The significance of Near-Death Experiences:

A while ago I published an article on the spiritual perspective of death1. As part of that article I touched briefly on the subject of Near-Death experiences (NDE’s for short), where an individual has a very close brush with death but lives to tell the tale. In my opinion, these NDE accounts are some of the most significant (perhaps, the most significant) stories that we could ever hear or read about. One might even say that if one was only to ever encounter spirituality from one source, this should be it. Hence, today I wish to offer some thoughts on their significance.

As I said in the aforementioned article, the question of whether life continues after physical death is probably the single most significant question of all. Of course it is important to pay attention to the myriad of issues that relate to life on earth. However, the question of life after death relates not only to the vast expanses of eternity beyond the short physical incarnation, but also to the meaning of life itself.

I would suggest that NDE’s offer tremendous insight and inspiration, both in relation to life on earth and obviously also to what follows afterwards. Hence, let us dig in.

The NDE phenomenon in brief:

Since time immemorial human beings have had various experiences of a supernatural and/or spiritual nature. One prevailing common theme is that we are not merely our physical body, but possess a Soul or Spirit which in-dwells the physical form, but also can exist independent of it. Our current world culture has largely dismissed such beliefs as outdated superstitions, but nevertheless, human beings continue to have experiences that convince them of the reality of such things. I do not intend on making a large scale case for the objective reality of spirituality as a whole here. Rather I will attempt to stay close to the subject at hand (NDE’s). However, it will be unavoidable that a consideration of NDE’s will naturally lead to questions about the fundamental nature of reality.

So, a near-death experience (NDE) is an experience of someone who comes either close to clinical death, or may even have no vital signs at all for a period of time before returning (in which case we may debate whether it is valid to say that such a person actually died and returned to life). Whilst the person may be in a coma, under anaesthesia or have no vital signs, they claim that they were fully conscious and experiencing themselves outside of the body and/or in another dimension of reality altogether.

Many prominent NDE researchers have popularised lists of common features of NDE’s. I’m going to try to avoid simply copying these, and rather go by memory in order to attempt to give my own take on the matter. So, the following are some common features of NDE’s:

– An out of body experience (OBE) in which someone experiences themselves looking down on their body, floating around the ceiling, and/or travelling around earth (or another realm) without the constraints of their physical body.

– A period of transition from the physical realm to another realm. In modern Western culture it is common for people to report travelling through a tunnel towards a light at the end. Other variations that are common both in Western and non-Western cultures are crossing a bridge, travelling through beautiful fields of flowers etc.

– Encountering a transcendental light that emits unspeakable love and peace. This light is usually described as extraordinarily bright – it is often described as being like a million suns – but yet it does not blind or harm. Almost universally this light is described as being pure love, unconditional and without limit, a love that is different to the usual human experience of love. Again, it is almost universal that experiencers feel an insatiable desire to be one with the light. It is common for experiencers to describe both an impersonal (but sentient) light that is everywhere in the after-death realm, and also encounter individualised “beings of light”.

– Encountering deceased friends, relatives, religious figures or more general beings of light on the other side, who act as guides through the NDE.

– Experiencing a “life-review”, in which their entire life is re-lived in a moment in great detail. It is vital to note here that this isn’t merely a quick flash of visual imagery from ones life, but rather described as a complete, no-stone-left-unturned record of every thought, word, intention, feeling and action from birth to the present. What’s more, it is common to hear that in the life review one sees the true intention behind ones actions (that is, free of egoic rationalisations), and also sees, feels and fully experiences the consequences of ones behaviour on others. Hence, as a result this is described by many as being completely life changing, as it completely re-orients their priorities and beliefs about life as a whole.

– Travelling through different dimensions of the afterlife, including witnessing the immense beauty of the physical universe, a deep void, various hells and heavens, and even cosmic, mystical experiences of unity beyond time and space. A significant majority of NDE’s report visits to a heavenly afterlife realm, and many people have claimed to have travelled through numerous levels/layers of heaven, growing in subtlety and radiance as they ascend. There are however significant numbers of people who have reported hellish NDE’s. In some cases the person returns directly from the experience, deeply relieved to be alive. In other cases they cry out for help during the NDE itself and are saved from hell by a being of light.

– Being given visions of possible futures and/or a message for humanity as a whole. Often the person is given a mission to fulfil to help steer humanity in a particular direction.

– Being told that it is not a person’s time to die yet, or being given a choice to stay in heaven or return to Earth. Whilst we do hear of NDE’s where people have suddenly found themselves back in their physical body, it is quite common to hear of people either being given the choice to return to Earth, or simply being told that they have to. Hence, many NDE’s show a continuum from the beginning to the end, with the person fully conscious through all stages.

Common objections to Near Death Experiences:

Whilst it isn’t the intended purpose of this article to give an in-depth response to objections, I would like to give a brief summary of such objections and my responses to them. In general there are two main branches of criticisms of NDE’s. The first branch comes from the presumption of materialism that has become largely conflated and confused with science. The second branch comes from religious groups that object to the spiritual philosophy/theology of the majority of NDE’s.

Materialist objections:

So, starting with materialistic objections (often mischaracterised as “scientific objections” or “scientific explanations”), many people seek to explain away NDE’s as merely hallucinations brought on by a dying brain (being deprived of oxygen), or the side-effects of anaesthetics or pain-killers, or as part of a physical or psychological condition such as temporal-lobe epilepsy or a dissociative response to trauma.

Firstly, I wish to quickly re-state something I touched on in a previous article2, and which I will speak on at length at some point.

The spirit of science is supposed to involve a sincere desire to know what is the truth of a subject, to understand it without bias and to follow the evidence to wherever it naturally leads. The method of science is supposed to be a means to firstly hypothesise, then experiment, open the experiment up for review and finally offer conclusions upon the results.

As as means to do this we have adapted the method of “methodological naturalism”, which naturally presumes natural (physical/material) causes and hence excludes spiritual explanations. As a result, metaphysical naturalism (which is a philosophical view; aka materialism or atheism) came to be conflated with the scientific method. Hence, many people consider the scientific perspective to naturally offer materialistic explanations for spiritual phenomena.

Obviously, if you preclude spiritual explanations as a prior to studying NDE’s, then you cannot claim to be in line with the spirit of science. Rather, if science acts in this way then it is merely pseudo-science, or scientism, a religion of materialism.

So, a truly objective and scientific perspective on NDE’s should consider multiple possibilities and explanations. One of those should be that many (or most) NDE’s are indeed objectively real spiritual experiences, and that they constitute some form of evidence for the reality of spirituality. From here, materialistic explanations can be offered as other competing explanations, and the different explanations can be weighed up against each other. However, to be blunt, this isn’t the way it is generally done today. Rather, it is usually stated (or assumed) that materialism isscience, and hence the two are conflated up front.

Having acknowledged this, the majority of arguments I have seen from materialists bring up the correlation between physiological processes in the body (and the brain in particular) and the subjective mental experience. Almost without exception, I find this correlation being raised with the assumption that the only possible interpretation is that the physiological processes are the cause of the subjective experience itself. That is, when a scientist mentions that electrical stimulation of the temporal lobes can induce an out of body experience (OBE), it is therefore assumed that this establishes that spiritual experiences are always caused by a physical process, and that spiritual experiences are ultimately hallucinations (and are thus unreal), and that the physical processes are the reality.

I have previously argued that causation goes in both directions3; that is from matter to mind (upward causation), and from mind to matter (downward causation), and it is not hard to find examples of both. For example, consuming the drug LSD alters the body’s chemistry and induces an altered state of consciousness (upward causation). However, you can also alter the body’s chemistry and induce altered states simply through applying will power and directing the mind in meditation (downward causation).

So, to re-state, it seems to me that a large percentage of materialist arguments against NDE’s work on the assumption that any evidence showing correspondence between physiology and an internal (mental) state would therefore be evidence that the physical processes were the one and only cause of the experience. That is, I have never really seen any materialist ever take into account the spiritual view of correspondences and bi-directional causation between the physical dimension and the mental and spiritual dimensions.

Again, this is not something I can do justice to here, but I think the above summarises one of the main issues with materialistic objections. Having noted this, I have a few more things to add here today.

Firstly, materialists have made a big thing out of saying that people that have NDE’s cannot say that they died and came back to life, but rather can only say that they came close to death and survived. The reasoning for this is that they define death as a final state of no-return, and hence by their definition it is impossible to come back to life after death.

I personally find this to be largely a game of semantics. Let us remember that materialism is built upon the belief that mind is only an epiphenomenon of matter. Hence, materialism is built upon the belief that consciousness is completely dependent upon biological processes, in particular those inside the brain itself.

A significant percentage of NDE’s occur whilst the person in question can be verified to have no vital signs for a significant period of time. If the materialist explanation were correct, one would expect to see the persons consciousness slipping away progressively into oblivion as the breath, heart beat and brain waves dissipate and completely stop. If the materialist explanation were correct one would expect that NDE’s would be described as fuzzy or hazy, like a hallucination or typical dream.

However, a hallmark of the NDE is the complete opposite. That is, experiencers claim that they were more awake, more aware during their NDE, whilst their body was devoid of the biological processes that materialists claim are essential for consciousness. And importantly, in a significant

percentage of NDE’s the person in question claims a continuity from the beginning of the NDE through to when they came back to their body.

We should also note that there are many people who come close to death and don’t report anything at all. I have seen this claimed as evidence that NDE’s are only hallucinations that happen to some people.

I would respond by pointing out that by definition there is no experience that can disprove NDE’s. If someone blacks out and comes to afterwards, this simply means that for whatever reason they were unconscious and don’t have anything to recall. It doesn’t mean that had they not be revived that they would not have become aware in the spirit at some point. It may also be the case that some Souls remain unconscious in the astral world before reborn on earth4.

Likewise, if someone says that they experienced just a blackness, just a nothingness, then this implies by definition that they were conscious, in which case they did actually have an NDE, only that there wasn’t yet any content to it before they returned (i.e. they were conscious without any perception, sensation or thought). Rather, they were conscious in a void, which we should note is well attested as part of the overall NDE phenomena.

Finally, it is common for NDE’s to begin with a common OBE, such as looking down at one’s body in a hospital bed and travelling around the hospital. There are countless cases where people claim to have seen things whilst out of body that they could not possibly have known if they were simply hallucinating from their fixed position. Without having controlled experiments and interviews done immediately following such experiences it is difficult (if not impossible) to test such claims properly. However, we should note that there are many cases whereby others have claimed to be able to attest to what the NDE’er saw. There have even been attempts to compare NDE’ers recollection of their own resuscitation to a control group (see Michael Sabom5).

Probably the best argument I have seen presented by materialists is that NDE’s frequently contain imagery that corresponds with the upbringing of the individual, both on a personal and collective level. Anyone that has made a sincere attempt to study religion and spirituality as a whole should recognise this fact:

There is no clear defining line between psychological and spiritual experiences; there is no clear defining line between the mind and the spirit.

Rather, the two clearly interact and crossover. I have written a fairly lengthy article specifically on this topic that I plan to publish shortly. For today I will try and give a brief answer.

Essentially, in making this point about NDE’s, materialists are arguing that evidence of the projection of the beliefs, symbols and language of the person (and their wider culture) in NDE’s is evidence of NDE’s being hallucinations, projections of the psyche (which materialists believe is wholly created by and contained within the brain). Without a very deep understanding of spirituality and a philosophical leaning, one could understand this argument, and perhaps be swayed by it.

Certainly a significant percentage (probably the vast majority) of people that hold religious and/or spiritual beliefs fail to recognise the self-validating element of such beliefs. That is, most people are quite literal in their beliefs, and do not consider that the truth of their sacred experiences is on a deeper level. However, there have always been spiritual teachings that have emphasised the deeper realities of spiritual experience, and have recognised the superficiality of outer symbols and language.



It is indeed true that many people have claimed to have met prominent figures from well-known religious traditions in the NDE. I would caution that we shouldn’t necessarily assume that such figures were real historical figures, but rather that the beings in the higher realms take on familiar appearances in order to soothe the mind and put the person at ease.

An excellent example of this is the NDE of Mellen Thomas Benedict6. Prior to his NDE Mellen read extensively on religion and philosophy, in an attempt to prepare himself for what was

coming. When he did inevitably die and enter the astral dimension he met a being of light that showed itself in a variety of forms, corresponding with the various religious traditions Mellen had studied. When Mellen asked the being to show it’s true form, it then showed itself just as light. I believe also in Howard Storm’s NDE the beings of light (he identified them as angels) offered to show themselves to him in human form, to which he declined7.

To properly understand my response to this objection, I must explicitly state the foundation of my worldview:

That is, I believe the true substance of reality is consciousness.

This is the exact opposite of materialism (which states that the true and only substance of reality is matter and its laws). In a spiritual universe, every dimension is made up of consciousness, though the lower dimensions are denser, grosser and appear to be more solid and objective.

As such, an NDE is an experience in the astral dimension (higher than the physical), which is therefore less dense and more subjective. Just as in a dream, the substance of the experience is created and moulded by mind. Contrary to an average dream however, an astral experience is not created wholly by the finite, individual mind of the person having an NDE8, but rather an interaction between themselves, higher beings and God. As such, NDE’s make use of language, forms and symbols that are familiar to human beings as the superficial outward form of the experience itself. However, they are still fundamentally real. In fact, they are more real than earthly, physical experience. They are real experiences, but not wholly objective. They are both objective and subjective.

I understand the above answer may seem quite unfamiliar to some readers. There is perhaps not much more I can do here other than to point out that this is not merely a new view made up in response to this objection (or any other), but rather an ancient view found in many religious and philosophical traditions (such as Advaita Vedanta).

I would also like to refer my readers to a particularly extraordinary book called “The Holographic Universe” by Michael Talbot9, which really addresses this particular issue in depth.

Religious objections:

Another stream of criticisms of NDE’s comes from orthodox religion, most commonly Christianity. Whilst a quick glance at an individual NDE account may appear in line with orthodox Christianity, a more careful examination of the NDE phenomena as a whole makes it clear that whilst the spirituality being offered does overlap with orthodox Christianity in many significant ways, it also diverges in other equally significant ways.

Firstly, the common ground is quite obvious. NDE’s affirm the reality of God and the overwhelming love of God. They affirm that there are both heavenly and hellish experiences in the afterlife, along with a plethora of spiritual beings with divine or demonic natures. They also affirm that we must face the reality of our choices and actions, and see them from a higher perspective.

However, in general and as a whole, NDE’s offer a universal and inclusive spirituality that doesn’t depend on belief in specific doctrines or adherence to a particular dogma. So, NDE’s as a whole do not teach that one is saved through faith in or a relationship with Jesus Christ. Whilst Christian imagery is quite common in Western NDE’s in particular, the theology of the experiences is quite clearly more in alignment with Eastern Spirituality and New Age spirituality.

For this reason, many Christians have argued that the light of the NDE is a false light, and many have quoted passages about Satan masquerading as an angel of light10. In conversations with Christians on this subject I have frequently heard it argued that many of these NDE’s start off beautiful, but get darker and darker as they go on.

I have attempted to verify this claim, and I believe I know where the sources for it are, though I also believe the relevant sources are being misrepresented, as we shall see. I know of at least three particular NDE’s which could be termed “hellish”, which progressively got darker and darker

as they progressed. The three I will briefly summarise today are from Kathy McDaniel11, Guenter Wagner12 and Howard Storm13. The two most relevant here are the last two (Wagner and Storm). 

In the case of Kathy McDaniel she was in a medically induced coma and became conscious. Initially she was in darkness but then started to see a reddish light, which soon became foggy as the experience very quickly became one of pure hell. She was tormented, attacked and violated by demonic beings before eventually she started singing a Christmas carol and a beautiful white light (the True Light) came and infused her with overwhelming love and peace and lifted her out of hell.

It is very clear that the light she experience as saving her from hell matches the description of the light that many (if not most) NDE’ers experience near the beginning of their experience. There is a clear distinction between the faint reddish light she perceives at the start (with no mention of spiritual radiance, peace and love), and the divine light she perceives later that radiates overwhelming peace and love. So, this NDE certainly does not fit the Christian claim.

In fact, Kathy was a Catholic and therefore should have been considered to be saved by Christian theology. From what little I have heard from her it appears that she now accepts that the cause of her hellish experience was a combination of her belief in hell and purgatory, and probably the mental state that accompanied the traumatic conditions which led to her NDE (i.e. being in hospital on the brink of death).

In the case of Guenter Wagner, his NDE is quite unusual. That is, not only does it differ from the beautiful heavenly accounts we are most accustomed to, but it is also quite different from most hellish accounts. There are a number of possibilities for this, and I will discuss them shortly.

Essentially Wagner recounts having had an accident as a child and finding himself out of his body, at which point he was essentially tempted by a malicious spirit to go with him rather than try and get back in his body. He travels through a number of different dimensions where he is told he is not supposed to be there, and he is eventually questioned by a being of light who is extremely hostile towards him and explains that it is at war with other spirits who are trying to invade its world.

This being of light talks of love and religious doctrines and at times radiates peace and love, but at other times threatens to destroy him. Wagner recounts a life review experience in which the being of light taunts and shames him. Again, this is radically at odds from what we experience in essentially all other NDE’s. Finally, as Wagner is about to return to Earth he hears a voice telling him to kill his mother.

So, this is a very strange NDE. It has some of the features of a typical heavenly NDE, but it appears that they are mixed in seamlessly with hellish features. Hence, I could see that at a quick glance someone may use this account to argue that the beings of light in NDE’s are demonic imitators. However, at a closer look this doesn’t stand up.

As I see it, there are three main options to explain this NDE, and we may even possibly consider the possibility that all three are partially true. Firstly, Guenter himself admits to a lifelong struggle with alcoholism, and whilst the NDE occurred to him as a child he only recounted it as an adult. It is certainly possible that his memory and general brain functioning is all over the place as a result of his addiction. Obviously NDE’s are generally given as first-hand testimonies, and as such all have a large degree of subjectivity to them.

In Guenter’s case his NDE wasn’t recounted to others nor recorded till much later in his life. It is possible that he actually experienced a more “normal” NDE with some hellish elements at the start, after which an angelic being of light intervened to assist him. So, perhaps his memory has conflated the two sides and it is now all mixed up?

Secondly, if there is any truth to legends of fallen angels, then perhaps this NDE is an account of an experience with one. This might potentially explain how such a being could still have some of the attributes of the beings of light as commonly found in NDE’s, and yet also display a lower, demonic nature. According to his account the being was fearful of having its dimension invaded

by others with which it is at war. If this is indeed what Wagner experienced and if it does have an objective reality to it, then this sounds like a fallen being lost in a lower-astral dimension, at war with other fallen beings.

A third possibility is that Guenter’s NDE was made up. I generally hesitate to go in this direction, and I wouldn’t favour this possibility. It is always a possibility that someone has simply invented their story for one reason or another. Human beings have displayed the capacity for fraud since time immemorial, and religion has never been exempt from this. In this case Guenter Wagner’s testimony is very much an outlier, in that it is inconsistent. So, fraud must be considered.

Finally, we have the well-known case of Howard Storm. Storm was a keen materialist before his NDE, and he openly mocked religious folk for what he believed was their ignorance, weakness and gullibility. After a medical emergency he left his body and was deeply distressed to find himself unable to communicate with anyone around him. He then heard voices coming from the hallway of the hospital, leading him out of the hospital into a dense fog with a dim light. He soon found himself in a hellish realm surrounded by demonic beings who mocked, attacked and violated him. However, out of his desperation came the thought to pray to God, which culminated in an angelic presence (a being of light) appearing and saving him from hell, and taking him to the perimeter of a heavenly realm.

He was told he was unable to enter due to his soul not currently being suitable, but was given the opportunity to return to earth and make amends for the cruelty he had shown to others, and for the selfish way he had lived his life as a whole. He was bathed in transcendental peace and shown that he was a precious being that was loved, despite all the wrongs he had done.

So, to summarise, none of the above NDE’s began with a radiant, heavenly being of light beaming love. McDaniel’s begin with a faint light in a dense fog. The light being in Guenter Wagner’s NDE displayed both divine and demonic features. If this was a being of light, it was a fallen one. And again in Howard Storms NDE there is a faint light in a dense fog during the hellish part of the NDE. So none of these NDE’s start with a heavenly experience and then get darker and darker as they go. If there are any such accounts out there I haven’t come across them (though I have tried). If anyone comes across any such accounts I would be interested to have a look at them.

Rather, the standard fare for a hellish NDE is that the person experiences hell first, then after calling out for help is saved by a radiant being of light, taken to heaven and given their life-review, then being sent back to Earth to fulfil their mission. Guenter Wagner’s NDE is the closest I have found to the claim by Christians that NDE’s are deceptive. However, as already discussed, there are a number of reasons why his does not fit their claim.

