Welcome to the Group-Home called Archived Material. Yes, we are going to overwhelm you with information.
“… man, in his inner self, is
one with the self of the Universe[i].” Within
this sentence lies profound wisdom. The wisdom lies in the identification of
the inner-self. We call this inner-self the inner-critic, the authentic-self,
and the Christ-self. These are just a few of names we give ourselves. In
addition, the inner-self dwells within the inner-reality, which may be the true
reality. What do we know about our inner-reality? We know exactly what the spiritual,
intellectual, and religious gurus tell us.
We are told to seek Christ within. We are also told to go within to find answers to our questions, and anything else we find troubling. In short, we are to seek enlightenment from within. This search often becomes obsessive and may lead to the denial of self. Christ taught us the Kingdom of God lies within. Christ also taught that when we look upon him, we are also looking upon the Father. His last teaching, as recorded in the Gospel of John, was that the Father dwells within him, and he dwells within his disciples. Many spiritual schools teach something similar. The Buddha dwells within each of us. When saying Namaste, we are greeting the Buddha, or more appropriately, the god within whom we greet. Perhaps, this is secret-knowledge. For this lesson, we might better serve others if we use Christian teachings to demonstrate it.
Secrets are best kept in the open because most will not believe them to be true. Simple deductions explain some of the mysteries taught by Christ. We see his teachings before the birth of Jesus, and after his transition. We can attribute the last to exposure, but what about beforehand? The concept of the three are one, and yet, separate is a common theme in many of the early mystery schools. From one came many and the many are the One. The idea is very simple and complex at the same time.
If God dwells within Christ, then Christ must also dwell within God. This is a simple deduction, which many agree with. When a person lives with another, the two develop similar behaviors. This is because of their familiarity with each other. Their behavior reveals a certain intimacy. The longer they spend time together, the likelihood their actions will mimic the other’s increases until they begin to act as one. Thus, Christ becomes synonymous with God.
Christ also said he dwells within his disciples and, consequently, us. If this is true, then we should eventually take on some of Christ’s qualities. By taking on some of his characteristics, we also take on characteristics God. This is where people betray themselves.
The idea of becoming Christ-like, and therefore, God-like is an enormous attribute and responsibility. As long as we separate Christ and God, we avoid those qualities and actions called virtuous, righteous, and truthful. While we see God and Christ outside of ourselves, we can take comfort in knowing they are convenient scapegoats. For these people, everything can be in God, especially they. God can be in everything, as long as God is not in them. For the idea of God, existing in human beings is blasphemous. Humans are far too imperfect to contain perfection. Therefore, they deny God and vainly attempt to evict God from themselves and others. For them, perfection is blasphemous.
There was a time with I would ask why people chose to separate themselves from their God, but not anymore. Responsibility is why others dissociate themselves from their God. They become inconsistent with their belief. The Hebrew Testament begins with God creating the Earth. One might infer that the definition of God is Creation. We were the last creation and were made in the image of God. Thus, God is also the Creator, whom we resemble. When God began meting out discipline, the idealized version of God became altered. What was thought to have been perfect became imperfect. God cannot possibly have created imperfection if God is perfect. Yet, here many of us stand, claiming to be imperfect creations of a perfect being. Perhaps the imperfection does not lie with us, but within our perception.
Most agree with the assumption that God and Christ are perfect. They may also agree that all they create is perfect. Yet, they will also counter in the same breath that all is of perfect creation, except humankind. If we were to scrutinize nature, we will find that imperfection abounds. They may even claim that a creature’s slight imperfection is what makes them unique. They may even claim the creature is perfect. However, we are different, as we are imperfect. While our imperfections make us unique, they do not make us perfect. We are not of nature. How ridiculous is this? We are all perfect because our creator is perfect. Our creator is God, and because we are of God, we are part of the perfection.
Unfortunately, it is not enough to understand, because it is not the same as knowing. Without knowing this to be true, we insist upon our separation through ignorance. Having a connection with our Creator is much easier to bear. Seeing ourselves as being connected to our Creator, the Divine, the Universe, or the Infinite is often too much. Having a relationship with our Creator allows us to acknowledge those aspects of God that we are in agreement with, and to dismiss the rest. Thus, our dissonance is not disturbed.
Some are aware of our inner reality and comprehend the true meaning of being alive. They are able to grasp the concept of the many who are the one. They know the hidden meaning of what it is to be alive and to be dead. They recognize God within All. They no longer comprehend the dissonance experienced by others.
[i] Besant, Annie (1897). The Ancient Wisdom: An Outline of Theosophical Teachings. Wheaton, IL: The Theosophical Publishing House.
We spend so much energy struggling to stay in the present because that is where we are told to be. We often forget how important the past is. Even if we neglect to review our past, and what it means, we shouldn’t dismiss it. I’m not talking about living in the past. I’m talking about allowing it to influence the present.
We often wonder how we got here. Most of us begin looking for some mystical causality. We’re told we are here because the Universe brought us into being, or we are here for a reason and we must discover our purpose. The Universe did bring us into existence, and we probably do have some role to fulfill. However, does it answer the question? Have any ever considered evolution? Hah! That’s obvious, but what is evolution?
Evolution is a process spanning eons. Evolution is the essence of the Divine. While we force a starting point for our existence, chances are no such point exists. Did we simply come into being? Not exactly, and most of us are not concerned with the evolution of humanity. We’re satisfied with the idea of a supreme being miraculously placing us here on the firmament of Earth. From an individual perspective, we’re satisfied with birth as our beginning, followed by separation, fulfillment, dejection, and any number of events. The mind has difficulty fathoming an existence with no beginning, or is it we who cannot fathom no point of origin? Is this a flaw in the relationship of mind and brain? In order to keep our sanity we select a logical methodology, which requires a beginning. Is this the brain refusing to accept information from mind? Is it possible that we reflect the cosmos? Will its exploration will also provide us with an answer?
Science provides us with a point of origin, the single cell organism. From simplicity, came complexity. In The Secret Doctrine, the beginning of the cosmos is described or represented as a disc or circle. From this disc, the universe came into existence. This disc could also represent energy. In that case, the point of origin is lost. Energy cannot be created. The next symbol is the disc with a point in the center. We know we are composed of male and female energy. At least, that is what we tell ourselves. Male energy, and consequently female energy, is derived from another form of energy. This means energy is genderless. Now, we have a point of origin. We began as androgynous beings. The point is the first differentiation. According to the Gnostics, this differentiation was along the lines of what we call female energy. The disk is the Absolute, which is perfect in all ways because there is nothing with which to compare it.
From the Absolute came the Barbello, often referred to as Sophia Pistis.
Cosmologically speaking, Creation depends on certain conditions in order to begin. Here lays the true mystery. Either way, from the differentiation, the first life is formed. A single cell organism is created. The next stage in creation is demonstrated by the point dividing the disc. The first cell divides, becoming two. From here, we have several events occurring. Esoterically, androgynous divides, leaving us with male and female. Biologically, creation begins building upon itself. The cells divide again, giving us four quadrants. Each time the circle grows larger and cell division increases. Eventually, the circle becomes the lotus, the crown chakra, and creation evolves, building on a variety of levels and realms. What we see each morning in the mirror is a result of Creation’s progress, or evolution.
Evolution occurs through energy, and all energy follows the pattern laid before it. Morphogenesis is how the patterns are implemented. These patterns exist in what are called morphic fields. The information within them is what provides our genes with instructions. Morphic fields exist wherever Creation has made a pattern. They also exist wherever patterns exist, whether in nature, social groups, cultures, or our behaviors. They exist in the very fabric of the cosmos.
Behaviors develop in the same fashion as cells assemble themselves into life forms, by building upon themselves. They develop slowly and often haphazardly. We react to similar situations in similar fashions. This is how we develop. Our actions evolve from simple acknowledgement to the more complex greeting or insult. As we discover what actions elicit what responses, we fine-tune ourselves. Yet, the entire ritualistic behavior is based on simplicity.
The past exists in all things. The past is the foundation on which the present is built. Energy does not exist in the past, nor does it exist in the future. Energy exists only in the present and it is through the present we must experience the past and the future.
While experiencing a neurological event during September of 2004, a voice guided me. Several years later, I discovered where the voice came from. During the interim, I believed that voice was the voice of God, or perhaps of a spirit guide. I discovered the voice was my own. I provided encouragement to myself during a time of need. During the early part of 2012, I was following some chakra exercises. This particular exercise was to send love to the child version of myself. Instead, I chose to send healing energy to myself during the ordeal. Days later, I realized the voice I had marveled at and had spoken of was in fact, my voice. The so-called limits of time had been circumvented, their illusion pierced. In any event, the voice was my own.
