New Year's Message 2018



A new year’s offering begins with its numerological contribution. And customarily this is what this site has brought with its New Year’s messages. 2018 brings its numerological donation as follows:

2 + 0 + 1 + 8 = 11 

1 + 1 = 2

2018 is the numerological cycle year of 2

The Science of numbers reveal the quality of existence; they reveal the quality that is influencing and establishing the reality that will be experienced. From Occult Numerology we get the formula that describes what composes reality: 1 + 1 = 1. This year’s message will expand on this ancient science. 

What is the origin of our reality?


Traditionally the number two (2) is offered as it appears first, 1 + 1 = 2. In Esoteric Numerology the number 2 denotes an understood and adjusted perfect replica of the 1. And when this is the energetic occasion, the number 2 is referred to as a true two. The two ones (1) that make up the number two (2) signify the ultimate purpose: there is only one all-pervading truth that is designed to expand itself thereby it remains as the only quality in existence. And this is so and is noted by the term Co-creation – the movement of the all that is moved in a manner that expands itself and therefore never does it alter its quality.

Because the esoteric or anything esoteric applies only to our process of evolution it is important to understand that it is the inner-most or our Divine essence that is unfolding itself back from creation to Co-creation. In Esoteric Numerology the expression 1 + 1 = 2 means that the added layer is equal to the original layer in every possible way but perhaps not yet complete due to factors that are beyond possibility. For example: a very highly evolved state of being does not make one super human even though there is multidimensional intelligence and other advances such as Intuited Holiness. In Esoteric Numerology the focus becomes on the second one, that is, the + 1 because it is its quality that will assure that the 2 is in fact two layers of the same reality. This is expressed as follows:

1 (the all) + 1 (the essence responding and thus moving to and with the quality of the initiating 1) = 2 (the added layer is as equal to the impressing quality as possible)

However, whilst this is how it ought to be the fact is that not all is as it should be in this reality of ours.

Without venturing too deep into the science that founds Occult Numerology it can be energetically said that the correct equation is as follows: 1 + 1 = 1. And this is in fact the circumstance when Co-creation is the impress that is producing the index that forms the reality, i.e. all will be as it is only it is more than it was by the rhythm of a movement that moves and thus expands the what is with no alteration. The original quality, therefore, remains as it is expanded. As indicated, this is the occasion everywhere except when it comes to our realm of life, a plane of life that is made up of two, astral and physical – the one plane of dual existence. In our case there has been an attempt to create the 1 + 1 = 1 effect only that in this application the inaugurating 1 is or was already a deviation from the origin of the formula. In its true application the 1 signifies Divinity, unaltered and eternal, God’s design in form, in manifestation. That which has been formed and or given birth moves in alike fashion to its birthing element, God, and thus there is the 1 + 1 making more of the same 1. Accordingly, the 1 + 1 = 1 remains true. And this is exactly what Co-creation is: that which is given birth moves in complete alignment with that which gave it birth. The movement is, and because it is and is not anything else it guarantees more of the same and hence there is more of the original with no dissimilarity – this is Co-creation. If this to you seems repetitive be assured that it is and it is so simply because the science provides for it to be eternally repetitive. Repetition = reality, it is what forms existence. And this science is represented in Occult Numerology as follows:

1 (the all, the initiator, God) + 1 (the co-created quality or being in movement, True Movement) = 1 (the all, the initiator, God in vaster existence)

But what happens if the producing element, the initiator, is, as mentioned, a deviation, that is, the root source (1) is not energetically part of the original constituting quality that forms the 1 + 1 = 1 equation? If this is the circumstance there will be a situation where a created 1 + 1 = 1 will exist alongside or more precisely within the all-pervading and original 1 + 1 = 1. Is this possible? Can there be a deviation whereby there will be two unequal ones and each producing a reality by the movement the science provides? The simple and most immediate answer is yes. The numerological formula that defines the universe we exist in is represented by the equation 1 + 1 = 1. This calculation is also known as the Computation of Eternity. It is expressed in words as follows: the all, moved as it is, produces more of the same and as such the all (space) is eternally expanding. However, the answer to the question – can there be a deviation – was a yes which means that if the process is altered, that is, if the course of action or movement is such that it does not move in alignment to and with its initiator then it is that the 1 + 1 = 1 becomes its own version of 1 + 1 = 1 where the end 1 is not the same simply because it was not initiated by the same 1 as is the original equation. Consequently, the numerology that describes reality in Occult Numerology is expressed as 1 + 1 = 1 and should there be a deviant reality it too will be expressed as 1 + 1 = 1 because energetically this is in fact how a reality is created. The Occult asks us to observe the initiating energetic quality that is behind all things.