Aside from this, I do know of several books written by Christians who had a previous history with New Age spirituality where they claim to have been tricked by spirits who claimed to be of the light. Some examples would be “The Light That Was Dark” by Warren B Smith and “The Beautiful Side of Evil” by Johanna Michaelsen (I believe there are many other similar books around, such as the more recent one by Doreen Virtue “Deceived No More”). From what I have seen such books generally tell of someone who was involved with New Age spirituality having a mixture of experiences before later converting to Christianity, and taking on the perspective that all of the things they experienced previously were wicked deceptions.

Just a few points I would make in response to all of this. Firstly, orthodox Christianity is not the only spiritual perspective that can explain for challenging or unpleasant spiritual experiences. Rather, what we term New Age spirituality also generally recognises that not everything or everyone in the vast spiritual cosmos is of the light. So, it is not true to assume that examples of hellish NDE’s contradicts a universal spiritual understanding. Likewise, it is not true that examples of deceptive behaviour of lower beings automatically implies the acceptance of a dualistic eschatology.

We might also question the overall idea that there a source of evil that can appear as beautiful light and beam radiant love. Firstly, the commonly quoted passage of Satan appearing as an angel of light from 2nd Corinthians 11:14 was referring to the competition between early Christian preachers, and the different gospels, different Christ’s they were preaching. We know that early

Christianity was not at all uniform, but rather consisted of numerous sects competing for followers. In the case of 2nd Corinthians we see that different teachers were competing for the same audience. There is of course no reason to give this passage an air of authority, as if it were written by God’s hand (see my previous article on the concept of scripture14). Rather, it is just an off the cuff remark by one author (Paul) to attempt to rebut other early Christian preachers competing for his audience.

Author and web-master Kevin Williams15 has given a number of responses to the Christian objections, from his own perspective (he considers himself a “Universalist Christian” – basically a New Ager with a significant investment in the Bible). Whilst I do not personally view the Bible as being authoritative, Williams presents an interesting argument16 from Matthew 12:24-3717, in which the Pharisees accuse Jesus of performing miracles via Beelzebub. Jesus responds that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and that you can measure the roots of a tree by its fruit.

Clearly the fruits of the NDE are radical love and radical accountability. Hence, Williams argues that by the example of Matthew 12:24-37, religious critics are adopting the same argument as the Pharisees, to which he believes his response is that of Jesus. Again, whilst I do not believe in a historical Jesus nor hold the Bible to have spiritual authority, I believe this is simply good logic. Exclusive religious beliefs are maintained by a strict dichotomy between the in-group (the believers) and the others (the heathens/pagans/atheists etc.). In such cases religious experiences, beliefs and practices are differentiated not on the basis of an examination of their details, but rather simply on whether they conform to the ideology of the group.

In my writings I have long been arguing that we should differentiate such things based on their nature, not the race, skin color, language, religion, sect or philosophy of the people in the example. Hence, we should be able to view NDE’s from an unbiased position and assess them for what they are. I believe that when we do this we shall see that they offer great upliftment and inspiration to humanity. I believe that the radiant light experienced in NDE’s is Divine, and this shows itself all through the phenomena.

Whilst I have not personally had a traditional NDE18, I am well familiar with the feeling of overwhelming, all-consuming spiritual peace (called ananda in Sanskrit) and love that is such a common feature of NDE’s. I believe that this spiritual peace is not merely something that is only experienced through NDE’s, but it is common to all deep, authentic spiritual experiences, regardless of culture or faith.

Again, the theology taught by the beings of light in NDE’s is one of radical compassion and radical self-responsibility. It makes absolutely no sense to argue that Satan masquerades as a radiant being of peace and love, teaching a lofty theology. The argument here by Christians rests on the assumption that without salvation from sin through accepting Jesus Christ as one’s personal saviour, that one is lost for eternity. They are arguing that Satan is trying to get people to abandon this idea in favour of a different theology.

One might argue that this is a form of circular-reasoning, as it assumes that orthodox Christianity is true, in order to dismiss evidence of a different theology. I would argue that to consider the spiritual and religious implications of NDE’s properly, one would have to go in with an open mind and consider multiple possibilities. Christians should be able to go in and compare NDE theology vs Christian theology on their own merits, rather than merely discarding NDE theology on the basis that it clashes with elements of Christian theology.

Furthermore, I would actually argue that it makes far more sense to take NDE’s as a primary source for spiritual knowledge, rather than a specific text, creed, teacher or school of thought. The difficulty is of course that (as mentioned before), NDE’s are heavily coloured by the mass consciousness of the human race, which means that they speak through the language of our sacred texts, creeds, well known spiritual leaders and groups.

So, it is true that NDE’s – both individually and collectively – reflect the language, symbols, beliefs and culture of both the people that experience them and the human race as a whole. However, when we view NDE’s as a whole, seeing the forest and not just the individual trees, we see that they communicate a spirituality which is universal and mystical, transcending the countless

differences and points of contention in the worlds religions, but aligning with the highest common grounds between them. One might say therefore that NDE’s correlate well with the ideal of a Perennial Philosophy, a timeless and universal spiritual philosophy that has been known in part to people from all over the globe, throughout recorded history.

I have the intention to devote an entire article to NDE theology in the near future, with the hope to go into much greater detail about the spiritual significance of the phenomena as a whole. In this future article I would also like to go into detail in comparing NDE theology to Christian theology, as I feel this is a very important issue. I believe that NDE theology is the solution to mankind’s religious misunderstandings and disputes. I believe NDE theology has what we need to understand religion correctly, to correct our mistakes and unite us as one family of light.

The meaning and significance of Near Death Experiences:

NDE’s as the solution to our self-created problems:

NDE’s offer direct solutions to the aberrations in human thinking and behaviour, both on an individual and collective level. That is, firstly everything about the experience in a general sense re-orients a persons overall worldview in a positive way. Secondly, in regards to exactly what happens, what is revealed and/or communicated, most NDE’s appear to be specifically tailored to the particular needs of the person in question at the time, and collectively they speak to the primary needs of the human race as a whole. So, NDE’s offer the solutions to our problems, seeking to correct our misunderstandings and put us back on a healthy path.

Furthermore, NDE’s speak not just to individual behaviour but rather to the underlying causes of them. Specifically, NDE’s address the dichotomy between religion and science, seeking to correct both the aberrations of divisive and fear-based religious dogma, and also the materialist assumptions that create all manner of problems in individual lives, as well as the collective experience of the human race and our entire planetary ecosystem.

NDE’s affirm the reality and primacy of Spirituality:

Firstly and foremost, NDE’s show us that we are spiritual beings, that we do not have to fear death, and that our loved ones are never truly gone. NDE’s banish the question of what happens after we die and give certainty to the reality of spirituality. NDE’s give context and meaning to everything that we go through in life, and remind us of the great sacredness of all things. NDE’s teach us what really matters, and shows us the true immensity of creation.

So, NDE’s show us that spirituality is not only objectively real, but that it is primary over physicality. NDE’s do not seek to diminish our physical experience in favour of spiritual escapism, but rather affirm the purpose and value of an earthly existence from a spiritual perspective. NDE’s remind us that the pleasures of the senses and material objects have only a temporary existence, and that relationships, experiences and knowledge live beyond the short earthly incarnation. NDE’s remind us that we should never seek anything at the expense of our Soul.

NDE’s teach Universalism and true unconditional love:

NDE’s show us that real spirituality is not dependent upon mythologies or creeds, of adherence to rules or rituals. Rather, real spirituality is always about Soul growth, about seeking love, joy, strength and wisdom. Probably the most profound of all features of the NDE is the unspeakable, overwhelming and all-consuming peace and love that is found in correspondence with the divine light. It should be obvious to us that everyone truly seeks happiness (although some beings are so hurt that they do so in destructive ways). The NDE reminds us that there is truly only one way to be happy, and that is to truly love.

NDE’s show us that love isn’t merely a word or a light feeling. It isn’t merely a human sentimentality or attachment. Rather, love is the inseparable and essential nature of reality, the core of life itself, emerging from the unity of existence. Again, there is no way to be happy other than to love. If we all seek happiness that doesn’t come and go, without fickleness or fragility, then we must devote ourselves to love that is beyond fickleness or fragility.

In religion and spirituality we often speak of divine love as infinite and unconditional. It is of course easy to miss the true significance of these words, and think that they refer to something completely foreign to us that we cannot relate to. (I’d like to highlight the next sentence, as this is really important):

In truth it simply means that divine love is completely independent of literarily everything.

This doesn’t so much mean that with divine love one must seek to be so compassionate that one overcomes the tendency to give or retract love on the basis of the behaviour of others. Rather, it simply means that behaviour and circumstances are irrelevant to love. This doesn’t mean that behaviour and circumstances are irrelevant as a whole, or that there are no consequences to our actions (and of course, NDE’s teach quite the contrary). Rather, it simply means that consequences, cause and effect are inherently different to the existence of divine love. Hence, NDE’s teach utterly, absolutely radical love.

So, you do not have to prove yourself worthy of divine love, you cannot be removed from it, it cannot be withdrawn from you, it will never run out and it has no limits or conditions. You are loved, always have been and always will be, no matter what. Furthermore, this love is completely fulfilling that having experienced it you naturally want to give your life to it, to be consumed by it, to live entirely in harmony with it. Hence the challenging path of living a spiritual life as a human being begins.

NDE’s teach absolute accountability:

Having established this, we then recognise the other side of divine love being independent of cause and effect. That is, NDE’s teach absolutely radical accountability. NDE’s show us just how responsible we are for what we think, feel, say and do. They show us just how much all of these matter, how our choices affect the lives of individuals and our wider world.

In my personal opinion, one of the key, core problems with humanity as we are is that we generally believe we can hurt others without hurting ourselves. We tend to think we can lie, cheat and steal to get the things we want in life, without consequence. Even when people profess to have strong spiritual and/or religious values, they often explain away their behaviour, seeking to justify to themselves (and others) what they do.

NDE’s show us that we cannot hide from God, or ourself. In the life-review we are spiritually naked19. Our true motives are fully exposed in plain view. The truth of our actions, our words and even our thoughts are seen objectively, without any potential to frame them in our defence.

The life-review shows the full consequence of our choices, both big and small. It shows the impact we have on others, not just in the immediate future but also in the long term. It shows the ripple affect of our choices, meaning that we see just how significant they are.

The life-review reveals that we are fully responsible for our choices, no matter what led us to them. As human beings we often justify our behaviour based on prior experience. Such luxuries are not found in the life-review, as our absolute personal responsibility is revealed.

However, despite all this, and despite the fact that that the life-review can be deeply painful, the beings of light do not judge us, no matter what we did. Their love for us is independent of the consequences of our actions.

So, we see that we can never truly get away with anything. No one ever does. The flip side of this radical accountability is that we generally have no idea how much capacity we truly have to change. We have so much potential for growth, for expansion, for evolution. We really are just at the very beginning.

When most of us hear about growth we usually think about physical fitness, about financial abundance, having the “perfect” relationship, the perfect home, the perfect career, status and respect from others and intellectual growth etc. However, we rarely think about expanding our

capacity for compassion, expanding our state of awareness beyond our ego, expanding into cosmic knowledge, expanding into higher dimensions of reality etc. NDE’s remind us that we are just children beginning our Soul development. We truly have no idea of what we are capable of. This should be seen as the greatest inspiration. This is truly good news.

NDE’s show us where true happiness is found:

So, as a whole, NDE’s correct the problems inherent in religion and materialism. They teach a universal spirituality beyond any sectarianism, showing that we each have the capacity to grow into a pure vessel for the divine light that we all are. They show us that nothing will ever fulfil us like living for the light does. Again, this does not diminish earthly experiences and pursuits, but rather puts them in their correct context. We do not seek happiness and fulfilment in the senses, possessions, experiences and relationships, but rather joyously participate in the world of the senses, objects, experiences and relationships from the happiness and fulfilment in our soul.

NDE’s show the error in materialism and hedonism, and offer the solution:

Hence NDE’s correct the materialistic and hedonistic tendencies that are rampant in human culture. NDE’s show us that a lust for material things can never be satisfied, and can never turn out well.

Finally, NDE’s repeatedly emphasise that humanity as a whole is on a challenging path right now, due largely to many of our mistakes. NDE’s show us multiple possibilities of our future in order to warn us of the consequences of our choices, and to give us the opportunity to make radical changes in how we live.

Whilst NDE’s are well known for containing warnings about challenging times ahead for humanity, they also contain a message of hope, in giving us a glimpse of what is possible when we live truly spiritual lives. Those that return after an NDE often develop psychic/spiritual gifts which add great depth to their life. Can we imagine a world in which a significant percentage of the population was using such gifts in service of the greater good? Again, as with the UFO phenomena20, this reminds us that we – the human race – are really just beginning in our path of evolution, and we cannot even begin to fathom what we are capable of.

So, we are taught that expansion of the heart and mind is the true goal and purpose of life, and that only in living in this way can we find true happiness and success. Peace on both the inside and outside is the result of wisdom and love in action.

In closing:

Again, I would like to encourage anyone interested in this topic to do some serious reading of first-hand NDE reports, and the writings of others who have studied the topic in-depth. These are not merely reports and opinions you read for the purpose of entertainment or gaining intellectual knowledge. These words are life-changing, cutting right to the meaning of life itself.

Again, I do not claim to have personally realised the ideals of which I have touched on here. Only that I am trying in my way to pursue them, and would encourage others to try as well, both for their own personal benefit, and also for the benefit of their family, friends and wider community.

May we all find that light which is true love. Peace




1 https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2021/07/25/a-spiritual-perspective-on-death/

2 https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2015/07/12/science-philosophy-and-the- supernatural-101/

3 In Western philosophy this is called “interactionism”, though I did not derived my views from Western philosophy.

4 This was discussed in “Autobiography of a Yogi” by Paramahansa Yogananda, in chapter 43.

5 https://www.amazon.com/Recollections-Death-Investigation-Michael-Sabom/dp/0060148950

6 https://near-death.com/mellen-thomas-benedict/

7 I believe he responded that he hated people, and was so relieved to see them as beautiful light – Unfortunately I don’t have a link however

8 Certainly though, we may also have dreams which are not just projections of our mind.

9 https://www.amazon.com.au/Holographic-Universe-Revolutionary-Theory-Reality/dp/ 0062014102

10 2 Corinthians 11:14

11 https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=YtaS1Zyrxnw&list=UULF4IFgmVjowpy8D7nXmFZL2A&index=20

12 https://near-death.com/guenter-wagner/
13 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMfSMaQ1bWc

14 https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/on-interpretations-of-scripture-why- many-religious-conservatives-and-progressives-misread-ancient-texts-and-misunderstand- religion-in-general/

15 Author of “Nothing Better Than Death”: https://www.amazon.com.au/Nothing-Better-Than- Death-Experiences/dp/1097107426 and the website near-death.com

16 https://near-death.com/ndes-are-not-satanic/
17 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 12:24-37&version=NIV 18 Though I may have had one or more “dream NDE’s”.

19 There is an old tradition in seeing human beings standing naked before God. This is usually seen literarily, as in being physically naked. However, I believe the NDE literature clearly shows that the reality of it is figurative.

Having stated that, I believe in Howard Storm’s NDE he saw himself as being naked (i.e. his astral body took the form of a naked human body) as he stood before the angels having his life-review. I think in his case it was just what he needed, to be stripped of pride and taught humility and reverence to God.

20 https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2021/11/03/the-significance-of-the-ufo-phenomena/

Some thoughts on Morality and Altruism:

Every once in a while I come across someone claiming that nobody is truly altruistic, and that people only ever appear to do good with selfish motives. Also, I sometimes come across people (often who are occultists) who claim that there is no good or bad, right or wrong, and that people who seek to follow light are just fooling themselves. Hence, I have wanted to write a few words in response to these claims, as well as make some other points related to them.

The Tao Te Ching and natural morality:

I have read a number of spiritual classics over the years, and one of my favourites is the Tao Te Ching, which has as much to say about politics as it does about religion, and as much about society at large as it does about the individual. I will here quote a passage (Verse 381) which I find quite relevant to conversations about morality:

You can readily recognise,
The highest virtuousness
Because it never places itself on display. You can readily recognise
The lowest virtuousness
Because it is always announcing itself.

The highest virtue
Quietly serves universal needs.
The lowest virtue
Actively strives for personal success.
The highest morality serves common needs. The lowest morality is self-serving.

True benevolence
Acts without intention.
But when rituals go unheeded,
They are enforced with rolled-up sleeves.

Failing the Tao (interpreted here as “the Great Integrity”), We resort to virtuousness.
Failing virtuousness,
We resort to moralising,

Failing moralising, we resort to dogma, The most superficial form
Of faith and loyalty,
And the nourishment for confusion.

Natural persons are attracted,
To substance rather than form,
To the nutritious fruit
Rather than the enticing flower,
To that which dwells deeply within, Rather than to that which clings Superficially to the surface

This passage tells us of four levels of morality, though I will add in a fifth which is below the four (that being the complete denial of all morality).

The lowest level of morality is where people do what they believe to be good out of fear of punishment. We are all well familiar with this level, as they are commonly used in curbing the bad behaviour of children, and it is also common in many religions. Many of us have been threatened

by parents or teachers of what will happen if we continue with bad behaviour, and therefore adjust our behaviour simply out of the desire to avoid an unpleasant outcome.

As we all know, many religions and cultures teach of some form of Divine justice, in which we must answer for our sins. Particularly in Christianity and Islam this is known to have taken quite an extreme form, with the threat of eternal damnation for all the unsaved. Hence, fear is and has always been a fundamental aspect of the orthodox/conservative forms of both of these faiths (though they are not necessarily alone in this regard).

Likewise, many religions and philosophical schools have taught the belief that all our actions have inescapable consequences: Karma. Hence, fear of karmic implications to ones actions is a central part of the worldview of many people in India, China, Tibet and south-east Asia, as well as some ancient Greek philosophical worldviews (and more).

The next level of morality is where people try and do the right thing out of desire for reward. One might say this is the mirror image of the fear of punishment in the first level. This seeking of rewards for good behaviour is again something many of us learn in childhood, and we often see our childish worldview mirrored in our approach to God. Hence, many people pray, offer worship, good deeds, attend a church or temple simply out of the desire for rewards, both in this life and the afterlife.

Hence, one can legitimately point out that in both the first and second level of morality there is selfish motivation for ones good deeds. One cannot claim to be truly altruistic if one is merely seeking to avoid punishment or gain rewards. Hence, some people have seized upon this and claimed that nobody is truly altruistic. However, as is often the case, this claim takes a legitimate point and then takes it too far.

Certainly at these lower levels we find much hypocrisy in the behaviour of those that outwardly espouse moral and ethical ideals. That is, it is amongst those that only do good to avoid punishment or seek reward that we find judgmental and derogative views of other people. The moraliser seeks to make him (or her) self superior to others, seemingly unaware that their true motives are on display for those who are sensitive to see2.

Above this level we find that repeated moral habits make a human being virtuous. That is, it begins to become natural and normal for someone to do good, to consider others, to be kind and to stand up for what their heart tells them is right. A virtuous person notes that there is an inherent logic in striving towards an altruistic live. It is only natural that hurting others hurts oneself, and helping others feels good. And yet, the virtuous person seeks to do good for its own sake. A virtuous person loves goodness.

This is something that can be hard for many people to accept, given the great suffering, injustices and hypocrisy that we see in the human kingdom. There are many people that have unfortunately become either extremely skeptical of this idea, or even openly hostile towards it (in the belief that all claims to natural morality are malicious fraud). However, I for one have come to believe that natural morality is not only possible, but inevitable in the evolution of life.

There comes a point at which someone has accepted the inevitability of the consequences of ones actions, accepting that one cannot hurt another without hurting oneself, and accepting that it is only through caring about others that one can truly succeed. There also come a point in all of our journeys in which we have an authentic taste of spiritual peace and long to live our whole life in harmony with that peace. Thus begins the desire to tear down the imaginary walls we construct in our minds between the sacred and the mundane. Once we have been stung by real divine peace, it is inevitable that we seek to offer our entire life and being to that peace.

There are many such experiences that can bring about this change in ones character. Sometimes it is something extreme such as a Near Death Experience, or extreme suffering from illness, addiction or loss. At other times it simply begins with a profound experience in some form of spiritual community. Whatever the cause, such events can bring about irreversible changes in the psyche that lead one to conclude that nothing else makes sense other than to live a moral life.

There can come a time in which it no longer requires effort or a choice to attempt to live a moral life. Whilst it may sound like a spiritual fantasy to some who have yet to encounter such things in their current earthly life, there comes a time in which the Divine light within us comes to dominate and direct our thinking, feeling and behaviour. At this point and beyond it is only natural that we consider others and offer kindness to others, regardless of the outcome.

From here one simply becomes one with Goodness. Free of ego, one allows the Divinity that they are to express through their body, mind and soul. Hence in the language of the text I quoted before, we live the Tao.

