importance of Cain was
that he was directly produced by Enki and Ava, so his blood was three-quarters
Anunnaki. His half-brothers Hevel and Satanael (better known as Abel and Seth)
were less than half Anunnaki, being the offspring of Atabba and Ava (Adam and
Eve).
Cain's Anunnaki blood was so advanced that it was said that
his brother Abel's blood was 'Earthbound' by comparison. Cain, it was said in
the scriptures, 'rose far above Abel', so that his brother's blood was swallowed
into the ground. But this original description was thoroughly mistranslated for
our modern Bible, and we are now told that 'Cain rose up against Abel and
spilled his blood upon the ground'. This is not the same thing at all.
We can now progress our story by considering the oldest Grant
of Arms in sovereign history - a Grant of Arms which denoted the Messianic
Dragon Bloodline for all time. The Sumerians referred to this insignia as the
Gra-al. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? From biblical history, however, we know it
better as the 'Mark of Cain'.
This 'Mark' is portrayed to us by the Church as if it were
some form of curse. But, knowing what we now know, the Bible does not actually
say this. What it says is that, having got into an argument with Jehovah over a
matter of sovereign observance, Cain feared for his life. We are then informed
that the Lord placed a mark upon Cain, swearing sevenfold vengeance against his
enemies.
No one has ever really understood why Jehovah should decide to
protect Cain when it was he who held the grievance against him. But the fact is
that Jehovah did not make this decision. Cain's protector was not Jehovah. As
stated, the 'Mark' was settled upon Cain by the Lord - and the Lord (the Adon)
was Cain's own Father, Enki.
Few people ever think to enquire about the supposed enemies of
Cain as defined in Genesis. Who could they possibly have been? Where would they
have come from? According to the Bible, only Adam and Eve, with their sons Cain
and Abel, existed - and Cain had apparently killed Abel. If we are to accept the
text as it stands, there was no one around to be his enemy!
So, what was this Sumerian Gra-al which the Bible calls 'the
Mark of Cain'? It was an emblem dignified as the 'Cup of the Waters' or the
Rosi-Crucis (the 'Dew Cup'), and it was identified in all records (including
those of Egypt and Phoenicia and in the Hebrew annals) as being an upright,
centred red cross within a circle. Throughout the ages it was developed and
embellished, but it has always remained essentially the same and is recognised
as being the original symbol of the Holy Grail.
Another anomaly is presented soon afterwards in Genesis when
we are told that Cain found himself a wife. Who on Earth were her parents if
Adam and Eve were the only couple alive? Without confronting this anomaly at
all, Genesis then proceeds to list for us the names of Cain's descendants!
It becomes clear from all of this that some very important
information has been edited from the Old Testament narrative. Clearly there were
plenty of other people around at the time and it is not difficult to find their
stories outside the Bible. Quite apart from the Sumerian annals, even old Hebrew
and early Christian texts give us far more information in this regard.
In order to further enhance the succession from Cain, he was
married to his half-sister - a pure-bred Anunnaki princess, Luluwa. Her father
was Enki and her mother was Lilith, a granddaughter of Enlil. Although not
giving the name of Cain's wife, the Bible does name their younger son Enoch,
while the Sumerian records cite his elder son and kingly successor, At�n, who
is perhaps better known as King Etana of Kish.
Etana was said to have 'walked with the gods', and to have
been fed from the 'Plant of Birth' (or the 'Tree of Life', as it is called in
Genesis). Henceforth, the kings of the line were designated as being the twigs
of the Tree - and the ancient word for 'twig' was klone (clone). In later times
this 'Plant' or 'Tree' was redefined as a 'Vine', and so the Gra-al, the Vine
and the Messianic Bloodline became conjoined as one in the literature of
subsequent ages.
By virtue of their contrived breeding, this kingly succession
was modelled specifically for leadership, and in all aspects of knowledge,
culture, awareness, wisdom and intuition they were highly advanced against their
mundane contemporaries. In order to keep their blood as pure as possible, they
always married within a close kinship.
It was fully recognised that the prominent gene of the
succession was carried within the blood of the mother. Today we call this the 'mitochondrial
DNA'. And so was born a tradition inherited by their kingly descendants in Egypt
and by the later Celtic rulers of Europe. True kingship, it was maintained, was
transferred through the female, and so kingly marriages were strategically
cemented with maternal half-sisters or first cousins.
Having reached the point where the Plant of Birth is first
mentioned in the records, we are at about 3500 BC; and it is at this point that
we begin to learn how the kingly succession was orally fed with bodily
supplements from the early days. This practice continued for more than 1,000
years until the nourishment program became wholly scientific and alchemical.
Before getting into the detail of the kingly diet, it is worth
considering why it was that the all-important Royal Bloodline which progressed
from Cain and his sons was strategically ignored by the Hebrews and the
Christian Church in favour of their promoting a parallel junior line from Adam's
son Seth. Why was it that the immediate Cainite dynasty was eventually shunned
by the fearful disciples of Enlil-Jehovah?
In the Old Testament Book of Genesis, the lines of descent are
given from Cain and from his half-brother Seth, but it is of interest to note
that through the early generations the names detailed in each list are pretty
much the same, although given in a different order: Enoch, Yared, Mahalaleel,
Methuselah and Lamech.
In view of this, it has often been suggested that the line
from Seth down to Lamech's son Noah was (not very cleverly) contrived by the
Bible compilers so as to avoid showing the true descent from Cain to the time of
Noah. If this were the case, then something must have occurred during the
lifetime of Noah to cause the ancestral story to be veiled by the later writers.