Occult Numerology is more exacting in its science while the Esoteric remains a little more flexible in its expression. Hence the 1 + 1 = 2, and the number two signifying that there is now another layer added, another reality has been created; two differing realities exist, and therefore it is no longer a case where it is more of the same in eternal expansion as the original formula portrays. Again, the number two (2) signifies an introduced or created reality, a reality that is not as is the original. Through the grace that is Esoteric Numerology it is revealed that the number 2 indicates the influence of an added force, it is the number of influencing forces, and in many instances it is a case by which the added force is one that seeks to impose and or dominate its layer of reality over the one and only true reality. But in a reality there is only reality, that is, what is real is real with no room for what is not real, right? This is the accepted standard or at the very least the flaunted decree. However, the apparent simplicity is not so real and it is definitely not the reality we are told is reality. Therefore, reality can only be a question of perception and ultimately it is a question of energetic discernment given that all is energy and hence all that is, is and will be because an energy is making it so.

What does this preamble mean and how does it translate to sociological relevance?

We are here given the formula of what constitutes a reality. What there is, moved or lived, will produce what will appear as all there is. This seems like a ‘no brainer’ and in many respects it is only that it does not reveal whether the inaugurating or implanting factor is true to the original formula. In other words: all we know is what we know until we know different. And this is simply because we are the products of the formula, we are the end result, the reality that in many cases knows no other. However, this is not the case for all of those who belong to the end result, i.e. not all share or have experienced the one and the same reality. But how can this be if a reality is and if it is not it is not real, that is, it is not a reality? This raises the question – are we as human beings true creators or are we the elements of the result, i.e. are we the end product of influencing forces and thus not so sovereign as we have claimed and or imagined ourselves to be?

Let us explore this further by taking the position that we are or may be no more than products of a force or a series of them.

For some elements of the end result there is only one form of reality and for them life is rather fixed or seemingly permanent whilst for others the same extent of the term reality is expansive meaning that there are experiences that either form suspicion, consideration or expanded certainty. The latter lot are not so limited in their definition of the same reality as the formerly described would define their version of it, their version of life. And as such is this world of ours, a plane of life where perception divides certainty, where for many the reality is not the same as it is for others. Not only are we divided by ideals and beliefs we are also allocated by perception and in some cases alienated by the differing levels of sensitivity or as some may say – we are divided by the lack of insight.

But if reality is a reality, that is, it is what is real for all, shouldn’t reality be a ‘one size fits all’?

Or said this way –

Should reality not be a take it or leave it truth and despite what you or your group decide you cannot alter the truth that forms the reality?

It is presumed that a reality is, it just is because that is what reality is. But is it, is this the fixed reality we expect establishes a reality or is our reality not fixed which means we live in an ever expanding or altering reality that becomes our reality as it unfolds more of itself? And if this is not our reality, is our reality no more than what the ruling authority say it is? 

Take a few steps back for a moment, let us not forget that the reality of the Sun circling around our planet, otherwise known as the geocentric model, was, and let’s be absolutely honest in our description, a staunch reality that was blown to bits when it was not discovered but admitted that it is we who circle the Sun and not in fact the other way around. Yes, not that long ago the opposite of the truth was the dominating reality. (Note here that when the lie or the legalised decree that the Sun circles our planet was discarded the move to re-establish a truth from the lie could not be dignified by the word ‘discovery’ or the term ‘we discovered that we orbit the Sun’ given that well before the false dictum prevailed as the only acceptable legalised belief and science, our ancient ancestors knew the fact. Therefore, we in fact regressed into a reality that was not real, not true at all. Hence, it cannot be said that we discovered that it is we who circle the Sun rather we resumed a former reality by discarding the imposed one.)

Back to the topic at hand.