Perhaps an appropriate analogy would be that of romantic love. In a transactional relationship where a man and woman are only together for what they can get out of each other, each will seek to please the other only for what they hope to get back in return. By contrast, if someone is truly in love with someone then they will naturally seek to please them, simply because it is the nature of love. If you are truly in love with someone you just want to be with them, to see them happy, healthy and successful. If you are truly in love it is natural to want to serve another, without seeking a reward from it.

Another expression of love that many humans can relate to is that of a parent to a child (particularly young children). If you truly love your children it is only natural that you wish to help them in whatever way you can, regardless of whether you are acknowledged for it.

Of course, we all know that the lower aspect of the human being (the ego) wrecks havoc in all manner of relationships, from romantic partners to family, from work to society at large. In the ideal of true altruism we find the desire to be permanently free of unnecessary self-(ego)-created suffering, and be one with goodness.

There simply comes a time when one falls in love with goodness. One falls in love with Love.

Of course, it should be mentioned that these levels are not strictly separate, but rather they are essentially regions of a continuum of psychological and spiritual evolution. That is, the attempt to avoid punishment blends into the desire for rewards. There is no clear defining line between them. Likewise, from the desire for reward one progressively grows towards a natural morality.

It should also be mentioned that whilst I have so far discussed morality as a series of choices that one makes as one progresses (or regresses) in life, different people do seem to have natural predispositions towards different stages of this development. That is, there are many people who seem to be born with a deeply ingrown morality and sensitivity to the welfare of others. Likewise, there seem to be some people who don’t seem to care at all about others, and for whom discipline becomes essential to curb the ego’s capacity to create suffering for all.

Materialism and Western Civilisation’s current trajectory:

We may speculate about why some seem to be so naturally moral from birth. However, for the case of those who seem to lack these qualities, it is very helpful for ones family and wider community at large to have strong common values in place.

Prior to the last 50 years or so, Western civilisation was dominated by orthodox Christianity for the better part of 1500 years, and was thus saturated with the common belief of Divine punishment and reward (with the the odd saintly figure thrown in). Whilst there were many problems that came with this (which I have been trying to bring attention to), there were also some advantages. Common religious beliefs in a society provide a means of keeping people lower tendencies in check, and encouraging higher tendencies. Whilst there are many alternatives to orthodox Christianity which can fulfil this role, Western civilisation has now thrown the baby out with the bathwater and seems to be largely favouring materialism.

I have been quite clear that I have never been one to idolise the past (though I have had conversations where I have not been heard on this matter). However, I don’t believe we are necessarily heading in a positive trajectory currently. You might say that in some ways we have moved forward, in other ways backwards, and then also sideways.

What I believe humanity needs is common spiritual values. Obviously I don’t seek to reinstate the authority of the Christian Church, nor any other exclusive ideology. Rather, we need a truly universal spirituality which balances compassion to all with the need for personal responsibility and accountability. I believe this can be achieved by finding the highest common ground in a study of comparative religion, spirituality and philosophy, along with studying modern data from Near Death Experiences amongst other sources.

Before closing I must point out that there is also a level below the first: That being the complete rejection of morality. There are many people today that do not believe in any form of natural or divine justice, and believe they can seek their own gain at the expense of others without consequence.

In many cases this is simply the natural consequence of metaphysical naturalism (materialism); the complete rejection of spirituality, and the belief that reality is completely and absolutely physical. In some other cases there are those who do believe in spirituality, but somehow manage to find a way to convince themselves that they are on God’s side, or that a supernatural Universe is somehow morally neutral (see philosophical Satanism).

It is often those that have no morals that try the hardest to argue that nobody really has morals, or that those who think they do are just fooling themselves. In other cases, there are many people who are deeply hurt (for whatever reason) and now don’t trust anyone who appears (or claims) to be striving to live a good life.

I would respond that there is overwhelming evidence of the consequences of such a view. Our society (and history) is overflowing with examples of people who have sought to satiate the ego through relentless pursuit of pleasure, wealth and power. Every single time it results in tragedy, in avoidable suffering and often early death. Ego can never be satisfied, it is never enough. The nature of craving is that it comes from a feeling of lack and separateness. The more one craves the more desperate one becomes. Substance abuse is the perfect example of this. The more one consumes of a drug in the attempt to get high, the lower ones habitual state becomes, and the less the drug is able to generate an artificial high.

Obviously there are also a myriad of examples of people who outwardly profess a holy life but end up as hypocrites, desperately seeking to satisfy their base urges3. There is a tendency amongst some to attempt to use such examples as justification to give up all ideals, as if everyone who strives to better themselves is a hypocrite. In truth, such examples are reasons why we need ideals, why we need to try harder, and why we should pursue these ideals without judgment of others or showboating.

Reality is not morally neutral. Certainly the consequences for our actions aren’t always immediately apparent, and some people are blinded by their bias to the suffering they unnecessarily create (and also experience). Reality is spiritual in nature, and consequences naturally follow all of our actions. Life is designed to eventually teach us to choose what is good for its own sake, through the inherent logic and coherence of righteousness.

A personal note:

I would like to re-state something here that I have tried to make clear throughout my writings. Obviously in my writings I like to aspire towards high spiritual ideals. I would like to make it explicitly clear that I do not claim to have fully realised such ideals myself. Rather, it is only that I am aware of my desire towards such ideals, and I at least try to grow towards them.

Certainly I do not claim to be better than other people in such ways. Rather, I am painfully aware of my many shortcomings and the great number of significant mistakes I have made in my life. Hence, I am at least trying to evolve, to be more responsible, to attempt to be unbiased and objective, and to offer forgiveness and compassion to all.

The source of true happiness has never changed:

As human beings we cannot be satisfied by simply and only seeking sensory gratification, wealth and power. We are (and always have been) spiritual beings, and it is only in living in alignment with our Soul that we can find real, lasting happiness. There is no happiness without love, no success without kindness, no true wellbeing without compassion.

Everybody seeks happiness, whether they seek it inwardly or outwardly. Whilst there have been many examples of people seeking to live a holy life and failing, the evidence is abundantly clear that shallow materialism and hedonism cannot lead to anything other than failure, suffering and tragedy.

The way to find individual success and happiness is the same as the way to be responsible and is the same way to contribute to a better world. These are not competing desires, but rather different sides of the same light that calls us all.

Peace

1 The Tao Te Ching, Watkins, Translation and commentary by Ralph Alan Dale

2 That is, a tremendous amount of information is communicated via basic body language. The most significant of these is facial expressions, which openly displays much about what someone is thinking and feeling. Beyond this, many of us are sensitive to the higher dimensions of life, and “pick up” on things that we have no physical way of knowing. Of course great discretion and self- analysis is required to use such intuitions wisely, as the ego would love to simply believe everything it thinks is true. Hence, I recommend a balance of intuitive knowing and critical thinking.

3 I have written about Ravi Zacharias, who is an obvious example of this: https:// jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/28/my-thoughts-regarding-the-scandalous- revelations-about-ravi-zacharias/

New YouTube Channel and interview with D.N. Boswell

I’ve been meaning to start up a YouTube channel for a while, and I recently made a start by interviewing my friend D.N. Boswell via Zoom. We talked about his book “The Perennial Gospel” (I have previously written about this) and his blog “Mythicism.net”, and his extensive work on the pagan parallels thesis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKhg5hgmHIw

Peace

The significance of the UFO phenomena:

Introduction:

Human folklore is filled with remarkable tales of gods who wield supernatural powers and pass on higher learning to mankind. For those who are inclined to see the world in a purely materialist manner these tales are generally considered mere myth, or one of a variety of natural explanations are given. Certainly there are valid reasons for taking this view, as it is the easiest (and thus most likely) explanation (see Ockham’s Razor1).

One plausible explanation for these tales is that human history hasn’t been a simple straight line or exponential curve always moving in the one direction, but rather that great civilisations have come and gone. Under such a view, survivors of past advanced civilisations could easily have been considered gods to people who either had no past experience with civilisation and culture, or who had been cut off from it.

The UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) phenomena or UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – as many are now terming it) is in many ways a (more) modern equivalent of the ancient tales of gods from other lands wielding supernatural powers and either seeking to educate or enslave humanity. It is hard to trace the precise origin of this phenomena, as relevant accounts can be found back into all regions of history. However, when we talk of UFO phenomena we generally tend to think of modern accounts from the past 100 years or so.

Certainly from the the 20th century and onwards we have an abundance of personal accounts of encounters with strange lights and/or flying craft (not always disk shaped) in the sky appearing to be intelligently guided, and often accompanied by other strange features (missing time and/or various supernatural elements). In some accounts we also hear about encounters with beings that are thought to be not of this planet (and/or dimension). Some of these encounters are inspiring and uplifting, whilst others are highly disturbing in their nature and implications.

When writing on highly contentious subjects it can be really important to show your sources and discuss the raw evidence. However, I’m not going to really do that here today for a couple of reasons. Firstly, whilst I have been interested in the UFO phenomena for a long time, I have not been collecting sources on it as I go. Secondly, the nature of the source material is that a large percentage of it is highly contentious. That is, whilst I am of the opinion that the subject as a whole is legitimate, individual case files on their own are all potentially suspect, and if there was ever a subject where not everyone can be telling the truth, this is it. Thirdly, it would be a huge work to do so.

I will discuss some phenomena in a general sense and give a few examples, but I’m not going to be able to provide links to all my sources today, along with a discussions of the ins and outs of them. This would require a very lengthy and detailed article (or book), which isn’t what I’m setting out to do today.

So, for the benefit of trying to offer something of value that can be (relatively) easily digested on this topic in a blog format, I will not be diving deeply into individual cases today. Rather, I want to give my own opinions about what all this means, and what its implications are.

Some key points:

Unquestionably, everything about the UFO phenomena is a challenge to common assumptions about what is real. Firstly, we have the simple challenges of having to travel incomprehensibly vast distances across space, and the time required to do so. If we think of interstellar travel simply in terms of having to travel very, very fast for a significant period of time, the challenges are immense (I would therefore suggest that if interstellar and/or intergalactic travel is possible, it would involve the bending of space and/or travel through higher dimension of reality). To be able to accelerate to close to the speed of light would involve significant sustained acceleration (which is problematic on multiple levels) and huge risks of damage, and would still take decades to travel to the nearest star (when considering acceleration and deceleration). Not to mention the problems presented by special relativity.

Secondly, if you read some accounts of UFO encounters you will quickly see they almost always contain supernatural features. That is, they don’t simply seem to be encounters with physical craft and beings who have travelled across vast distances to visit us. Rather, there is almost always strange features present such as disturbances of perception of time, loss of memory, the bending or breaking of the laws of physics (as they are currently understood2), or the presence of something explicitly spiritual or supernatural (such as telepathic communication).

As such, UFO encounters have legitimately been categorised by some as a supernatural or occult phenomenon. If we use the term occult here it is not so much to explicitly define these experiences as being dark in nature (although some definitely appear that way, and in some cases may indeed be so3). Rather, the term occult can simply and literarily mean hidden, so the UFO phenomenon involves many things that are hidden to common human understanding.

Perhaps this is a big part of why there has been such intense skepticism and dismissiveness of the phenomena. That is, if we are to accept that these encounters are indeed with an intelligence that is not of this planet and/or dimension, then this naturally has huge implications for religion, science, politics and essentially everything. If this phenomenon is indeed real, and if humans beings at large accept it as such, then this is huge.

Current Government disclosure and a quick summary of military encounters with UFO’s over the past century:

Up until very recently there seems to have been some sort of informal consensus in the general public that only crazy people believe in UFO’s, due to too many hours reading dubious conspiracy theories and/or taking mind-altering substances. Of course this is an over-generalisation, but certainly this is largely true. Government, media, scientific authorities and society as a whole have largely scoffed at belief in UFO’s. In particular, the belief that the UFO’s originate beyond our planet and/or dimension has been (and is still) largely treated with public disdain.

In the last 12 months there has been a lot of conversation about the US Government looking at recent UFO encounters by its military (who have renamed them UAP’s – perhaps seeking to distance themselves from assumptions of an extra-terrestrial/extra-dimensional nature), and it has seemed that perhaps maybe things might change. Certainly I have heard (and seen) a number of sources say that now we actually have real evidence that something is happening that needs to be explained. As someone who has had at least a casual interest in these matters for some time I have to express that recent revelations are nothing new. Rather, military staff – pilots in particular – have been encountering UFO’s since WW2 (and probably before).

It is well attested that back in WW2, Allied, German and Japanese pilots reported seeing strange craft observing them from a distance and at times flying close by, without ever actually directly interfering with them. The Allied pilots at the time assumed that these craft were some secret German technology, though it was later discovered that the Allied pilots weren’t the only ones experiencing the phenomenon4.

From the Cold War there are countless testimonies from pilots and other military staff regarding extremely strange encounters with UFO’s. Of particular note is the intriguing case that a significant amount of UFO encounters have taken place near or at nuclear facilities (testing grounds, weapons storage facilities etc.). There are even credible and well-documented claims that on multiple occasions UFO’s appeared at facilities holding nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, and somehow enabled or disabled the weapons, and even shut down all power to the site. Whilst all manner of stories can be found in the dark corners of the Internet, many of these stories in question have been recorded publicly as told by military staff, interviewed by real journalists. It appears that whatever or whoever is responsible for these craft, they appear to be very interested (or perhaps concerned) in human development of nuclear weapons.

Over the past 12 months the US Government has publicly admitted to incidents where jet pilots have had daily encounters with unidentified craft flying at great speed and displaying extraordinary manoeuvrability (that appears to defy current understandings of physics), as well as radar staff recording these craft doing the seemingly impossible. Likewise they have released footage taken aboard military jets that show them tracking these craft, along with the audio commentary of the astonished pilots. As far as I am aware this footage has been public for some time (it was previously leaked online); it is only that now the Government has openly admitted it is real.

This is not a new phenomena:

If one looks back in history, we find many sources telling of mysterious lights in the sky, often with similar sounding supernatural features. Regarding more ancient sources for UFO encounters, it is very easy to join in the mockery of those who take these things seriously. We have all seen the endless memes at the expense of George Tsoukalos:

In all seriousness though, once we acknowledge that something is happening now, it is only natural that we consider ancient sources as relevant to the subject. Of course, we must exercise some caution about forcing the UFO and alien encounter narrative onto ancient mythology. It is obviously possible to become obsessed with this conclusion and project it into places where it doesn’t belong. Having noted that however, there are certainly cases whereby the “ancient aliens” theory is a nice fit. One obvious example is the Vimana (flying chariot, vehicle or palace of the gods) in ancient Indian religious literature. These accounts most certainly are relevant if we recognise that something real is happening now. When there is strong, credible evidence of something of a controversial nature, there is then valid reasons to consider weaker, less well- attested or less well-defined evidence as well.

Accounts of civilian Alien encounters:

I am personally of the opinion that the evidence for UFO encounters being real is strong and worthy of serious consideration. A significant part of this stems from the fact that much of the data (or evidence) comes from trained professionals, and the various accounts appear to have an overall consistency to them.

We must recognise there that UFO encounters and claimed Alien encounters (and/or abductions) are not necessarily always the same thing. That is, they are two closely related and often overlapping subjects, but either can exist independent of the other.

One notable case is claimed to have occurred in 1994, when school kids in Zimbabwe saw Aliens get out of a flying saucer and telepathically warned them of the dangers of human technological advances5. This case appears to be both a UFO and Alien encounter. Another example was in 1954 at a Soccer match in Tuscany when players and 10,000 spectators were all awestruck at mysterious lights in the sky (and play apparently stopped)6. In this case it may have been a UFO incident witnessed simultaneously by a large number of civilians.

Aside from a number of notable incidents which involve a large number of civilian witnesses, there are many cases where individuals report personal encounters with beings from other planets and/ or dimensions. Whilst military encounters with UFO’s are often quite strange, these individual encounters are probably far more bizarre.

We could perhaps oversimplify these encounters by separating them into two categories; encounters with benevolent and malevolent beings. In some of these encounters the beings are described as coming across with great warmth, expressing deep concern for the direction of human progress. The message is usually some variation of the following:

Human beings are very rapidly developing in a purely materialist way without the necessary corresponding spiritual development. As such, technological advances are putting our future at great risk, as we have the potential to destroy ourselves and the environment we live in.

Obviously, this appears to correspond very closely with the prevalence of UFO encounters at nuclear sites, and the frequent and repeated UFO encounters amongst military staff. Sometimes

the message also appears to correspond with warnings of climate change and other geological disasters (as claimed by Michel Desmarquet7).

In other examples we hear highly disturbing tales of people being abducted against their will, paralysed, induced into a semi-drugged state (by some unknown means) and violated in a variety of ways (probed, forcibly impregnated, implanted with technological devices etc.). The beings encountered in these tales are described as either cold and indifferent to human emotions, or outright malevolent, treating human beings as merely a lower life form (like humans may treat an insect).

It is hard to know what to make of these reports. It is obviously very easy to simply dismiss them all as being fictitious, and viewed individually in isolation I can certainly understand the logic to such a dismissal. However, viewed collectively as a whole, and particularly in light of the reality that a large body of evidence exists for UFO phenomenon from the hands of trained military professionals (amongst others), I think we need to consider that at least some of these tales have some truth to them.

Possible explanations:


There are obviously many different explanations that can be given for the range of phenomenon being covered here. Science as it is currently defined only considers natural (material) explanations. The method of science (methodological naturalism) presupposes only natural explanations. This has been quite fine for dealing with material phenomenon, but it naturally precludes science from being able to investigate subjects that if taken literally would imply something of a spiritual and/or supernatural nature. There is no questioning the fact that modern science has indeed been incredibly successful at achieving rapid development of human understanding and the subsequence technology that has emerged from it. However, if we have defined science not merely as a process of coming up with a hypothesis and then putting it to the test and holding it up to scrutiny, but also as bringing in metaphysical naturalism (materialism/ atheism8) through the back door, then we preclude science from being able to study subjects like UFO and claims of Alien encounters, and also NDE’s (Near Death Experiences) and ESP (Extra- Sensory Perception) etc.

If science as it is currently defined precludes the possibility that UFO/Alien phenomenon are literarily real, then science is unfit for the study of them. I would think it is obvious that to study UFO and/or Alien phenomenon properly, you must go into the study with an open mind and balanced scales, equally open to multiple possibilities and willing to let the evidence lead you towards likely conclusions.

With this established, we should note that obviously there are many organisations and people that are highly resistant to acceptance of any part of UFO/Alien phenomenon as real. Certainly we must consider all possibilities, and indeed natural possibilities are likely in at least some cases. There is no question that there are many ways that even trained professionals can be fooled by some unknown or misunderstood natural phenomena, let alone civilians. There is likewise no doubt that human beings have a virtually endless capacity for fraud and/or madness. There are countless examples for all of these explanations.

Having recognised this however, I would state that some of the natural explanations that are presented for well known UFO encounters are nothing less than ridiculous. That is, it is quite clear that in many cases the natural explanations that are given are presented not because they are the most likely, but rather because the person (or people) presenting them cannot allow for the possibility that there is an extraterrestrial and/or supernatural phenomenon at work.

I have read many accounts from trained professionals of their chaise (in a plane or car) of a UFO in which the report is dismissed as caused by a weather balloon, or a fixed object in the sky (a planet or star) etc. For example the “Gorman dogfight”9, in which USAF pilot George Gorman pursued a UFO for close to an hour. The official USAF dismissed the UFO as a weather balloon. Are we seriously to believe that a USAF pilot wouldn’t know the difference between a weather balloon (which could only be blown about at relatively slow speeds by the wind), and an intelligently guided craft travelling at great speed (far beyond his own capacity), and able to repeatedly out-manoeuvre him?

I must say that in this case the official explanation of the USAF is absurd, and almost assumes that we are simply stupid. This is not a serious explanation, but rather a mere public dismissal of a serious incident without consideration. Of course the USAF might have thought that the public couldn’t handle the truth, or they could have thought it wasn’t in their interests to disclose the nature of the incident to the public. Or the people involved may have blinded by their own personal biases, and thus precluded a serious consideration of the incident.

This is no isolated case (read some other cases10). Rather, this is common when examining matters of a spiritual/supernatural manner. Often it is argued that the possibility of the phenomenon being real is too absurd to actually take seriously. Of course natural explanations must be considered first, as “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. But, as above we find in some cases that naturalistic explanations cannot be taken seriously, because they weren’t the result of serious consideration but rather personal bias (or a deliberate cover-up).

A very legitimate point can be made that advanced technology far beyond the general understanding can be mistaken for magic. Certainly it is fair to assume that some claims of people witnessing a UFO are actually cases of people observing military craft (including top- secret “black projects”, such as the B2 stealth Bomber). It is certainly conceivable that all UFO’s could have a terrestrial origin. In many ways this should be the default conclusion, unless strong evidence otherwise is presented (which I personally think a serious consideration in this case will support).