In another instance, in an interview, Mary McTaggart described a doctor who set out to disprove the efficacy of hands on or distance healing. He asked a group to meditate, sending healing to heart patients. Unbeknownst to them, they were sending energy to a group of patients who had already gone through surgery. The healing was actually sent into the past. The results were seen in the present. What this demonstrates is an intimate relationship between the conditions of time. The present is a fixed point. The past and future are conditions of the present. When viewing the sign of infinity, we see the past greeting the future at a single point called the present. Others may have had similar experiences, which is why they claim time is an illusion.
Holographic theory suggests that encapsulated within every particle is an image of the whole. When a holographic image is cut up, each fragment contains an image of the whole. When we apply this to energy, then every particle of energy contains the history of its being. Another way of looking at this is that within each particle of matter, a blueprint of the cosmos exists. Thus, within every aspect of creation is the universe. No matter how much we deny ourselves of the revelations, it remains. Every second of every minute is a record of what was and what is to be. Do not think this suggests predestination. Time is part of the quantum matrix. This means all events are occurring at this very moment. We cast our awareness towards these seemingly infinite events as they are occurring. Only when we focus on a single point does the brain recollect them. This also suggests a multi-universe or a series of alternate universes being echoes of each other. One can only wonder if their voice carries though the barriers separating themselves. Perhaps, this is why the mind wanders so much. We must regain focus before we become lost in thought. Whose thought are we lost in and who’s thought do we focus upon?
Substance is the evidence of energy in the present. Objects can only be solid as long as they remain in the present. When the object’s solid form is destroyed, by whatever means, the balance of energy associated with the object retains a record of the whole. The record includes a representation of the object and the events associated with it. This type of memory is a collection of holographic images. The ability to discern these images is called Psychometry.
The present is built upon the past. Who we are is a product of our past, not just our identifiable past, but also the energy associated with it. This includes what we call reincarnation and more. We are a part of every living creature’s memory. Essentially, we are all integrated into each other. Every person we have met has become integrated within our genetic structure and energetic lattice.
“The Buddha said that his body is not mine or anybody else’s. It arises due to past causes, and for now, it should be felt and experienced. Not only our neurosis, but the structure of our body is encoded in our genes.” The next time any of us wonder why we are here, or what our purpose is, we should take time to ponder our past. We are here because of it. I am writing this because of my past, and my past is now associated with yours.
While instant messaging with a friend, something impinged itself upon my awareness causing me great concern. The friend indicated going to a healing circle, which is good. Being with like-minded people is good for our wellbeing. What troubled me was the letter she had forwarded. Time and location were at the outset. What followed caused concern.
The letter begins with a call to balancing the planetary grid. Interfering with nature has always proven dangerous. Then, there is the part about The Brotherhood instructing the followers to take a crop circle into the ionosphere and drop it on anyone or place that may be experiencing distress due to President Trump. Later, the author adds, as though it were an afterthought, to ask permission. How does one ask as stranger permission to drop a visualized crop circle on them because they have been judged to be in distress? Especially when they are the judge and the determination is based on another’s ideas. Sure, many expressed their dissatisfaction with President Trump in a variety of ways. This is their right. Everyone expresses dissatisfaction, joy, anger, and everything in between. What is disturbing is they believe it is okay to force their preferred expression upon others. They also encourage others to force them to come around to their way of thinking. What’s wrong with this picture?
A large number of people accuse Orthodox religion of manipulating the masses. They abused their power, they claim. We have a generation’s long complaint about such actions, against similar institutions for interfering with the lives of citizens. Do these people who encourage others to drop crop circles in the cause of peace realize they are committing the very act they protest? Visualizing a crop circle descending upon those who don’t meet their criteria of peace is no different from those religious zealots forcing their doctrine upon those not meeting their criteria of faith.
I do quite a bit of researching because I ask questions. Thus, the information read is vast and informative. The practitioners of old Christianity are not the only institution to exert control over the masses. Governments control others in favor of the majority, at least in a democracy. As a condition to living in any country, a person must acquiesce to the law of the land. The United States is one that allows its citizens to have a voice in how they are governed, at least theoretically, and select candidates whose ideals are close to theirs. Granted, this doesn’t always appear to be fair, but all have agreed to this. Thus, we vote and must abide by the results.
Many institutions are tasked with protecting the public through manipulation, or control. The field of psychology trains people in the art of manipulation as a means of curing those existing outside what the majority has deemed normal behavior. Such skills of exploitation are exercised by all in society. Those not meeting the standard are marginalized, especially if those persons are not adept at concealing their oddity.
While the definition of occultism is secret knowledge, the practitioners are often seeking some form of manipulation. This probably is what gives rise to such ghastly responses. Opposite of occultism is religion, which also seeks to manipulate others. The difference between them are the leaders who claim permission from a supreme deity.
What all have in common is their intent to undermine the individual, often through fear. Fear is an excellent motivator. People generally don’t think when in fearful situations. They act and react. Such responses are often due to the influence of our emotions. Another concept they have in common is they insist these secret manipulations are acceptable because they are done through love. Whose idea of love are they following? After all, no universal definition of love exists. People abuse others and accept abuse because in their mind it is love. People are murdered individually and en masse as expressions of love. History and current events have laid out numerous examples of someone having the right to force their ideals upon others, and if they refuse, then it’s okay to murder them. Is this even remotely love?
We knowingly give permission to governments and similar institutions to control us as a means of protection. Even with religions, many give them permission to alter their perception of life. Those not conforming are generally not physically harmed. The harm inflicted is mental and emotional, which are long lasting compared to broken bones and lesions. Is any of this acceptable? Is it acceptable for leaders to manipulate others because their behavior is disagreeable? It shouldn’t be, but it is the norm. While dropping a visualization of a crop circle seems harmless and beneficial, is the intention behind it harmless? This presents an interesting quandary.
Many develop or seek out alternatives to what they disagree with. Alternative religious organizations as opposed to orthodox religion merely an example. Yet, they often resort to the same methodology as those they sought to escape. People act this way, because they have been conditioned to do so. We can break the conditioning by acting with awareness. Of course, this means we should allow them be disagreeable, even if we are of the opinion our course of action is for their benefit.
Contemplating such actions is good; this is how we develop awareness. Before exerting our influence upon others, we should first exert it upon ourselves. Perhaps then, ideas such as forcing others to act in a way we consider peaceful will become distasteful. If you want peace, then start a meditation group. Studies have demonstrated reductions in crime, violence, and other forms of social stress in communities where such groups practice (Walton, Cavanaugh, & Pugh, 2005).
Walton, K., Cavanaugh, K. L., & Pugh, N. D. (2005). Effect of group practice of the transcendental meditation program on biochemical indicators of stress in non-meditatirs: A prospective time series study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality(17), 339-373.
So, you think you know God? I demanded of someone. Only the, someone was no one. The young man I was addressing was a prop in a dream. Our memories are filled with props waiting for our theatre directors to call them forth in an effort to express those emotions milling about within us. Sometimes those supporting roles are actually representations of you (Hartman & Zimberoff, 2012). Thus, I was demanding myself to reveal what I thought I knew about God.
Everybody knows about God and plenty more claim to know even more. I am referring to ministers, televangelists, and fundamentalists. Wait a moment. I’m one of those ministers. Fortunately, I know about as much as you do, probably less. What I do know, I want to share. In case, I know something that may be of interest to you. The question is what do they know? What are they telling us? When my children were young, I told them to pay attention to what a person does not say. The words they avoid often speak volumes. What is it these people don’t want us to know? What parts of the bible are they not quoting? What frightens them?
A friend, stops by every so often for some friendly banter. He attends one of the many Christian churches in anybody’s neighborhood. Normally, this wouldn’t have any effect on the tale being imparted. We don’t discuss religion, we discus beliefs. The gap between the two is enormous. Religion focuses on doctrine specific to a particular denomination. Beliefs have no such limitation. They tend to reflect the ideas a person is comfortable expressing. Ours happens to include religious views and ideas pertaining to those views. Occasionally, he’ll bring an associate, and then we talk religion, more specifically his associate’s religion. During one of these chance meetings, at least, that is what I choose to think, his associate initiated a conversation about what God wants from us.
God, he began, only wants us to follow his laws. There are more than the Ten Commandments.
God, I say, wants automatons. God does not want people to think for themselves.
You’re wrong, he quickly responded, he does want people to think for themselves. Suppose I rented a house from you, he continues, and I tore it up, leaving it in shambles. Would you be happy with that? No, he quickly answered for me, you wouldn't. You wouldn't because I didn't follow the rules. All God wants people to do is to follow his rules.