If reality is reality and it is all there is, should we not all see, hear, taste, touch and scent the same as all others? If this is not the case are we existing in a reality that allows variance and by that discrepancy there is a stable and standardised form of inconsistency that constitutes our reality? Thus: is our reality one of reality in accordance with the prescribed meaning of the word or is our reality a reality based on one’s developed or undeveloped or restrained perception? And if this is so, does perception dictate reality?

Our world is definitely not a one size fits all case of the same sight, hearing, taste, touch and scent. Instead we live in a reality that is divergent, occasionally it is confirming and in other instances it is opposing where the certainty, that is, what the reality is for one or a group is in stark contrast to that which will be and form the sworn certainty of another and his or her likewise seeing, hearing, tasting, touching and scenting lot. In the case of human reality, we can only settle on the fact that we have a very wide-ranging field of reality, a continuum that keeps unfolding seemingly new horizons. Or are they not new at all, just appearing as we deepen our perception?

Thus far the conclusion points to only one bearing, one final point. And that is the fact that we live in an unfixed reality, a reality that is variable and incontrovertibly inconsistent, especially when it comes to claiming many of its fixed truths.

Indicatively the compass points to the fact that our reality is one of consistent inconsistency. This means that we are not part of the original 1 + 1 = 1 but are nonetheless still part of the formula that constitutes reality. This further means that we are the end result of 1 + 1 = 1 only that the inserting piece or quality that will duplicate itself to form more of the same is not that which constitutes the reality known as Co-creation where the initiator is known to be God, His direct hand so to speak. And therein we have a perfect example of the unfixed reality, the consistent inconsistency. There are many examples one can draw on to illustrate the indisputable point this New Year’s message is presenting and the word or subject of God ranks among the best in this regard. So, let’s go there.

In the case of God we have a reality whereby the varied inconsistency forms a consistency that is age-old. There are the believers, those who believe in God. And this group have their own stake in the consistent inconsistency where some believe but do little else than hold and tout the belief when it is necessary, i.e. they will claim there is a God but it ends there; for them it is a certainty they can live with, a way of life that does not incorporate any form of fervour or devout living. In this same cohort, the believers, there are the devoted, the moved by faith and allegiance to words and diktats that merrily become part of their life. And even in this section of the same category the consistent inconsistency exhibits itself by the degree of piety, the totally committed to the prescribed edicts and those who experiment with them, thus, they will fluctuate between staunch piousness and anything less than that decreed state, a tolerated for them standardised norm that may include behaviour that indulges in the act of alcohol (drug) induced drunkenness and or the occasional lecherous splish-splash or bigotry-filled slamming of those they have judged to be deserving of their judgment. In addition to the believers of God but distinctly different there are those who know God. These are those who have a personalised certainty about or with God that does not require a belief or faith but a lived way of life that confirms and is constantly confirming in return. This cohort also live in the same reality as do the believers but it can be said that their reality of God is very different to that which forms the reality of the believers, retaining some form of sameness but only in the fact that both will declare there is a God even if the means of the declaration arise from a starkly varying source of reality each will claim is real. And we are only just getting started here because as mentioned there is a distinctive difference between the believer and the knower of God even if they both agree there is a God. That said the difference is glaring and thus almost completely contrasting when aspects of behaviour and one’s way of life are considered. Of course, no unfixed reality can be an unfixed reality without its seeming complete contrast. And in this case the consistent inconsistency does not disappoint, i.e. the consistent inconsistency will throw in the mix those who declare that there is no such ‘thing’ as God. It would appear that this lot must be the ultimate contrast to the believer and the knower. But are they? The answer is a simple no, they are in fact not much different to the believer at all as they will have their own set of beliefs. Indeed, the non-believer of God is loaded with beliefs they will conveniently title as theories or intellectual reason. Yes, you have not missed it, just in case you are doubting yourself – this lot also believe that if you judge yourself to be a thinker and not a believer in God you are free of beliefs. And this is true because, well, because they think it so and therefore it must be so because they don’t believe they believe as do those who believe in God. This non-believer believing group rely on conjecture and staunch faith in incomplete suppositions that become their own version of devoutness, and they religiously hold on to and defend their non-believer believer reality as if they had found the true belief system and all others are the poor believers or thinkers if they can think at all. Fittingly and merrily the non-believer believing group also have their right in the compress of the reality that forms this assumed only human reality of ours. And why not, the fact that there is no God is for them as real as is God to those who either believe or know He exists. Who is right matters not if this was a just reality. But this reality also has its rules. Oh yes, no reality can be a reality without its rules, right? And the rule is that you make up the rule as you go. And as the rule rules by the authority that can at the time enforce the rule, the rule becomes the reality. And why is this so? Answer: because the rule says so. And do not declare or even insinuate that you are confused by all this because you live in the reality here described. 