Certainly the default position of the worlds Governments has been to presume that UFO encounters by its military were encounters with advanced craft from other nations. Perhaps in some cases this may be so, but if you actually read the accounts of pilots and radar staff it is clear that these crafts (the UFO’s) possess technology far beyond any known civilisation on earth at the moment. It doesn’t make sense to imagine that Russia, China, Germany or Britain could possess such technology (and have done so for a considerable amount of time) and yet not also be using such advanced scientific knowledge in other areas of its nation in a way that would make it stand out entirely from the worlds nations.

A plausible alternative is that there exists survivors of earlier advanced civilisations who (for whatever reason) have chosen to remain mostly hidden from the world. Such people could be hiding out in bases within the earth, in inaccessible mountains, or in the depths of the ocean. This possibility cannot be discounted, and seems to me to the most plausible alternative to the extra- terrestrial and/or extra-dimensional origin.

The UFO and Alien phenomenon have been seen as quite challenging by many established religions. For example, orthodox Christianity sees the spiritual world in a dualistic way, in that there are simply only divine and demonic beings. Being raised in a conservative Christian family I was told that aliens were actually demons. Certainly, given the nature of some of the personal accounts one can understand this conclusion is not completely unreasonable.

Many years ago I read a book by Graham Hancock titled “Supernatural”11, which was largely about the use of psychoactive drugs in primitive cultures, and their possible role in bringing about evolution in the human psyche. He cited a work (I can’t recall the author) which argued that UFO and Alien phenomenon were a modern-day manifestation of the fairy lore. Whilst many of us have grown up hearing tales about fairies as merely benign and benevolent elemental spirits, there is much folklore that tells of them abducting and generally messing with people in a very similar way to current tales of Alien abductions.

Again, it is plausible that there is a common cause behind the two phenomenon. Having noted this, of course it should be noted that claims of alien (or fairy) abductions if considered in isolation could all be the result of fraud, mental illness or just considered as nothing more than myth.

However, given that there is tangible evidence for that UFO phenomenon are real, I am inclined to think they are at least worthy of consideration.

What do I think it all means?:

I have written before that I am seeking to differentiate between subjects of which I quite confident (like religion and general spirituality), and others in which I recognise that I simply cannot possibly know enough to reach definitive conclusions. Even in those topics like religion and spirituality where I have put in significant time and effort to compare competing views, there are still huge limitations to what I can possibly know as a single human being. It is more about being confident in which overall views and perspectives to support and which to reject (and why to reject them), then claiming to know everything relevant to these topics. Likewise, it is more about being confident about some very specific sub-topics (like the influence of the Egyptian cult of Osiris and the Greek Mystery religions on Christianity), rather than claiming to know everything about religion and spirituality as a whole.

So, having conceded the need to be cautious about reaching too strong a conclusion without being able to have enough knowledge to justify this confidence, what do I actually think? To start with, I think if ever there was a subject to be cautious about, this is it. Particularly, if ever there was a question to be cautious of, it is:

If Earth is being visited by Aliens, are they good or bad?

So, let’s break it down. Intelligently piloted craft with technology far beyond our own are deliberately making themselves known to the military of major nations. In particular, they seem to be particularly interested in all of our nuclear programs. If these beings piloting these craft were hostile towards any particular nation or towards humanity as a whole, it appears that they would have no trouble defeating or even completely destroying us.

So, it seems unlikely to me that these craft are a military risk to us. If anything, they appear to be peacekeepers, and do indeed appear to be trying to warn us of the great risk we pose to ourselves and to our environment as a whole (though some in the military have – I think falsely – interpreted it the other way round12). Nuclear weapons possess the possibility of not just killing large numbers of people in a single blast (I recall looking into this, and a typical nuclear armed ballistic missile could kill 10 million people in a heartbeat), but given enough of them, there is the capacity to induce nuclear winter, which would essentially destroy the Earth’s environment for all life (and we have come very close on multiple occasions, particularly during the Cold War13).

Never before has humanity had the potential to destroy itself. All our cleverness, all our scientific and technological advances, and we are now clever enough to do literarily the stupidest, most insane and most evil thing within our reach. We can kill not only one person, but essentially everyone and everything.

Everything about the UFO phenomena screams to us that common assumptions about the world are wrong. That is not to say that we abandon everything we think we know about the world and start from scratch. Rather, it simply means that our current understanding is only a fraction of what is truly out there. Our current theories are approximations that are good enough in some instances, but not in others. What we think to be true is only relatively so, not absolutely.

Everything about the UFO phenomena challenges the assumptions of a classical and materialistic worldview. These craft clearly have the capacity to mess with gravity, and it is only reasonable to conclude that they are messing with space and time. Likewise, if we accept that at least some of the Alien encounters are legitimate, then we also must conclude that these beings possess not just highly advanced scientific knowledge, but also capacities that we consider spiritual and/or paranormal.

I must say that it is not that there was never any evidence for these things before the modern UFO phenomena, or that there is not evidence for these things outside of the phenomenon as a whole.

If you are open to the consideration of these things, there is abundant evidence of the great weirdness of our world that can be found in many different fields.

Much of this evidence can be found within Physics, which is supposed to be the hardest of the hard sciences, and probably the most fundamental of all. Starting with special relativity, the idea that space and time are interrelated is already very weird. This in itself overturns the common assumption that time and space are simply the absolute markers of our three dimensional physical experience. The idea that the universe presents a speed limit (that of light), and as you try and approach it mass increases up to infinity is itself incredibly weird. That travelling at such speeds plays with the relative experience of time is even weirder. That anything travelling faster than light would technically be travelling back in time is even stranger still.

When it comes to quantum physics, all the classical materialistic assumptions all get thrown out the window. Matter is no longer solid, but made up almost entirely of empty space. What remains as something (other than space) itself is immaterial, it can disappear and reappear in a different location, and doesn’t need to pass through or around a barrier to go from one side to another (quantum tunnelling). Quantum particles display both particle and wave like natures, depending on how they are being studies (particle wave duality).

The full weirdness of this last phenomena (particle wave duality) isn’t often discussed, as its implications were extremely controversial for leading physicists in the early-mid 20th century, and it has become unpopular to discuss its implications in modern academia. Whilst many leading physicists in the early-mid 20th century took seriously the philosophical implications of particle- wave duality, materialistic assumptions proved to be a barrier to the subject. That is, the science naturally led towards a spiritual or idealist (idealism being the philosophic view that consciousness – rather than matter – is the substance of reality) worldview. In recent times more advanced experiments (see the quantum eraser and especially the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment14) have validated the radical implications of this phenomenon.

Quantum entanglement by itself is mighty weird, but even weirder still is the delayed choice entanglement swapping experiment15, which again shows the immaterial nature of matter and the relative nature of matter, space and time.

Back to the subject at hand, the UFO and Alien phenomenon clearly involves knowledge of such things that repeatedly shows us how little human beings currently understand about our place in the universe. Having recognised this, the possibility that Earth is actually being visited by beings from other planets and/or dimensions is not just reasonable, but highly likely. Whilst journalists, scientists, politicians and your friends and family like to scoff at these things as merely crazy talk, we truly need to take this seriously16.

Consider the implications of humanity coming into communication with beings from other planets and higher dimensions. Consider what this could mean for our future. If we think modern scientific advances have alleviated suffering for humanity, imagine what we could do with the level of scientific knowledge that these beings possess?

Human beings often think of ourselves as being at the pinnacle of a long line of human evolution and/or history. Whether it is our religious or political affiliation, our culture, race or gender or scientific worldview, people everywhere like to think of themselves as the superior ones, unlike the others. Tribalism of all sorts has been the norm throughout recorded history, and still exists today (even amongst those that claim to be against it17.

For humanity to see itself as a whole as simply a small part of a galactic or universal family would truly put our petty tribalism into its correct context. That is, our differences shouldn’t seek to divide us, but rather we should see ourselves/each other as all working together in cooperation, with complementary skills18.

I think this last point on cooperation rather than competition is a key one here. Whilst there is certainly room in life for healthy competition (sports, scientific development, business etc.) this whole hostile competition between nations is probably the most toxic and dangerous in human history. As human history is filled with wars between families, tribes and nations, human beings are often suspicious of others, and think they have to attack preemptively before their opponent attacks them. We also have the undeniable reality of human greed, that believes that it can have more by taking from or dominating others. Likewise, for ideological reasons sometimes leaders believe it is their duty to rule over others. We thus have a situation whereby nations devote massive budgets to their military, stockpiling doomsday weapons, both in fear of others, and at other times with the desire to spread their Empire.

For me, it seems that the UFO phenomenon clearly announces that this must end. That is, we cannot continue to stockpile weapons and devote our resources to military developments at the expense of peaceful scientific advances. Likewise, we cannot continue to lust after the resources of other nations and believe in the false idea that we will have more by conquering others. The opposite is true. How many times in history have the people of a nation suffered due to the lust of its leaders? Even when a nation succeeds in conquering another people, there is a cost to the Soul that is never worth it. How many people we see in the world today thriving materially, but being deprived of true, inner wealth and happiness19.

In my opinion, worldwide disclosure is needed to show people from all nations equally the insanity of our current trajectory. If Western nations were to dissolve their military’s overnight, it is highly likely that Communist China would invade in a heartbeat. Hence we have quite a lot of work to do before we can be ready to join a larger, cosmic family beyond this planet.

In this sense, human beings are still only just at the kindergarten level of cosmic evolution. Sure, we have come a long way from an animal existence; however we have a long, long way to go. These beings that are visiting us clearly have the capacity to help us in ways we cannot possibly even imagine. Perhaps we should listen to these warnings and find a way to work together.

So, the above being so, I can’t finish this without recognising the darker side of UFO and Alien phenomenon. It is certainly true that many of the stories told in this field present humans being harmed in various ways in (and after) the encounter. This brings up very difficult questions about the question of suffering and evil; the great enigma which human beings (and religion/spirituality in particular) struggles to answer.

We know in our human experience that there exists great extremes of the potential for suffering and joy, for bondage and freedom, for injustice and equity, for toiling and thriving and for hatred and love. Certainly human beings have shown this duality in the different ways we live, in the way we treat each other and in the civilisations we create. Clearly if higher (spiritual) beings exist (as I believe they do), then there is a degree of non-interference at the heart of a cosmic code. If a Supreme Being exists (as I believe), then It is not an interfering personal Deity, but something else.

An analogy I have been leaning towards is that when someone buys a computer game they would be disappointed if they mastered it in one night. Likewise, they would be highly disappointed if at the first sign of frustration at the difficulty they were handed all the cheat codes. It seems to me that help is given to us from above in more subtle ways that meet our immediate needs.

It is a valid question as to how far a civilisation can develop in a purely materialistic sense without a corresponding spiritual (or psychological and ethical if you prefer) development? That is, is there a limit to how far we can evolve outwardly without also evolving inwardly? I don’t pretend to know the answer to these questions.

It then should be asked whether perhaps there are many different races of beings from different planets and dimensions that are visiting Earth now? That is, perhaps they aren’t all on the same page morally and ethically? Perhaps there are some that want to work together and help us, whilst others are rogue civilisations that only care about their own interests and will happily interfere with us for their own gain? I do personally suspect the latter; that there is more than one group of beings coming here now, with more than one motivation.

We are however now entering into highly speculative territory. I will leave this conversation with the following opinion:

When entering any exploration beyond the normal confines of material experience, always do so with a pure heart and mind.

Of course, I also suggest living all areas of human life with a pure heart and mind. In the same way that you don’t want to go alone down a dark alley in a seedy part of a big city late at night, you don’t want to go messing with things of a supernatural nature without having the best intentions at heart. There are countless stories of people that have made this mistake and suffered greatly as a consequence.

I will leave this here for today. May our hearts and minds be open to truth, wherever it leads us. Peace.


1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

2 I have long been saying that human beings are far too quick to express certainty on things they barely understand (https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/how-do-we-really- know-what-is-true/ ). We are also far too quick to proclaim some things to be absolutely true when they are only relatively true. Likewise, often our understanding of some facet of reality (or reality as a whole) is ultimately only an approximation, and thus gives us accurate enough results in some situations, but not in others.

3 See Aleister Crowley, Lam and the Zeta Grey Alien phenomena: https://www.vice.com/en/article/ mvpvyn/magickal-stories-lam.

4 There are tales that the Germans had been experimenting with flying disk designs during WW2, though this isn’t something I can find verify in any way. It seems however that the US did indeed build prototypes of a flying disk during the Cold War.

5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TukvVnadRic (See a short clip from Joe Rogan about this), the BBC have covered this as well: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/stories-57749238

6 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29342407.

7 https://www.amazon.com.au/Abduction-Planet-Also-Available-Under/dp/0646159968

8 We should note that some may believe in supernatural and/or spiritual subjects but do not believe in a single Creative intelligence we call God (or insist upon defining it otherwise, despite having much in common with the general concept of God as seperate from specific sectarian definitions). Hence the term atheism can be misleading. Thus naturalism/materialism are more specific and accurate.

9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorman_dogfight.

10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reported_UFO_sightings

11 https://www.amazon.com.au/Supernatural-Meetings-Ancient-Teachers-Mankind/dp/ 1932857842

12 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15154808/ufo-swarm-us-military-nuclear-weapons-world- war-3/ ,https://www.dnaindia.com/viral/report-aliens-ufos-took-control-of-nuclear-weapons-can- start-world-war-iii-ex-us-air-force-officer-2915293

13 https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended- civilisation

14 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed-choice_quantum_eraser 15 https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/1203/1203.4834v1.pdf

16 Ex-Astronaut Edgar Mitchell claims to have personally witnessed UFO’s over a military base, and to have spoken personally to many people from military bases who verify these stories. Nevertheless, many in the media treat him as a sad, pathetic conspiracy theories: Edgar Mitchell from Apollo 14: https://www.gq.com/story/astronaut-who-walked-on-the-moon-claims-aliens- came-to-earth-to-prevent-nuclear-war and https://www.iflscience.com/space/apollo-astronaut- says-aliens-prevented-nuclear-war-earth/ . I should note that there are many other high-profile people worldwide that have made similar claims: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/04/20/ worldwide-ufo-cover-up-is-real-claims-former-canadian-defence-minister_n_7100202.html , https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgzg97/israels-former-space-security-chief-says-aliens-have- prevented-nuclear-war

17 Re: The identity politics of the political far-left, which is increasingly becoming mainstream in Western society.

18 https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2021/08/29/we-dont-have-to-be-identical-to-be- equal/

19 Just to be clear, I am not saying that material success is incompatible with inner wealth. Rather, I am just making a point about achieving material success at the expense of ones Soul.

We don’t have to be identical to be equal:

I believe in the equality of the ultimate value of all human beings, and in fact, all things.  That is, in the essence of our being, all things are one and are thus of equal value.  However, it is self-evident that there are tremendous differences in the outward expression of different people, and different things in general.

There are many things that are quite obvious and common sense when considered, but are easily overlooked. Sometimes, the more obvious something is, the more easily it is overlooked.  That is, human beings often reach irrational conclusions on many topics, though the reality can be clearly seen when examined without bias.  In light of this, I state the following:

Recognising the equality of inherent worth of different people does not demand that they be seen as identical.

I doubt anyone reading this would disagree with this statement, and I could excuse some for questioning whether it even needs to be said.  However, there are so many examples whereby the above seems to be missed.

Equality of ultimate value and differences in individual expression:

There are clearly distinctly different levels of equality between different people.  If we were to look at four people in a community, one baker, one school teacher, one police officer and a doctor, you can easily understand how each of these people are equally contributing towards their society, but in different ways.  You could certainly frame a question about the level of specialist knowledge and skills required for the different jobs, but essentially they are all necessary and important^[i].

However, if we compare a brain surgeon to an unemployed drug addict, they are clearly not equal in their individual expressions.  A brain surgeon is contributing enormously to the wellbeing of others in their community, vastly improving the quality of life of many, and actually saving the life of others.  An unemployed drug addict is generally a danger and burden to themselves, their family and friends, and to the wider community.

This should not however mean that we dehumanise those that suffer from substance abuse.  I have been there personally, and whilst I didn’t fall as far as some, I certainly was a shadow of the man I wanted to be.  We can recognise the inherent worth of each human being, whilst simultaneously recognising that some are expressing that inherent worth, whilst others are not.

Someone who struggles with substance abuse and cannot hold down a job (and thus lives on welfare and charity) is not living outwardly in according with their potential, and is not expressing their ultimate value.  Someone who serves the community and saves peoples lives on the other hand is living outwardly according to their potential, and is expressing their inner value in the world at large.

Demonstrating this principle to understand comparative religion:

I first started writing because I wanted to encourage tolerance and understanding between different religions.  However, I soon discovered that many – or even most – of the people arguing for pluralism were also arguing that the worlds religions were all equal and identical, and that it was only human misunderstanding that was making it seem otherwise.

The reality is that this view is untenable, as the facts simply do not support it^[ii].  The truth is that whilst there are indeed largely universal overlapping features of spirituality and religion, the world’s faiths are almost always heavily colored by the culture of their time and place.

This doesn’t just mean that they express the same truths in the vocabulary of their culture.  Rather, it also means that they have many unique features, and different strengths and weaknesses.  Also, it means that they are different mixtures of divine truths and human, egoic projections.

So, we can encourage harmony between people of different faiths without having to ignore all the differences between them.  We can reject the exclusive and hyper-conservative perspectives that see different religions as being on opposite sides of a cosmic battle of good against evil (with eternal consequences), without having to ignore the reality that some faiths are better than others in different ways.  They are not all equal and identical in their expression, and yet each human being is equal in the eyes of God, regardless of what faith (if any) they express.

We can (and should) be able to express criticisms of the beliefs and practices of different faiths without diminishing or dehumanising followers of such faiths.  We have to be able to have constructive debates and give critical examinations of religious groups without resorting to (or being wrongly accused of) religious bigotry or racism (as particular religions are commonly associated with specific racial and cultural groups, criticisms of some religions often get dismissed as racist).

We can do this whilst still seeing the differences between us as ultimately superficial, and seeing the common ground between faiths and people as a whole as being of true importance.

Gender and polarity:

There has been a massive push in Western culture recently to try to realise the ideal of equality between the sexes.  I for one have never been tied to strict traditional gender roles, so in principle I generally applaud this.  However, agreeing with the general value of something isn’t always the same as agreeing with the way something is implemented.

Whilst cultural conditioning can explain some of the differences between men and women, it is quite clear that some of our differences have a biological basis.  That is, whilst men and women are equal in ultimate value as human beings, we are not identical in our expression.  These biological differences are generally more pronounced in a traditional or primitive (this is a heavily loaded word, to be used carefully) way of life.  However, in our modern world they are becoming somewhat less important, and men and women are now able to share many of the same tasks and roles largely equally.

However, the reality is that many, if not most people prefer polarity in their romantic relationships.  That is, heterosexual men generally prefer feminine women, and heterosexual women generally prefer masculine men.  There are certainly many exceptions to this rule, but as a general rule it is almost universally true.  We also see this polarity in many (but not all) homosexual relationships, as it is common for one partner in a same-sex relationship to have more pronounced masculine traits, whilst the other has more pronounced feminine traits.

There is however also a push coming from the far-left (and into the mainstream left) to remove or even reverse natural human gender polarity.  I wish to walk carefully through this ground, as I am not interested in pushing back against any group or persons.  There needs to be freedom for everyone to express themselves naturally without being pressured into cultural norms that aren’t personally always a fit for their individual tendencies.  However, we can allow this without abandoning the natural polarity that many (if not most) people naturally express and enjoy.  We can evolve our understandings of gender without throwing out all features of traditional values that are rooted in biology and natural law.

Men and women are equal in value (as are intersex and transgender people), but we are not identical in our expressions.  Men and women do have distinct differences that should be understood and appreciated as complementary.  This leads me to the following statement, which I feel is worth emphasising:

Seeing unity within diversity should be our aim, rather than artificially enforcing uniformity.

A small percentage (approx. 0.02%^[iii]) of people are born intersex, in which genetic abnormalities can blur the traditional distinctions between males and females.  Again, intersex people have equal value, but they have distinct challenges to experience as human beings.  Likewise, transgender people (those that suffer from gender dysphoria and choose to undergo surgery and hormone treatments to change their appearance to that of the opposite of their biological sex) have equal value to other people.  However, their experience is distinctly different to that of the rest of us.

I have been collecting sources on this subject for the past 9 months or so, in preparation for a series of articles where I will cover specifics relating to transgender issues.  I will state here that we can (and should) treat transgender and intersex people with the respect and dignity that they deserve, but that this doesn’t mean we should bend to all the requests made by far-left activists.  We can see the equality of trans and intersex people^[iv]without rejecting the traditional gender binary.  We can respect the diversity of human personality without throwing out all distinctions of human biology (which is what many radical gender activists are actually trying to do).