So, I repeated, God wants automatons.
No, he insisted, shaking his head.
Okay, I decided to use his example. Suppose I moved into one of your houses. I move in and make some improvements. I knock out a wall here, build an addition there, and make some other upgrades improving the value of the house. Would you be happy with that?
No, he declared I wouldn't.
Exactly, I said, proving my point, because I didn't follow your rules. Thus, God only wants those who follow his rules. He wants automatons.
A scornful look twisted his face. The person who brought him chuckled. I was not trying to make him look foolish. I merely pointed out how narrow his view of God was.
I would like to say a majority of Christian denominations does not teach this philosophy, but I would be wrong. Not because I have attended so many, but because I met many who attend. They teach God's desire is for us to follow his rules explicitly like the robots many of us protest. Automatons do exactly as they are instructed, or more correctly as they are programmed. We are to follow one program, God’s program. Of course, what they don’t tell us is that we are to follow their version of God’s program, not God’s program. There version is separation. They want us to separate ourselves from those who are not like them. Never mind, they all use the same book. Forget God created individuals. Don’t think for one moment God intended for us to be exactly alike.
What Christian leaders do not teach, or even speak about, is what Jesus tried to teach in the Gospel of John. We are all Gods! Yes, We are all Gods. The problem is we don’t act like God. Why would Jesus say something like that, he who was a devout follower of his religion? That's blasphemy, they said, just as many do today. The only blasphemy committed is cursing, maiming, and otherwise maligning those who are different. The summation of the commandments given by Jesus was to love others as you love yourself. I believe the translation is closer to treat others, as you would have others treat you. After all, if we are to leave love in the equation, this leaves the door open for a variety of abuses in the name of Love. By adopting the words, treat others, we would not be allowed to hate Muslims, or Buddhists, or pagans. We would not be allowed to maim homosexuals, or to bully others into submission. We would not be allowed to ridicule those whose skin is a different color, or who see the world differently. When Jesus said, is it not written you are all Gods; he may have been referring to an event in Genesis where they, Gods (yes, plural) said, ‘Lo, they have become like us! To know good from evil.’ Think about this. We know good from evil. Yet, many claim another’s version of good and evil, when in reality they have no clue. Their claim of innocence is found in their pretense of ignorance. What about you, do you know good from evil, or do you prefer another’s definition? Are you good or evil? Perhaps you are somewhere in between, like the rest of us.
To know God is not to go within. To know God is to know you. Do you know yourself? Do you accept and claim the beliefs of others? Are those who call upon their depiction of God any less? Do you call upon another’s idealization of God? Is homosexuality a crime against nature, when God created them to be who they are? Is it truly a magnanimous gesture to belittle yourself, while mocking others? Does any of this disturb you? I hope it does, because more Gods need to be present. It’s not about what is right or wrong. It’s about being responsible and accountable. It's not about recognizing what is good or evil in others. It is about recognizing who others are. We are God. Accept it. Stop hiding behind someone else’s misconception. Get behind your own and be willing to shape it as needed.
Hartman, D., & Zimberoff, D. (2012). REM and non-REM dreams: "Dreaming without the dreamer.". Journal of Heart-Centered Therapies, 15(2), 27-52.
What is it like being an adult? Not the kind of question I would expect from a thirteen-year child whose main concerns were bullies and homework. He also happened to be my client. The question evoked all sorts of responses and images. Taking me to a time when I was a teenager daydreaming about it would be like being an adult. Walking home from junior-high school, I would say to myself, “I can’t wait until I’m an adult. Then I can do anything I want. No more school.” What a joke that turned out to be. I ended up going back to school several times. If someone wants to stay on top of their game, they needed to continue improving their skills. People become habitually unemployed. In the first ten years as an employable member of society, I would have to take off my shoes to count how many times I was without work. Often, people find themselves in this predicament is because they have adopted the attitude that school is out forever. This only works for Alice Cooper. When a person chooses to be this shortsighted, they are placing severe limitations on their potential. I had better take this young man’s question seriously, because I want him to reach his potential.
I could tell him as an adult, you can do what you want, only that is a myth. For someone to do what they want to do, they often have to do things they do not want to do. Paying bills and taxes are things no one wants to do. People don’t always realize that paying bills is a good thing; it means you are earning money. We pay bills because we want to do the things we enjoy. We pay taxes because we want protection. We pay taxes because we want to help those in need. At the same time, we don’t want to pay taxes because those in charge squander our hard-earned money. Is this what it means to be an adult? Is this what I wanted to impart to this child?
Then I began hearing some of the smart ass comments adults like throw out, thinking they are cute. ‘You pay taxes, and then you die.’ ‘Life’s a bitch. As some of these comments voiced themselves, I remember the one thing I tried to teach my children, to think. When one did something he or she knew was wrong, if the child could convince me it was the right thing to do, no punishment was given. If I was not convinced…well, you know what followed. I didn’t swat their butts or send them to bed without supper. I explained why I their explanation was unacceptable. No, the lecture was not the punishment. I asked them open-ended questions. This allowed them to arrive at a better solution on their own. This must have worked, because my son, who was eight or nine at the time, came up with a good reason for being late.
At the time, I lived in a mobile home community. Like any other kid, my three liked to roam the park and mingle. During the summer, night rolls in around 9:30 and they needed to be in by 8:30. My son, who is also the oldest, came home one evening around ten o’clock. As soon as he closed the door, he began his explanation.
“Sorry, I’m late, dad,” he began as he caught his breath, “but I couldn’t leave.”
He must have run home. “Why?” I asked.
“Mrs. Carlson asked me if I would watch her kids while she went to the store. She was late getting back.”
He was confident in his response. “Why didn’t you come and tell me before she left?” I challenged.
“She said she would only be gone an hour.” He offered. Then added, “She left around seven. I thought she would be back in time.”
“Couldn’t you have walked over here with them?” I continued. The park was only three blocks and isolated. I lived in the middle, which meant that traffic was not a problem.
“She had already put them to bed.” He said defensively. “They’re only three and four.”
I thought about it for a moment. “Good enough.” I decided. “You did the right thing. Next time someone asks you to watch their kids,” I added, “check with me first.” No punishment. I hadn’t forgotten what my kids were like when they were small. Even a short walk around the house can give them enough time to get into some mischief. I was impressed. Of the three, he was the only one who thought before acting. It didn’t stop him from making mistakes, but at least they were not as bad as they could have been.
My answer to my client was, “Being an adult is being accountable for your actions. Being an adult is being responsible for what you do. Unfortunately, many adults blame others for their situations when most of the time it was a lack of action on their part. At least," I added, “that has been my observation.”
In all of our discussions concerning the mind, we’ve assumed it is impervious to disease and other forms of debilitation. Through the history of religion and metaphysics, the mind is believed to be an extension of the brain, as it should be. We’ve taken the position that those we admire are released from their mental affliction when vacating the body. We conveniently ignore the belief when those we despise depart. Doesn't this manner of thinking create a paradox?
We assume much. When following the philosophy of as above, so below, we assume it is addressing a spiritual realm and our physical reality. The assumption is true, if they are mirrored realities. One example of this lies with the Mesopotamian belief if the social order of the netherworld mirrored the physical world. A paradox appears with this assumption. Which reality is being mirrored? For clarity, spiritual, which obviously refers to those realms of consciousness not pertaining to what we loosely refer to as reality, refers to spirit. Spirit, originally indicated breath, which is also connected to the life force. Thus, the spiritual realm is the realm of our life force because spirit is the life force or breath of life.
Many assume this is the common reality, the one in which you are reading this dissertation. This reality is the reflection and the true reality it that of spirit. Some claim we descended from the spiritual plane in order to have an experience. In order to experience, one must exist. Thus, the physical domain exists, but so does the spiritual one if we descended. Others propose we exist in misshapen forms, meaning our bodies are deformed, but our spiritual aspect is perfect. Physics suggest form gives shape to the intangible and that the intangible moves form. We may imply that the shape our bodies reflect is the condition of the spirit occupying it. What does this say about the spirit? Does this imply the spirit is diseased and the mind a reflection of spirit? Can the mind or spirit be diseased before entering a vessel?
We may continue to hold onto the belief that when we expire, we enter into a state of perfection. However, we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we did not consider the possibility of the existence of perfection being an illusion. Given our level of understanding, perfection may actually be the disease. The norm or the acceptable condition of existence at any level is based on a statistical equation of a majority of collective imperfections. We are imperfect because none of us is exactly alike. For something to be the same there must be something with which to compare. Therefore, the mind has the same possibility of becoming as diseased as the body it inhabits. The reason for this is nothing is perfect. All things are in a continual state of flux, or by our standard, diseased. Given this revelation, perfection is imperfection. Perfection, by our standard, is an unnatural condition.
