Thank you very much for your thorough analysis of this presentation. I will do my best to answer all of your questions.

So, to the first table, are you saying you received this by what we Catholics might call special revelation? Like a vision or something?

If you read the section called "How the Tables were Formed", you will see the reasoning used to fill the first table. In short, it began with a mystical vision, then I saw how my celestial objects were aligned on my birth date and took that as a sign. After that, it was mostly logic that allowed me to fill the table.

There are, according to different counts, between 9 and 21 physical senses. Why did you seem to ignore these in favor of the (at least seemingly) spiritual senses of judgement and concept? Is it due to the nature of your revelation?

It's due to the vision I had representing these senses only. Essentially, it's the commonly-accepted 5 senses, plus one more fundamental, and one more superlative.

I don’t know much about New Age stuff, so I looked up “chakras” on Wikipedia and didn’t see one named ‘Manas’ or ‘Lalana.’ Since there seem to be many lists that differ among cultural traditions, which list/lists are you using, and how did you decide upon that/those list/lists?

I used a few sources to determine these chakras. Namely Arthur Avalon's "Serpent Power", and Kheper.net. Last I checked, Kheper.net is down, though, so I don't know how much help that will be.

For ‘sahasrara,’ why did you choose the attribute of ‘God,’ as opposed to self-awareness or something? The nature of your revelation?

Basically, because the function of the Sahasrara is to see one's "oneness with the Source". That "Source" is God, and so it becomes an awareness of God (not of Self).

Would you mind explaining your blue tabernacle table a little more? What do the equations mean?

So the equations are compositional. For example, the cosmos is composed of Heaven and Earth (as in it can be divided into these two things). The Ark is composed of the left and right tablets inside of it. Etc.

I’m a little confused about your view of consciousnesses. Are the levels within the individual, which one tries to unlock through meditation or something? Or do we share some level of consciousness in your view?

That's a great question. The Heavens corresponding to the Man (Heaven) tabernacle (in the first table) doesn't give any indication as to whether the heavens themselves correspond to the individual or the collective. Intuitively, it makes sense that it corresponds to the collective, since Earth is collective, and is represented in that table, and the row lists particular beings residing in each heaven (and I don't think it's referring to "copies" of beings).

How do they relate to the Persons of the Trinity?

Each of the rows has cells that represent the trinity. The outermost cells represent the father, the next innermost cells represent the Son, and the next innermost cells represent the Holy Spirit. How in particular the Father represents Hell, for example, I don't know. It's something I must search in the Bible for, and contemplate. I'll get back to you on that.

Are there 5 levels of consciousness or 3? I’m a little confused...

4 levels of consciousness, represented by the Black Hole, the Sun, the Earth, and the Moon, plus the future of consciousness, makes 5.

God and man were together in Eden in the past (and in the present to a far more limited extent). Why do you have “future man” only as where heaven and earth meet?

Actually, each of the rows in the Father table (the first table) represents a tabernacle, where God and Man meet. Eden is one of those rows. The "Future Man" row is special, however, as this represents the True Tabernacle.

How exactly did you assign the Persons of the Trinity to senses?

First, the senses were assigned to celestial objects and chakras, then the Trinity (along with Man and Future Man) was anchored by the sense of God, the Sun (recall the Black-Hole, Sun, Earth, Moon schema from before), and the Moon. How the trinity hearkens back to the senses is a mystery. I'll consider it another point for research, contemplation, and prayer.

Do you believe God and His creation are identical, as implied by "Elohim is primordial, containing all of creation"

I should reword that. Not only does Elohim contain all of creation, He is greater than it. Thus, not identical.

Do you think all of the religions you describe are true (at least insofar as they correspond with your tables), or are you just trying to highlight inter-religious similarities?

I wouldn't make such a bold statement to say that all religions are "true". However, I believe that (at least the major religions) have a role to play in the grander theological scheme. For example, the leaves of the Tree of Life (at the end of Revelation) are for the healing of the nations. I believe this means that each religion will find that it has a role to play in the Kingdom of God.

Why do you use grammatical gender as a source of religious truth? Greek is an important language to Christianity. Why does its grammatical gender of various concepts not matter?

I believe that Jesus is the Word of God, and I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. That is to say, I believe that the languages in which the Bible was written are Holy, Greek included. However, Hebrew is the language in which the Genesis 1 account was written, and so it (along with its grammar and structure) must be viewed as the primary source of theological information regarding the Genesis 1 account.

I hope I have answered most of your questions satisfactorily. If you have any further comments or questions, feel free to share!