Race, skin color, culture and civilisation:

As a final example, I want to also say that we can accept the equality of people of different races, skin colours and cultures as equal in their humanity, whilst recognising the differences in their expression.  I wish to be clear that I reject all ideas of the inherent superiority of anyone based on the colour of their skin or their genetics.  However, this does not mean that we cannot recognise some cultures as being more advanced than others, in different ways.

We need to be able to differentiate between the degree of civilisation in a culture, without resorting to racist ideas about some races and cultures being ultimately smarter or better than others.  I would prefer to say that certain cultures have developed forward momentum at particular times which has brought about rapid evolution, whilst others have stayed largely the same over very long periods of time.

At different points in recorded history this momentum has taken place in different cultures, with people of different skin colours.  Egypt, Sumer, India, Persia, China, Greece, Rome, Britain, the US, etc. have all had momentum in their favour at different times.  Only extreme bias can lead to the conclusion that some races or skin colours are objectively superior to others.  I personally believe in the ideal of a cosmopolitan, multicultural society.  However, such an ideal can only work when we come together under common values and leave traditional tribalism behind.

We need to be able to discuss the reality that some cultures are closer to the animal level and some further along the evolutionary chain, without resorting to a gross and oversimplistic dichotomy about inferior and superior races, or the equally problematic and oversimplistic dichotomy of oppressor and victim.  As I’ve said repeatedly, we need to be able to have important conversations without sacrificing either our intelligence or our decency.

Speak the truth with love, fearlessly.

Peace

---

^[i] Though I recognise that some people might have a particular gripe with one or more of these professions.

^[ii] See the following lengthy article I wrote on religious scriptures: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/on-interpretations-of-scripture-why-many-religious-conservatives-and-progressives-misread-ancient-texts-and-misunderstand-religion-in-general/

^[iii] A much higher figure is often quoted of 1.7%, but this figure includes people who are very clearly biologically female in every respect, but have genetic abnormalities that make it difficult for them to conceive and/or carry a child to term.  The much lower figure of 0.02% is apparently accurate in referring to intersex people as diverging from otherwise clear human gender distinctions.

^[iv] You may have noticed I didn’t mention “non-binary” people here.  That is because the identification of someone as non-binary does not refer at all to anything biological (or an inverse of their biology, as in the case of transgender people), but rather refers only to personality.  Hence, non-binary is of a different category to issues of gender, as “gender identity” is not synonymous with biological sex as common uses of the term gender are.

It should go without saying that we should treat people that consider themselves non-binary with respect and dignity.  However, this doesn’t mean that we have to concede to all demands made by gender activists, or accept all accusations of bigotry that are often levelled against those that disagree.

A spiritual perspective on death:

Introduction and the progression of my personal perspective:

Death is probably the biggest and most difficult topic for human beings.  No subject terrifies us more as a species, and as individuals.  They say the death of close family members is the single most stressful thing anyone can go through.  Losing a parent can be very painful, even when they have lived a long life and where there was foreknowledge that their life was coming to an end.  In the case of losing a young child I cannot (and do not wish to) imagine the grief.

The question of what happens when and after we die is a great mystery.  As always, there are many different opinions about this subject.  However, this can be a particularly touchy subject, as so much is at stake here.  Ultimately no one can claim absolute certainty about what does or doesn’t happen.  Having conceded this, I have spent quite a lot of time over the past 15 years or so exploring this subject, and I wish to share today my own perspective on death.

To start with, I will say that I certainly can sympathise with the despair that so many feel about death, as for some of my life I felt the same.  When I was 14, a girl from my year level at school took her own life and I was truly devastated.  She wasn’t a close friend, but she was very popular and was nice to everyone.  She would always talk to me when I was around, and I always saw her treat everyone equally.

I believe I didn’t sleep for a couple of nights afterwards, as I was raised to believe that those that took their own lives would suffer eternal torment in hell.  This idea seemed inconceivable in the wake of her suicide, as I couldn’t accept that such a kind soul would be made to suffer, simply for seeking an end to her own suffering.  I raised my thoughts with some leaders from my youth group at church, but was never satisfied with their responses.  This sowed probably the first real seeds of my dissent from my Christian upbringing.

A little later when I was around 20, my best friend (who would have been considered the same by a number of people) took his own life.  Again I was shattered, but probably even deeper than when I was 14.  My friend was a lively, brilliant and very intelligent soul who made people laugh, and also created lots of drama as well.  He also had a darker side to him, in that he suffered deep depression and also suffered as the results of poor choices in life.

At the time this occurred I was not in a good way personally, and I responded by plummeting deeper and deeper into a deep hole of depression.  I was barely functioning as a human being, barely sleeping and internally I was a mess.  At this time I wasn’t sure what I believed in.  I wasn’t going to church and I felt I was no longer a Christian.  However, I hadn’t yet gone through the process of evaluating different ideas and considering evidence for and against different concepts and teachings.  I still felt that there was probably something beyond this life, but I didn’t know what it was.

Losing a close friend at this time truly shattered me.  In many respects, this is a very common human response, to be lost in grief, unwilling to internally accept the finality of the situation.  When I started getting myself together again a few years later I started having a reoccurring dream where my friend came back and explained to me that he wasn’t really dead, but was on holiday in Queensland (I live in Victoria, Australia; Queensland is where we would typically go for a warm, sunny holiday by the beach).  Speaking in the symbolic language of dreams, the meaning of this is quite easy to understand.  His Soul was still alive, and living in an easier, less challenging environment (we could say a “better place”, but I don’t think that quite encapsulates the differences fully).

As I started to get myself back together again, I started to investigate spirituality, religion and philosophy.  I read as much as I could from many different sources, watched videos, attended lectures and tried out different environments, and conversed (and debated) with many different people.  It was quite clear to me that I did (and do) believe in an afterlife.  It was also quite clear to me that I objected to the notion of eternal damnation.  I developed the strong desire to lead towards a separation of spirituality and the harsh, judgmental aspects of some religions.  This then became the beginning of my desire to start writing, to lead and teach.

Through my own experiences and investigations I have reached a point where I have no doubt in the reality of the afterlife.  I have no doubt in the goodness of life, and no doubt that all beings that die will be ok (though perhaps for some it might take some time).  For me it is not a question of faith.  I cannot unsee what I have seen (and do not want to), and cannot unlearn what I have learned (and again, do not wish to).  I do not claim to have exact knowledge of what goes on beyond this physical dimension.  However, there is no question for me that what we can perceive through our physical senses is only a minute fraction of reality, and that there is a great, benevolent intelligence that regulates all of life (that we call God, though we often project our own ideas onto the reality of God).

Since I have come to absolute belief in the afterlife, I have lost a few family members and friends.  My grandmothers have passed on both sides, a young friend took her life and a close family friend of my mothers generation passed in middle age.  In each case I still felt the normal human feelings of sadness and loss.  I cried, but yet there was this great peace.  There was a sense of the deep sacredness of the transition from earthly life to higher, astral life (I will explain this shortly).  It felt like something really special had taken place, and there was a profound presence that is difficult to explain.

The human approach to death:

It is only natural that from a human perspective, death is seen as a great loss.  To our perception we perceive that the life has left the physical body, leaving only flesh and bones behind, absent of the personality we once knew.  Given that human beings develop strong attachments to family and friends, the death of a loved one naturally causes great pain.

There are however differences in the degree to which we suffer after losing someone, and particularly for how long we grieve afterwards.  For some of us, we experience the natural sadness and loss, but can still function and continue with our life and the things we love.  Others however are so utterly devastated that it overshadows everything else, and they are unable to function afterwards (as I explained in the introduction, I have now experienced both sides of this).

The question if anything exists beyond the physical dimension and our physical perceptions (and if so, what) is one of the deepest questions for humanity.  We cannot see with our eyes if there is life before birth, or after death.  Rather, we see a child emerge from its mother, and then we later see the body become cold and lifeless at death.

We hear many opinions from different sources as to how we should understand life and death, and it can be difficult to find a way through the maze of conflicting arguments to a clear understanding.  Ultimately, most of us cannot see for ourselves what (if anything) is on the other side, so we must simply attempt to use reason and examine evidence to determine what we believe in.

However, we human beings are perhaps not always as reasonable as we like to think we are^[i].  We are all greatly conditioned by our upbringing, our culture and unique life experiences, and by our choices along the way.  Whilst we all like to think that we are intelligent and unbiased, the reality is that most of us have not really examined our beliefs in anywhere near enough depth to be really confident in them.  This has significant consequences for human civilisation as a whole, as almost all of us believe strongly in things that are not completely (or even partially) true.

There are probably very few (if any) topics that are perhaps of greater significance than understanding death, and the context it gives to life.  Hence, I would argue that it is worth taking some time to really consider the question of what happens after death, and comparing the different opinions on the subject in some depth.

All of us will one day face death, and many people experience intense fear of the unknown as they experience the decline of their health.  Obviously then, this question of what happens after death has significant implications for the quality of life of us all.  Even further, the question of whether we exist after death has huge ramifications for how we life our life as a whole, even whilst young and in good health.

If there is no continued existence after death then there are no consequences beyond this life for misdeeds.  If there is no life after death then the only thing that matters is getting the most out of one physical life (and some people will believe they can do so at the expense of others).  However, if there is indeed life after death then one will have to potentially live with the choices one makes whilst on earth, even after the body has gone.  Likewise, if there life after death then your earthly existence needs to be seen from a greater context, as part of a longer life cycle or eternal life.

I want to be careful not to imply that all people that reject spirituality are naturally immoral people (I have seen some religious apologists – including one that has recently been publically disgraced – argue this).  Certainly this is not the case.  Nor are spiritual or religious people always more moral.  There are many examples to the contrary.  Certainly however, we can see that many people do reject morality by believing that there are no ultimate implications to their actions.  However, it is also common for religious believers to simply justify their actions and believe that God approves of their behaviour.  There are other cases however where spiritual, religious and/or philosophical beliefs cause an individual to be keenly aware of the choices they make, and the effects of their choices on others.

Certainly in general, rejection of life after death can be connected to rampant materialism (by which I mean pursuing of objects, possessions and experiences in an attempt to feel fulfilled).  Alternatively, belief in life after death can sometimes be connected with extreme aversion for all of the physical experience (both the higher and lower sides), in favour of an aspiration for a purer, heavenly existence.

So, subtlety and balance are required here, as there are many extremes to be avoided.  One could be obsessed with fear of death and thus never really live.  Or alternatively, one can be obsessed with life after death and also never really live.  One can deny the responsibility for their actions by denying anything beyond the physical world.  Alternatively, one can justify and rationalise their behaviour by way of their religious beliefs.

So, as always I wish to encourage a balanced approach to this topic.  Whilst I have my own opinions on the topic, which I will lay out here, I do not wish to make general judgments about groups of people on the basis of their beliefs.  That is, I am not interested in going to war with people that have different opinions to myself.  I believe we can have respectful dialogue and debate without watering down our convictions.  Ultimately I see the common humanity of all people as being primary, and differences of opinion as being secondary (and largely superficial).

I wish to be clear that I don’t believe that human beings are separated into different categories with different eternal fates on the basis of their beliefs (or non-belief) about the afterlife.  Rather, I believe that all beings are ultimately safe and well, regardless of what (if anything) they believe on this subject.  I believe that whilst human beings are tribal and fickle, God is not.  Much of what human beings believe about God is diluted by their own projections, and because there is no clear defining line between spirituality and psychology^[ii], we experience both.  

Fear of death:

It is only natural that in times of danger, human beings experience fear as a healthy instinct to preserve the physical vehicle.  Likewise, this instinct is also found all across the animal kingdom.  However, the psychological fear of death isn’t necessary or healthy.  Fear should never be a self-created (note: ego self) state in which habitual thoughts or deep beliefs create a state of unease.  Such fear is a psychological aberration, and is contrary to the health of the body, mind and soul.

Fear of death can relate both to a disbelief in life after death, and thus fear of annihilation, or it can also relate to fear of divine judgment and wrath, or simply a fear of the unknown.

One way or another, death is the end of the physical life experience, and it is time that human beings come to terms with this in a healthy way.  Our modern Western culture in particular has made death a taboo, and we are now largely in denial about its reality.  I believe it is time we made peace with death as an essential and even healthy part of the life cycle.  In doing so we can free ourselves to truly live.

Whether or not we believe there is life after death, the simple fact that our earthly life will end at some point is enough by itself to create significant discomfort in the minds of many.  For most people, earth is all we know (or perhaps we could say, all we think we know).  That is, many people only ever experience earthly life through their senses, and within the constraints of or time and space.  The main exception is of course dreaming, in that most people are at least partially aware of their nightly adventures.  However, in general most people do not conceive of dreams as “real”^[iii].

It is very hard not to put earthly priorities first whilst incarnated on earth.  In fact, it is only healthy and natural to do so, and in many ways it is also essential, as it is very difficult to prioritise spirituality without neglecting earthly responsibilities.  Balancing the two can seem to be a very challenging task for spiritual aspirants.  Hence, physical death involves everything our life has revolved around being taken away.

For those that either have no specific belief in spirituality and/or religion or have strong beliefs against them, facing death also means facing the belief in annihilation/non-existence.  This is a naturally terrifying thought to have to face.  Therefore, spiritual/religious beliefs and experiences can be a source of great comfort, in diminishing or even completely removing ones fear of annihilation.  However, we should not simply believe in spirituality just because it is comforting, but rather because we have become convinced that it is true.

Likewise however, belief in divine wrath can also induce fear of death.  That is, many people believe that God is wrathful and places strict criteria upon entrance to heaven.  Under such conditions, religious beliefs can be a great hindrance to a fulfilling earthly life, as they can induce a state of perpetual background fear.

I have recently started saying that most spiritual and religious beliefs and concepts are approximations (this is something I have felt for some time, but perhaps is a new way of expressing it).  That is, very few are 100% correct.  Some may be 60% correct and 40% false, others, 70/20, 95/5, or 20/80 etc.  For this reason, a belief, practice or organisation can be a salvation for one person, and repressive to another (depending on their unique circumstances).

My point here is that spiritual and religious beliefs about the afterlife can be both helpful and damaging, and it is quite difficult to keep the wheat whilst getting rid of the chaff.  As always, the ideal of balance is much easier to aspire towards then to realise in practice.

Ideally, a consideration of death should inspire us to eliminate fear of life or death, but live life to the full, with a consideration of the greater context beyond this earthly life.  That is, true spirituality, religion and/or philosophy should inspire us to live without fear, knowing that life goes on beyond this incarnation, and that we will one day be reunited with those we love.  However, it should do so without bringing about superstitious projections of the human ego that paint God as a cosmic tyrant.

The reasons for the change in my view of death:

I have already explained in the introduction that whilst I once felt great anguish over the passing of others, I now feel a great peace in the face of death.  I would like to here give a little more detail as to how and why this transformation took place.

There came a point in my life (around the age of 25) when I developed a great thirst for knowledge and understanding on spiritual matters.  This led me on a quest not only for intellectual understanding, but also personal experience.  Through a combination of both I have come to solid faith in the reality of spirituality.  I could say that I don’t believe that spirituality is real, but I know that it is real.  I feel however that this isn’t so helpful in communication with others that might not necessarily share my beliefs.

Anyways, I came to this faith partly through reading about the common spiritual experiences of many different people from different backgrounds, from reading about serious investigations by researchers into these matters, and also some features of modern science which I (and others) feel support a spiritual worldview.  Primarily though, my personal faith in the reality of spirituality came through personal experience.

Something I have said before and will say again here is that my personal experiences are evidence (or proof) for me of the reality of spirituality.  However, I cannot expect them to be evidence for other people.  The simple fact of the matter is that personal anecdotes are never as convincing for others as they are for ones self.  I cannot expect other people to have faith in my own personal capacity for critical thinking, self-examination and honesty.  Hence, everyone must have their own personal experience to really understand the reality of spirituality.

Having acknowledged this, I have experienced and witnessed countless things that confirm a spiritual worldview.  I have mentioned this before in a number of other articles^[iv], but here is a brief summary of some key points.  In terms of experiences of a supernatural nature, I have seen physical objects virtually levitate in mid-air, I have experienced countless examples of precognition (which began in my dreams as a child and has continued on into adulthood) and I know many people that possess the capacity to know things that can only be explained by consciousness existing outside of the confides of the brain (and these abilities are categorically different to those presented by skeptics, magicians and cold-readers in their attempts to debunk the supernatural).

Far more significant and touching have been true spiritual experiences (which are now a part of daily life) from meditation, prayer and worship, which involve a truly otherworldly peace and love, and direct contact with an intelligence infinitely greater than my own.  Human beings go to great lengths and spend great wealth in the pursuit of temporary pleasures on earth, many of which are dangerous or even destructive to the body and mind.  If only everyone knew that the greatest high of all is completely free, and can only be found exactly right where you are.  God lives within us all (and everything exists within God), and the direct experience of this truth brings joy that surpasses all else.  There really is no comparison.

And of course, the genuine experience of divine contact also brings objective signs that demonstrate explicitly to the devotee that they aren’t merely subjective inner states of emotional ecstasy, but rather direct contact with the true reality, above and beyond their own projections (noting of course, that human beings do typically color these experiences with their own projections, or perhaps we should say our experience of the divine is colored by our mental vocabulary).

As I have now have countless experiences that validate to me both objective reality of spirituality and the inherent goodness of it, I no longer feel a fear about death.  I am still as human as anyone else and believe in taking wise actions to prevent unnecessary loss of life.  Human life has meaning, and belief in higher spiritual worlds doesn’t mean we abandon our physical experience.  However, it means that I now don’t have to simply believe in comforting ideas, but rather have direct experience of their reality.

I mentioned before about the transcendent nature of spiritual peace and love.  A unique feature of this experience is that it is truly universal.  There is a knowing that it is for everyone and everything, and that no one is excluded.  The peace is so all-consuming that you naturally want to share it with everyone (though not everyone is open to receiving it yet).  For this reason I feel that everyone and everything will at some point return to the light.  No one would reject this forever.  Hence, I feel that all beings are ultimately safe, even if many of us unconsciously create our own suffering for some time.

Conceptions of the afterlife, heaven and hell:

We live in a world in which our ideas about the afterlife are largely conditioned by the dominant religion/s of our culture.  As Christianity is the worlds largest faith, when many of us think about an afterlife we think of the conceptions of heaven and hell as expressed by orthodox Christianity^[v].

Whilst there are still some significant differences between the beliefs of different orthodox Christian denominations, most conservative/orthodox Christians believe in one human life and eternity in either heaven or hell.  In this view heaven and hell and essentially worlds apart, and one cannot escape from hell to heaven.

However, there are many, many different beliefs about the afterlife, both from history and current thinking on the subject.  My own beliefs are informed from studying a number of different spiritual and religious perspectives, reading first-hand accounts from Near Death Experiences (NDE’s), other Out of Body experiences (OBE’s) and hypnotherapy (as well as past life regression, hypnotherapists have at times succeeded in regressing patients to the period in-between earthly incarnations), accounts of visions and meditations from mystics and saints, personal experiences in meditation and conversations with others on the same subject, and deep consideration and contemplation of the ins and outs of the topic.

I don’t have the space here to go in-depth to explain exactly why I have reached the conclusions I have on this.  Rather, I will simply explain my views on the subject, and I will make available my reasoning at some later stage (in book form, other articles and also videos).

The first thing that we must all concede is that whilst on earth, none of us can claim absolute certainty on this topic.  All we can do is evaluate the evidence and apply reason as best as we can, and recognise the fallibility of our human perceptions.

So, I believe that reality is essentially spiritual in nature (Spirit being consciousness that is Infinite), and that creation is composed of a number of different dimensions (exactly how many I cannot say) within the single, indivisible and unified whole.  In Yogic traditions it is common to group them into causal (composed only of mind), astral (composed of light and sound vibrations) and physical, though there may be multiple dimensions within the causal and astral planes.

The easiest (and most literal) way to explain this is that when one dreams at night one experiences oneself as a character within the dream, interacting with other characters, amongst various objects and within an overall landscape.  However, literarily everything within the dream is a projection within the one finite mind of the dreamer.  Even the sense of time and space are relative within the dimensionless and timeless space of the mind.  So, in the grander sense, all reality exists within the mind of God, projected within Itself as cosmic dreams, experienced by us as characters within it.

The physical dimension is the furthermost projection of God’s mind, and whilst we appear to exist here for the experience of physicality, we simultaneously retain higher levels of our being that exist in higher, non-physical dimensions.  At physical death we simply shed the outer physical body but retain the causal and astral body (or bodies).

I have come to believe that after death most human beings will temporarily inhabit a place within the astral cosmos, which correspond roughly to their level of spiritual growth.  This might be the equivalent of a human life (or perhaps a little less or more).  I don’t believe that anyone is given an eternal punishment for misdeeds, or damned to cosmic suffering for choosing the wrong faith (if any), or missing out on a unique salvation.  Rather, I suspect that divine justice and grace work in a manner that reflects the fact that they emerge out of an intelligence and love far greater than our own.