Consequently, the mind can also be healed because the body can be healed. The true difficulty lies in discerning the disease from the natural condition. This is not as elusive as one may think. We know through observations in nature that Dobermans, Collies, Beagles, Tabby’s and the like can live together in peace. Observations also reveal homosexuality lies within the realm of nature. Yet, many chose to blind themselves of the natural order, in favor of their own. By substituting their form of a natural order, they create a paradox within their religious belief.
If this reality shapes the reality to come, then, as some suggest, we may have good cause to be afraid. We struggle to make sense of senselessness. We do not choose the common reality as the model reality. We do not choose to be exclusive in our beliefs and lifestyles. We are conditioned to accept as fact. I hope the common reality is not the definitive one. I believe a truer reality exists in blending what we term as the common reality and the reality of spirit, or life force.
For some, the inner reality is the true reality. Within this reality, no space is allotted to exclusive ideals, if we choose. The inner reality is the one in which each of us creates. Our inner reality is the reality we choose to express or to mask. We define our inner reality, whereas the common reality perceives a small portion of us. If our inner reality is the model, then the reflection is more accurate. What if our individual realities are the reflection?
In the Gnostic writing, The Hypostasis of the Archons, Samael created humankind from the Earth, with mud after a reflection. In this instance, Sophia Pistis was the model, she who emerged from the Absolute. This tradition follows a familiar path. We poor imperfect creations of a false god are trying to reach a state of incorruptibility. Every religion with Semitic roots follows this course. A very unsatisfying course, because incorruptibility is a myth. Perhaps I should say incorruptibility is a state of stagnation. Without change or evolution and devolution, a state of suspension exists.
There is the more naturalistic belief, which is more concerned with the continuity of life without our precepts of religion. Consider the Ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Mesoamerica. In all three societies, the continuation of life after the expiration of the body was natural part of the flow of creation. In the city-states of Mesopotamia, the inhabitants believed the social order of the netherworld mimicked that of world above. Ancient Egyptians believed life continued in the tomb. As they transitioned from the Old Kingdome to the Middle Kingdom and beyond, the City of the Dead became a continuation of this world. The Inca Empire, as it grew adopted the local practices of those conquered. They preserved their loved ones, included them in celebrations, and sought advice from them. This gives the adage of as above, so below a more accurate definition, but does not determine which is being reflected.
You may be wondering what this has to do with a diseased mind prior to transition; I know I am. In the scheme of nature, life is a continuous flow. In the eyes of the Hindu and Buddhist, we move from one bardo to the next or from one experience to the next. Bardos are conditions the soul experiences as it moves from birth to death and death to birth. Health is a reflection of our overall harmony or disharmony with the environment. Thus, once harmony is restored, so is the condition of the mind. Even when the brain falls out of harmony with the body and is beset by disease, upon expiration, harmony may be re-established. Does this mean that when a killer is put to death, they are no longer a killer while they journey towards the next incarnation? I do not believe so. The exceptions, I suspect, would be if the incident were enacted in a fit of anger. During that time, they are in disharmony with themselves. Once they calm down, harmony is restored. I do not believe guilt is extinguished upon death either. I suspect it follows until we have found a way to reconcile the deed.
Thus, a diseased mind is one in disharmony. A psychopath acting in accordance with their nature is not diseased. However, a person acting in a fit of rage is not acting in accordance with their nature. Which mind would be diseased?
 (Barrett, 2007)
 (Bahm, 1964)
 (Lipton & Bhaerman, 2009)
 Gender identity based on brain structure may be more accurate than physical anatomy (Vangerhorst, 2015).
 (The Hypostasis of the Archons, 1984)
 (Barrett, 2007)
 (Assmann, 2002)
 (Rosso, 2014)
 (Mishlove, 1975)
 (Lipton & Bhaerman, 2009)
We have been conditioned to the idea that success is dependent upon being different from the competition. While some aspects of this maybe true, the majority of it is false. Many in the service sector tend to pick a niche because that is what separates them from the rest. Separation is recommended. The idea they present is separateness. In order to be individuals, we must be different from the rest. This is only partly true.
Alice Bailey writes, “We must relinquish all that holds [us] away from the central reality (p. 41; par. 1).” Two questions come to mind. The first, what is holding us back from the central reality? The second, and more relevant is, what is the central reality? The central reality is what lies at the center of all realities. Yes, I said all realities because one reality imposes upon another and so on. The first reality that may come to mind is also the least important, which is the common reality. The common reality is something Charles Tart refers to as the consensus of reality. The common reality refers to the reality we all agree upon for communication. Meaning, we all agree that the substance jutting up from the soil is green, is comfortable to walk upon, should only grow to a certain length before being trimmed, and is called grass. Whether it is Kentucky Blue Grass or crab grass is irrelevant. This is what we have been conditioned to accept as the only reality that matters. As Tart said, this reality is only convenient for communicating with others. The more important reality is the inner reality. Here we determine if we have value, are able to accomplish an act, or are in need of assistance. This is not the central reality. The other realities enhance our experience of the central reality.
For much of our lives we have been conditioned to duality. I am not referring to the idea of good, bad, or any of its derivatives. Dualism is couched in an either or concept. A thing or idea being either this or something else is false, no matter how it is presented. This is the common reality and often the inner reality we contend with every day, but it is not the central reality. These realities form what Besant calls the great hearsay of separateness.
The central reality is the flow of life or of nature. Some may prefer to use the word God. Regardless of how you choose to describe it, the label has no bearing upon what it is. The central reality simply is, which is now. Unfortunately, before we can truly experience, we must separate ourselves from the other realities.
We must separate ourselves from the murmurings of society. Given the happenings in the world of today, or any day, some would claim these murmurings are from the media or political rhetoric from a dysfunctional system of government or a fragmented culture. They are wrong. These are not murmurs, but declarations and emotional evocations. Look beyond the obvious. A murmur is the voice of secrecy, implicit yearning, voices no one lays claim to, but all heed to. These murmurs lie within and without and influence our way of thinking. They are our beliefs. They are what hold us back. Our inner reality is composed of what others have told us and what our culture has led us to embrace.
One of the drawbacks of a common reality is that culture ultimately controls it. Culture, family, and friends impart what is considered acceptable and what is not. Worse, the common reality is divided according to caste, career, religion, interpretations of lifestyle, and the list goes on. Reality has been sharply defined as what is acceptable and not acceptable, and at the same time, what is acceptable is often exchanged for what is non-acceptable. Yet, the division remains constant. This system of beliefs has remained in place since the first being declared themselves as being above all others.
Such declarations should not be confused with leadership. Leaders are needed to provide direction to what can easily become chaos. Those setting themselves above others are often not about direction, but about control. The control of others, often mistaken for leadership, but is not leadership. This is about recognizing what holds us back from the central reality.
Before we understand what is holding us back, we must determine if we are being held back. Annie Besant tells us we are preventing ourselves from experiencing the central reality. What is the central reality? Before a separation can occur, there must first be something in which to be separated. Let us once again gaze at the foundation of duality. Dual is a simpler way of expressing two. The best way to express dualism is through a balance. In order for a balance to occur there must be opposition. In the case of the scale, there is the weight and the item being weighed against it. If hamburger is $2.39 a pound, the weight is one pound and the hamburger must be equal to the weight in order to collect the $2.39. Apply this same concept to everything. In order to recognize an event as being bad, we must first have something to compare it with, which would be an event labeled as good. When we apply this to everything, we end up with a system based on either/or. The central reality or the center reality is one not divided.
A reality where there is no division is one in which all things flow. To some, this flow may appear to have purpose, and to others none is perceived. Purpose has no meaning in the center because everything is flowing outward. Everything simply is.
The next task set before us is how to experience the central reality. This is very difficult because we must separate ourselves. Throughout this writing, I have demonstrated how separateness is not very conducive, but in order to experience a single event, all that may deter us must be temporarily devalued. We must isolate ourselves from the illusions of the common reality. The illusion does not lie with agreeing what grass is, but in the concept of the division of everything. The illusion is our beliefs. They are the intangible boundaries exerting tangible limitations. After relinquishing these, we must look at the illusions we have created within our inner reality. Not only must we let go of the idea of worthlessness, but also the idea of being worthy. Only then can we understand we are true beings. Only then do we realize that all are one. The illusions of beliefs and false concepts no longer hold us. By experiencing the singleness of reality do we understand the tools used by others and ourselves while navigating our realities. Once we have experienced this do we gain “life more abundantly (p. 41; par. 1).”