This God thing gets very interesting as one lot have killed in the name of God while another lot have killed those who believe in God. But this reality isn’t so fixed by exact contrast as there are those who believe in God who have killed those who also believe in God but not in the same manner so they were judged to not be worthy of human space on this planet because they were holding a differing belief of God. Yes, in this reality you can have two groups, which by the way are equal members of the same species, who can agree that there is a God but one group can decide that the other group do not deserve to live on this planet because their way or method of belief is not the same as the force wielding group state is the only way to believe in God and hence they will see to it that their reality is the only reality by murdering those who have found a different way to understand God. Thus, in our reality we have the fact of genocide. And why not, for as the idiom says – a ‘dog can lick its balls because it can’ so too can one group decide to exterminate another because it can. But a group who wields the authority of difference of belief of God are not the only ones who can lick their own balls just because they can as there are those who can do likewise without the need of God to ratify their actions. Indeed, and as mentioned, those who do not believe in God but equally hold a belief and absolute devoutness to some form of human king, leader or emperor have also killed those who believe in a Divine higher power while carrying out orders to their higher power. Presumably it is all okay and above board by their dictation because the higher power they worship is not divine, their higher power is human and thus in their reality this is enough reality to warrant the execution of those they have decided do not deserve to live. And the list of such absurdity goes on and on, but it is real, it is our reality.

By now you must be either nonspecific on the fact that this is about reality, what is and constitutes a reality or you have altered the meaning. So, let’s get back on track, shall we. In this case let us lean on the traditional ‘Oxford Dictionary’ to reassert the meaning of the word reality. Here we go:

‘noun (plural realities[mass noun] the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them: he refuses to face reality | Laura was losing touch with reality• [count noun] a thing that is actually experienced or seen, especially when this is unpleasant: the harsh realities of life in a farming community• [count noun] a thing that exists in fact, having previously only existed in one's mind: we want to make the dream a reality• the quality of being lifelike: the reality of Marryat's detail• [as modifier] relating to reality TV: a reality showthe state or quality of having existence or substance: youth, when death has no reality• Philosophy existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions. PHRASES in reality in actual fact (used to contrast a false idea of what is true or possible with one that is more accurate): she had believed she could control these feelings, but in reality that was not so easythe reality is —— used to assert that the truth of a matter is not what one would think or expect: the popular view of the Dobermann is of an aggressive guard dog — the reality is very different.’

Hmmm, unless you went to school on another planet we can only arrive at the same point – a reality is not only how all things actually exist, it is the actual fact despite what one would think or insist. It is not what one thinks or judges? The meaning is now settled, right? A reality can only be how things actually exist. On this denotation alone we can say that we have a very wide ranging form of reality which means that our reality is either unfixed or it is fixed in its extensive diversity. But the Oxford dictionary definition also tells us that a reality is an existence that is absolute, self-sufficient, or objective, and not subject to human decisions or conventions’ and that a reality is ‘the truth of a matter’; it therefore cannot be ‘what one would think or expect’. Excuse my non-academic background but where does killing in the name of God or killing those who believe in God by the command of one’s higher power fit in with the definition? Who altered the meaning of the word reality that tells us that it is ‘not subject to human decisions or conventions’ when it comes to exterminating those your group have decided do not deserve to breathe on the same planet you do? Of course, in this human reality of ours you have many more options than just killing those you want abolished. Indeed, you do not have to make extinct those you have decided are not worthy of the same share of the reality we all exist in, you simply make it very difficult for them to have equal say, equal right to truth and their own reality. Yes, you do not have to murder someone to remove life from them just make them odd and so un-standard by whatever method you decide will fit your judgment and presto, your hands are clean of murder, right? But then again, we didn’t alter the meaning of the word reality where judgment ought not prevail because in our reality there is no fixture therefore no altering took place, we simply just acted as we wished when we decided to act as we wished as that is the standard of our reality which makes the Oxford dictionary definition no more than part of the overall travesty that is our created and endorsed reality.