By contrast I would argue that the idea of eternal damnation is a barbaric superstition projected from the lower end of human potential.  Many (perhaps even most) human beings can summon greater love than implied by the concept.  By it’s very definition, divine love and justice must be greater than human conceptions, not less than.

An interesting feature of NDE’s is that there are many cases whereby someone was having a nightmarish experience of a lower-astral (hell) dimension, but as they cry out for help, help appears.  Likewise, during the common “life review” feature of NDE’s, when someone witnesses and re-experiences situations from their life in which they created suffering for others, the beings of light (or you might call them angels) do not judge them, but continue to offer them love.

This would imply that any suffering that is experienced after death is self-inflicted, and that higher beings are only ever there to help us, rather than to enforce punishment upon us.  The life review immediately after death is itself a perfect expression of divine justice, in that one simply cannot escape from the reality of the choices one has made.  During this experience there is no capacity to attempt to rationalise or defend ones actions.  Rather, the true motives are clearly visible and there is no escaping from the consequences of ones choices.  

And yet, higher beings will not deviate from love, not for a moment.  That is, justice can occur without coming from anger, hate or desire for revenge.  There can still be consequences for misdeeds, whilst grace and love are never absent.

Hence, there is no reason or need to be fearful of divine wrath after death.  One can expect to have to face the truth of ones human nature and see (and also feel) how one impacted others around them.  However, this is all proportionate to the nature of ones behaviour.  If you at least attempt to live well whilst on earth, there is no need to fear divine retribution.  If you however live at the expense of others on earth, you will at eventually have to come to terms with it.

Having said this, the single most ubiquitous feature of NDE’s and other true spiritual experiences is the presence of an overwhelming divine love, and I consider myself fortunate to be familiar with this love whilst living on earth (as are many spiritual practitioners).  This love is quite simply different to what most human beings experience under that name.  This love is pure and clean, yet overwhelming and all consuming.

To restate what I said before, it is probably this personal experience of divine love that is mostly responsible for me coming to terms with death.  I don’t claim to know all the details about what goes on when the body dies.  But, I know what heaven feels like.  I know it well.  I therefore say that I know where my loved ones are going when they disappear from this world, and more importantly, I have some experience of what it is like there.

It is common to read in NDE’s about someone not wanting to come back to earth after tasting this overwhelming love.  Likewise, I commonly hear people saying after meditation that they didn’t want to come back.  The trick for spiritual practice is to bring that love and peace into ones physical expression, rather than just retreating into it or hiding from life.  I for one am definitely still working on this.

Moving on, I believe that a single earthly life is only a small spec in the grand scheme of eternity.  I accept that one may live many lives on earth in different circumstances, and that in between each earthly experience one returns to the astral dimension.  When one has evolved spiritually one may then move on to higher and higher forms of life, in a myriad of other places.  There is so much evidence of the grand scale of infinity.  I suspect we are really only aware of a fraction of a fraction, of a fraction of a fraction.

Ultimately, death is a blessing:

Whilst to many (if not most) people death is seen as the greatest curse, I would argue that it is actually the greatest blessing.  Human beings have the capacity and tendency to become attached to all manner of false beliefs and unhealthy behaviours whilst on earth, and these cause us great suffering.  At some point it becomes too much and we must drop it all and return to the astral heavens.  In many respects, the astral dimension is closer to home than earth is, and it is a return to an easier, less painful existence for all those that accept the light^[vi].  

On earth we can suffer for many years with physical and psychological ailments.  Death however removesmost^[vii] of these from us in an instant.  In this way it is one of the greatest healers, as it takes away our choice to resist wellbeing.  It is the natural birth right of all beings to live well, and prolonged suffering is unnatural.  This may seem like a naïve idealistic statement based on the reality of suffering that we perceive across the globe.  However it is a spiritual reality that is largely unknown to humanity as of the moment, and its truth is clearly perceived once beyond this world.  Death brings us back into the knowing of this truth, as we drop all that prevented us from living in joy, and once again taste a larger portion of the bliss of the Spirit.

Therefore, death can be a forced healing.  It is a sad reality that most people are their own worst enemies.  Human beings will cling to their suffering and defend their poisons, seemingly fully convinced that it is only others that inflict pain upon them^[viii].  At death however, all our defense mechanisms can collapse and we can allow in the love that was always there for us.

I can’t believe that anybody would want to suffer forever.  Everyone tires of it eventually, as it wears us down and destroys our body and mind.  Just as everyone enjoys the rest of deep sleep, everyone naturally enjoys letting go of their pain, and being restored by unrestricted connection to our divine Source.  Most people come into this life filled with sweetness, joy, optimism and vitality.  By the time we leave, many (or most) of us have been so thoroughly disconnected from our Source (by our own thoughts and actions) that we have forgotten what it feels like to truly feel good.

So, contrary to the common belief that death is the worst thing and the opposite of birth, in a sense it is a rebirth.  We are reborn into connection with God.  We rediscover sweetness, joy and vitality.  We rediscover true love.  In this sense, for many (or even most) people who have been on this planet for some time, death will be the very best thing that ever happened to them.

Implications of an acceptance of death for society and human civilisation as a whole:

It could certainly be said that human civilisation as a whole currently is in denial about the certainty of death, and it’s place in the circle of life.  Much of human behaviour and culture as a whole is based on simply attempting to make the most of physical life, without a greater context.  There are however significant implications to believing in a greater context to life, in that it changes the priorities one has.

I believe it is possible to live life both personally and as a society in way that honours our spiritual nature, and the reality that we only visit this planet for a short while at a time.  It is possible to remember the big picture, and see ourselves as part of something so grand and marvellous that it puts our individual achievements and desires into their correct context.

When human beings begin to do that we will recognise that the end does not justify the means.  There is truly no reward worthy of a misdeed.  How we treat ourselves and others has far more meaning in the long run than material possession and temporary sensory pleasures.  True happiness can only come from living with purpose and integrity, from a healthy self-respect and balance between wise self-control and joyful spontaneity.

When only a fraction of human beings live like this, society as a whole prospers greatly as a result.  If we can imagine large numbers living like this we could perhaps one day experience more than a glimpse of heaven on earth.  Ultimately, there is no peace externally without peace internally.  A fair and just earth can only be created by human beings that are filled with peace and clarity, by whatever legitimate path they walk that connects them.

The inevitability of death and impermanence of earthy treasures:

One way or another, regardless of what we believe, we all have to leave behind the things of this world at some point.  In the end it won’t so much matter how much money you have accrued, or how you are perceived in the eyes of others, or how many amazing experiences you have had.  We will all have to let them go at some point.

That is not to say that earthly things are without value, and there is indeed a sense in which we do take them with us.  We take with us the memory of our earthly life experience, or more specifically, the personal impact that our experiences had on us internally, or the way we experienced them.  That is, whilst you cannot take your money with you when you pass, experiencing financial freedom whilst on earth can positively impact your personal experience on earth.  Hence, we should not seek wealth and possessions for their own sake, but from a spiritual perspective they can be appreciated for the way they can enhance ones life experience.

Likewise, when you leave this world you cannot take your earthly status with you.  However, a productive earthly life that contributes to the good of all will often bring about a degree of status as a secondary effect.  Such a life will also be extremely satisfying to look back upon in later years, and also after leaving this world.  Those that hurt others for their own gains on earth however will feel the strong pains of guilt after death, as they look back on their life without the egoic defense mechanisms that prevented them from facing the reality of their human nature on earth.  However, even for such beings death is still a healing, in that after dropping the egoic defences they can begin to allow the healing of their mind and soul.

If one pursues only shallow pleasures on earth, one will find that these do not carry on beyond earthly life.  However, if one has a balanced approach and seeks to make the most of human existence whilst seeing it from a greater perspective, one’s earthly experiences can be spiritual treasures that enrich the soul beyond the veil of death.

In conclusion:

It is only natural that we experience a sense of loss when our loved ones pass from this world.  Likewise, it is natural that we feel some sense of uncertainty and trepidation about our own mortality.  However, we can honour that human experience whilst feeling a deep sense of peace, and recognising the deep sacredness of death.

Ultimately, there is no reason to fear death, as it ultimately brings about the greatest of healings.  If one is sick in body, mind or soul on earth, death will (in most cases) restore one to wholeness and well-being.

We will all see our loved ones again one day.  I don’t know the how or when, but I feel it deep within me as a truth.  Joyously participate in the dance of life as best you can.  Be kind to others and yourself, and accept the flaws of human nature, whilst doing your best to aspire to and inspire others to higher ideals.

Much love to you all.

Peace.

Final note:  If you found this article worthy of consideration, please consider sharing with others and engaging in discussion about its content.  Thanks

---

^[i] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/how-do-we-really-know-what-is-true/

^[ii] This is a central idea/teaching that I think we all could benefit from recognising.  I’ve touched on it before, and will do so in far greater detail in the future.

^[iii] I would explain that dreams are experientially real, just as our waking state life is also experientially real.  The reality in both is consciousness.  The difference is however that in the waking state we are experiencing a common reality shared with other beings, whilst our night-time dreams are (largely) personal realities projected within our own mind (please note above the “largely” in brackets, as I do believe that some elements of somedreams can involve interaction with objective beings and realities beyond our own individual mind).

^[iv] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2021/03/18/my-thoughts-on-free-will/ and also: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2018/10/08/my-personal-spiritual-journey/

^[v] Please note here that “orthodox” (lower case o) Christianity refers to all denominations that are in the larger sense not considered heterodox (i.e. Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox (capital O), mainstream Protestant denominations (Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Evangelicals etc.)).  I would exclude Mormons and Christian Scientists for example, as they are clearly not Christian in the traditional sense.

^[vi] By “accepting the light”, I simply mean going into the light after death (not rejecting or hiding from it).  This is independent upon what (if any) spiritual and/or religious beliefs one held during earthly life.

^[vii] One may still carry psychological aberrations with them after death, but it would involve rejecting the light that comes to guide us from earth to the astral heavens.

^[viii] I’ve written about this in some length in the following article: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/trauma-suffering-conditioning-and-the-ego/

My thoughts regarding the scandalous revelations about Ravi Zacharias:

In the past week I have discovered that the late Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias has been accused of sexual misconduct.  Apparently this had been in the news for some time (dating back to 2017, well before he passed), and the recent allegations have been in the news for some months.  It seems that recent allegations came to light several months ago but were initially denied by his ministry (RZIM).  However, after an initial investigation they have now been confirmed to be true.  I myself however have only heard about this in the past week.

Ravi Zacharias was one of the most well know and successful Evangelical Christian apologists, working as a minister and apologist throughout his whole adult life.  Back in mid 2017 I wrote an article directly in response to some of his claims, as he had regularly claimed that all religions were equally exclusive, in attempt to defend criticisms of Christian exclusivity^[i].

The work of Zacharias was typical of Evangelical apologists, in that I would describe it as being all style, no substance.  Along with others in his field (William Lane Craig being the perfect example), Zacharias spoke with great confidence (often perceived as authority) about his faith, and constructed many arguments both in defense of Christianity, and in criticism of other worldviews (both secular and religious).  And yet, all one needed to do was actually examine his claims and arguments in some detail to discover that his work was largely baseless.

Christian apologetics in relation to other religions and spiritual worldviews have up to this point gone largely unchallenged.  That is, many atheists (or one could say materialists/naturalists) have taken the time to respond to Zacharias and co. on their work that specifically relates to their field.  However, almost nobody in other spiritual and/or religious fields have responded to Christian apologetics that is aimed towards them (or those that have done so are not well known as of yet).

I started responding to Christian apologetics many years ago because I felt this was something that needed to be done.  Christian apologists present a myriad of arguments and evidence in favour of Christian doctrines, and likewise attack other faiths and spiritual practices.  Zacharias and co. give the impression to Christians that their faith is well founded, established by sound facts and reason.  Likewise, they create the impression that Christianity can respond to all criticisms of it, and show itself to be superior to all other worldviews, where religious or non-religious.

Apologists are taken as authority figures by vast numbers of Evangelical Christians, both lay followers and people involved in ministry.  They are trusted to tell Christians the truth, and to sort through the maze of conflicting arguments and evidence for them.  As such, most Christians never go on their own personal search for understanding, but rather trust these people to tell them what is true and why (I mentioned this point in an article just the other week^[ii]).

As such, I have long stated that Christians should be appalled to know the poor quality of work that is done by prominent apologists.  Christians should be appalled to discover that the people they trust have been lying to them, whether consciously or unconsciously (more on this shortly)^[iii].  This is true in relation to the historicity (or lack thereof) of Jesus Christ, the historicity (or lack thereof) of the Hebrew Bible (which Christians refer to as the Old Testament), the moral issues within the Hebrew Bible, the defense of Christian doctrines on salvation and damnation and comparison to competing spiritual perspectives on the afterlife and divine justice, etc.

Obviously also, atheists have also pointed to the misrepresentation of their arguments and beliefs in apologetic works.  What is particularly relevant here is that Zacharias in particular was well known for painting atheists as simply immoral people that rejected God because they didn’t want to face up to their own sinful nature and it’s consequences.  This is a particularly significant point in light of what has now come to light about Zacharias’s behaviour over a significant period of time, which reveals a very different man to his public persona.

Several years ago it came to light that a woman Zacharias had been counselling had sent him nudes via encrypted phone messages.  Zacharias had claimed that they were unsolicited, but the woman in question stated that he had hassled her for photos and participated in phone sex (including both text messages and phone calls) over a period of time.  Zacharias then sued the poor woman, and accused her and her husband of attempting to extort money from him.  I was unaware of these accusations at the time, but in light of the more recent revelations I would hope we all reject Zacharias’s defense.

It has now come to light that Zacharias had actually invested money in two spas, where he attended regularly for massage.  During massages he would expose and touch himself, grope the (female) masseurs and request nude photos and sex from them.  One of the news sources I read also mentioned that there were more findings from the investigation that were of an even more serious nature that have yet to be revealed^[iv].  This is all rather disturbing, and paints the picture of a serial sex-pest and master manipulator, who used his power, position and wealth to take advantage of others.

The fact that Zacharias actually invested money and thus was part owner of the two spas where the abuse took place shows that it was premeditated.  Zacharias wasn’t simply hiding his secret shame; he was actively and deliberately planning his actions.  By buying a share in the spas he made himself practically immune to consequences, and in one case a female masseur who spoke out was fired as a result.  This adds to the sexual abuse itself, as an appalling abuse of power and privilege.

Also, the details surrounding his 2017 settlement are quite disturbing.  Zacharias had started out counselling the (much younger) woman from his position as a religious leader.  He then took advantage of the woman and threatened to commit suicide if she went public.  And then he accused her and her husband of extortion and sued them to keep them silent and attempt to protect his reputation. This is also psychological abuse, and gas-lighting of everyone that looked up to and trusted him.

It is thus worth questioning whether Zacharias was sincere in his faith and his profession, or whether he simply saw it as a lucrative career choice?  It is of course entirely possible that he believed himself to be sincere in his faith, and yet had this completely different side to him that went against everything he claimed to profess.  Human beings are extremely skilled at the art of cognitive dissonance.  Most ordinary people have many areas of their beliefs and behaviour that contradict, and are largely invisible to themselves (yet fully visible to others).

When someone is invested in a rigid ideology (whether religious, political or anything else) they often have to ignore the implications of evidence to hold true to their preconceptions.  In the case of a religious apologist, their entire career predicates on their ability to ignore their own cognitive dissonance and stay true to the team’s agenda.  In some ways it is not so surprising therefore that this same cognitive dissonance is displayed in their behaviour in private.

There are numerous examples of people that have seemed to be quite spiritually advanced and/or brilliant in intellectual or creative realms, and yet were quite sick and depraved in other ways^[v].  In the case of Zacharias obviously I never saw him as being particularly brilliant at anything, other than perhaps the showmanship of apologetics, in using sleight-of-hand to hide the fact the he (and his entire profession) was nothing more than a clown in a lawyers suit.

Again though, it is of course possible that Zacharias was nothing but a complete fraud.  We know that he deliberately planned his actions, openly lied and plotted to try to cover his back.  Perhaps his “conversion” as a 17 year old was simply an epiphany that he could become powerful and wealthy through the church?  It is of course no surprise to me to find out about his dishonesty (as I had examined his apologetics during his lifetime, and well before I knew about any of this).  He had also during his lifetime been called out for lying about his academic qualifications.  Maybe his whole life was fake?

I want to state clearly that I am not writing this to gloat.  There are no winners here.  Rather, there is a trail of destruction left in his wake.  Firstly we need to acknowledge the victims of his abuse, and it looks like we haven’t heard everything on this matter yet.  Secondly, his extended family and everybody that had work relations with him will be adversely affected, as will the wider Christian community that looked up to him as a leader of (perceived) integrity.

Scandals like this are of course quite common amongst those in positions of privilege and power, and this is true in both religious and secular contexts.  It has been common throughout recorded history for men of power to take whoever (women/girls and boys) and whatever (animals as well) they want for sex.  These scandals are in many ways the modern equivalents to tales of the Emperor Nero who raped the wives of other senators at dinner parties^[vi].

As we currently stand, human beings are somewhere between the extremes of animal and divine, beast and angel.  We have vast potential to express creativity in the arts and genius in the sciences and to rise above the base struggles of mere survival.  We have the potential to express love, forgiveness and compassion, and to grow in acceptance and patience.  And yet, we have basic human desires and needs, which can turn into obsessions and perversions.

In the animal kingdom rape and murder are also common aspects of reproduction.  It is common for male Lions to fight for breeding rights and to kill offspring of previous males so that only their own blood survives. Likewise, we have all heard of the female Widow Spiders and Praying Mantis’s who devour their mates during sex.

The sexual desire in humans obviously has a primal purpose in ensuring the survival and multiplication of the species as a whole, and ones own bloodline.  Over time we have developed rules and taboos relating to sexual behaviour, both to protect the fabric of the family and society as a whole, and (perhaps more recently) to protect individual rights as well^[vii]. However, as we all know, sexual desire brings intense pleasure with it, and often this pleasure can override the faculties of reason and higher ideals.

The fact remains that human beings have a long, long way to go to realise our higher potential and rise above the lower aspects of our human nature.  Scandals of this nature are an indication that we still have lots of work to do to protect women (and also in some cases men) from sexual predators.  Rather than simply seeing humanity as being at the end of a long chain of evolution, it is important for us to have an idea of what we are capable of.  Ultimately human civilisation is still in kindergarten on the grand cosmic scale.  There is no perfect human religious, political or social worldview.  We are a species with a long path ahead.

Religion as a whole is a mixed bag, and religious approaches to sexuality are no exception.  It isn’t all good, or all bad.  Certainly I have seen many examples of people in spiritual and/or religious contexts whereby their faith and spiritual practice helps them to have healthy and respectful relationships, and a balanced and positive approach to their body and sexuality.    Likewise, there are many examples of sexual repression and abuse that are outside the scope of religion (such as in the Roman political elite).

However, religion has certainly been well known for repression of sexuality and the human body as a whole.  Many different religions and spiritual paths have presented the human body as sinful (not just the Abrahamic faiths).  Many religions have taught denial of the natural sexual urges as a higher path.  It is easy to see how this could have begun, as people could see the problems that occur when the animalistic side of humanity overrides reason.

In recognising that we are Spirit (or as some would say, we have a Spirit or Soul), we recognise that the human body is not the highest expression of who and what we are.  However, this has often led to the denial and repression of our human nature, with quite negative repercussions.  Particularly in Western culture human beings have developed strong taboos about nudity and sexuality.  As a result this repression has fed obsession and perversion.  Take the sexual abuse by otherwise celibate Catholic priests or the sexual abuse of devotees by supposedly celibate Yoga gurus as perfect examples.  Contrary to the claims of religious conservatives, we have learned that better sex-education equals less teenage pregnancies^[viii] and that highly religious people are amongst the highest users of pornography^[ix].

Much good came out of the counter-culture of the 60’s and the sexual revolution, however we certainly did not find a healthy balance in response to the previous rigidity and repression.  Rather, in many ways we swung out of balance to the other side, and new problems have opened up since.  Free love and drugs failed to deliver the promised utopia, but have often created the opposite.

In particular, pornography has become the drug of choice for entire generations, due to its highly addictive nature, easy availability and near universal appeal (as practically everyone from puberty and above naturally enjoys sexual pleasure).  Like many other drugs, porn can seem innocent enough at first, and one can argue who really gets hurt by it?  And yet of course, the industry is highly abusive and porn creates massive problems for individuals, and their relationships in particular.  Like all drugs, the high comes at a cost.  There is no such thing as a drug without side effects (though just to be clear, many drugs have legitimate purposes in specific contexts) and porn is wrecking havoc for the physical and mental health of vast numbers of people.

I hope that we can find healthy ways to heal the repression-obsession-perversion thing that human beings have going with sexuality and our bodies.  We obviously need to honour our needs, overcome our hang-ups, talk openly about sex in mature and appropriate ways and apply our higher reasoning faculties.  We have an animal side and a divine side, and we must balance and harmonise the two.