We have been conditioned to believe this single source of all is unattainable in this life. This is wrong. We can achieve this connection with the source, with the Divine, or with God with effort. Disposing of those conceptions holding us back is no easy task and must be done with diligence. However, the rewards from such an endeavor are equal to what many of today’s religions suggest after we have expired.
The first step is to separate ourselves from tomorrow and yesterday. We must also separate ourselves from today. The central reality is that point from which all radiate. Everything radiates from the now.
While reading Andrew Jackson Davis’ The Great Harmonia, I was struck by his disagreement about our having free-will. He states, if this were true; free-will would be a natural part of humanity. We should possess free-will even before occupying this body; before birth. Many have implied we select the family we are born into and a course of development; much the same way a teacher lays out a lesson plan. This is reminiscent of public schools and parents desperately trying to condition children for a select version of reality. Namely, their narrow version. Davis asks the same questions I have asked. Why would someone choose to occupy a form that is not only burdensome, but also abhorrent? This is akin to saying I choose to be poverty stricken. I choose to be mentally disfigured. I choose to be despised and spit upon. If I chose these conditions, why do I struggle against them? I struggle, not because I chose events such as these as lessons in acceptance or tolerance. I struggle because I am conditioned to do so. Is there freewill in conditioning?
Davis suggests this philosophy came about due to a belief of superiority over nature. Humanity has asserted itself as the dominant species of the planet. Humankind is the only species living in disharmony with each other, with nature, and with what they call the Divine. Humankind separates itself from all it deems inferior.
The fallacy of free-will is firmly planted within the most conflicting institution ever created. Religion professes divinity, enforces conformity, and curses nature, all in a single breath. Religion created the concept of free-will as a means to capture us, to capture our imagination, and to capture our desire to be something other than what we are; children of the Divine, as are all creatures. Before determining what free-will is, we must remind ourselves what it is not.
Religious history, including the present, demands conformity to its doctrines because its progenitors understood power. Power is held in the means to influence others, even to the point of controlling them. Leadership is about the manipulation of others, whether covertly or overtly; whether it is beneficial or detrimental. We are all leaders and followers. We have all been manipulators and manipulated. We have all been conditioned to the same rules. Even the heretics and infidels have been conditioned to behave as they do. Religion has never been about God, just as politics have never been about serving the needs of the people. They have always been about wielding power. The wielding of power is not corrupt, just as power is not corrupt. If it were so, then Jesus would be the devil.
Never has religion praised anything as remote as divinity. In all instances, the representative of the Divine has always been the one making the rules. The doctrines they espouse are filled with naught but condemnations, demands, exhortations, and separation. Its authors boast of the need for the separation of man from God and of the separation from those deemed unclean. The greatest fallacy of all is the fall from grace. Theologians would have us believe perpetual blindness is blessedness. They would have us believe that utter dependency is far greater than any semblance of independence.
Consider this. In the beginning, God created all manner of creatures, at least those deemed as being good. The last creature formed was a human. We were the last. Does that mean we are his best creation, or did he know of our penchant for destruction? Perhaps, we were last because we were created in God’s image. Nay, I say. We were not the last to be created because God still creates, though not in the fashion many will admit. The separatists have deemed anything created through the hands of man as being perverse. Yet, in the same breath they praise the hand of God working through others.
If ever we fell from a state of grace, it would have been from the harmony of existence. Our state of grace would be one of harmony. The fall, if such a fall took place, was not in rebellion, because behaviors have not changed in any noticeable aspect throughout history. Hatred, fear, joy, and curiosity are still with us.
Our fall from grace, if we fell at all, was through jealousy. Our fall was not because of disobedience, but through the fear of others. Remember those words in Genesis. Lo, they have become like us; to know good from evil. To know good from evil a person must possess a sense of responsibility, a sense of awareness. Without such, we would not be able to judge our actions. We surpassed their expectations; their conditioning. If we attained freewill, it was through the refusal to conform; the refusal to choose ignorance. Ah hah, if this were freewill, then religion deters us from such a realization.
Did we have freewill while kept in the pen called Eden? Did we stumble upon freewill in our rebellion? Freewill came when we discovered choice. Hence the words, to know good, from evil.
Freewill is not such a fallacy after all. Freewill is evil; an evil we need to be purged of. Despite being marginalized for non-conformity, those exercising freewill have banded together to oppose the practice of conformity by gathering with those of like minds; by rejecting those who do not conform to their views, to their doctrines. They have separated themselves, just as the religious ones have separated themselves.
Through this exposition, I have discovered where freewill exists. Freewill thrives in those who follow no such doctrines of separation. Freewill harbors with those who do not anchor themselves in convention. Freewill exists within harmony. For harmony has no doctrine, no belief. Harmony simply is. Harmony responds and initiates simultaneously.
Earth, Terra demands from all a harmonious existence. She demands and enforces this simple rule in a variety of ways. The harmony of nature resides in the winds racing from high pressure to low pressure, pushing clouds harboring particles of water gathered from below, particles forced upward due to the heat of the sun, which spews out an influx of gathered debris drawn irresistibly to it, and so on. This is how the harmony of nature, of the universe, of the cosmos is displayed. However, in our esteemed wisdom and high intellect, we resist.
Nowhere in our history has mankind existed in harmony with the elements nor with his fellow beings. If they act outside of established norms, they are condemned and made examples. Their exercise of freewill is considered an abomination. Those who act without regard are exercising freewill. Those who do not conform are exercising free will. We may fail to understand their motivation, but they fail to understand ours. By our societal standards, they suffer from a disability. They are emotionally blind (Walsh & Wu, 2008). Beings who often possess great intelligence fail to understand the one emotion humanity has deemed superior. Even those who seek to condemn others do not understand that one emotion. Yet, those who fail to comprehend emotions according to society are condemned. They are not an anomaly of nature. They are not aberrations; for they have existed from the moment mankind (Walsh & Wu, 2008) asserted itself. Who are these bold creatures? We call them sociopaths. We call them homosexuals. We call them transgenders. We call them abominations. They exist in all races in all creatures. Their greatest crime is not a failure to comprehend love, because who does. Their greatest crime is not conforming to society’s maligned version of God. Their greatest crime is the same as the rest, failing to exist in harmony.
From the time we are conceived, we are conditioned to conform (Lipton & Bhaerman, 2009). The subconscious mind begins to form and receives its programing while still in the uterus. All those within the mother’s social group begin to shape the developing child’s view of the world long before entering it. What is considered right and wrong is not left up to the developing child. Rather, it is laid out before it. The only freedoms allowed are the nuances later applied. Rules are not exercises in freewill. Rules are abstract boundaries occupying the same space as the borders of country states. Rules allow us to exist in an artificial state of harmony. These abstractions allow us to progress as individuals and as a species.
The case for the fallacy of freewill among the majority of humankind has been laid out by John B. Watson, a founder of behaviorism (Goodwin, 2005). With the help of Rosalie Raynor, he tested the theory of emotional conditioning with a nine-month-old child called Albert B. Together, they conditioned the child to react with fear and possibly horror to objects having white fur on them. The process was so complete; the child had become fearful of Watson, who had grown a white beard. Of course, this unintended consequence cast a veil of doubt on the entire hypothesis. At the same time, its questionability encourages the idea of those able to resist such overt conditioning may possess freewill.
Regardless, the only act of freewill the general populace possesses is how they chose to react to stimuli and circumstance. The only freewill we have is the ability to change the conditions of our conditioning. When we realize the fallacy of freewill and recognize the power of culture and of society, we can choose harmony or disharmony. Harmony is not about me or you, or any other person or creature in existence. Harmony is not about conformity. We can exist in harmony with ourselves because no one else shares our body to cause us distress. Only when we become participants in social activities, do we have the power to achieve harmony. For it is only within a group or an environment can harmony exist. Harmony requires at least two persons. Harmony is us; you and I. Harmony is not balance. Harmony is the tide that comes in, washing away everything in its path. Harmony is the seedlings dislodging the soil. Harmony is the space in between storms. Harmony is the wind swirling about city buildings. Freewill is how we react. Free will is not a God given right. Free will is not a natural part of humanity. Free will is learning how to bend the rules.
Goodwin, C. J. (2005). History of Modern Psychology (2 ed.). Hobeken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Lipton, B., & Bhaerman, S. (2009). Spontaneous Evolution: Our Positive Future (and a way to get there from here). New York: Hayhouse.