Further still:

What reality is reality when it comes to the actual existence and actual fact of not just God but what a relationship is or ought to be, what love is, should be and what it is not? Have you ever considered how wide ranging is the reality of love from one person to the next? Love should be love, it should be just love, pure love with no other version but love, right? But no, in our reality we can love how we deem it to be with no regard to any true meaning of the word; in fact, its true meaning is determined by how much hurt and subsequent protection one is carrying. Love as much as your unresolved hurt will let you and call that love. In a true reality we would have a disclaimer to the expression ‘I love you’, such as: * I love you dearly but know that this means I can only love as far as my mistrust and subsequent cautious willingness will permit me to be transparent, honest, open and intimate. Or you could ask your solicitor for this one -- * I love you dearly and as much as my unresolved hurts will dictate.

And what about abuse: what is abuse, how much can be tolerated before it is a crime? And should we have levels of tolerance or should abuse be abuse and any form of it ought to be subject to some form of appropriate disciplinary action? Let’s be absolutely honest here, the acceptance of abuse is also determined by how much true love or lack of it you have been exposed to. In this case the disclaimer may be as follows: *from time to time I will abuse you because I have been abused and know no other way of being. Of course, even though it is an energetic fact that to know you are or have been abused means that you know to not abuse because deep within you must know true love and its zero ability to abuse otherwise abuse would not stand out as it does just like to be hurt by another’s act of lovelessness means you know what true love is thus can act from true love and not from the hurt should you make that movement instead of remaining in the hurt … but that is too much reality in this reality of ours, right?

But this little exposé is not done yet as there is the reality of ‘freedom of speech’. This form of reality is best described as follows:

Freedom of speech is the most extensively loose licence there is on the planet where one can act as one desires, where bitterness, blame, revenge and jealousy are a free-for-all under the notion that we are free-thinkers and it is our right to say whatever we want. And don’t worry, if what you want to say is slanderous, prejudiced and or disparaging, if it crosses any of the decent standards that humanity has come to expect then don’t be concerned because internet platform providers have included in their issue of ‘freedom of speech licence’ the medium of anonymity where you can make up whatever name you consider you are inventing or borrow from what already exists so long as it is not your real name. In this governing rule identity theft is also allowed. So, go ahead and help yourself to the spoils of this new reality.

Yes, you didn’t miss it – we now have another layer of reality, it’s called ‘cyber space’ among other designations but in-truth it is just another reality where we want extra un-fixed-ness. If internet platform providers became governments then we could register our cars and motor cycles in another person’s name, a pseudonym or a false name or alike borrowed names on our licences so that we can break road rules as we please because we will not be personally caught by a speeding camera and if you are pulled over by a police officer your photo will not match your real name or address. Better still our number plates could go electronic and thus be ever changing and roaming just like an ‘IP’ address can be untraceable to an actual location. But why limit this reality to our roads when we could issue anonymous or pseudonymous passports and ‘IDs’? Then we could really have a free-for-all society and completely redefine reality to be a constantly altering series of events that will be real and factual as they happen in accordance to and with the constant outpouring of one’s imagination, hate, jealousy or revenge which in turn will be founded on a non-believing form of belief or a belief form of belief that will believe it has a right to be the only form of belief that is acceptable.

And there you have it, our reality, a reality that in addition to the absurdity you read above also claims that only ‘evidence based medicine’ knows the root cause of illness, disease and mental disorder at a time when, after ruling the roost for over fifty years, we have a very good management of our maladies but are no closer to the root cause of our very real distresses. And this means an escalation in obesity, cancer, diabetes, sleep disorder, autoimmune illness and the fact that, if we removed the artificial and short-term sustenance of caffeine and sugar, we would have to admit that we have the largest epidemic of all time – exhaustion … as predicted would be the case back in 1999 by this author.

Indeed, 2018 offers us an opportunity to examine the 2, that is, to study the extra layer or layers that have dominated and by that have brought injury and or impediment and not always the advance they claim to stand for and deliver. There is much to see and be aware of if you are willing. And this lays ahead as the numerology motions the impulse to do so.

Over to you for a year of reckoning and energetic discernment as is the offering of 2018, the 2 (the created layer) we cannot afford to not thoroughly review.

With love,
The forever student,
Serge Benhayon