This is no easy task, as we all know how strong the sexual urge can be.  Both men and women have the capacity to have their reason and best intentions overcome by intense arousal and desire.  Men however have also (more commonly than women) used physical force, power, wealth and privilege to take advantage of others for fulfilment of animalistic urges and mental perversions.

However, I believe in our potential.  I believe that no matter how much evidence there is of injustice, cruelty and so forth, that human beings have the capacity for love, justice and freedom.  It starts with healing on an individual level, and from that foundation can move into the wider world as a whole.  No matter what state we are in, there exists the potential for us to tap into Divine Love.  This Love is so great it can heal any wound and satisfy any need.  The great challenge of being human here on earth is the duality of this experience.  There is abundant evidence of injustice and the harshness of human life.  And yet, there is also abundant evidence of the goodness of life and our higher potential.

It is sad that those affected by this affair were not protected at first instances.  Zacharias should have been held fully accountable during his life on earth.  Personally however, I hold a belief that nobody every really gets away with anything.  Many different religions and cultures held a belief in some form of divine justice, and/or cosmic judgement after death. If you read some of the many modern accounts of people that have had what we call a Near Death Experience (NDE for short), you will see that the vast majority experienced what we call a “life review”.  During the life review we effectively re-live our entire life in a short period of time (these experiences depend on the relativity of time and space, as the experiences exist outside our 3D world – or 4D including time).  However, during the life review one also sees one’s life from beyond your own individual perspective.  One can see through the rationalisations of the ego to see your own true intentions, and also the impact that your choices and behaviour had upon others.  In this way, you simply cannot escape from the consequences of your actions.

Whilst I believe most of us are met with unconditional love in the astral heavens after death^[x], we still have to live with what we have or haven’t done.  Unconditional love and grace does not necessarily preclude consequences and justice.  Obviously I cannot claim to know all the ins and outs of divine justice.  However, I believe that Ravi Zacharias still exists outside the physical dimension, and must face up to the pain he created.  Hence, I encourage us all to face up to our issues whilst still on earth.  Talk to people about your struggles.  There are no doubt many other people that share similar problems.

May all beings live in freedom.

Peace.

---

^[i] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2017/07/26/why-all-religions-are-not-equally-exclusive/

^[ii] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/how-do-we-really-know-what-is-true/

^[iii] That is, human beings are complex creatures, and often lie to others and ourselves without necessarily being fully conscious of it.

^[iv]https://world.wng.org/2020/12/zacharias_investigation_finds_serious_misconduct

^[v] I talked about this in some detail in the following article: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2018/08/27/faith-and-reason-devotion-and-skepticism-in-spiritual-life/

^[vi] https://www.ancient.eu/review/100/in-bed-with-the-romans/

^[vii] In much of the ancient world women were seen as the property of men, and rape was often viewed as a property offence against the male “owner” of the woman or girl, rather than as an offence against the woman herself.  I have written about this before, as it is implied in the rape laws in the Hebrew Bible: https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/on-interpretations-of-scripture-why-many-religious-conservatives-and-progressives-misread-ancient-texts-and-misunderstand-religion-in-general/

^[viii] https://theconversation.com/good-sex-ed-doesnt-lead-to-teen-pregnancy-it-prevents-it-60036

^[ix] https://www.maxim.com/maxim-man/religious-people-watch-the-most-porn-2017-3

^[x] There may be some that do not go into the light, are earth-bound, lost in the hellish lower astral dimensions or remain largely unconscious.

How do we really know what is true?

How does one properly go about investigating a topic?  Who do we trust to give us reliable information on a topic?  How do we evaluate our existing presumptions about life?  The reality is that we all carry innumerable presumptions, things we believe in with a great deal of confidence (or even absolute confidence), even though we cannot be absolutely certain of their truth.  For so much of humanity, this isn’t even necessarily something that we are conscious of.  That is, there is so much we take for granted that may not necessarily be so.  Many of the things we take to be absolutely true are only relatively so, and many more aren’t even true in any sense.

We are conditioned by our families, by our culture and civilisation, by our teachers, friends and peers, by various media (books, television, Internet etc.), by religion, politics, economics, by various life experiences, by our experiences of gender and race, and even by simply being human (rather than say birds, fish or plants).  To even be aware of the depth of this conditioning is a rare trait in humanity at this time.  Even rarer is the soul who succeeds in both becoming aware of what is beyond their conditioning, and also fully embodying their humanity.  Just because one may become aware of their conditioning to some degree doesn’t by any means imply that it is easy to then transcend this conditioning.  As always, intellectual understanding and experiential realisation can be two completely different matters.

As someone who has invested quite significant amounts of time to comparing competing arguments on a number of topics, I have some appreciation for what is really required to be confident (let alone certain) on a topic of contention.  It is all too easy to be temporarily persuaded by a passionate argument and a carefully selected series of facts (or lies…).  To actually take the time and effort to pit competing arguments against each other to see who comes out on top is extremely time consuming.  You have to really care about something to be willing to do this yourself.

Hence, most of us either rely on trusted experts to direct our opinions, or we simply go with the whims of our personal biases, without awareness of how little we know about a topic.  As I am human like anyone else, I sometimes find myself saying something and then quickly realising that I cannot be confident that it is correct.  I therefore attempt to differentiate between subjects which I have more familiarity (and therefore more confidence in my opinions), and others in which I am still more open, in recognition of how little I truly know.

We human beings are not always as rational as we like to think we are:

I would really love to participate in creating positive change in the world, hence why I write.  When I first started researching and writing on spirituality and religion I quite naively thought that if I could lay out a series of well-thought out and well supported arguments, that most people would happily change their beliefs in accordance with the new evidence and arguments.  Of course, I now know that this simply isn’t the case.

Theoretically of course, all human beings are capable of changing their thoughts, beliefs (which are deeply entrenched thoughts), states of being (mental, emotional and spiritual states) and behaviour.  Realistically though, change is often much more difficult than we expect.  In my last article (on Trauma and the Ego^[i]) I mentioned that even when we are at least partially aware of our own issues, it can feel like we are trying everything without succeeding.

Largely though, most humans are unaware how little they know.  We tend to prefer the confidence of false certainty to the uncertainty of the vast unknown.  Take religion for example.  How many religious believers have really, truly evaluated their sacred beliefs?  How many have truly sought to investigate the facts and compare different opinions to see who has the best explanations?  Even still, I often say: “it isn’t necessarily how much you read, but what you read”.  That is, even with a sincere attempt to come to understand a topic, one still has to encounter the right people, books or schools of thought at the right time.

Also, human beings tend to naturally gravitate to reading sources that validate their unconscious (or even conscious) biases.  Hence, I frequently discover when debating religion that others have never really read outside of their own tradition.  Taking Christianity as an example, most Christians only ever investigate other religions by reading the works of other Christians.  Likewise, they tend to only encounter criticisms of their own faith by reading works of other Christians (called apologists) seeking to refute such claims.

I have recently been re-reading my friend D.N. Boswell’s series of posts on Christmas and parallels in Egyptian religion (“In Winter Shall it Be”^[ii]), along with various articles and videos on the subject by those who do not share our perspective.  It is extraordinary to see how much confidence is expressed by those who really seem to know almost nothing about the topic.  Even more extraordinary is the disparaging way they relate to those they disagree with, seemingly unaware of their own ignorance on the matter.

How much is this also so when it comes to other highly volatile and divisive subjects such as politics?  How many people have truly examined politics in enough detail to be confident of their opinions?  Furthermore, how many of us are truly aware of the depth of our own bias?  There are highly educated people on all sides and they can’t all be equally correct.  Hence, even when we are well versed in relevant facts and arguments, our own ability to translate evidence and reason into conclusions is still limited by our humanity, which naturally includes our own fallibility.

Consensus and alternative views:

There are many subjects in which there exists a common census or mainstream narrative, and other narratives that are considered to be alternative, fringe, conspiracy or crank views.  It is all too easy to make fun of people with alternative perspectives, such as believers in a flat-earth.  The sheer scale of conspiracy that would be required for this to be so is truly staggering.  It is likewise all too easy to get angry with neo-Nazis who deny the holocaust.  In this example we can clearly see that such people are simply motivated by irrational hatred.

However, there are countless examples of subjects in which there is a perspective that does not necessarily deserve to be considered a consensus, and also compelling alternative views that do not necessarily deserve to be dismissed as mere crank.  In giving some examples here I will no doubt find some areas of disagreement with my readers, as it is highly unlikely that anyone reading this will agree with all of my views.

The philosophy of metaphysical naturalism is considered to be a consensus worldview in Western science and medicine (which is really a field of science).  As such, all belief in spirituality and the supernatural is considered by many to be crank.  And yet, many people (such as myself) have had experiences that have convinced us of the reality of spirituality.  Likewise, we also find much evidence outside ourselves that appears to us to support our personal experiences.  As such we have no choice but to hold a perspective that goes against what some consider to be established facts.

On a related sub-topic, many scientists and philosophers have argued that Quantum Mechanics (QM for short) has unavoidable philosophical consequences, which refute the basic presumptions of materialism/metaphysical naturalism, and naturally imply support for a spiritual worldview.  However, whilst this view has been put forth by many prominent names in physics, there is a mainstream consensus that completely disagrees, and considers such things to be crank science or bad philosophy.

Regarding the history of planet earth, there has long been a consensus view that human civilisation has only really appeared in the last 6,000 or so years (therefore beginning around 4,000BCE).  This view points to Sumer, Egypt and India as examples of the earliest human civilisations.  However, there also exists a field of alternative archaeology, in which many have argued that human civilisation goes well back into the last Ice Age, and beyond.

One well-known example in this field is Graham Hancock^[iii].  I first became aware of Graham Hancock when I encountered his book “Underworld”^[iv] in a bookstore, back around 2005 (and this was actually the very discovery that started my thirst for reading).  In this book he argued that there was overwhelming evidence of a worldwide Ice-Age civilisation that largely disappeared in a global cataclysm at the end of the last Ice Age.  Hancock has argued that the end of the last Ice Age was spurred on by meteorites melting large ice sheets, bringing on a sudden rise in sea levels and destroying the cities that were built close to the shoreline.

On the front cover of Underworld was a photo of what is known as the “Yonaguni Monument”, an underwater rock formation that bears almost irrefutable signs of human design.  And yet, the consensus view appears to be that it is a natural formation.  As such, Hancock (along with others) is considered by many to be nothing more than a crank, a pseudo-archaeologist.  I obviously do not have the knowledge to be able to properly evaluate all of Hancock’s claims.  From my own casual observations however, I suspect he is correct about many things that go against the mainstream view, though probably not everything.  As such, I again find myself forced to go against what is considered to be a mainstream perspective and consider views that are commonly ridiculed as being unworthy of serious discussion.

Often all it takes is for someone to imply that a belief or perspective is hilariously stupid or motivated by hate, and such views are rejected without discussion.  Whilst this can be understandable in some cases, it is ultimately a dangerous precedent, as it prevents us from considering information that might shatter illusions that we consider to be truths. Hence, this is a bad habit we suffer from that prevents growth in many significant areas of human understanding.

I couldn’t count the amount of times I have seen people simply laugh off the topic of UFO’s, seemingly unaware of the body of evidence that exists, and the often absurd explanations that are used to reject them.  Likewise, those of us that do not believe in a historical Jesus have become accustomed to being denounced as ignorant and even hateful (Bart Ehrman has compared Mythicism to Holocaust denial^[v]).

My point in all of this is that we cannot always rely upon mainstream consensus to provide us with sensible, well-educated and well-thought-out perspectives on life.  Human bias extends into all fields of study, from laymen to academics.  Whilst formal study has its undeniable benefits, there is also value to being at least partially self-educated, or at the very least, aware of views outside the mainstream.  There are countless laymen (and women) who have made valuable contributions to a field, despite lacking in formal qualifications.

We live in a curious age, whereby anybody can pull out a smartphone and do a quick search on any topic and have instant access to a wide variety of information and views.  Of course the Internet is full of garbage, sources that are simply not worth your time to read.  And yet, the Internet is also a treasure-chest, containing works by many brilliant but otherwise unknown authors (the perfect example being my friend D.N. Boswell).

So, my point here is not to suggest that all views are inherently equal.  Clearly there is a vast difference in the quality of different minds, in their ability to apply reason and provide evidence to support their contentions.  Anybody that has attempted to engage in any form of debating would know that not everybody argues on the same level.  Furthermore, many people seem to be completely unaware of the fact that they are not at the same level as others (see the Dunning-Kruger effect^[vi]).

True wisdom begins with an acknowledgement of our own ignorance:

My point is simply that we need to be more cautious about assuming complete knowledge.  Let us not see human civilisation as standing at the pinnacle of thousands of years of growth, but rather as standing at the foundation of great possibilities.  That is, perhaps we are still at Kindergarten in the grand scheme of things, just starting out as a self-aware species, starting to learn about the grand mysteries of the Cosmos.  We can therefore benefit from humility in the face of the unfathomable richness and complexity of life.

Many great minds have noted that the beginning of wisdom is the recognition of how little we truly know, or even could know.  A human life of a mere 100 years is simply not long enough to gain complete knowledge (by regular means at least^[vii]) of all the workings of the universe.

Perhaps therefore, we could all benefit by having more sympathy for those we disagree with.  Perhaps we can attempt to be more cautious about what we claim to be true.  Perhaps we can find awe in uncertainty, wonder in the continuous unfolding of the mystery of life.  Perhaps we can re-discover joy in becoming childlike, constantly learning more about this marvellous experience we call life.

May all beings find happiness, health and prosperity/contentment.

Peace.

---

^[i] https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2020/12/01/trauma-suffering-conditioning-and-the-ego/?fbclid=IwAR24LxbwaVbhJn-yuxitlRvfx6s67_C7ANttsTYcSkjQqt7t0mvncRqqZU4.

^[ii] https://mythodoxy.wordpress.com/2019/12/01/in-winter-shall-it-be/.

^[iii] https://grahamhancock.com.

^[iv] https://www.amazon.com/Underworld-Mysterious-Civilization-Graham-Hancock/dp/1400049512.

^[v] “”There are people out there who don’t think the Holocaust happened, there wasn’t a lone JFK assassin and Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.,” Ehrman says. “Among them are people who don’t think Jesus existed.””

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/15/living/jesus-debate-man-versus-myth/index.html

^[vi] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect.

^[vii] There are of course many reported experiences of individuals gaining “intuitive knowledge”, either spontaneously or through various practices and methods.  There are even examples of individuals who have been claimed to have had access to almost infinite knowledge through spiritual means (for example Neem Karoli Baba, the master of Ram Dass and Krishna Dass, to name of a few of his well known students).

To see the big picture, you have to be able to consider the validity of many different perspectives:

“Truth isn’t always found halfway between two competing perspectives; but it often is”.

I have written a number of times before on relative truth vs. absolute truth, and what I wish to say today is built upon that.  For the benefit of anyone that doesn’t know my perspective on this already, here is a quick summary of my conclusions relating to the use of relative and absolute truth:

–           There are many undeniable examples of situations that naturally demand the use of relative conceptions of truth.

–           Likewise, there are many undeniable examples of situations that naturally demand the use of absolute conceptions of truth.

–           Furthermore, there are many undeniable examples of situations that naturally demand we accept an absolute truth as a big picture or ideal, with innumerable relative truths enveloped within it.

For me, the above is simply common sense.  There are however, many people that will dispute my conclusions here.  Without going too deeply into the topic here today, I will give just a few brief examples to make my case.

Firstly, regarding relativity, personal tastes in food, music, art, theatre & movies, interest in particular sports, perceptions of temperature, beauty etc. are obviously relative.  That is, one cannot clearly state in objective terms that one musical artist is outright better than another in terms of their overall musicality.  You may state that one is objectively better in technical terms (i.e. their technical abilities, their use of musical theory/harmony/rhythm etc.); however superior technical ability doesn’t always lead to superior musicality (and often it leads to the opposite).  Hence, this should simply be common sense.

Likewise, it is not hard to find examples of absolutes.  A rock is a solid (at least in it’s macroscopic sense), not a gas or liquid.  An on/off light switch is either on or off.  Basic mathematical equations only have one correct answer.  One can of course find an endless list of examples.  Again, this should simply be common sense.

Finally, if one seeks to form a big picture view of science (i.e. a “theory of everything”), one would have to seek to harmonise many different fields of study, that naturally at some point present contradictions.  For example, it is well known in physics that there are problems in harmonising general relativity with quantum theory.  Due to some incompatibilities between them, it is generally accepted that they are both only relatively truth (i.e. neither of them is a complete, absolutely true description of reality).

Hence, scientists (and philosophers) are seeking a greater description of reality that harmonises all the smaller perspectives. So, scientists hold the conception of an absolute truth (which they are seeking), but they recognise that their current theories are only relatively true.

The only real attempts I’ve seen at refuting this perspective is that a number people I have discussed this with have attempted to deny the existence of relative truths by dismissing them as “useful lies”; i.e. things that aren’t true, but are useful nevertheless.  Personally I find this to be simply playing semantics.  Simply renaming relative truth doesn’t refute it.

I have also heard individuals trying to deride this perspective by labelling it post-modernism or cultural-Marxism.  I would simply respond that this perspective pre-dates and exists independent of both post-modernism and Marxism[i], and can just as easily lend itself to their critique.  I am not condoning the abandonment of all absolute values (i.e. pure relativism).  However, it should be obvious that there is room for some relativity in our worldview.

Hence, I consider all I have written above to easily verifiable.  When you think it is through, it is common sense.  We all make use of both relative and absolute concepts of truth in our practical lives. However, in theoretical matters it is often overlooked, which brings me to the topic of today’s post.

I believe that to be able to see the world as it really is, you must be able to consider multiple perspectives, and integrate truths from multiple views into a larger understanding.  Again, whilst there are indeed examples where truth lies largely (or even entirely) on one side of a debate, it is far, far more common to find that both sides of a dispute have at least some partial truth on their side.  This is not to say that it is always 50/50; rather it can be 60/40, 70/30, 80/20 etc.

Please note that I do not take this approach in order to try to please everybody.  In fact, it often has the exact opposite affect.  It is no secret that my personal spiritual/religious and political views generally lean left-of-centre.  However, I find things on both sides of religion and politics that I believe can be improved.  I have found in the past that my opinions are sometimes no more popular amongst those also on the left than those on the right.  So, my view is not motivated by an attempt at popularity.

Likewise, it is not simply sitting on the fence, or being unable to make up ones mind.  Obviously in the case of a political election you have to make decisions as to whom you choose to vote for.  However, in general life we are under no obligation to “pick a side” and run with it.  Life is not football; we do not simply have to choose who to support and then stick with them through thick and thin.

Taking note of my original summary of relative and absolute truths, I would hope my readers understand I am not supporting full-blown relativism.  That is, we need not reject all notions of objectivity and declare all things equal, all views equally true or anything like that.  Likewise, not all views deserve equal treatment.  Quite simply, there are certain views (like the “Flat-Earth” theory), which by their very nature do not deserve equal treatment.  However, there are often theories and perspectives that are considered well out of the mainstream, which are indeed worthy of consideration.

I have noted before that human beings are often way to quick to consider themselves to have reached a final conclusion.  Our egos often find comfort in false certainty, believing we already understand something when in fact we do not.  We look into the world and witness a situation unfolding, and prematurely conclude that it is always so.

Furthermore, confirmation bias leads us to color our perception of the world in such a way as to look for evidence of things we already believe to be true.  Even in terms of normal psychology, this leads us to misperceive reality and take relative and limited truths to be far-reaching, and even absolute.

In some spiritual circles there is even talk that reality is structured in such a way as to (objectively) bring us evidence of the things we think about, so that our beliefs becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, with the universe constantly giving us evidence to support them.  Even in a materialistic worldview it can be seen that our preconceived beliefs project out into the world and affect our relationships, our health, our happiness, and our overall success in life.

So, I would argue that in many – if not most – topics of discussion and dispute one can raise, there are at least some valid points to be found on more than one side.  I will give some quite basic examples below to demonstrate how this can operate to allow people to hold grossly biased views.

Starting with politics, it is rare that those on the left and right sides of the political spectrum agree with each other on anything other than very basic general concepts.  It is rarer still that they are civil and polite in their discourse with one another, as both sides view each other as the cause of the problems of the world.  How many of us can enter a political debate without being swept up in the emotion of it?  I have been trying for some time, at times succeeding, but often failing.

However, if we step back a bit from our personal bias we find that most commonly each side has some areas where they are correct, and others where they are incorrect.  Certainly, the further to the extreme ends of the spectrum you travel, the more pronounced this becomes.