Walsh, A., & Wu, H. (2008). Differentiating antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, and sociopathy: Evolutionary, genetic, neurological, adn sociological considerations. Criminal Justice Studies, 21(2), 135-152. Retrieved May 9, 2014 from Criminal Justice Abstracts database.
Duty demands serious analysis and investigation
of all conspicuous subjects. Truth may be found in the following Revelation:
Nature must be the standard by which all men may judge whether the truths
therein contained, are pure, practical, and elevating. This is from Andrew
Jackson Davis’ The Great Harmonia.
Science is about investigation and categorization. Life demands inquiries from those who partake of its sustenance. For only through understanding does one begin to come into the harmony of the subtle energies flowing about us. This has nothing to do with sunrise or sunset; nor the rains that fall from the sky and the winds that suck it up again. Inquiries should be directed at why we experience anger, why does one follow the sensual pleasures tantalizing the mind. Why do we lay blame at the feet of another while puffing our breasts with pride? Such experiences are those provided by Life. The first step in the process is the investigation of ideas, accusations, barbs cast upon us in attempts to belittle our personas. Such influences provide cause for protecting our self-esteem. Fortifications should not be in the way sarcasm or obtuse remarks that fail to pierce even the most fragile battlements. Such behavior offers little in the way of wisdom. Thus, we must seek protection through the skills of the investigator. We must explore the avenues of not only our thoughts, but also the ideas and disturbing claims of others. Such actions save us from the embarrassment of deception and misinformation of others.
I shall relate an example. A friend came to me with a grievance about the actions of the leaders of an organization of which we were associates. She encouraged me to write a letter of complaint. I did. This prompted those accused to discuss the incident. This was good. However, when the topic was broached, she and her friend left the meeting. Can you guess why they left? They had failed to provide the correct information. Their information was biased towards their agenda. I was embarrassed by my accusations. If I had taken time to investigate, I would have discovered the flaw of my endeavor and the purpose of theirs. My purpose was to chastise, I had not bothered to inquire after theirs. The lesson learned was mighty. The friend’s purpose remains hidden.
Ask questions. Do not trust the words of others, even if you trust the one speaking them. I trusted the friend. She was not wrong, only caught up in the desires of another. Investigating claims will not cause a trusted friend to turn against you, unless their purpose is deception. On the contrary, such inspection will confirm their trust in you. Those believing they are truthful are not afraid of scrutiny, and may welcome it. Those purposefully being distrustful will side step or avoid questions put to them. At the very least, they give the impression of answering while having said nothing at all. They may even become angry.
Andrew Jackson Davis wrote, (The Great Harmonia) we have a duty to investigate anything considered conspicuous. Anything considered odd to you, does not necessarily mean it is odd to others. You have no sway over what they hear or see, how they choose to perceive what they hear and see, or how they chose to react. You have an obligation to question and determine what is misleading, embellished, or correct the information being put forth. This is called due diligence.
Through observation, we determine what is true and what is false. I believe someone wrote, you will know others through their works. Many expound on topics they know little about, and fill themselves with self-importance through embellishment. We call them politicians, scammers, manipulators, and other more offensive labels. Observation is not only through the eyes, but also through the senses. Sensations of creepiness, nausea, distress, and unease are all indications something is amiss. Observation can reveal many truths, and you have an obligation to know truth.
Duty demands serious analysis and investigation of all conspicuous subjects and topics. Truth may be found in the following Revelation: “Nature must be the standard by which all may judge whether the truths contained are pure, practical, and elevating.” Nature does not have an agenda. Thus, nature will provide all that we seek. However, we must have a desire to know.
We know energy simply exists, because energy has no beginning, and no end. At least, nothing we can point at and say this is where it began. One might say energy is perpetual. Granting that energy and power are different, which they are, can power be perpetual?
What is power? Power is the ability to influence (Haug, 1999). Many of us have watched our peers rise to a status of power, then fall from status only to rise again. Therefore, power is not the same as energy; at least not in the social arena. However, the two are intimately related.
The fuel in our vehicles is energy. This we all know. When burned in the engine’s cylinders, part of the energy is used for power and the balance is ported out as exhaust. However, the engine power needs to be converted back into energy in order to move the vehicle. Thus, energy is again converted to power through the transmission and the process transferred through the drive train.
Our bodies are similar transfer systems converting energy into power. The exception is the mind because we do not actually know what fuels the mind. We know the nature of mind is to generate ideas, but we don’t know where the fuel comes from, barring philosophical and religious explanations. Is the mind fueled through the chakra energy system? Is the mind merely another functional aspect of the brain, making it almost an accident of nature? I seriously doubt this. We assume the mind receives its energy through the brain, and we will leave it at that.
The body has been labeled a vehicle, a vessel, and a temple. All of these descriptions are metaphors for something we should be looking after. As with their conventional applications, they are composed of conversion points. They transfer energy into power and back again until the goal is achieved. These conversion points do not identify nor define power. Power is identify by its application and judgment of the observer. A hammer transfers the energy of a swing into a force that drives a nail into a board. Without a swing, the hammer serves no purpose. It is not even aesthetically appealing. The mind, without the brain, serves no purpose; at least, not in the conventional sense. Mystics tell us mind survives the expiration of the body, but it requires a body in order to effect change within the physical plane.
Power lies not only with humans, but also within every spark of intelligence, including those intelligences not recognized. Only through intelligence can power be applied in a fashion considered purposefully beneficial or detrimental to humanity. Intelligence and perhaps wisdom dwells within every creature and virus, regardless of form. Even the Universe is alive; as is the Earth. The universe, and subsequently the planet, is both male and female, energy and power, creativity and destruction. This is the nature of life. This is the nature of power. Creation and destruction are of equal consequence. Every manner of intelligence creates and destroys in a single blow. Every living creature is a vessel of power. Creation is perpetual because it is energy, and because it is intimately connected with power. Without energy, power does not exist. Just as without power, energy has no purpose.
Power, like energy is without duality. Only we decide if any event is of a positive or negative value. Power and energy are of a single nature.Works Cited
Haug, I. E. (1999). Boundaries and the use and misue of power and authority: Ethical complesities for clergy psychotherapists. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(4), 411.
Nature is an Expression of God
2012 was supposed to be a game
changer in the spiritual communities. We were supposed to shift into the fifth
dimension, only a few people understood what that meant. An existence more
closely aligned with conscious awareness. The populace was supposed to experience
some great changes. Much of what was rumored went the same way as the computer
crash of the 2000 New Year – lame.
I’m not sure what 2012 signified. I only hear stories. A prominent tale is the reconciliation of female energy, more like its return to power. Periodically I attended a metaphysical group. The women exclaimed how male energy is vehemently opposed to such an event. As I sat listening to the discussion, they defined male energy. Male energy is me. Male energy is the horrible deeds men bestow unto hapless females, children, and non-aggressive males. Oh, they say present company excluded, but am I? They spoke of some form of abuse at the hands of men, and blamed all men for their torment. I remained quiet in my somberness. Not a word of the torture experienced at the hands of their sisters. Not a word about the verbal and emotional abuse inflicted upon me by female counterparts. Not a whisper of what their ilk has taken away. For them, the troubles besetting the world are due to the actions of men. I don’t deny their claim; only question their validity. They, who speak of being non-judgmental passing judgment based on their experience. The stance taken by these women put men at odd with them because of the distrust they hold onto. The question I would put to them is, if this is a time to reconcile male and female energy, why do they cling to the assertion of female power. What if the idea of reconciling gender energies took a more visible format?
Many of the creation myths indicate a single source as the progenitor of human life. From this single source came another. From this other source came awareness, came self-awareness. Up to this point, nothing existed with which to compare itself with, and even then, the first source remained oblivious of itself. Only the second source was aware of itself because of the first source. Most automatically assign the second source the role of female and the first source male. They are wrong. The first source remains intact, even today. The second source, I shall refer to as Sophia, after the Gnostic creation myth, withdrew herself from the first source, which, according to Gnostic tradition is the Absolute. A third form was created. With the aid of the Absolute, Sophia brought forth a third being, which is actually the second. The second entity to extract itself was called the Thrice-Blessed One; also known as the Logos. Through this, thrice blessed one all things are created. The Thrice-Blessed One is better known as Jesus, or the word, which is Logos. This is, of course, according to legend, and may also, incorrect. From the source, did Sophia and the Thrice Blessed One (whom we shall call Michael) create. The source contains both forces, supporting Sophia and Michael. The source is of both sexes and no sex at all. Thus, having mo thing to compare itself to, Sophia would be male and female. Sophia, having only the Absolute to compare herself to, created Michael, who also would have had both genitalia. Even if God created man and woman, if male and female were not already present, Adam and Eve would be of dual sexes. This would mean that God was/is not alone.
