For years there has been a debate going on when it comes to how the Mayan calendar is to be interpreted between two different view points:

According to one, A, the Mayan calendar describes astronomical cycles, and especially the precessional cycle. Proponents of this theory maintain that December 21, 2012 is for astronomical reasons an important date when a new cycle will begin.

According to the other, B, the Mayan calendar is not subordinated to any astronomical cycle. It is instead the codification of a cosmic divine plan leading up to the Enlightenment of the Earth to be attained on the tzolkin day 13 Ahau, October 28, 2011, (exactly seven years into the future).

The two different viewpoints were developed in a debate between John Major Jenkins and myself at www.diagnosis2012.co.uk in 2001, where he argued for A and I argued for B.

To this debate have now been added the viewpoint of professional astronomers http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/2012.html and for those interested in understanding the nature of
this critical debate the analysis of these astronomers is highly recommended.

In short, they do not in any way give support to view point A. Not only do they point out that, because of the nature of precession, the Mayan calendar cannot possibly have been developed to describe
its cycle. They go even further and say that the Mayan calendar cannot possibly have been developed to describe any astronomical cycle (which is exactly what I have been saying in my books). To top it off,
they point out that from an astronomical point of view there is nothing special about the date
December 21, 2012.

This brings added clarity to the debate between these two view points and support for those that see the Mayan calendar as a unique calendar that unlike all the others of this planet is not subordinated to the physical, material, reality of the astronomical cycles. It brings support to those that want to help people align their evolution towards Enlightenment with the spiritual energies of the True Mayan Calendar.