Karl Marx took examples of wealthy and powerful people taking advantage of common people as his springboard for his complete reaction against individual wealth and power, in favour of communal possession and state power.  Ayn Rand did the exact opposite, using her experience of the horrors of full-blown socialism in Russia as a springboard for complete abandonment of social justice and compassion for the disadvantaged.

Obviously it is not that government is good and private businesses are bad, nor is it simply that private businesses are good and government is bad.  Such oversimplistic conclusions are absurd.  And yet, this is pretty much what the far-left and far-right are thinking and saying.

Any reasonable political theory can therefore recognise that the potential for corruption and abuse will exist in any human institution, and is more of an indication of the lower potential of the human ego rather than indicative of the nature of the institution itself.

And yet, there will naturally be differences in the way that the lower side of the human ego expresses through a government as to how it expresses through a private enterprise.  That is, the horrors of a full-blown socialist (or communist) government are not by nature exactly the same as the horrors of a far-right political regime.  Therefore, as I see it, any reasonable political theory must seek to balance out competing narratives, competing perspectives.  Political theory must balance out communal power with individual power, social conscience with personal freedom etc.

Continuing down the same theme, there are often tensions felt between those who possess less material wealth and power than they need or desire, and those who are in an abundance of both.  This is often termed “class warfare”; clashes between the rich and the poor.  There are many examples to be found of wealthy people taking advantage of the poor, mistreating and even outright abusing the disadvantaged.  Furthermore, there are countless examples whereby wealthy people abandon any consideration of morals and ethics in their quest for wealth and power.  In modern times we can see how, blinded by greed, many have waged war against human, animal and plant life, and even the planet itself.

Hence, many have (I think, incorrectly) concluded that abandonment of morality is essential for the pursuit of material abundance.  This is a common theme in religious and philosophical works, with many obvious examples.  The New Testament is ripe with statements that condemn wealth and promote asceticism, and the Tao Te Ching speaks repeatedly against the abuses of the rich and powerful, just for two obvious examples.  Many spiritual seekers renounce all material possessions (some even going as far as renouncing their clothing!) in pursuit of spiritual perfection.  And of course, outside of religious contexts, there is often a great deal of jealousy and hatred projected against the wealthy by the poor.

And yet many of the wealthiest and most powerful people across history are in fact among the most inspirational, brilliant and generous of our species.  Through the persistence and grand vision of many who have gained great success, humanity as a whole is uplifted.  Many people gain exceptional wealth, power and success because they are exceptional human beings who rose above what was, dreamed big, worked hard and held faith in themselves.  Some of the greatest assistance to the poor is given by those who possess financial freedom, and work to inspire others to the same end.

At the other end of the scale, many people experience poverty as the results of war, famine, gross abuses of power and injustices (like slavery, tyrannical governments etc.), rigid hereditary class systems, or simple misfortune (injury, sickness, disease etc.).  Clearly we see many people living in poverty as being victims of the actions of others, the forces of nature or simple misfortune.

There are many people in positions of moderate or extreme wealth that despise the poor, seeing them as lazy, ignorant and immoral.  Whilst I of course do not support such conclusions, there are indeed many examples whereby people suffer as a result of their own poor choices.  Many people do indeed explicitly bring about their own poverty, their own disease and unhappiness.  Also, just as there is class snobbery from the upper classes towards the lower, the opposite is also true.  Often the poor snub the rich, the uneducated snub the educated, and the immoral snub the moral.

Of course it would be absurd to make oversimplistic conclusions such as wealthy people are immoral, or poor people all deserve to live in poverty.  Such conclusions are quite distasteful.  And yet, we need not look far to find examples which show that this is indeed how many people think.  These may be extremely crude examples, but they are real life examples.  This is how the human ego is capable of expressing itself.

Onto a different example, I have met (and know) many people that have been deeply wounded by people of the opposite sex, and have gone on to hold deep resentment – or even anger and hatred – towards the opposite sex.  The sad irony about this situation is that such people are often blind to the hypocrisy in their perspective, as they are themselves what they are accusing the other of.  This is again true in so many other fields of dispute, where people hold highly negative views of others, and yet cannot see the negativity in themselves that they project outwardly.

Obviously, it is not simply that women are good and men are bad, nor is the opposite true.  However, there are many men who hate women, and likewise, there are also many women who hate men.  This is a vicious cycle, as women who hate men are taken as the justification for men hating women, and vice versa.

What I am about to say requires a great deal of sensitivity, but it does nevertheless need to be said, and I will emphasise it here:

Often, self-identification as a victim leads an individual or group to make victims of others, projecting the role of oppressor onto others.

Now, if this triggers and/or offends you, please allow me to explain a little here.  It is important that we tread carefully here and take this slow.  Obviously, many, many people do have the experience of being victims of abuse and injustice.  I am not questioning this.  However, when someone – or a group of people – takes the experience and creates a self-image as a victim (i.e. “This is who I am, I am a victim” – “This is who we are – we are victims”), they often then start to color their perception and experience of the world with this belief.

Obviously, it should go without saying that not everyone who suffers at the hands of others then goes on to inflict suffering upon others in explicit ways.  I am not encouraging victim blaming or anything like that.  However, I am cautioning against taking on the self-image of a victim.  For people that suffer through extreme traumatic events this is often easier said than done.  This could obviously be quite infuriating when outsiders simply tell them not to take it on board.  It is always easier to solve personal problems as an outsider, than it is to solve them when you are intimately involved with them.

Having noted this, it should be said that many people (and groups of people) that commit great atrocities do so under the belief that they are the persecuted minority, and that they are simply seeking justice for past and present injustices.  As an extreme example, a large number of terrorists think this way.  The white nationalist terrorists who murdered 51 people (and injured another 49) in New Zealand on the 15^th of March 2019 saw themselves as defenders of European civilization, at war with Islam.  Likewise, the Islamic terrorists that murdered 130 people in Paris on the 13^th of November 2015 saw themselves as victims, fighting against the oppression of the Christian West.

Obviously though again, I am not suggesting that everyone who has suffered at the hands of another and has found themselves plagued by ongoing trauma is therefore a terrorist.  However, identification as a victim often leads to us making victims of others, and projecting the role of oppressor onto others, and then acting towards them as if we are at war and are simply defending ourselves.  Often this occurs in much more subtle ways than those listed above, in families or workplaces.

Sometimes we project a grossly oversimplistic lens onto a subject, which is by its very nature multi-faceted.  For example, let us ask the question whether Christians are generally persecuted for their religion, or are they generally the persecutors?  Obviously, the evidence shows that the correct answer is both.  That is, there is extensive evidence for both ends of the scale.  And yet, there are many people that will argue for only one end of the stick, compiling evidence for their case, and ignoring all the evidence that supports the opposite conclusion.  Hence, in this case the question itself is inadequate, and naturally skews the data.

I did not simply conclude that Christians are both persecuted and persecutors simply because I was unwilling to make my mind up.  Nor did I conclude it to try and please everybody.  I reached that conclusion because that is what the evidence shows, and I am not personally invested in either defending or attacking Christianity[ii].  And yet, I have repeatedly seen countless people approaching the subject of religious persecution with distinct bias and irreverence for the facts (and I plan on publishing an article on this subject alone at some point).

Likewise, we can say something similar about Islam (but again, not necessarily in exactly the same way, and to the same degree etc.).  That is, there are innumerable examples of Muslims both being persecuted and being the persecutor.  And yet, anyone with any degree of familiarity with public discussions about Islam should be able to attest that a large number of voices on the subject speak only for one side alone, as if it were a game of football and you simply had to pick a side.  I see comparatively few balanced discussions about Islam and religious persecution, and an abundance of one-sided opinions, on both sides.

Furthermore, discussions about Islam are some of the ugliest around, again from both sides.  It is very common for people (and groups of people) to shout down any discussion of the topic that doesn’t immediately confirm to their preconceptions.  Of course, when talking about subjects like religious violence and terrorism, persecution, bigotry and racism, these are naturally loaded topics.  And yet, we cannot expect to make progress unless we can hold more constructive discussions on important topics.

As a final example, let us ask the question whether conquered nations benefit from the culture of their conquerors?  Again, I think a little from column a), and a little from column b) is the correct answer here.  Certainly great injustices have occurred throughout the world as war has been waged, and powerful and developed nations have seized new territory.  And yet, powerful nations bring with them many advantages, through science, medicine and culture at large.

Again, we find that there are many polarised voices that only speak to one side of the equation.  I happen to know several white-nationalists, who by their very definition refuse to acknowledge the injustices committed by our European ancestors against the indigenous people in America, Australia, New Zealand (etc.).  And yet, there are also many voices on the far-left, which only speak of Western culture in negative terms, and rarely (if ever) mention the many advantages of Western civilisation.

Of course, one can (and should) both be grateful for our modern life and those that worked to develop all the things we take for granted, and yet also acknowledge the great injustices that our forefathers committed.  The two perspectives are not mutually exclusive.  It should be common sense that we can (and should) acknowledge both perspectives here and harmonise them into a bigger picture.  And yet, some people do not view it this way.

Again, this does not necessarily mean that both sides are equally correct or equally false, or that the truth lies necessarily exactly halfway between the two extreme views.  I am here suggesting that too often we make up our mind way to quick, and become stubborn and unmoving in holding to our preconceptions.  So often, more in-depth study is required to understand a subject properly.  Hence, it has often been said:

“The wise recognise how little they know, whilst the foolish consider themselves wise.”

Ego compels us to define ourselves through fixed beliefs and association with large groups (i.e. political perspectives and parties, religious perspectives and institutions, sports teams, music genres, national and racial identity etc.) Psychological and spiritual evolution therefore involves expanding and even abandoning rigid self-concepts, seeing the freedom in being flexible and open. This doesn’t necessarily mean abandonment of all knowledge and institutions, but rather a releasing of the solidity and rigidity with which we define ourselves through them.

I would like to restate that I have given fairly blunt examples above, but the same conclusions also apply for subtler, everyday examples.  The same dynamics are at play in the interactions between partners, siblings, parents and children, friends and work colleagues etc. We can all grow through giving the benefit of the doubt to others, stopping to consider their perspective and question our own.

As stated earlier, we often see or experience something a certain way at one time, give it some thought and then see more evidence to support it.  Often our family, culture, media, government or religion teaches us a certain perspective, and then this conditioning taints our perception of the world.  We then start believing in it, and hold it to be true.

This is how many negative perspectives on life begin.  People then say: “Men are like this – women are like that, white people are all like this – black people are all like that, Christians are all like this – Atheists are all like that, “lefties” are all like this – conservatives are all like that” etc.  This is how all forms of bigotry begin.  To heal these aberrations we need to take a step back and put our conditioning aside, and consider multiple perspectives.

Whilst human beings do often over-complicate things, we also often over-simplify things, giving ourselves the illusion of certainty when in truth the reality is over our heads.  We live in a vast, vast world, and we experience only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a fraction (etc.) of reality.  I don’t say this to diminish the human race.  Rather, the vastness of reality should inspire deep awe within us, motivating us to evolve and move forward, rather than stubbornly justify how we are and have been.

Of course, as I have stated before, I am certainly no exception to the rule in what I have written here today.  Certainly, through my spiritual practice I have been blessed with the experience of an expansion of my sense of self. However, I am as human as anyone else.

Whilst we should acknowledge our feelings and find healthy expressions for them (rather than suppress them), we are capable of transcending the patterns of belief and behaviour that we accept as normal.  We have as yet no real idea of what we are truly capable of.  Whilst there are some that feel that what I am speaking here is unrealistic and creates unnecessary stress in aiming for unattainable ideals, I feel that to speak anything less would be doing a disservice.

Certainly we need to start where we are, and I am not suggesting or condoning a harsh attitude towards oneself or others for simply thinking and behaving in ways that are common for our race.  In fact, I am suggesting we all need to be far gentler on both others and ourselves.  However, we can approach all beings with love (including ourselves), whilst also seeking to call out the irrational beliefs that sustain bigotry and hold us back from realising our potential, both as individuals and as a species.  To aim for anything less would be setting the bar too low, which is generally self-fulfilling, as when you don’t know there is anything better you are less likely to strive for more.

May we speak the truth with love, be kind to all beings and seek out a greater perspective of life that accounts for all the experiences and perspectives in this vast, beautiful world.

Peace.

---

[i] For example, there are many passages in Yogic literature that discuss the need for multiple perspectives, both relative and absolute truths:

“Although Creation is discerned as not real for the one who has achieved the goal (liberation), it is yet real in that Creation remains the common experience to others.”  Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, 2:22, circa 4^th century CE or earlier.

[ii] Rather, I would argue that I seek to take a reasonable and balanced approach towards seeing both the positive and negative sides of Christianity.  I have a significant number of Christian friends and family, and I see a great number of them as inspirations, as examples of people living truly healthy, balanced lives.  I actually even listen to a lot of Christian music, and not just Christian rock and pop (some praise and worship as well, along with spiritual music from other cultures and New Age music).  I’ll talk more about this in a future article.

Christian origins: Essential reading on the relationship between the ancient Egyptian religion and Christianity – The Perennial Gospel – D.N. Boswell:

First things first; a little disclosure.  D.N Boswell is a mate of mine, so I am here promoting the work of a friend.  We have never met in person, but have been friends online for a good 8 years or so.  Furthermore, Boswell has been somewhat of a mentor to me in my own writing, and in my methodology.  The reason we became friends was I became aware of the work that he was doing that has now culminated in a free eBook “The Perennial Gospel”[i] (TPG hereafter), previously titled “The Amen Creed”, before it was taken offline and updated[ii].  I was aware from the beginning of the extraordinary quality, clarity and relevance of Boswell’s work.  Hence, I got in touch with him and we have kept in touch since.  So, whilst I am here plugging a mate’s book, the very reason we are mates is because of the exceptional work that he does.

Having made all this quite clear, I want to recommend that anyone with any interest in Christian origins absolutely must read his book (linked above), and I also highly recommend his blog[iii].  There is a great treasure-trove of knowledge contained in TPG that is not otherwise published anywhere else in a way that is easily accessible and readable for laymen.

The field of Jesus mythicism[iv] has long been criticised as being almost entirely the realm of amateurs rather than serious academics.  Christian apologists and a significant number of outspoken mainstream scholars (such as Bart Ehrman and James McGrath) tend to dismiss Jesus mythicism as mere Internet conspiracy theories, with no real credibility or substance.

Certainly, it is indeed true that the field has until recent times been lacking serious, rigorous scholarship, and that the methodology of many of its major proponents has been rather “loose”.  Many of the major names in the field have indeed made significant mistakes, have stretched evidence and have made grand claims without providing proper references.  There is one particular modern book which I read a number of times, only to be quite disappointed that the references to original material as cited in the endnotes turned out to be largely vapour[v].

In (relatively) recent times Dr. Robert M. Price, Earl Doherty and Thomas L Brodie have shown that a proper methodology can be applied to Jesus mythicism, without watering down the primary conclusions of earlier writers.  In 2014 along came Richard Carrier’s much awaited work, “On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt”[vi].  For anyone unfamiliar with the work, I highly recommend you purchase a copy, as it is a major game-changer, as a comprehensive, peer-reviewed scholarly work published by an academic press.  Carrier certainly raised the bar and set a challenge to historicists (both secular and religious), which many of us feel has not been met (by historicists).

TPG is not specifically a rigorous presentation of a case for mythicism (or non-historicity as I sometime call it), but rather a rigorous presentation of a case for pagan parallels.  For anyone unfamiliar, the study of pagan parallels is the examination of similarities between the mythology of various classical nations (the Middle East, Egypt, Greece, Rome etc.) and Christianity (i.e. The New Testament and the Christian creeds).  Certainly there is significant continuity between Judaism and Christianity (but also areas of diversion as well), and no credible mythicist argues against this.  Credible mythicists do not argue that Jesus was specifically a copy of only pagan gods, but rather that the figure of Jesus (and Christianity as a whole) emerged through syncretism between messianic Judaism and various streams of what we call “pagan”[vii] religion and mythology, in particular the Mystery religions of the Greek-Roman world.  In fact, many mythicists have argued that large parts of the Gospel narrative were affectively re-written Jewish myths, derived directly from the pages of the Hebrew scriptures[viii].

So, TPG is a work that deals solely with the topic of pagan parallels, and is almost certainly the most rigorous work to date on the topic.  Boswell may not have formal university qualifications, but he understands scholarship and has referenced a large number of scholarly works, provided direct citations, illustrations and extensive footnotes.  However, it is not simply a cold, dense academic work (though it certainly still is dense).  Rather, Boswell has a certain skill for satire, and the entire work is clothed in humour.  From the first pages, TPG presents itself as the work of an apologist of the ancient Egyptian religion, writing to refute the “heathens” who deny the ancient creed of Osiris.

So, TPG is a satirical but scholarly work focussing on the extensive parallels between the figure of Christ (and the religion built around him) and Osiris – and his son Horus – (and again, the cult/s built around them), along with the host of Greek, Roman (and other) gods that were syncretic with Osiris.  TPG absolutely shows without any possibility of doubt that the figure of Jesus Christ fits the bill as yet another syncretic version of Osiris.  In particular, TPG was written to show the original source evidence first hand that validates many of the more extreme pagan parallel claims.  In fact, some of the evidence presented within is clearly unknown to the vast majority of academics who specialise in Christian origins.  There are some major revelations contained within that are otherwise certainly completely unknown to both historicists (again, both secular and religious) and mythicists.

There have been many works beforehand that have made the case for a causal relationship between Osiris or Horus and Christ, and general relationships between Egyptian religion and Christianity.  However, previous works have been of a largely amateur standard, in which legitimate arguments are presented side-by-side and intertwined with various mistakes, false claims and over-extensions.  More to the point, there were some arguments and claims made in such works that previously have been dismissed as baseless – even by reputable mythicists such as Richard Carrier (and certainly by historicists) – that now can be verified and validated.

In recent times many people became familiar with this case through the relevant portion[ix] of the Internet movie sensation “Zeitgeist (1)”[x], along with the writings of the late D.M. Murdock (aka Acharya S)[xi].  It must be said straight up that the presentation of the case in Zeitgeist was poor for a number of reasons, and many current mythicists have been quite outspoken about it (as have both secular historicists and religious apologists).  The original source material for the relevant section of Zeitgeist was the work of D.M. Murdock, and she did herself present the work in a superior form to that featured in the movie.  However, Murdock’s work was itself not without major flaws, and although the quality of her work improved significantly over the course of her career, justice was never done to the truth of the matter through previous works.

This is where D.N. Boswell comes in.  Whereas secular historians, religious apologists and even reputable mythicists (such as Richard Carrier) have almost uniformly rejected the Zeitgeist thesis as pure garbage, there are significant parts of the Zeitgeist thesis that can indeed be validated by primary source material. Hence, TPG should be a game-changer in relation to the relationship between the ancient Egyptian religion and Christianity.  There is material contained here that is truly ground breaking.  Given that scholars specialising in Christian origins seem to have been largely unaware of much of this material, it seems that there hasn’t been adequate interaction and communication between specialists on the various relevant subjects.

Beware though, satire aside, it is a long and dense book.  It will take some time to read, and read properly.  Having said this, it is well worthwhile.  Furthermore, for anyone seriously interested in Christian origins, this should be essential reading, hence why I have written today.  I do plan on writing a proper review of TPG at some point in the future, where I will highlight some of the very significant evidence it presents.  However, for the time being, I am simply recommending any of my readers with an interest in the topic follow the link in the endnotes and read it themselves.

Peace

---

[i] https://www.scribd.com/doc/217853241/Pagan-Parallels-The-Ultimate-Source-Guide.  The link to the Ebook itself (as above) is also found on the following from Boswell’s blog.  The link works, but for some reason I had trouble with it in Word when I was typing this article: https://mythodoxy.wordpress.com/2014/04/14/gospel/.

[ii] I was only recently aware that it had been re-uploaded.

[iii] https://mythodoxy.wordpress.com.

[iv] That being, the study of Christian origins with the contention that Christianity began without a historical Jesus.

[v] “The Jesus Mysteries”, by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy.  I actually quite liked the book, and still think it has merit (unlike Richard Carrier, who has openly told his readers to avoid it at all cost).  Despite the poor methodology, I would argue that many (but not all) of its conclusions are still correct, and can be supported by proper methodology.  Likewise, I still would argue that there are significant contributions made to the overall topic in this work.  I personally suggest read, but with caution.

[vi] https://www.amazon.com/Historicity-Jesus-Might-Reason-Doubt/dp/1909697494

[vii] I don’t really like the term for a number of reasons, but I use it simply because it is easy and familiar.

[viii] See the following: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/art_midrash1.htm

[ix] The rest of the movie was about 911 and banking conspiracy theories.

[x] If you’ve never seen it, you can currently find it on YouTube here (and some other places), but watch with caution:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNXTEMnpmb8.  It appears that the official site has removed it’s link for the time being.

[xi] I posted the following after her death:  https://jameshiscoxblogs.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/my-thoughts-on-the-passing-of-d-m-murdock-aka-archaya-s/