Continuing with the myth, suppose life, meaning intelligent life, descended from a single being, or more precisely, beings possessing both sexes; both energies. Suppose they were hermaphrodites. From this race of dual sexuality mutations occurred. The mutation would have been a being of only one sex. We will call this first mutation, Seth. Having no one to partner with, Seth mated with the hermaphrodites.
Take a moment to steel yourself as this image invades the dualistic morals of a conditioned mind. We have presented a male participating in sexual play with others who not only possess vaginas, but also sport penises. Perhaps the very idea of such beings having existed turns the mind against itself. Imagine people resembling our neighbors exhibiting a mixture of male and female attributes moving about as though nothing were amiss. How would they be able to tell each other apart? More precisely, how would they refer to each other? Perhaps they would not need such identifiers as sir and madam. What could be more troubling than this?
Eventually, a second mutation occurred, we’ll call this one Lilith, who, most likely, also partnered with dual-sex beings. Perhaps they were the first of many to exist who were not hermaphrodites, but were androgynous. They appeared as a mixture of male and female attributes having only one sex. Evolution is not about growth, but change. These changes occur in the form of mutations within energetic systems. In regards to organisms, the alteration of cells does not necessarily end in failure or death. On the contrary, the result is an altered version of the original (Sheldrake, 2009). Thus, we can assume that after the second, they became a more common occurrence. Humans, today, are born with anywhere from 50 to 100 mutations not present in parents (Holmes, 2014). This may also explain the rise in genetic diseases. As the fetal mortality rate falls and healthcare improves, more people with these mutations are surviving and passing them along.
Another explanation may exist. Some species of amphibians are able to change their sex. Perhaps our progenitors were able to change sexes as the need arose. They could also have been so evolved they could alter their sex at will. In this instance, I am not referring to genitalia, but to fertilization. The practice of an egg requiring a fertilizing component has not been dismissed. A variety of mollusks and fish are capable of self-fertilization. If a race of beings were to have this capability, copulation may not have been necessary.
Imagine beings such as these traversing the energetic realms. Beings not bound by the roles of female and male. Yet, a mutation occurred resulting in Seth’s existence. He may not have possessed the ability to alter his sex and Lilith would not have either. They were mutations. The ability to alter their sex would have required an attribute that may have failed to develop. Such individuals would be able to exist within their society forming a sub-culture. Of course, they may have suffered similar social ills as we. Any who do not conform to conditioned expectations are ostracized.
A division of genitalia is something easily detected. Changes within the body are much harder to discover. Brain structure and chemistry are covert alterations, escaping scrutiny. If not for their behavior, none would notice the subtle shifts in their demeanor. We must recognize these changes. These alterations carry the most weight. A penis with the brain chemicals of a female is akin to a turkey disguised as ham. It may look like ham, but it is still turkey.
The homosexual male’s brain structure is more like a female (Vanderhorst, 2015). This is contrary to the person’s physical appearance. For the ignorant, appearance is all that matters. If it looks like a man, then it must be a man. Not only can the brain structure influence a genetically related lifestyle, but hormonal saturation can as well. Women considered overly aggressive, may have been exposed to excess androgen in the womb (Servin, Nordenstrom, Larsson, & Bohlin, 2003).
What many people assume to be choice may be natural to them and preferred. A same sex lifestyle is just as natural some as a heterosexual lifestyle is to others. Both are a normal condition of life. Can any successfully ignore their genetic programming? Can a person choose not to be allergic to peanuts? Perhaps some can, but most likely only to a degree. Heterosexuals can choose to engage in homosexual activities just as homosexuals can choose to engage in heterosexual activities, but forcing them to do so may be debilitating, mentally and emotionally. Lifestyle, like traits, is more stable. Some can successfully blend lifestyles. For a growing number of people, this is inconsequential. For those indoctrinated in certain belief systems, this can be horrendous.
The physical signs are what doctors and parents have relied upon for decades. In a hermaphroditic society whose culture is similar our own, those presenting with only one sex apparatus would be the equivalent of those presenting with both sex apparatuses, marginalized. At first, they would be considered oddities of nature. As their numbers increase, the general population becomes fearful and those oddities become aberrations of nature. What happens to such oddities? The ruling population attempts to destroy them until their numbers begin to equalize and they begin to accept each other.
In our society, those presenting with both genitalia are arbitrarily assigned a sex. In some part of the world, hermaphrodites and chimeras (those with varying degrees of mixed genitalia) are common. Hermaphroditism occurs within around ten percent of the Western population. However, chimeras are more prevalent in Africa (Krstic, Smoljanic, Vukanic, Varinac, & Janjic, 2000). Some are allowed to live their lives without gender assignment. They often fill the role of females, including childbirth. The ovaries are often fully developed, while the testes are not (Krstic, Smoljanic, Vukanic, Varinac, & Janjic, 2000). Who’s to say there will ever be a hermaphrodite with testes fully developed as well as the ovaries?
As suggested at the beginning, a single progenitor of male and female energies– meaning a race of hermaphrodites – may have been the progenitors of humanity. They may have developed here, or have been visitors, depending on your pool of information. In any event, the odds of both ovaries and testes being fully functional is good; which in turn means the chances of it occurring again are good also. Presently, at least in the in United States, the population presents itself as being polarized. I say presents itself because the existence of transgenders has always existed. Early Native American societies used the term Two-spirit for those whose behaviors were outside of their obvious gender roles. In Pakistan, India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, those who did not seem to conform to their gender roles were called hajira (Vanderhorst, 2015). When certain characteristics were recognized, the parents adjusted the environment to accommodate them. Transgender/intersex acceptance in society existed in various cultures throughout early Europe, Middle East, Thailand, and the Dominican Republic to name a few (Vanderhorst, 2015). Only when a special interest or fundamentalist group came into power did this change.
When something new comes onto the market, the first order of business is how to handle the competition. The popular method is to crush the competition. A review of recent or ancient history demonstrates when ignorant people assume power; all that does not fit their limited view or poses a threat to their identity is destroyed without regard. Lifestyles may be one of those ideals not fitting within certain paradigms. The choice does not always reside with the individual. For some, homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. If nature is an expression of God, then the problem resides with people, not God. The challenge people face when encountering gays, lesbians, and transgenders is the challenge to their belief system, which has little to do with God. There is no reconciliation of male and female energies. There is only the line. There is only the sand at the base of a crumbling system. There is only the struggle against change.
Combs, A., & Holland, M. (1996). Synchronicity: Science, Myth, and the Trickster (2 ed.). New York: Marlowe & Co.
Holmes, B. (2014). Stalled. New Scientist, 223(2983), 30-33.
Krstic, Z. D., Smoljanic, Z., Vukanic, D., Varinac, D., & Janjic, G. (2000). True hermaphroditism: 10 years experience. Pediatiric Surgery International, 16(8), 580-583.
Lipton, B., & Bhaerman, S. (2009). Spontaneous Evolution: Our Positive Future (and a way to get there from here). New York: Hayhouse.
Rumbaugh, D. (1995). Primate language and cognition: Common ground. Social Research, 62(3), 711-730.
Servin, A., Nordenstrom, A., Larsson, A., & Bohlin, G. (2003). Prenatal androgens and gender-typed behavior: A study of girls with mild and severe forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Developmental Pschology, 39(3), 440.
Sheldrake, R. (2009). Morphic REsonance: The Nature of Formative Causation. Rochester, VT: Park Street Press.
Stephens, C. (No Date). List of Hermaphrodite Animals. Retrieved March 6, 2016, from Pets on mom.me: http://animals.mom.me/list-hermaphrodite-animals-2829.html
Vanderhorst, B. (2015). Whither lies the self: Intersex and transgender individuals and a proposal for brain-based legal sex. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 9(1), 241-274. Retrieved June 10, 2015 from Legal Source database.
Ever wonder why some people dream and others don’t? Sometimes I do, especially when they say, ‘I don’t dream.’ Dreams, it turns out, is something everybody has a theory about. So I decided to find the real story behind dreams and the role they play in our life.