The answer is to be found in the Bible itself.
At that stage in the family's history, the vengeful Jehovah
apparently warned Noah and his sons against the ingestion of blood - an edict
which became expressly important to the later Jewish way of life. It has long
been a customary Jewish practice to hang meat for blood-letting before cooking
and consumption.
But, in contrast, the Christian faith is especially concerned
with the figurative ingestion of blood. In the Christian tradition it is
customary to take the Communion sacrament (the Mass) wherein wine is drunk from
the sacred chalice, symbolically representing the blood of Jesus, the lifeblood
of the Messianic Vine.
Could it be, perhaps, that the modern Christian custom is an
unwitting throw-back to some distant pre-Noah ritual which Jehovah opposed? If
so, then since it is known that the chalice is a wholly female symbol which has
been emblematic of the womb from the earliest times, might this even have been
an extract of menstrual blood? The answer to these questions is 'Yes'. That was
precisely the custom, but it was not so unsavoury as it might seem. Indeed, few
of us think to enquire about the ultimate sources of many of today's ingested
medicines and bodily supplements, and those in the know would often be reluctant
to tell us. The Premarin hormone, for example, comes from the urine of pregnant
mares, while certain growth hormones and insulin are manufactured from E. coli,
a faecal bacterium.
The blood extract in question was, in the first instance, not
human but from the sacred Anunnaki lunar essence - that of Enki's sister Nin-khursag,
the designated Lady of Life. It was defined as the most potent of all
life-forces and was venerated as being 'Star Fire'. It was from the womb of Nin-khursag
that the kingly line was born, and it was with her blood, the divine Star Fire,
that the Dragon succession was supplementally fed.
In ancient Egypt, Nin-khursag was called 'Isis', and by either
name she was the ultimate Mother of the Messianic line, for hers was the
matriarchal gene which constituted the 'Beginning', the 'Gene-Isis', or, as the
Greeks identified it, the Genesis.
It is worth reminding ourselves, then, that the biblical edict
to abstain from blood came not from Enki the Wise but from Enlil-Jehovah - the
God of Wrath who had instigated the Flood, had wrought havoc in Ur and Babylon,
and had endeavoured to deceive Adam by saying that he would die if he ate from
the Tree of Knowledge. This was not a god who liked people, and the Sumerian
records are very clear in this regard. Hence, if he forbade the taking of blood,
this was not likely to have been an edict for the benefit of Noah and his
descendants - it was most probably to their detriment.
In strict terms the original Star Fire was the lunar essence
of the Goddess, but, even in an everyday mundane environment, menstruum contains
the most valuable endocrinal secretions, especially those of the pineal and
pituitary glands. The brain's pineal gland in particular was directly associated
with the Tree of Life, for this tiny gland was said to secrete the very essence
of active longevity, called soma, or, as the Greeks called it, ambrosia.
In mystic circles, the menstrual 'flow-er' ('she who flows')
has long been the designated 'flower' and is represented as a lily or a lotus.
Indeed, the definition 'flow-er' is the very root of our modern word 'flower'.
In ancient Sumer, the key females of the Dragon succession were all venerated as
lilies, having such names as Lili, Luluwa, Lilith, Lilutu and Lillette.
In pictorial representation, the Messianic Dragon bore little
relation to the winged, fire-breathing beast of later Western mythology. It was,
in essence, a large-jawed serpent with four legs, very much like a crocodile or
a monitor. This was the sacred Messeh whose name was 'Draco'. Draco was a divine
emblem of the Egyptian Pharaohs, a symbol of the Egyptian Therapeutate, of the
Essenes at Qumran, and was the Bistea Neptunis (the sea serpent) of the
descendant Merovingian Fisher-Kings in Europe.
In the old Hebrew Bibles, all references to serpents are made
by use of the word nahash (from the stem NHSH); but this usage does not relate
to serpents in the way that we would know them - that is, as venomous snakes. It
relates to serpents in their traditional capacity as bringers of wisdom and
enlightenment, for the word nahash actually means 'to decipher' or 'to find
out'.
Serpents, in one form or another, were always associated with
wisdom and healing, and the Trees of Life and Knowledge are customarily
identified with serpents. Indeed, the insignia of many of today's medical
associations is precisely this image of a serpent coiled around the Plant of
Birth (Tree of Life) - a depiction shown in the clay reliefs of ancient Sumer to
be Enki's personal emblem.
Interestingly, though, another common emblem for medical
relief organisations depicts two coiled serpents, spiralling around the winged
caduceus of Hermes the magician. In these instances the true symbolism of the
Star Fire ritual is conveyed, and this symbol can be traced back to the very
origins of the alchemical mystery schools and gnostic institutions.
The records explain that the central staff and entwined
serpents represent the spinal cord and the sensory nervous system. The two
uppermost wings signify the brain's lateral ventricular structures. Between
these wings, above the spinal column, is shown the small central node of the
pineal gland.
The combination of the central pineal and its lateral wings
has long been referred to as the 'Swan', and in Grail lore (as in some yogic
circles) the Swan is emblematic of the fully enlightened being. This is the
ultimate realm of consciousness achieved by the mediaeval Knights of the Swan,
as epitomised by such chivalric figures as Perceval and Lohengrin.
Page 1 of 4 -- Next >>
|