The main ingredient to dreaming is sleep. One would think we just go to sleep and that is it. No, we go through stages and sleep in cycles, like everything else. The first stage we experience is when we transition from being awake to sleep. This stage lasts only a few minutes and occurs regularly throughout the night (Soldatos & Paparrigopoulos, 2005). Each time we get up to get a drink of water or had to use the restroom, we are in one of those transition stages. When we lay back down, we are off to sleep as though nothing had happened. The second stage is characterized by theta and beta waves (which are types of brains waves) and play a role in slow wave sleep (SWS), which is deeper and longer. During SWS heart rate, blood pressure, and other bodily systems slow down (Wickens, 2005). This is a very uneventful and restful sleep known as non-REM sleep: no dreams yet. Dreams begin about 90 minutes from the time we begin the transition (Wickens, 2005). Dreaming occurs during rapid eye movement or REM, when suddenly, everything changes, facial muscles begin twitching, our heart rate increases, and we may even thrash about. As far as the brain is concerned, we are awake and our mind sends the appropriate signals to parts of the body.
Some may ask. That’s because I’m dreaming, right?
Well, yes, but not all dreams occur in the same stage of sleep. Most dream activity takes place during REM, but dreams can also occur during non-REM sleep. Non-REM dreams tend to go nowhere, repeating themselves several times (Wickens, 2005).
So, why do I thrash around at night when I sleep? Another may ask.
In 1953, Aserinsky and Kleitman discovered the brain was active during sleep and these periods of activity occur about every 90 to 100 minutes. During these periods REM occurs; heart rate and breathing increases (Wilkinson). Today, neuroimaging shows activity in the visual and emotional centers of the brain (Dixit, 2007). The amygdala, one of the central figures of the emotional (limbic) system and key to the 'fight or flight' response, is very active. Emotions such as fear, anger, and anxiety are telltale signs of impending danger. Thus, emotions may direct our dreams.
One may wonder; why am I afraid of things in my dreams that I am not afraid of when I am awake?
The same neuroimaging that shows an active amygdala also shows a mostly inactive executive center. Most of our executive center is disconnected while we sleep, leaving us to the mercy of our emotions. The executive center, located in the prefrontal cortex, is where our problems solving and decision making processes take place.
Dreams begin at the simplest part of the brain, which is the brain stem and then move through the emotional system. During this process, our dreams are a collage of images - images that make no sense. As our dreams move through the brain they begin to make sense because they enter the only part of the executive still functioning – the medial frontal cortex. Here, they become somewhat organized (Wilkinson, 2006). The medial frontal cortex is tied to social behavior. Most social activities are bound by some form of social etiquette, which allows us to react to embarrassing events (blushing), praise, and points in between. I suspect this is why we suddenly awaken in a cold sweat, a racing heart, or, ahem, one of those embarrassing accidents.
This is really nice, but some may thing, but what good does this do me?
I like to understand something before working with it. What we have learned is the focus of the dreaming process is emotions. Thus, it would be wise to direct our attention to the underlying emotions of our dreams. Margaret Wilkinson (2007) quotes Carl Jung as saying, “Dreams do not deceive, they do not lie, they do not distort or disguise, but naively announce what they are and what they mean… they are invariably seeking to express something that the ego does not know and does not understand.” You may be asking some of these questions. What are my dreams telling me? Are my interpretations correct, or are they just guesses? What is it about me that I do not understand? Let’s consult some authorities.
Everyone has a theory about what dreams about. The most infamous is Freud, who saw dreams as twisted paths allowing us to fulfill forbidden desires (Dixit, 2007). For him dreams became wishes in the guise of nightmares. Deirdre Barrett, Ph.D. clinical assistant professor of psychology at Harvard Medical School believes the “purpose of dreaming is almost the same as the purpose of waking and thinking: to solve problems.” (Honchman & Walch, 2004) Antti Revonsou, a Finnish psychologist believes dreams allow us to practice survival skills (Dixit, 2007). Allan Hobson, a Harvard dream researcher likes to say dreams are the “noise the brain makes while it’s doing its homework.” (Dixit, 2007) We have choices, and any one of them is correct – correct for you while I select something different. In any case, what are our dreams trying to tell us?
Consider this sequence of events. I see a group of people fire upon some pedestrians. Their leader gets out of the vehicle and says, “I have to do that because everybody wants something from me.” Wilda Tanner, in her The Mystical Magical Marvelous World of Dreams dream dictionary tells me I have a desire to kill an aspect of myself. 10,000 Dreams and Their Traditional Meanings tell me that I will experience a loss of livelihood. Then again, if I look at what the emotional undercurrent may be, perhaps there is an indication of needing to be careful about shooting my mouth off in public, or bragging too much. I could also be the leader and there is something I need to say.
As anyone can see, interpreting dreams is risky business. Fortunately, when it comes to interpreting our own dreams, some easy suggestions exist. First, if you are going to use a dream dictionary, use only one. More than one promotes confusion. The mind is pliable and will adapt to whatever system of definition you choose. Clichés are often considered useless, but in this instance become handy. For instance, if the shooter were firing into the night, the cliché would be, ‘he’s shooting in the dark.’
Go with what feels right for you. Don’t just accept what someone else tells you, or what you read in those dictionaries. Last, if you meditate and experience visions, the same suggestions apply.
When it comes to interpreting dreams, the most difficult aspect is determining what kind of dream it is. The most common response is that all dreams are messages. This is true, just as all events are news worthy events, but are they relevant. That is up to you. I find that some dreams help us work through challenges, some dreams hold messages, and other dreams are just dreams.
Before interpreting any dream, I always ask what a person watched or read prior to going to sleep. Plenty of times, I have gone on adventures with Dr. Who, solved mysteries with Leroy Jethro Gibbs, or studied behavior with Aaron Hotchner and Dave Rossi. Obviously, these dreams are just dreams, but not always. The secret is in the emotional content. Entertaining dreams will leave us refreshed in the morning, while troubling dreams will not. Most of the time, those entertaining dreams are forgotten. The more serious ones tend to stick with us a bit longer; not much longer.
Pay attention to how you feel during the dream. Describing how one feels when something significant occurs is difficult, but you will know when you have a dream you should pay attention to. Whenever a dream raises questions, jot it down. Whenever a dream leaves an impression, write it down. If you feel pain during a dream, wake up, because something is going on in your waking world. While dreaming, the mind will alter the dreamscape to accommodate outside stimuli.
I would like to touch on lucid dreaming. During the 1980s, I stumbled on an article the science magazine Omni. The article was brief, but made an impression. Lucid dreaming is that state of mind we sometimes slip into just before dozing off into nap. Think of them as preambles to dreams, because you are not quite asleep and not exactly awake. These episodes don’t have the feel of a dream. They are crisp as is reality and are often called premonitions. One may see them as prophetic because we believe we are catching glimpses of future events. These dreams have fluid quality to them.
Another aspect of lucid dreaming is the ability to control dreams. These preambles allow us to recognize the shift into a dreaming state. When we aware we are dreaming, we can exert some control over them. This comes in handy when experiencing a disturbing dream.
Dream states are mental states driven by emotions. This piece of information is valuable. If you are unable to control your emotions, you will not be able to influence your dreams states. The medial frontal cortex is the only part of the executive center still functioning. From here, we can influence the dream by exerting what is logical to you. Making your way through a meat locker may be disturbing. However, a junkyard may be less distracting.
Before you can control your dreams, you must be aware you are dreaming. This is not an easy feat. Keeping a dream journal will help you develop awareness of the dream state, and interpret those dreams that hold meaning.
Remember, we have a dream almost every 90 minutes or so. They begin as a confusing menagerie of images and sounds. Slowly they move through the brain and begin to make sense. This may be the only time we listen to ourselves. Everybody dreams. Some don’t remember because they wake up at the wrong time or they dream at the wrong time. If you meditate, just listen and watch.
Dixit, J. (2007). Night school. Psychology Today, 40(6), 88-94.
Honchman, A., & Walch, A. (2004). Solve problems in your sleep. Health, 18(6).
Soldatos, C. R., & Paparrigopoulos, T. J. (2005). Sleep, physiology, and pathology: Pertinence to psychiatry. International Review of Psychiatry, 17(4), 213-228.
Wickens, A. (2005). Foundations of Biopsuchology (2 ed.). Essex, England: Pearson Eductaion Limited.
Wilkinson, M. (2006). The dreaming mind-brain: A Jungian perspective. Journal of Annalytical Psychology, 51(1), 43-59.
life-force goes where the mind goes. Where does your mind go?
Athletes have coaches. Why not everyone else?
Even small changes in personality traits have an overall effect on a person. Areas affected may include well-being, inspiration, resilience, and longevity. This is especially true if a person's extraversion level were increased even a little bit.
Lesley Martin, Lindsay Oades, & Peter Caputi (2012). What is Personality Change Coaching. International Coaching Psychology Review
Get your coach today!
I am a manifesting coach. I co-create with people who want to grow using their inner Wisdom to create opportunities.
Get your BRDNSKY Guide